24 April 2016

Paul Goldschmidt: The British Referendum

In his evaluation of the first 10 days of campaignin, the author observes that "the stupefying ineptitude of the Leave campaigners is fast transforming them into the best advocates of their opponents cause."

It has reached such a degree that I have come to think that the victory of the “Bremainers” is almost in the bag with a majority which may come as a surprise. It raises the question of whether Boris Johnson has been sent deliberately as a “submarine” by his friend David Cameron in order to scupper the Leave campaign and prepare for the grand post referendum reconciliation that the Tory party will need!
 
As an example of ineptitude I refer to BJ’s tirade in which he castigates the President Obama for being incoherent because “he would never accept that the USA join a structure such as the EU”. Has it escaped his sharp wits that the USA – a federation of 50 States – are precisely a structure that is far more integrated than the EU and that coherence demands that it should be BJ who should agree to an “Ever closer Union”.
 
Beyond moralising “ex cathedra” arguments aimed at stimulating emotional feelings of sovereignty (a concept which in a globalised world has become largely virtual), and disseminating unsubstantiated if not outright misleading facts on the constraints (in particular net the costs) induced by EU membership, the single greatest weakness of the Leave campaign is its incapacity to propose a coherent program to be implemented after Brexit.
 
It is the multiplicity of viewpoints in the Leave camp, far more than their opponent’s arguments, which are fostering the uncertainties and the “fears” in the minds of a great deal of citizens, whose understanding of the stakes involved is made difficult by the complexities and interactions between often diverging interests. One can however imagine that the voter will wonder why there appears to be a quasi-unanimity of well-informed foreigners who express a clear preference for keeping the UK in the Union. It is not the (unwelcome) support of Marine Le Pen or that imputed to Vladimir Putin that is likely to tip the scales.

This questioning by electors is likely to become more focussed as June 23rd approaches and concrete developments materialise in anticipation of the ballot. Initial indications originating from the “real world” are already emerging: the fall in Sterling and the spiking of the cost of forward exchange cover; a sharp contraction in the number of real estate transactions in the first quarter of 2016 as well as a quasi-drying up of job mobility in the City which usually explodes after annual bonuses have been paid. In addition, the Bank of England and HM Treasury, which both benefit from a high degree of credibility, have produced detailed assessments describing the potentially damaging consequences of Brexit. Their angry denunciation by Brexeteers as “inadmissible partisan interventions, flouting the principle of neutrality of the civil service”, is a demonstration of the weakness of the arguments on which the Leave campaign is basing its core strategy.
 
In such a context, it would be highly regrettable if the Remain camp remained complacent, satisfied to let its opponents self-destruct. Indeed, it is of the utmost importance for Bremainders to mobilise their supporters in order to insure an indisputable majority. Obtaining a high turnout is crucial in order to avoid the perpetuation of the controversy around EU membership after the final result. A close result would have significant adverse consequences, in particular a likely freeze on future reforms which are indispensable to the Union’s and the Euro’s survival.
 
It is therefore highly desirable that the Remain campaign does not fall in a similar rut into which their opponents have gotten stuck; instead it should develop a comprehensive set of EU reforms capable of gaining broad support among both British and continental citizens. Such a vision should be based on constructive “give and take” proposals rather than degenerate in a “winner takes all” contest: in exchange for wholehearted support by the UK for deeper integration of the Eurozone (which even Cameron believes is necessary), the EU should, in its own self-interest, promote the position of London as its uncontested financial centre, including for the trading of € denominated transactions. The merger of the LSE with Deutsche Börse with its future London headquarters would then make eminent sense. Additional negotiations among the 28 should be initiated to reform the Schengen accords, implement an EU control of its external borders and review the foundations of an internal as well as external common immigration policy.
 
By adopting such a proactive stance, the UK could wield a preponderant influence over the outcome of the reforms and repair its image as the spoiler of further progress within the Union. If it fails to seize this unique opportunity, that would be firmly grounded in the will expressed by the British voters, one must fear that the victory of the Remain campaign is likely to lead to further stifling of the European project and, in due course, to the implosion of the Union. It is the fear of such obstruction, based on a “legalistic” interpretation of the March agreement between the UK and the other Member States coming into force, which explains that a growing number of continental pro-European citizens are advocating Brexit despite the risks of contagion it entails.
 
In the interests of promoting the quality of the referendum contest, it is urgent that both camps review their strategies so as to guarantee a truly democratic debate, worthy of the global challenges that are at stake.

Full article on Paul Goldschmidt website

© Paul Goldschmidt