Brexit: Inside one of the most dramatic shifts in the geopolitical scene of Europe

Interview with Christopher Egan

c: iStock photos

Since 2016, relations between the United Kingdom and the EU have been increasingly tense, as the UK has voted to leave the Union. Taking into account the fact that matters regarding Brexit have recently gotten both the United Kingdom and the European Union at a standstill in negotiations, we decided to take a look at how the future of the United Kingdom is seen from the looking glass of a British teenager. Christopher Egan is a 17-year-old from Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, UK. He has a unique view into the social, moral and economic reasons behind Brexit and has agreed to give Delegate Snapshots an interview on the matter.

Q: When the referendum for Brexit took place, you had just turned 13. What was your initial view on Brexit? Did you feel like it would affect your life in any significant ways?

Brexit was an issue that divided my dinner table bitterly. Ahead of me sat my grandparents - vehemently pleading the case for Brexit, whilst beside me sat my parents, promoting the benefits of the European Union. A clash of generations, of mindsets, if you will. Perhaps it could be seen more as a clash of interests: my father, a City banker, sat opposite my grandparents, retired but appreciative of the history behind British involvement in the European Union.

As a 13-year-old, I could never fully understand nor come to a reasoned opinion as to what the optimal course of action was. But nevertheless, I had an inkling of the magnitude of the decision ahead of those around that dinner table, although I could never be sure of what that was. I knew the result would impact me, but I was not wise nor intelligent enough to guess what that would be.

My father explained his side of the story, telling me of the cold gravity of how Britain’s economy would fail in the case of Brexit. And I believed him - it just seemed more rational than the arguments propagated by my grandparents.

I am clearly personalising this story with the metaphor of the dinner table. There are many ways that one could analyse voter patterns in the Brexit referendum, but the most accurate blind predictor of how someone voted in Brexit would be to ask them their age. I will elaborate more on this later.

Q: How do you feel about Brexit? Do you believe it will affect the place of the United Kingdom on both the European and the global political and geopolitical scenes?

This question, for me, requires quite a nuanced answer. At the time, it seemed that Brexit was a political outcome that would not give me favourable outcomes in the future: I would likely suffer from a damaged jobs market especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit. However, I think it is slightly inane to predict economic catastrophe based on one political decision - the future is open to pandemics which damaged the British and European economies to such an extent that they both will be paying for it for decades. Naturally, as the taxpayer of those decades, I will suffer.

In my opinion, political scientists and economists make a grave error when they try to coax people into believing outcomes by giving them, as my father tried to, the “cold hard facts of what will happen” if Brexit happens, if Le Pen is elected, if Biden comes to power. Hayek’s dictum that economists (and political scientists) should never try to predict the future based on models of the past is valid because the future is inherently random and contingent. Brexit may turn out to be a minnow compared to coronavirus. It is true that the future must be considered in political decision making, but asserting that certain consequences will happen, for example by predicting that the British economy would contract by 9% in the long term due to Brexit, seems hubristic.

In this spirit, what I feel about Brexit is that it may be a success for the UK, it may be a failure - it may not change the position of Britain in the geopolitical scene. But my recommendation would only be as good as anyone’s guess because the future is, as I said, wide open.

But, if you are pressing for my recommendation, it is this: the extent British involvement in the EU probably revolves around whether or not a deal is reached - Britain will most likely need a dialogue in the EU if it gets a deal. If in a case of a no-deal Brexit, Britain will most likely continue operating under WTO rules and maintain diplomatic relations with member states individually.

In terms of global and geopolitical influence, my guess is that Britain will likely maintain its role as one of the world’s foremost liberal democratic powers. Brexit will most likely not force the UK’s economy to contract so much that the economic heft of London wanes, while Frankfurt rises. The UK is still a military force to be reckoned with, with its elite special forces and (ageing) nuclear weapons. Whilst the UK is retracting its foreign aid program, the international nature of Great Britain PLC makes Britain a highly developed country that others must deal with. In that sense, I personally do not think Britain’s power would wane too much because of Brexit.

Q: Recent years have caused continuous debate on the purpose and role of the European Union in a forever globalizing world, uprooting the feeling of control upon one’s own country. Why do you think the majority of the British people have voted for leaving the EU?

I am going to be rather inflammatory here and propagate the view of what I believe to be the principled reason for Britain leaving the EU. Ironically, this depiction begins Benjamin Constant, a Frenchman who once noted the need for a country to have both what he called an ‘ancient’ conception of freedom and a ‘modern’ conception of freedom. ‘Ancient’ freedom was martial and collective - your personal freedom was dependent on you living in a free state; in the time of Sparta and Athens, your freedom was dependent on your society’s ideals and independence being protected. ‘Modern’ freedom is commercial and inherently individual. If you ask most people how they view freedom, they would probably say that freedom is the ability to do what they want. Freedom is personal, based on personal choice - not the role of the state.

‘Ancient’ freedom to us moderns seems of a different time, maybe noble, but it seems attractive at some level. Bear in mind that this is not an either/or dichotomy - you can have both ancient and modern freedom. But since we think that we already have ‘modern’ freedoms in our liberal and developed Western societies, we can still pine for ancient freedom because it seems noble - this feeds into a desire for patriotism and perhaps nationalism.

Apply this to the situation of the EU. In Britain, there was a sentiment widely advocated by Leave.EU that the EU was taking our money and sovereignty away from us Britons. When you have an ageing population that firstly regrets going into the EU in the first place, a Euro crisis, populist sentiment, and the subconscious notion that Britain’s freedom is being violated as it was not entirely free to make its own political decisions, it seems that, with hindsight being crystal clear, the majority of the country would vote for Brexit.

This is not what I personally believe. I am simply propagating the Brexiteer perspective on the value of sovereignty. Europeans might scoff at this perspective and say that it is extremist. It becomes more rational upon consideration of the context of Britain as a global country and power - Britain was the birthplace of liberal democracy and has been historically a cradle for innovation, and holds the financial powerhouse of London - it has been historically always relevant in global discussions.

Q: In your opinion, do you think that the geographical distribution of Leave/Remain votes has its roots in the history of each region and its relations both within and outside of the UK?

I think that the geographical distribution of Leave/Remain voters has more to do with the ties between the average age and economic wealth of a region as opposed to its history, if we look at a constituency-level view. But if we look at a wider view and consider Scotland and Northern Ireland which voted strongly for Remain, I would say that their voting patterns were to a great extent influenced by the relationship of each with the EU. Scotland received a great deal of EU funding, and Northern Ireland is the only region that shares a land border with Europe. So yes, on that basis I would agree.

Q: To what extent do you feel that Brexit was based on the hatred, if I may call it that, of immigrants?

I do not believe that Britain is a racist or xenophobic country. That should be made perfectly clear. There are a vast number of citizens of this country that are descended from immigrants. I am myself a second-generation immigrant, along with many others, hailing as far wide as India and the Caribbean. In my opinion, the reasons for those who voted for Brexit voted for greater control of the UK’s own policies which include preventing mass immigration. Let us not forget that the EU was in the midst of the Syrian refugee crisis at this time.

Mass immigration, in my opinion, is not good for host nations in the long term. Take France, for example. Decades of immigration from Muslim North African countries after the Second World War, coupled with an ill-advised response in dealing with the immigrants has led to social problems in France. The wider point is that mass immigration may be good in the short term economically by boosting the labour force and increasing tax revenues, but causes social problems in the long term as immigrants, as was the case with the Syrians accepted by Germany, can form an economic underclass which stokes social problems.

I believe that Britain, with its NHS and welfare state, has in recent years been highly attractive to migrants. Many Brexit voters, whilst they did not hate immigrants, did fear the social impact on the UK that mass immigration might have; I believe this fear to be misconstrued by many for xenophobia and hatred. And those who were xenophobic and racist, I believe to be of a minuscule but vocal minority - they should be ignored.

Q: How do you see the European Union and its purpose? Do the European project’s values resonate with the current policy of the UK?

Good question. I think that the EU as a project can be broken down into two segments: the economic market and the political project. In terms of economics, I would not be an expert on the extent to which the EU boosts the economies of its member states. I would look to the Euro crisis as a pill of scepticism that should be taken by those who swear by the economic benefits of being in the EU. I think that while there are some material benefits, rigging countries’ debt burdens to each other is risky. But, I consider myself somewhat of a politics student, not of economics so I would be more eager to comment on the second point.

In my opinion, the long term political project of the EU is built around eroding sovereignty for the sake of greater coöperation and collective political heft. To me, the EU seems to want to be its own country - it has an anthem, a central bank, its own currency, parliament, and is trying to cobble together its own army. My question is: who wants this? Do Frenchmen and Romanians and Italians really call themselves Europeans first? Would they really want to live in the United States of Europe? This is an extreme view, but if the political aim of Europe is not to create a Continental federal republic then what is it?

If the aim is to tie France and Germany together to prevent conflict, all that seems necessary is a common economic market as was originally proposed. Representation in the governance of the foreign market, in my view, only needs to go as far as a parliament with an express purview of the market. The EU’s political aims include maintaining the values of the EU, which include equality, rule of law, freedom to name a few - could these aims not be more specific and equally attainable in the hands of member countries - what gives the EU the right to define these aims? The presence of the Law and Justice Party in Poland and Victor Orban makes a mockery of these high-flying ideals. To me, the EU is no better at achieving and enforcing these aims than its member states.

Thus, to me, the European Project is not something that fits with the current and historical policy of the UK. The UK has more often than not been in direct conflict with European nations than a partner of it! British policy has never really been in favour of the political side of the project, and has tended to oppose further EU integration because it can be seen as erosive of British sovereignty, and because some in Britain could argue that British people are much closer culturally to Americans and Canadians than to continental Europeans. Both of these points make it hard to justify British enthusiasm for the European political project.

Q: In the light of the policies that Britain has imposed in the past, such as isolationism, which only occurs when the country finds itself in a position of power, do you believe that Brexit is some attempt to preserve that former position of power of the UK on the global stage?

I’m not entirely sure that the motivation for Brexit was built on the belief that it would take us back to a frankly bygone age where Britain was the global superpower. I think that Britons are rational enough people to know that that could never happen. There are more pressing reasons for why people voted Brexit than this, in my opinion.

Q: How do you think the current government is handling the situation?

It seems that at the moment, the UK and EU are just about to agree on a deal. I would have to see the details of the deal before I come to a judgement on it, but I do think that a deal to stay somewhat in the customs union without having political participation in the EU is good. In that, I personally would rather want a soft rather than a hard Brexit. So, even though the government has looked bumbling and clunky in its negotiations tactics - the Internal Market Bill caused international uproar - I do think that they achieved something in the end which can be seen as good.

Q: If you could have voted for or against Brexit 4 years ago, what would you have voted and why?

Remain. It would be easy to dress up this question in morals, but for me, my process of decision-making would have been constituted of a cold calculation of what would be best for me personally. Brexit was a decision that is going to conceivably impact my life in some way - at the time, I thought that Brexit would negatively impact my future - it may, it may not - and therefore I would have opted to Remain. I form a segment of British society that liked the status quo as it was benefiting us; I live in South Bucks and my father works in the City. To opt to change that would not have been in my best interests, so I would choose to Remain. I suppose this speaks more about my conception of what influences a voter’s choice more than anything else.

But I am not a Remoaner. I believe that one of the core premises of democracy is that the people must live with the consequences of their choice - to try to force a revote would be a violation of democratic process and thus is detestable to me.

Q: With that being said, our interview has come to the closing remarks. It has been absolutely fascinating to be able to see and discuss Brexit from the standpoint of a British person. Thank you for taking the time for this interview!

Thank you for the invitation! Let’s just hope everything will take a turn towards the better!

Disclaimer: This interview took place before the recent Brexit deal was reached. The deal has been seen as a “Christmas miracle”, and it covers all important aspects of the UK-EU relationship, including Trade in Goods, Financial Services, Level Playing Field, Dispute Settlement, Fishing Rules, Customs, Data Flows and Energy. Regardless of the deal, however, more customs bureaucracy is inevitable. According to Bloomberg, “The accord largely commits the EU and Britain to follow international practices aimed at minimizing customs costs for businesses”.

Some important points, tackled by the deal and with significant impact on our daily lives, are Trade and Travel. With regards to Trade, there will not be any tariffs for most goods traded between the UK and the EU starting with January 1st; there will be, however, additional checks at borders. Bloomberg mentions that “British exporters will face an array of regulatory hurdles that will make it more costly and burdensome to do business in Europe”. As far as Travel is concerned, UK citizens will need a visa if they plan on spending more than 90 days in a 180-day period in the EU; there will also be further border checks for UK travellers.

“Irish citizens will continue to be able to enter and live in the UK as they do now. EU, EEA and Swiss citizens will continue to be able to travel to the UK for holidays or short trips without needing a visa. You’ll be able to cross the UK border using a valid passport which should be valid for the whole time you are in the UK.”, according to the gov.uk website.

Sources:

• RNZ News, “Brexit: What are the key points of the deal?”, December 28, 2020, (https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/433697/brexit-what-are-the-key-points-of-the-deal)

• Isaac, Anna, “10 key details in the UK-EU trade deal”, Politico, December 27, 2020, (https://www.politico.eu/article/10-key-details-uk-eu-brexit-trade-deal/)

• Bloomberg Politics, “In Bullet Points: The Key Terms of the Brexit Deal Analyzed”, December 26, 2020, (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-24/in-bullet-points-the-key-terms-of-the-brexit-deal)

• Gov.uk, Governance, “Visiting the UK from 1 January 2021”, (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/visiting-the-uk-from-1-january-2021#what-you'll-need-to-enter-the-uk)