Euroscepticism: What exactly are we sceptical of?

Euroscepticism: What exactly are we sceptical of?

On 23th June 2016 a historic decision was made for Britain to leave the supranational entity known as the European Union. The decision was perhaps surprising given the overwhelming reaction from the Remain camp. Nevertheless, it seems equally as unsurprising when taking into consideration Britain’s relationship with Europe and the undercurrent of Euroscepticism that has been present ever since Britain’s dabbling in European politics. I argue though, that the result of the referendum suggests we have moved beyond a legitimate Euroscepticism rooted in economic or political concerns, and worryingly instead ‘progressed’ towards one governed by a nostalgic cultural psyche and cheap rhetoric.

Britain and Euroscepticism
Britain’s relationship with Europe has always fluctuated. It has always; probably rightly so, been evaluated in terms of its cost and benefit and Britain nearly joined what was then the European Economic Community (EEC) several times before it was convinced by Europe’s strong-performing economy in 1973 and became a member . In economic terms, a simple argument was made- if the benefits to Britain of being a member of the EU can outweigh the costs, then we join. If they don’t, we leave. But of course, it wasn’t a simple as that, because I argue that ‘Euroscepticism’ has moved beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis and become intertwined with a cheap rhetoric emotively linked with migration and unemployment that is at best; uncomfortable and at worst; irrationally xenophobic. The result of this emotional Euroscepticism is a rift probably bigger than that between Britain and the EU. A rift between Leave voters- yes, many of whom are both non-racist and well-educated-and Remain voters who have taken it upon themselves to occupy a smug moral high-ground on all political matters.

Given the historically fluctuating relationship with what was the EEC, there’s an argument to suggest that we should have seen this coming. We should just accept this as a period of time in which Britain is not a member of a supranational organisation. It doesn’t mean we’re racist, xenophobic or isolated, it simply means that it just doesn’t; benefit us at the moment in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Except; and here’s the key point, the difference is that was the EEC and this is the EU. I argue that, in truth, whilst Britain was at ease with the EEC for as long as it suited them- as Grant states ‘the British have never been at ease with what has become the EU’ and specifically the idea of a wider, ideological construct that seeks Britain to buy into not just the economics and politics of Europe, but unavoidably, also its psyche.

So what are we sceptical of?
According to Charles Grant, Britain shares values of the EU- we value multilateral systems of governance, the importance of NATO and International Law. So why have we always had such an uneasy relationship with it? In 2008, the Eurobarometer measured whether Britons thought EU membership was a good thing. Only 30% answered yes coming second only to Latvia at 29% . Results of this poll as to why Britain was so sceptical of Europe were divided by Grant into four areas: Geography, History, Economics and the Press. He stated that Euroscepticism was unavoidable because our glorious role in World War II gives Britain ‘a smug sense of moral superiority vis-a vis most of the other peoples of Europe’ . This war time sense of National pride is something that has been incorporated into the Leave camp’s cheap rhetoric- both in Farage’s ‘Breaking Point’ posters and in the ‘Make Britain Great Again’ slogans scrawled across Leave placards. Unfortunately, this rhetoric has also been fuelled by a ‘uniquely powerful and Eurosceptic popular press’ which has been both successful and hard-hitting in terms of making its point. He also pointed out that part of our Euroscepticism has both historical and geographical roots and comes from our British identity which was ‘forged against perceived threat from across the channel’ . This can only be seen as a nostalgic and dated view as threats to our security now come from all around us. Ironically, rather than perceiving them as enemies, it is only with the help of those across the channel that we can start to tackle some of these threats.

Economic Euroscepticism
There are; it can be argued, legitimate reasons for wanting to leave the EU. We all want secure jobs, a good salary, and decent pension for our troubles. It’s therefore reasonable to suggest that a triumphant ‘Leave’ campaign rooted in a strong economic argument would perhaps have been easier to accept. For me, the issue seems to be the ease at which an emotional Eurosceptic rhetoric has been used in the absence of any ‘real’ reason to be better off outside of the EU.

Economic arguments for the Leave campaign are; in their defence, initially strong. The almost Utopian idea that each country can equally benefit from each others’ productivity and labour is simply not working- and possibly cannot. A glance of the gap in economic growth between the UK and Germany compared to other countries such as Spain and Greece demonstrate this- and a 1970s EEC argument based on a cost benefit analysis may deem us better of outside the EU on these grounds. But aside from the fact that I’d argue that the EU is much more than an economic entity, there also really is, little other economically viable alternative.

For starters, one such alternative is based on the models used by Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein- the three members of the EEA (European Economic Area) but not of the EU. The EEA is governed by four freedoms- the movement of goods, services, persons and capital. As part of the EEA, countries have access to a single market and are conditioned by much of the same policy that governs trade within the EU member states.

I would argue that membership of the EEA seems to be deemed a suitable alternative simply because its foundations are economic and it evades the emotive rhetoric attached to the EU- despite in real terms subjecting countries to similar policies, bureaucracy and ideology. After all, to be part of the EEA you also need to accept the freedom of four things- including people. For the voters on behalf of Farage’s immigration rhetoric, you may have just made things worse for yourself. If you want to still be part of this single market, expect to see nothing change in terms of immigrant numbers- the freedom of goods goes hand in hand with the freedom of people.

In fact, as a model which strengthens sovereignty and is economically viable, it’s not without significant flaws. Taking Norway as an example, there has been a rise in the number of Norwegians who either want to join the EU or want to leave the EEA as well- stating that they ‘are still forced to accept too many decisions from Brussels, and the EU is coming in the back door’ – thus undermining their sovereignty to an equal extent. Others add that ‘we are the most obedient of EU members, rapidly implementing directives to the letter, yet we have no say in them’ – meaning that they might as well be a member of the EU.

From a purely economic perspective, it gets worse. As Alexander states about Norway, ‘food sold in the EU must still meet single market regulations (read bureaucracy) and face an import tariff as well’ . In fact, the tariff faced by countries outside of the EU is higher than EU members. Moreover, through the EEA, Norway contributes €340 million a year to the EU- despite it neither being a member nor having voting rights’ . Equating this to the UK, its annual contribution would likely be at around €2 billion- not a million miles away from the €11 net contribution we already make, and with a fraction of the benefits.

It’s fair to say, that joining the EEA as a means of strengthening sovereignty and the economy, whilst reducing immigrant numbers as promised by the Leave campaign, is not a viable option. The only validity as an alternative is that is evades the cheap Eurosceptic rhetoric cleverly built around the European Union.

Emotional Euroscepticism
The problem is that we are sceptical of ‘Europe’ as an entity regardless of what this does or does not entail. Not Europe as a geographical entity, not a continent, not a historical construct, but as a concept. In our psyche, we are first and foremost British. We are sceptical of ‘being’ part of Europe. Not contributing money, not abiding by EU policy, none of these things- what we have is a fundamental problem with simply ‘being’ European. A psychological issue, a semantic issue, an ideological issue- any of these can apply. I worry that Leave voters don’t have any ‘real’ problem with the EU, other than the fact that it is called the EU. An EU which has become synonymous with corruption and pointless bureaucracy, an EU that takes away from Britain and gives nothing back. For me, not having any ‘real’ problem with the EU is worrying. Whether or not the rhetoric is cheap, it’s also powerful. We’ve seen many instances in the past where rhetoric has been brought about fundamental changes in society- just look at the US’ use of Guantanamo legitimised by American ‘Exceptionalism’, or the Republic of France being founded essentially upon the three words ‘Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite’. The result holds a sense of foreshadowing in terms of Right-Wing rhetoric and success, paving the way for ideological affirmation of campaigns such as Trump’s.

I don’t share the opinion that Leave voters are racist and xenophobic, nor do I think that they are all over 70 and base their current decisions on nostalgic memories of a ‘Great’ Britain during the war. I do believe however, that they have been influenced by a cheap rhetoric born from an emotional Euroscepticism rooted firmly beyond economic and cultural concerns- a rhetoric that will ironically, will make ‘real’ concerns harder to tackle.
Ultimately, we need to look at what affects us at a global- human- level, rather than at individual level. Both existing and emerging security concerns- yes, terrorism and migration, but also climate change, energy and water security- can only be tackled together. Whilst for some, the result of the EU referendum may mean Britain can be perceived as stronger on its own, it is in fact, weaker. In reality, the only way to address some of the biggest emergent security concerns are not even supranationally, but internationally.

The Roots of Euroscepticism: Why Britons are warier than other Europeans of the EU. The Economist. March 12 2016.
Grant, C. Center for European Reform. Why is Britain Eurosceptic?
Alexander, H.2012. Is Norway’s EU example really an option for Britain? The Telegraph.