If I had a vote in the Referendum on whether
or not the UK should remain in the EU or leave, I would certainly vote Leave. This
neo-liberal Germanic Union of ours, with its unnecessary and perverse
austerity, its false pretence to promote investment and growth, its failure to
protect both external borders and desperate refugees, its Potemkin façade, insistence
in destructive so-called “structural” reforms, is no use for anything or
anyone, including the Germans. There is no prospect of conceivable change for
the better except under the duress of actual or threatened disintegration. One
of my favourite comedians, John Cleese, has
also declared himself for Brexit, for the same reasons: “If I thought there was any
chance of major reform in the EU, I’d vote to stay in. But there isn’t. Sad.”
And he added: “I feel terrible
about being lined up with thugs like Murdoch and Dacre and Brooks, but I do
think Stiglitz and Owen have got it right...” (@JohnCleese, June 12, 2016). After
all, Basil Fawlty of Fawlty Towers has always known how to deal with the
Germans. A strong case for Brexit is also made here.
Having said this, that option is undoubtedly
costly, uncertain in its implications both positive and negative, habit
breaking and very uncomfortable. I simply do not believe the polls predicting a
substantial lead for Brexit (52% over 33% in the Daily Express latest poll), in
spite of the significant contribution given to the LEAVE faction by Tony Blair
and Gordon Brown with their kiss of death endorsement of the REMAIN option. I
believe that on 23 June the third of the voters still undecided will decide
otherwise and tip the scales to REMAIN.
And if voters did choose to LEAVE
overwhelmingly, it is no good pretending that the UK is a small Swiss canton
voting in a mandatory referendum, for there is no such a thing in British
constitutional documents or constitutional practice. David Cameron, having set
up the Referendum to protect himself from Ukip’s threat, will be under great
pressure to comply with the result and apply to leave under art. 50 of the
Lisbon Treaty, but would not be in a hurry to make such a move. After all, he
already said he will not serve another term, but he is still on course to serve
until 2020, can rely on a solid cross-party pro-EU majority in Parliament, and
might be able to obtain additional concessions from the EU on the strength of
the vote, on top of the token ones he recently negotiated, sufficient to
re-open the whole question.
But if Britain did leave, I would watch with Schadenfreude the impact of the vote on
the further disintegration of the Union and the collapse of the German ruling
parties. There is a group of distinguished academics, calling themselves EREP Economists
for Rational Economic Policies, who have issued a “Remain for Change” Report, “Building European solidarity for a democratic
economic alternative”, a generous but misguided approach. On 23 June, Vote, as
the Irish saying goes, vote well, vote often.
Family loyalties, however, seem to be divided.
My wife – a UK citizen who acquired double Italian citizenship through marriage – tells me that if she had a vote in the UK (which was removed under the
Blair administration at the beginning of this century) she would vote REMAIN:
“I would
vote REMAIN because I live in Italy, a country that benefits enormously from EU
membership as one of the original Treaty of Rome signers for, and by whom, the Project was designed, (one
of the defeated Axis powers seeking to remedy losing) and which benefits currently and most specifically from the UK's
membership.
Italy is a transit country for incoming migrants that it fishes out of
the Mediterranean, and the closing of the borders of one of the main countries
of migrant settlement (as opposed to migrant transit) in the EU would have
adverse effects on the transfer of migrants northwards and generate serious
conflicts with any attempting to stop here rather than transit to Germany,
Sweden, France and the UK.
Italy exports also over a million Italian nationals to the UK for
settlement and draws strongly upon welfare payments available there to all EU
citizens. Losing a settlement of choice
venue for a million Italian workers would be intensely disruptive in Italy
itself.
High-quality employment in UK services, academia, culture, and local and international administration
for Italians (and other EU citizens) as well as educational opportunity at low
cost from primary to post-graduate levels
in the UK are also at stake with BREXIT.
UK means-tested and universally applied welfare benefits to Italian
workers at all levels both in the UK and (as is the case with many children
returned to Italy) at home are very valuable and not to be lost.
Italy may be a net contributor to the EU budget, but its contribution
must be set against the direct beneficial transfers and subsidies drawn directly
from the UK even though the UK is not a member of the Eurozone and pretends to
its electorate that there is an 'opt-out' from such transfers.
Of course, if I were settled in England I would have a different view of
the whole matter - a looking glass view it might be called. But as an Italian citizen and resident the
last thing I want to see is a goose leaving with its golden eggs”.
In conclusion, it is not at all a matter of
divided loyalties, nor of indecision, but a conflict of interests between two
different, alternative capacities. If you live in the UK, vote to LEAVE.
Posts
