When the UK population went to the polls on Thursday 23rd
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.
