Category: UK & Europe

By Ankit Panda:

Consider Boris Johnson, the man who appears best positioned to emerge as the UK’s next prime minister. In becoming the public face of the Brexit campaign in defiance of fellow Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, Boris seized on the opportunity he saw in the aftermath of the Cameron government’s own politically cynical ploy to hold a non-binding referendum on EU membership…. Boris, heeding Machiavelli’s warning that “there is nothing more important than appearing to be religious,” took on the role of the high priest of Tory euroskeptics in favor of leaving the European Union.

….Direct democracy by mean of referendum, in the context of Brexit, was a tool evoked of political necessity (Cameron seeking temporary political ballast) and taken advantage of for political ambition (Boris’ skewering of Cameron). That the people of the UK voted and told us what they really think is ultimately a neutral event, on balance.

…..The takeaway from ‘Brexit’, thus, shouldn’t be a hardening of contempt for popular will and the one-person-one-vote principle that underwrites all forms of modern democracy, but to continue to expect politicians to be politicians.

I’ll leave it to Boris Johnson to prove me right.

Source: Brexit: An Indictment of Direct Democracy or Vulgar Politics as Usual? | The Diplomat

Barry Ritholz ascribes the BREXIT vote to “culturally constructed ignorance”:

….there is a disconcerting trend that has gained strength: agnotology. It’s a term worth knowing, since it is going global. The word was coined by Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, who described it as “culturally constructed ignorance, created by special interest groups to create confusion and suppress the truth in a societally important issue.” It is especially useful to sow seeds of doubt in complex scientific issues by publicizing inaccurate or misleading data. Culturally constructed ignorance played a major role in the Brexit vote, as we shall see after a bit of explanation.

….Current agnotology campaigns seem to be having similarly desired effects. We see the results in a variety of public-policy issues where one side has manufactured enough doubt through false statements, inflammatory rhetoric and data from dubious sources that they can mislead public opinion in a significant way, at least for a time.

….In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, there is evidence that people didn’t fully understand what they were voting for. Some didn’t think their protest vote would matter, or misunderstood what they were voting for, or what the EU actually was. There seems to be a rise in voters’ remorse the days after. Many blamed the tabloids in the U.K.. The misstatements and myths which were being pressed by the leave campaign about the EU were so rampant and absurd that the European Commission had to put out repeated corrections and maintain a blog to rebut the nonsense.

While I am as concerned as Barry over the dumbing down of political debate, ably assisted by the tabloid press and the Internet, where “false statements, inflammatory rhetoric and data from dubious sources” are used to inflame the public, this is nothing new. That is politics. When emotions are aroused, the intellect is dormant.

But we should guard against the arrogance of presuming that voters are misinformed. Perhaps it is us, as George Friedman points out, who are aloof from issues on the street:

Immigration is socially destabilizing. There is always friction between older residents and immigrants…..But, better educated and wealthier individuals normally don’t experience this…

….the British who were for it, to a large extent, did not feel the profound social costs of immigration. That fee was going to be paid by those who—again with many exceptions—voted for leaving.

Source: Culturally Constructed Ignorance Wins the Day – Bloomberg View

Excellent analysis from George Friedman:

As troubling as Europe’s economy is, it was not the prime mover in the referendum. The contentious immigration debate holds that honor. And immigration itself was not really the issue. Britain was quite comfortable with immigrants until Brussels began making demands.

The EU dictating the rules was the problem. It was a question of sovereignty. That the EU could make decisions that would change the character of Britain was not okay.

Granted, there was a large vote for staying. The British media have been eager to point out that those who voted to leave were less educated, had lower incomes, and so on. They were also most likely to be affected by immigration.

Immigration is socially destabilizing. There is always friction between older residents and immigrants…..But, better educated and wealthier individuals normally don’t experience this element of immigration. The tension on the streets rarely enters the halls of academia, senior civil service, or banking.

Not surprisingly, the question of sovereignty wasn’t critical to this class. Just as large-scale immigration did not concern them.

….In Britain, the immigrant issue was critical and created a sense of powerlessness. First, Britain was not in control of its immigration policy. Second, the British who were for it, to a large extent, did not feel the profound social costs of immigration.

That fee was going to be paid by those who—again with many exceptions—voted for leaving. So it was a revolt against the British establishment and the EU. As with most things, it was much more complex than it seemed.

When All Else Fails, Acknowledge the Obvious
The EU has already responded. This statement from the foreign ministers of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, defines the future:
We will continue in our efforts to work for a stronger and more cohesive European Union of 27 based on common values and the rule of law. It is to that end that we shall also recognize different levels of ambition amongst Member States when it comes to the project of European integration. While not stepping back from what we have achieved, we have to find better ways of dealing with these different levels of ambition so as to ensure that Europe delivers better on the expectation of all European states…. However, we are aware that discontent with the functioning of the EU as it is today is manifest in parts of societies. We take this very seriously and are determined to make the EU work better for all our citizens.

This was the EU’s answer to Brexit. They recognized that not everyone wants the same level of integration and will respect that. They are aware that many are discontent with the EU.

In other words, after the British vote, they acknowledge the obvious. This is a unique evolution. It is not clear what they are going to do, but they are not going to punish Britain. They can’t afford to.

Source: Is Brexit the End of the EU? | This Week in Geopolitics Investment Newsletter | Mauldin Economics