Emotions should not override logic in politics

On June 23, 2016 United Kingdom held a referendum aimed at deciding whether to remain in the European Union (EU) or to leave. The following day, the world woke up to the greatest and unprecedented shock that defeated the logic of orthodox democracy in determining pertinent political decisions.

The referendum result was 52 per cent in support of Britain to exit (Brexit) the EU and 48 per cent voted to remain.

The statistical disaggregation of the referendum results were even more terrifying as Scotland and Northern Island voted to remain while mainland England voted to exit the EU.

The “Remain Campaign” was led by the Prime minister David Cameron while the “Brexit Campaign” was led by Boris Johnson, the man who rose to prominence in 2008, as the mayor of London.

In 1992, I was studying at the London School of Economics and voted in the British general election. I clearly understood the British political sentiments, culture and tradition in regard to matters of Europe.

The drivers of the referendum campaign were largely two; immigration (worsened by Syrian crisis) which lowered the general quality of living, health and public services in Britain; and low wages. Some of the shocks and offshoots that have been felt by Brexit include:
Scotland has categorically stated that it cannot accept England to cut their umbilical cord from Europe. They have argued that they are Europeans, and that no one will strip them of that identity.

Northern Ireland with the Backstop quagmire over the Irish border is clearly on the same trajectory.

Within few days of Brexit referendum result, UK lost top credit rating from AAA to AA by S&P.
The airline and property shares have already tumbled and strategic business people have taken advantage of this to purchase high end properties in London at give away prices.

HSBC, the third largest bank in the world, announced the relocation from London to Paris, implying loss of more than 1,000 jobs.

The British Pound fell by 31 per cent, year low against the US dollar in the first four days from the date of referendum. The first time of such drastic depreciation since 1986.

The political crisis that characterised the negotiations by the prime minister Teresa May, with unprecedented divisions in the House of Commons, including lack of trust even by the Torries- members of the ruling conservative party, clearly demonstrated the fallacy of orthodox democracy in solving serious political questions. May resigned from leadership of the conservative party on June 23, giving way to Boris Johnson, who became new UK prime minister on July 24.

The British public is regrettably questioning the logic that determined the referendum result. It is an interesting paradox that a country that boasts of the world’s most revered civilisation and the most intellectually endowed can be duped into such unprecedented acrimony and political rhetoric of that magnitude.

There are already unbelievable soul searching, with arguments from Brexit politicians that leaving the EU does not mean total exit from participating in EU dispensations.

But EU has already warned UK that “you can’t decide to leave a club and continue using the club facilities.”

In their characteristic naivety, Brexit leaders have contended that they will negotiate for UK to be granted the same position as Norway or Switzerland have in the EU.

However, these leaders should know that Norway and Switzerland have never been members of the EU but they appreciate, subscribe to EU and they are members of major EU institutions such as the European Commission.

Brexit clearly invoked the phenomenon of xenophobia which the Scottish and people in Northern Ireland can’t approve. They had vowed to remain in EU even if it meant having their own referendum to break away from UK.

As reiterated in the foregoing, the major campaign issues that dominated the Brexit were, immigration where Britain castigated the free movement of immigrants from Europe into Britain, hence, depriving Britons of jobs, putting pressure on public services. The irony is that there are also 1.2 million Britons living in EU countries. Will this mean that these also have to go back to Britain?

In the Brexit vote, emotions were given free range and there are already regrets from a wide spectrum of the UK public as to how emotions can really undermine reasoning in the so-called democratic process.

As part of soul searching, Brexit leaders are praying for informal talks with EU, but the latter has clearly rejected informal talks with UK. Britain has for long been Eurosceptic (for example, they are not members of the Euro zone) and there was fear of contagion from other EU countries.

From EU leaders summit that met on June 28, 2016, there was a clear signal that any negotiations for British exit from EU must include the “immigration close”, which the British would not embrace.

Yet, any meaningful economic block worth its salt must be built on free movement of factors of production and of economic transformation.

The Brexit vote result placed UK with unprecedented historical position. Since 1957, no country out of the 28 member EU states has ever invoked Article 50 to exit the EU. Apart from Greenland which was a province of Denmark that broke away from the mother land in 1985 , all other countries of EU have had a stable partnership knitted together by EU institutions. However, whether madness or excessive political rhetoric, the Brexit vote also provides an axe to grind between member states and the EU super structure. Brussels may need to revisit the protocols, particularly those that guarantee free movement of people.

If these latter issues continue unabated, I can hear wild but silent voices from other bitter but quiet EU partner states implying “am I the one to take care of all this human traffic to Europe?”

Prof Nuwagaba is an international consultant on economic transformation.