"I'm doing great; I woke up British!"
An unidentified Glastonbury festival attendee shouted this to a reporter talking to the youth of the United Kingdom on the morning of June 24. Most younger citizens were not as enthusiastic as he was that morning. Instead of infectious high spirits at the iconic music festival, people were shell-shocked and some were even crying. With 51.89 percent of voters in favor of leaving the European Union (calling themselves British Exit or "Brexit"), the 48.11 percent of the country in favor of remaining as a member of the European Union were greatly discouraged. Many younger people in the UK consider themselves "European" first and British/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish second, so to them that 51.89 percent in favor changed not just their entire future but their identities within the course of a single day. Just over 40 years ago, voters faced with the same decision had chosen to treasure their EU membership in a landslide. Watching the dust settle from across the pond, seeing a nation so deeply divided, raises a few questions about Brexit and the greater state of politics today.
So, who is that 51.89 percent?
Voters age 18 to 25 voted overwhelmingly to remain, around 75 percent being in favor of EU membership. Growing up in a Europe connected by the EU and united in peace, it seems unnatural to them to leave the enclave of membership. Between the ages of 26 and 54, there was also a majority vote to remain though by a smaller margin. Those aged 55 and older -- the citizens who can reminisce about the good times before Europe began its reign of terror over the Isles -- are the only demographic in favor of a British exit. In my head, I picture them as the grandparents who remind you that they walked to school uphill both ways and are still fond of Jim Crow. Insulated and uninterested, they're looking to make [Insert Community Here] great again by looking backward. If that sounds familiar, keep reading.
Geographically, there are even sharper divisions in voting patterns. Before looking at the referendum results, however, take two seconds to look to the left. Colored red and yellow are regions of the UK that receive a notable amount of financial aid from their EU membership. If you had to guess where the "remain" support was strongest, it seems logical that those areas would want in. After all, leaving the European Union is a major financial change, not just a political decision, and those regions are not promised similar levels of financial support by the UK alone. In the 1975 referendum, decades before the region even qualified for "Structural Funding" in 1999, 64.8 percent of Wales voted to remain. If that held true today, this article wouldn't exist.
Going back to the referendum results, the geographical analysis by county can be seen to the right. Scotland and the territory of Gibraltar (not pictured) along with most of Northern Ireland were firmly in favor of maintaining membership. As areas that either requires financial support or have fluid borders with other EU countries, remaining and negotiating relationships as-necessary is a prudent choice. London, a financial capital of not only the EU but also the world, trailed only behind Scotland for the highest percentage of remain votes. The largest city in Wales, Cardiff, also wanted in. In fact, most major metropolitan areas favored EU membership. "Brexit" was championed by the aging citizens of Wales and England living in rural areas. This prominently white segment of the population united together in pursuit of some better Britain, has taken the control of the country with a little encouragement by some politicians.
What was the "Brexit" campaign?
When Prime Minister David Cameron ran for re-election, he promised to address the simmering issue of EU membership as part of his platform. As the PM for five years, he was a popular candidate regardless of his promise to address the issue but did so to prevent political fragmentation. His political career oversaw the legalization of gay marriage, a coalition government between the opposing Conservative Party (or "Tories") and Liberal Democrats, and even survived an entanglement in the Panama Papers scandal. After negotiating new EU membership terms in February 2016, he kept his promise and picked June 23rd as the date for a referendum. Though deeply supportive of remaining, he allowed any dissenting members of his party to campaign as they pleased.
Most MPs decided to support remaining as a member of the EU. A few others and grassroots organizers began campaigning that the UK should leave. For a few years, there has been an issue-based political party calling themselves the UK Independence Party (UKIP) with one seat in Parliament who rally around leaving the EU. The party fractured off of the much larger Conservative Party and was the force behind Cameron's decision to hold a referendum. Like most campaigns, a few politicians stepped up to become the face of the movement.
Three men spearheaded the "Leave" campaign: Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and a current member of Parliament; Nigel Farage, the now-former leader of UKIP and member of the European Parliament; and Michael Gove, a Tory, and member of Parliament. All three men were visible in UK politics, if not as prominent to Americans. Only Johnson made it to the American news circuit when he lost 2016 mayoral to Sadiq Khan, but all three were popular in the media in their own rights. Along with the few other dissenting MPs, these men made promises to voters and represented the face of Brexit.
What did these men say to convince the people of Brexit? The answer involves Donald Trump.
A failed businessman propped-up by personal wealth, recognized con-artist, and stereotypical reality TV star blatantly uninformed, Donald J. Trump is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. He has insulted Hispanics, women, people of color, disabled people, war veterans, Muslims, and most recently Jews. White supremacy groups, including the infamous Klu Klux Klan, consider him a hero. He has yet to make clear, legal foreign policy statements. His published fiscal policy has been analyzed and experts including William G. Gale, a chair in Federal Economic Policy at the Brookings institute and adviser to George H. W. Bush, have decried the plan as sub-par at best. Thirty-five years ago, the last time someone famous from a screen ran for the White House, he at least had some experience as governor and well-defined (if questionable) plans he could articulate. "We're going to win" and the obvious plagiarism of Reagan's "Let's Make America Great Again" slogan is apparently enough for America today.
Screw propriety. Screw education. Screw experience. Trump is a man of the people, someone unafraid to speak his mind, a popular outsider to the political elite - a populist. The last time an American populist was this popular, William Jennings Bryan was verbally crucifying the gold standard. There is also a liberal populist, Bernie Sanders, on the other side of the ideological aisle this election cycle. Sanders has virtually no chance of securing the Democratic party nomination, however, while it will take an entire party in revolt to overthrow Trump. He is a wealthy conservative populist just like the men behind Brexit.
Actually, it's the same story in a different country. What's happening to the United Kingdom is not happening in isolation. There are conservative populists rising to prominence in America, France, and Denmark. Just like the beloved show The Office, America and Britain are copying each other with their own spin. We have a reality star, they have boarding school friends. We are in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they are in the European single market. We are electing our next President, they are deciding on the structure of their government. By examining Brexit, we can discern hints of our own future if we allow these ideas to fester. We have an insight into a Trump presidency months before election day, a chance to examine conservative populism in power before we accept (or reject) it ourselves.
When Trump first made a serious bid for the 2016 election, he had fantastical claims that the country of Mexico was intentionally and illegally sending us murders, rapists, and drug dealers as undocumented aliens. According to him, under every tan, Hispanic skin was a threat to the very heart of democracy. The main faction calling for the referendum, UKIP, is also known for their fantastic claims. In 2014 after heavy storms and flooding across Britain, Councillor David Silvester claimed the weather was an act of God because Cameron had legalized gay marriage. The party leadership disowned the statement with the lightest reprimand possible, bringing into question the sincerity of the rebuke. Within the same release condemning Silvester's independent view, they added that independent thinking helps make the UK great. In a more general sense, the party has a long history of defaming immigrants from Eastern EU countries.
Trump has not been known for his eloquent promises, but he has repeatedly sworn to build a wall on the US-Mexico border to end all illegal immigration. Whether or not you think a wall is actually effective (see: the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall), the policy clearly taps into the fears of xenophobic Americans by scapegoating South American immigrants. No jobs? Crime? Poverty? Trump would point you towards the nearest Mexican-looking person. In support of Brexit, both Johnson and Gove pledged to greatly reduce immigration. While more subtle than their American counterpart, they heavily marketed an ambiguous end to open borders with EU members on the continent. Instead of Mexicans, they have the Roma and Polish. Now, faced with the task of leading the new government, a points-system has been recommended. Under these proposed policies, any potential immigrants would have difficulty obtaining a visa unless they were proficient in English and financially well-off. In addition, the system would be biased towards people with high levels of education filling jobs that cannot be done by UK citizens or people who are world leaders in their field. There cannot be a total migratory isolation of the Isles as some were lead to believe because of the numerous British citizen living and working in other EU countries, which means that any actual immigration reform is likely to be superficial.
No one has officially accepted credit for the statement, but before the referendum someone began circulating that rescinding EU membership would allow the government to contribute an additional 350 million pounds per year to the National Health Service, an institution universally popular in the UK. The figure stems from another unproved figure that 350 million pounds is the amount of money Britain pays to Brussels to maintain their membership without receiving back in benefits like a yearly subscription cost. Origin regardless, after the statement appeared it spread like wildfire through the media before voting opened but has since been debunked. Trump has done similar economic magic with his proposed budget. His main goal is to reduce taxation for everyone (but it will disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations) and increase government spending, a plan which will dramatically increase our national debt -- which is already exceeding $19,000,000,000,000. Trump hopes his plan will stimulate economic growth, but again Gale has commented that the approach has yet to work especially because the spending is deficit-funded. It is worth mentioning that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is not offering a balanced budget either, but her tax plan suggests an overdraft on the order of millions instead of billions and does not place similar taxation strains on future workers.
Another unverifiable promise by Brexit campaigners was that the single market was preventing the UK from seeking out better trade agreements with other nations. President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau explicitly made statements denying the claims when the rumor first arose, but they did little to mitigate the paranoia of lost benefits. Germany, largely considered the other driving economic force in the EU, also denied the claims while hinting that they might offer worse agreements as reparation for exiting. Officially, the European Union stated that it was unlikely any exiting state would be allowed to continue benefiting from the single market without fulfilling other membership requirements. The Trump parallel would be his vague foreign policy statements on "beating" China and Mexico. He has also stated that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade agreement similar to the European single market) is a "rape of our country" and is likely to disband other trade agreements in attempts to renegotiate. Since most of the world has not taken him as a candidate seriously, no global leaders have responded to his speeches.
Both Brexit and Trump rely on rumors and fear to drive their agendas forward. Smoke-and-shadow promises of prosperity lured the citizens of the UK to follow conservative populists and appear to be working now in America. We can expect similar results with similar situations if Trump wins in November, so what awaits us after Trump is sworn in -- or even as soon as he is proclaimed the next President? Even though less than a month has passed since the referendum and the country has not even begun the exit process, Brexit has set some expectations for us.
What have been the economic effects?
The first effects of the referendum were nearly instantaneous. In the first four hours after the results became clear, there was a 500 percent spike in Google searches for buying gold. The pound plummeted in value to the lowest it has been in thirty years within the week. Stock market indicators around the world universally dipped, including the DOW Jones by about 1,000 points until it started recovering again on June 28th. Even with London, arguably the financing capital of the world, the country's credit rating was effected. S&P changed their rating from AAA (the best) to AA. Fitch, a separate rating agency, changed the rating from AA+ (again, a top score) to AA in preparation for a decrease in the rate of short-term growth. Long-term financial effects are as always unpredictable, but most experts are certain of a turbulent short-term outlook.
Not all of this should be surprising; the governor of the Bank of England maintained full visibility with the public, going as far as to have an interview on the BBC, about the potential economic disasters of Brexit. The response from Gove after many others' forecasts of calamity: “I think people in this country have had enough of experts!” Now, the experts are having the last word. On July 6th, people began noticing possible weaknesses in the British market. Foreign investors, which play a key role in commercial real estate, have begun pulling out and at least three firms (M&G Investments, Aviva, and Standard Life Investments) have suspended activity to prevent greater losses. In response to the financial instability, the Bank of England announced plans to loosen lending restrictions and increase available funds for borrowers by 150 billions pounds. Some worry that his will re-create the financial difficulties of 2008, exacerbating the problem in the long term. On a positive note, the announcement has apparently boosted the plunging FTSE 100 index, the British equivalent of the American Dow Jones. Still, the pound is continuing to lose value against the American dollar (the exchange rate was $1.20 on July 6) and some experts suggest the two currencies will hit parity by early 2017.
What have been the political effects?
After the results, Cameron announced plans to resign as PM by October 2016 because of his Remain support, which quickly caused a power vacuum in the Conservative Party elites. Johnson then announced he would not run for election after statements made by Gove who later entered the race. Many were outraged as Johnson appeared to many as Cameron's successor due to his ardent campaigning and political experience. Theresa May, the current Home Secretary, also announced her candidacy shortly after Gove. The three other official candidates are Stephen Crabb (relatively inexperienced), Angela Leadsom (obscure outsider), and Liam Fox (disgraced former defense secretary). Some citizens would also like to call upon a little-used law to hold parliamentary elections early to ensure the views reflected in the referendum will be accurately reflected in Parliament. Because Britain follows a more complex voting system meant to increase the number of political parties, the mid-term election could significantly impact the affiliations of MPs serving on special committees - like the one bound to be involved with the official beginning of exit negotiations.
In general, the vote has divided the nation. With Cameron stepping down, his coalition government is likely to collapse and leave a fragmented legislative branch to negotiate. At worst, this could mean that talks would extend beyond the two year time-limit (barring extension by remaining member countries) set in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that offers the only precedent for exiting the EU. If this happens, all relations between Britain and the European single market would be ended and the country would be left in limbo. This would not only create trade issues, but also governing issues as all member countries agree to abide by certain EU laws and policies. British nationals living abroad would also be in a precarious situation because their ability to move freely among other European countries is dependent on British membership.
The geographic division in the vote are also creating political tensions. For a few days, the greater area of London showed strong (if unrealistic) support for the idea of becoming a city-state to remain in the EU. They are not the only region in revolt. The Chief Minister of the territory of Gibraltar, which sits on the Mediterranean Sea far from the English Channel, has also expressed discontent with exiting. Fabian Picardo stated shortly after the results that the territory firmly wishes to remain in the EU but enjoys being British, revealing a possible true independence referendum in the future. Other regions are not as subtle in their message. The Scottish First Minister Nikola Sturgeon has outright stated that Scotland may refuse to leave the EU and call for a second independence referendum, the first of which narrowly failed (44.7/55.3) in 2014. Northern Irish politicians have expressed concerns that an EU exit would disturb the fragile peace that has finally been reached between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The situation is also complicated by the fluid border on the island and makes Irish Independence appear as the easier alternative when faced with trying to end the free movement and work between the regions.
The Remain camp, devastated by the results, has been causing unrest outside of possible successions. Within days of the referendum, an online petition amassed four million signatures petitioning for a new vote due to the close margin. Because it garnered over 100,000 signatures, Parliament is required to address the issue but the collapse of Tory leadership and calls for re-election may seriously delay this while the other aftereffects worsen. People who supported Brexit are comparing the Remain reaction to the grief process and argue that recasting votes or following any other suggestions to change the result would undermine democracy.
Others are no longer relying on their government to resolve their problems. People are desperately searching their family trees for even a single drop of non-British blood. It's not a lack of patriotism, it's a mad scramble for membership. With some other European heritage, they can apply for citizenship in another EU country to remain a beneficiary of a united continent regardless of what the UK does. Others have been seeking adoption by people with European citizenship or applying for Irish passports for the same reason. German politicians have also announced that they are considering offering any British students in their country citizenship to prevent the situation from effecting their futures.
What have been the greater effects on society?
If there was any doubt of Brexit tapping into latent racism ideas, it vanished shortly after the referendum. Hate crimes around the country rose by 57 percent when compared to similar times last month. One concerned citizen captured an exchange on camera where a young white male began yelling at some darker-skinned older male, who was later identified as a military veteran, to "go back to [his] country" and exit the public transit. People in largely Polish neighborhoods near a school in Cambridgeshire awoke a few days ago to find laminated cards under their doors reading "No More Polish Vermin" printed in English on one side and Polish on the other. A Polish Center in London was also vandalized. Unfortunately, I cannot say that these altercations are unique or even extreme examples.
On the brighter side, an American living in London began a trend of wearing safety pins as a show of solidarity with immigrants. It began on twitter by user @cheeahs with #safetypin after she heard about the increase in hate crimes and realized that she wouldn't experience any because of her fair complexion and mastery of English. The idea is that if an immigrant or refugee is being harassed, the safety pin will be a physical representation of the wearer's willingness to step in and provide safety. The trend's popularity and effectiveness remain to be seen.
This referendum has split families as well. Strained dinner conversation are easy to imagine with older generations generally voting to leave and the youth of the country wishing to remain, some family members personally campaigning and others regretting not paying any attention to their selection, and Brexit supporters clinging to the narrow result while dissenters praying for another vote. The economic and political turmoil the country is experiencing as a direct result of the vote is stressful as well.
Knowing all this could happen, why didn't people vote Remain?
The sad truth is simple -- advertising and underestimation.
“Brexit” was a catchy title and by referring to the entire thing as a vote to exit as opposed to a vote on membership, the argument was already framed in the conservative populists’ favor. It's a subtle difference, but psychology has shown us that changing a single word in a question will greatly affect our answer. It sounds better to say you are campaigning for UK Independence and all the images that evokes regardless of your leanings. If you want proof of the advantage, just think about how many people have called it a shortening of "British Exit" versus the proper name, "United Kingdom European Union Membership Referendum". I'm guilty of this as well, because who wants to remember and type that long, clunky name when there's a six-letter alternative?
The Remain camp didn't fair any better relying upon weak advertising to try and win over undecided voters. While the Leave-supporters could whisper rumors and complain about the current state of affairs as the backbone of their campaign, their opponents had to try and build a compelling argument that simplified the complex role the EU plays in the UK. They also had to do so with facts and experts, long essays and no catchy slogans. By the time WIN came to fruition, every paper had already began spreading Brexit like the plague. With so many politicians supporting the effort as well, any official adverts had to gain approval from a smorgasbord of PMs and in the process loss their effectiveness. Compelling but controversial billboards like the ones proposed below never stood a chance of being released.
The saddest part, though, is that everyone wanting to maintain membership gravely underestimated the appeal of Brexit. Just as many Americans believed Trump to be a PR stunt or expensive joke before he cinched a nomination, nobody supporting the EU membership could believe people seriously wanted to leave the institution that has helped bring stability and prosperity to Europe for decades. Some people voted "leave" just because they saw it as a way to get back at a country that wasn't doing enough to help them survive and figured their vote wouldn't matter anyway. A whole 28 percent of eligible voters couldn't be bothered to even go out to the polls. There was a lot of resignation to the ideologically-sound Remain, but the emotionally-driven Leave prevailed with the help of apathy.
History has shown us that hate, apathy, and scapegoating never mix well. Europe is still dealing with their last encounter with the ideological vitriol when Germany blamed their financial problems on the Jewish. It took years of fighting and millions of innocent lives lost to recognize the strength of a unified Europe. The resentful nationalism lurking in the shadows doesn't offer any comfort either. It didn't help Italy or Japan achieve their goals - unless Britain is looking to create the dystopian UK of V for Vendetta. Whether modern conservative populism takes the form of a boarding school clique or an orange buissness man, it will never have my vote.
