What Are We Afraid of Losing?

July 10th is the British Grand Prix. In celebration of that fact, Sky is running adverts where the British drivers and team members are asked to name three British things. The answers are, for the most part, predictable: fish and chips; tea; weather; queues; the full English. Only Rob Smedley is an outlier, favouring Black Sheep's Ale and "Middlesborough". Nonetheless, that the same things should spring to mind so, apparently, uniformly in people living such cosmopolitan lives begs another question in light of the Brexit vote: what is it about Britishness that we fear is being lost?

The referendum campaigns were never about the EU. True EU issues were not properly engaged with, discussed, or debated by either camp, but there is a feeling in the aftermath of the vote that some, if not many, communities have, for some time, feared the loss of their cultural (British) identity as a direct result of migration. Why?

Britain is an island nation. Our history is one of invasion, cultural overhaul and adaptation. We have never been easy to subdue completely. The Romans first arrived in 54BC: history tells us that the natives didn't take to them, hence the primary school child's familiarity with Boudica. Yet the Romans imparted something of themselves to Britishness: the founding of two great cities, Londinium (London, in 43AD) and Deva (Chester, in the mid 70s AD). Both retained their strategic significance, London longer than Chester, and have played significant roles in the ongoing saga of the British Crown. The Romans also gave us lovely straight roads, the routes of some of which still survive, for example parts of the A6 in Lancashire. And they gave us a wall, Hadrian's, designed to keep people out, an exclusionary idea that also continues to have a place in the British mindset.

Yet the Romans have not been alone. Invasions and the danger of invasion have been a constant threat, right up to the 20th century. We have seen Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans invade and their impact on our country has provided some of the most exciting history lessons going: battles that have determined Royal Houses, folktales like Robin Hood and a world famous tapestry.  Not to mention countless novels, dramas and movies. For much of our formative history, invasion has played a key role in determining our development. It has shaped our language, a mongrel affair with Romance and Germanic overtones that continues to grow and change as it encounters modern challenges. But it is a mongrel language spoken the world over. Why?

It seems that, far from cowering in the wake of invasion, our society grew stronger for it. We have invaded places and domesticated peoples far bigger than our homeland. We are famous for it. A child of the late 19th century would have looked at an atlas and seen vast swathes of it painted red: the British Empire. At its height, the Empire covered parts of America, India, Australia and Africa and our trading powers extended further. We brought back the things we found and today, they are considered British: a cup of tea, anyone? A kebab or curry on a night out?

We must, therefore, return to this question: what feature of 'Britishness' are we afraid of losing? It remains hard to fathom. We have been colonists, a notion belonging to different era: happy to impose our government, law-making and social systems on wildly different societies and to expect the imposed-upon nation to accept it. Until the 1950s we remained a colonial power and enjoyed ongoing wealth from that position for many years. Much of the vox-pop coverage pre-referendum displayed a certainty that we would resume that position upon 'achieving' Brexit. But the world has moved on since then and our place in it has, outside the EU, not kept pace - we are not an Imperial power any more: that is one reason why Remain supporters fear what is to come.

Tabloid newspapers have long decried the loss of Britishness: the irony being that they use the language of invasion to give the impression that Britons are a minority 'in their own country'. The facts do not bear this out. A House of Commons report from May 2016 states that, as of December 2014, some 5.3m non-UK Nationals (2.94m from the EU) are living in the UK. 5.3 million of 65 million. It also states "The UK's migrant population is concentrated in London" - which voted Remain. There are other high concentrations in the South, stretching to the Midlands. Yet it was the North and Wales the rejected Europe, almost completely. If 'Britishness' was truly threatened, it would only make sense that London should have rejected the EU, in line with the rest of the country.

Nonetheless, protecting, or retaining Britishness, "taking back control", formed part of the Leave platform that resonated with voters. The largest, ugliest, aspect of the Empire's success was indeed 'control' - control of others. Yet those other things that made Britian great to begin with, right down to our language, have come about as part of our interaction with other cultures and our capacity to absorb and utilise the best aspects of those interactions. The biggest irony, then, of the Brexit vote is not that losing Britishness led to Brexit, but that Brexit may well lead to the loss of those characteristics that made us Great Britain.

Hazy Crazy Days of Brexit: What now for UK and EU Citizens?

When the UK population went to the polls on Thursday 23^rd June 2016, it was faced with a seemingly simple question: Do you want Britain to Remain in, or to Leave the European Union?

From such simple phrases are constitutional crises grown. There is consternation about the outcome, with petitions calling for a ‘second go’ and for the voice of youth to be heard whilst the media (both social and press) is highlighting the rise in racial hatred incidents post-result. The breakdown in voting demographic has caused people to ask why the older section of society so restrictively determined the future of the younger generation and, most tellingly, since the result was published there is shock from those suffering ‘Bregret’ that they were ‘lied’ to by leave campaigners on two key strands of the ‘Leave’ platform: the NHS and immigration. This concern was only heightened by news that the Leave campaign website appeared to have been purged of pre-referendum content, with a simple 'Thank You' in place of slogans and other links, and has been further raised by MEPs' comments when the European Parliament convened to discuss what should come next.

The issue of post-referendum leadership is equally pressing. When David Cameron resigned on Friday morning, there was no clear plan as to what came next, other than a vague mention of the Conservative Party Conference in October, a comment which has been refined to a September date. The leaders of the leave campaign have been shirking the limelight, unexpectedly sombre in their victory and, on television, campaigners have admitted that they had no plan for what came next either. Then, in a dazzling act of ritual suicide, the Labour party has imploded, taking the media spotlight from Tory strife and societal unrest. Taken together, Westminster appears to be in disarray. Nicola Sturgeon, in her capacity as Scotland’s First Minister, has shown real leadership qualities, speaking in terms of future plans and a desire to remain a European Member State, potentially frustrating Westminster's attempts to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 in the process. Whether this is possible has been the subject of House of Lords' Select Committee evidence, but Scotland is not alone in this aim: while Scottish and Northern Irish MEP's have addressed the European Parliament in imploring terms, seeking to retain membership, Geoffrey Robertson QC has also addressed how Remain voters in the UK might achieve their desired outcome. These issues are made more urgent by the response of European leaders keen to expedite EU secession and get back to the issues concerning the EU's future and continuing Member States. Patience appears to be running short on the continent, as Jean Claude Juncker's response to Nigel Farage's presence in the European Parliament indicate. Others have been more blunt in their response to the UK's perceived dillydallying: "You can't have your cake and eat it". 

Uncertainty over the timeframe, operation and triggering of Article 50, in combination with these other problems has distracted from the debate over what has really been lost after the Leave win. The most immediately apparent consequence has been the economic downfall previously predicted by the Remain camp, and ridiculed by Leave: while Michael Gove has "had enough of experts" it turns out they were right. However, the greatest loss is the one that individuals will feel once we are on the outside of Europe, looking in.

In 1992, the EU introduced the concept of European Citizenship. Many people have never known life without it, but it has also come to be so embedded in our own identity – knowingly or otherwise – that unpicking the EU citizenship from the British could be harder than we think. Yet citizenship rights barely rated a mention in the campaigns. Even the claims about immigrants confused EU migration with other migration (as in Farage's rightly vilified poster), a fact clear from some post-result interviews, presenting a confused picture to the electorate and generating claims that, within minutes of victory, the Leave campaign was distancing itself from. But Citizenship is not distilled to the one issue of free movement, a European right predating Citizenship by some distance, it encompasses much broader features that, from childhood, shape who we become, such as education, healthcare protection, environmental protections and family rights.

EU Citizenship itself embodies something much more forward thinking, open and inclusive than it is given credit for: it came about in the 1990s but had been conceived long before, as the Community was being formed. Every Member State citizen enjoys this second tier of citizenship as of right, but the article bestowing the right clearly limits the scope of membership to citizens of existing Member States. The States wanted it this way, in order to limit the scope of their obligations: losing this new citizenship was not something that was really contemplated. It has occurred before, in the case of Janko Rottmann, who lost citizenship of any kind all at once, but generated considerable academic comment at the same time. But, when, or if, Brexit occurs, some 65 million citizens will cease to be such: the academic commentary at that time can only be imagined. While the government has sought to reassure resident EU citizens - and those UK nationals resident in the EU- that their rights will for the time being, continue without interruption, there is no comfort for those seeking reassurance in the long term. 

What, then, is so special about this legal status? From a narrow perspective, the array of rights and protections attached to it prevent Member States from restrictively applying laws that range from worker rights to family reunification and education rights. From a broader perspective, it is a means of bringing people together and keeping them in touch with each other in a more affordable way. If those claims sound grandiose, then please keep an open mind.

Have you ever been abroad, beyond the EU? Stood in a line of waiting passengers, in a stuffy, overcrowded room waiting to go through passport control, to enter the paradise of duty free and the airport lounge? While standing in that queue, cursing your luck at being in the slow line, have you looked around and been comforted by the sight of another passenger gently wafting a cool breeze with their passport? Did the burgundy colour of that passport make you feel slightly less alone? If so, you experienced the solidarity of EU Citizenship.

If you have ever voted in a European election, been on holiday in the EU without having to stand in the long passport-control queue, received emergency medical treatment while in another EU country, or even just bought something from an EU Amazon site (other online retailers are available) without having to pay customs duties, you have benefitted from your citizenship. If you have noticed that you are suddenly paying a little less duty for your environmentally friendlier car, or that your car insurance now costs the same as a significant other’s, you are benefitting from your EU citizenship, as it ensures non-discrimination on the grounds of gender, nationality, age, sexual orientations, race, religion and ability/disability in the Member States. If you ring your EU resident friends by mobile, or keep in touch with home while away, or spend too much time on Facebook when you’re supposed to be enjoying your holiday, you should have noticed that you have paid a little less. Data roaming charges were due to decrease further: those benefits are about to disappear – whether UK companies will continue to honour the principle is open to debate, but economic realities would suggest not.

Those are just the transient, but no less important, benefits of that which we are about to lose. For the truth is that European Citizenship contributes to your opportunities to enhance your economic and social  position. Citizenship is tied up with education, employment, environment and family rights: it relates to your own identity, whether you appreciate that fact or not. Being able to attend any university in the EU opens up enormous prospects - and not only to the members of the social elite. The ERASMUS scheme has benefitted countless UK nationals, allowing students to immerse themselves in other cultures and gain valuable experiences: our continued participation in that scheme is now uncertain. But the benefits do not only pertain to students: workers can also avail themselves of ERASMUS opportunities and this featured nowhere in the Brexit campaigns. 

The argument over worker rights and EU citizenship was, in fact a poisonous element of the campaign, such was the focus on migration. Yet, 1.3 million UK nationals have made their lives in other EU countries and 2.5% of those enjoy unemployment benefits. The opportunity to move for work, and to remain in the State while looking for more work following unemployment on the same terms as nationals of those states is invaluable.  The day to day protections enjoyed are also essential, but the EU's contribution to worker rights is often understated. As Union obligations are carried out through national law and legislation, successive governments have been able to 'demonstrate' that it is they who are committed to equal treatment and social advance, overshadowing the EU as the source and enforcer of these rights. Whether a new entrant into the workforce following education, or a pensioner, the EU has done something for you as part of your life as a worker. The single most chilling aspect of the Brexit campaign is that these social rights, that ensure fair treatment for all and which protect the most vulnerable from exploitation and mistreatment, are first in line for repeal. The government's own Minister of State for Employment, Priti Patel, has called these European protections a "burden" and has called for them to be 'halved': it was disingenuous to focus on migrants and to intimate that it is those migrants who would face these restrictions, as EU law protects us all. Removing these benefits may not occur overnight, but those most in need in the UK will be those most affected.

The objection to migration to the UK dominated discussion, but failed to address with any force the reality that both skilled and unskilled workers contribute both to the economy and those very services the Leave campaign claimed to seek to protect, like the NHS. When hospital surgical teams post pictures of themselves emphasising the important contribution the EU has made to essential services, and when teaching staff depend on EU nationals to help in providing expertise, the real question after Brexit is this: how badly will leaving the EU damage those services for which Britain enjoys world renown? 

For more then 40 years the UK's role at the heart of Europe has helped to shape what the EU has become. Our representatives in the various institutions have negotiated, debated and voted on issues covering a huge number of aspects of our daily lives. During that time, Britain enjoyed a position as the fifth largest economy in the world. Within 48 hours of Brexit, the economic impact was such that we had fallen to sixth. Investment in the UK is set to shrink, casting further doubt on economic growth and making the position of workers, and citizens generally, even more uncertain. Jean Monnet, one of Europe's founding fathers and the first formally titled 'European Citizen' believed in unity of peoples, stating:

"When I think that Frenchmen, Germans, Belgians, Dutchmen, Italians and Luxembourgers are obeying the same rules and, by doing so, are now seeing their common problems in the same light, when I reflect that this will fundamentally change their behaviour one to another – then I tell myself that definitive progress is being made in relations among the peoples of Europe".

His legacy, until June 23rd was that there was commonality between European peoples. The EU had not found a convincing way to express that unity, other than through Citizenship, but the signs are that Brexit will generate much more movement to bring the people together, with Angela Merkel talking of Europe in terms of a 'family'. The non-binding nature of the EU referendum may, in the end, render the Brexit decision merely an almighty storm in a teacup, but the likelihood is that, whatever negotiated settlement is reached, the UK's population will be cut off from that family, yet will still share those common problems. It will not have a say in determining how those problems are resolved and it will be exposed to a possible programme of social welfare repeal from a Conservative government with a proven record of austerity practice and benefit cuts: EU citizenship will cease to protect us and, should Theresa May be successful in her bid to be the next Prime Minister, it is possible that the UK will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Where that will leave the citizenry doesn't bear thinking about, but we can always comfort ourselves with this thought: in a population of 65 million people, all it took to reduce us to this was 17 million. 'Democracy' in action: crazy days indeed.