Uncategorized

The general election in December 2019 resulted in the Conservative Party, under Boris Johnson, receiving a landslide majority of 80 seats. This was the mandate he was hoping for to ‘get Brexit done’. Was it ‘Brexit fatigue or the lack of credible opposition, or was it his campaign slogan? Taking back control of our borders, our money and our laws. The title of a ministerial document signed by the Prime Minister dated November 2019. In this post, it is appropriate to use these headings in understanding the reasons behind the UK leaving the EU. Taking back control of our Borders This flows from the economic relationship with Europe and embraces some of the main principals of the European Union. That is; the free movement of people, goods and services (including money). All as enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, as well as in most of the Schengen Agreement, although the UK opted out of the latter in order to retain control of its borders, it still had to accept the principals of ‘free movement’. The UK had traditionally been a melting pot of peoples and cultures. This owes much to its colonial past and the ability to bring in labour from the colonies in times of need. To its credit, Britain has often accept refugees from Europe and beyond, but this was always under its own governmental control and the openness required by the Maastricht Treaty did not sit well with the Home Office; which is the department responsible for border security and immigration. Immigrants were not always treated well in Britain, certainly not as equals, even in recent years. The UK Home Office hostile environment policy is a set of administrative and legislative measures designed to make staying in the United Kingdom as difficult as possible for people without leave to remain, in the hope that they may " leave voluntarily" or not come at all. The policy was first announced in 2012 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. It was widely seen as being part of a strategy of reducing UK immigration figures to the levels promised in the 2010 Conservative Party Election Manifesto. It has notably led to significant issues with the “Windrush generation” and other Commonwealth and European citizens being deported after not being able to prove their right to remain in the UK, despite being guaranteed that right. The policy has been cited as one of the harshest immigration policies in the history of the United Kingdom, and has been widely criticised as inhumane, ineffective, unlawful and that it has fostered xenophobia within the UK. We can recall many examples and in some cases the simple act of driving a “foreign registered” car in the UK can evoke abuse. The Brexiteers managed to take advantage of this xenophobia by suggesting that the freedom of movement allowed EU workers to take jobs away from UK workers for lower wages. They famously suggested that, if the UK stayed in the EU, Britain would be overrun by thousands of Turkish…

As the UK leaves the European Union, I wanted to take a fresh look at Britain's post WW2 relationship with Europe, and what has become the EU, leading up the the 2016 referendum and the demise of the Cameron Government. In undertaking this exercise I hope to better understand the opinions of others who take the opposing view to mine. THE ORIGINS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION During a speech in Zurich in 1946, Winston Churchill spoke of the need to form a ‘European Family' or (he actually used the phrase) a ‘United States of Europe' to ensure peace and prosperity for Europe. The first formal move towards the European Union (EU) was an agreement between France, Germany, Italy and Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), to share control of coal and steel. This was known as ‘The Schuman Declaration' named after the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, who was its pioneer. In 1951 the six countries established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The plan behind the treaty was to pool coal and steel resources under the management of a supranational body in order to ensure that war in Europe was not ‘merely unthinkable, but materially impossible'. The underlying political agenda was also to strengthen Franco-German relations and make the two states dependent on each other in order to prevent future conflict. It was also hoped that the ECSC would lead to greater economic integration between its Member States. The United Kingdom, one of the leading European powers after the end of the Second World War, sought to undermine efforts to create a 'supranational' Europe. The UK feared that being part of a more deeply integrated Europe might undermine its 'special relationship' with the United States. Ironically, its stance in opposition to deeper European integration annoyed US authorities and damaged its relationship with the US anyway. However, the UK was invited to take part in talks that led to the founding treaties of the EU; the Treaty of Paris (1951) and the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’. The British government did not engage in a significant way with these talks and signed neither treaty at the time. It disliked many of the supranational elements in the treaties, it was worried about damaging links with the US and Commonwealth countries and it wished to pursue a ‘one-world economic system’ policy in which sterling was a central currency. However by 1963 the UK was beginning see the economic benefits of joining the EEC but its applications were being firmly rejected by France. An Extract translated from the French President, Charles DeGaulle's Veto on British Membership of the EEC (14 January 1963):- “If England asks in turn to enter, but on her own conditions, this poses without doubt to each of the six States, and poses to England, problems of a very great dimension. England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply…