Ireland – The Second Government Brexit position paper

No one wants to return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Even less does anyone, bar a few fanatics, want to return to the days of “the Troubles”. This much is obvious.

Settling the issues relating to what will be the UK’s only land border with the EU has been given a high priority by the EU too. Only yesterday, in response to the first UK government position paper (on customs), the  EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier,  named the Irish question as one of three important issues on which agreement would need to be reached before serious discussions on trade-related issues could begin.

So a mere 24 hours after the position paper on customs, another has appeared which offers us some insights into the Government’s thinking on Ireland.

The paper identifies four priorities:-

  1. Upholding the Belfast (‘Good Friday’) Agreement in all its parts
  2. Maintaining the Common Travel Area and associated rights
  3. Avoiding a hard border for the movement of goods
  4. Aiming to preserve North-South and East-West cooperation, including on energy.

As far as the Good Friday Agreement is concerned, the paper points out that it was an agreement between the UK and the Irish Republic rather than the EU. Among other things, it affirmed “the permanent birthright of the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status: to identify themselves and be accepted as British or Irish or both, as they may so choose; to equal treatment irrespective of their choice; and to hold both British and Irish citizenship.”  The UK Government has every intention to preserve this arrangement after Brexit.

The Common Travel Area pre-dated either the UK or the Irish Republic joining the European project. Indeed, Irish citizens have enjoyed special rights in the UK for most of the period since 1922 – a reflection of the strong, historic links between the Irish people and those in the UK. The Common Travel Area in its present form also involves the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which were never part of the EU. It allowed freedom of movement throughout the area and  allows Irish citizens to vote in the UK’s locla and Parliamentary elections.

Given that the Common Travel Area arrangements have been administered by the governments of the parties involved rather than by the EU and that the EU has been happy about this, the document maintains that there should be no reason why this situation should not continue after Brexit.

The “hard border” issue is likely to prove the most complex. In 1972, the paper informs us, there were 17 HM Customs and Excise boundary posts at the major road crossing points along the 310-mile long Northern Ireland land border and more than 200 other crossings not approved for vehicular traffic.  These have all disappeared but this is the number of potential crossing points which would need to be reinstated if a “hard border” were imposed. No wonder all sides are keen to avoid such a scenario.  Some farmers’ land straddles the border.

The paper recognises that it cannot propose a unilateral solution to the problem of maintaining the free flow of trade across the Irish border. It does, however, point to instances “where the EU has set aside the normal regulations and codes set out in EU law in order to recognise the circumstances of certain border areas.” – including the border between the Greek and Turkish sectors in Cyprus and the Croatia/Bosnia border. At the same time, the paper acknowledges that resolution of this issue “cannot be based on a precedent”. This makes sense for, after all, the EU’s aspiration is for Cyprus to be reunited with both parts of the island in the EU and likewise, Bosnia is a candidate country, even though it is unlikely to be joining the EU any time soon. By contrast, the UK is going in the opposite direction.

The paper also refers to the position paper on customs. Obviously, on the one hand the peoples of the UK and Ireland have an unique relationship, but the Irish Republic is an EU member state and part of the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union.  A solution for customs issues at the Irish border is inevitably going to be linked to wider customs and trade issues which will need to be addressed as part of the Brexit process, but as anyone who has visited the Irish Republic will be very aware, a substantial percentage of the products on sale in supermarkets in Irish towns and cities originate in the UK. It is therefore unsurprising that Irish officials are very concerned about the damage their economy may suffer if no trade and customs agreement is in place on Brexit. Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach, expressed a wish that the UK would not actually leave the EU, or if it did, that we would remain within the EEA. Dan Mulhall, the Irish Ambassador to the UK, by contrast, hoped that we would remain inside the Customs Union.

So the  progress towards the “innovative and untested” customs proposals and the possibility of a temporary customs arrangement discussed in the earlier position paper will be followed particularly closely in Dublin. Given that even if the UK government  changes tack and opts for ongoing membership of the EEA, agricultural goods would be outside this arrangement, it will take a lot of hard bargaining on both sides if all goods and services are to enjoy even relatively free access across the Irish border, whatever form that border may take. If it sticks to the proposals outlined in the position paper, there will be a number of areas where agreements on mutual recognition of conformity would have to be signed and time is short.

The North-South East-West cooperation may be a new term to many of us. North-South simply means the Belfast-Dublin axis and East-West refers to the relationship between London and Dublin. In many ways, the various fora such as the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which have been set up under this label are the outworking of the recognition of the  close historic and geographical links between the UK and the Irish Republic. The cooperation has manifested itself in some specific sectors such as energy and the position paper emphasizes the need for the cooperation to continue after Brexit.

With this in mind, the concluding statement that a formal agreement between the EU and the UK on the Irish border issue early in the Brexit negotiations would not mean the end of any dialogue between the UK and the Irish government makes perfect sense. There will be a number of bilateral issues to resolve which do not directly involve the EU as a whole.

As with the position paper on customs, the abiding impression left by this document is that it has identified the issues which need a resolution without offering too much detail as to how they are to be resolved. Unlike the customs paper, however, where failure to reach an agreement would be far more disastrous for the UK than for the EU as a whole, when it comes to Ireland, a crashing out of the EU with no agreement would probably hit them harder than us. The Irish government is well aware of this and we cannot but hope for their sakes as well as ours that it will not be WTO rules on March 30th.

 

Customs: What the Government position paper told us

Today, the Government published its first Brexit position paper, which covers future customs arrangements. It is a short document, only 16 pages long and intended to be a precursor to a White Paper on trade which is scheduled to appear in the autumn.

What does it tell us? Firstly, the Government has been talking to businesses concerned about a “cliff edge” situation on 29th March 2019 and is seeking to ensure that we will end up with  “the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods between the UK and the EU, and allows us to forge new trade relationships with our partners in Europe and around the world.”

The paper expresses enthusiasm for striking trade deals with “old friends and new allies” – in other words, the Commonwealth nations and the rapidly growing economies of Asia. We can only do this from outside the EU and particularly, outside the Customs Union. It was announced very early after Mrs May took office that we will be leaving the EU’s customs union – in many ways, this was a bit of a non-issue as it was hardly mentioned during the referendum campaign.

The paper recognises  the challenges of establishing a new relationship with the EU. As a short-term transitional measure, what is proposed is in effect a shadow customs union where by the EU will treat the UK as thought it was a member of the customs union. David Davis, interviewed on Radio 4 today, was adamant that the transitional period would end before the next General election – probably no more than two years – to be replaced by a “deep and special partnership” with the EU. This, the paper admits, will be an innovative but untested approach. It suggests two options:-

  • A highly streamlined customs arrangement between the UK and the EU, streamlining and simplifying requirements, leaving as few additional requirements on UK-EU trade as possible. This would aim to: continue some of the existing agreements between the UK and the EU; put in place new negotiated and unilateral facilitations to reduce and remove barriers to trade; and implement technology-based solutions to make it easier to comply with customs procedures.
  • A new customs partnership with the EU, aligning our approach to the customs border in a way that removes the need for a UK-EU customs border. One potential approach would involve the UK mirroring the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world where their final destination is the EU.

There is, in theory, a third option – failure to reach an agreement (see Paragraph 53), but the paper insists that “this is not the Government’s preferred outcome to the negotiations, but it is essential that the UK is prepared for all possible outcomes of customs arrangements.” As for the first option – a high-tech solution, there are some doubts as to whether it really will create frictionless borders, especially as soon as March 2019. As one analyst has said, ” making sure there are no traffic jams in Dover will be more about the arts of management, politics and the law than technology.

The obvious concern on reading the paper through is that this paper is very much a UK wish list. The EU is under no obligation to say yes. What is a particular cause for concern is that its treaty-based structure may not allow it to treat us as an honorary member of its Customs Union.  It is likely that we will be able to devise a system allowing  goods from the EU a reasonably smooth passage through UK customs by March 2019, especially as the if the new customs declaration service using state-of-the-art technology is up and running by then. What is far from certain is that our exports to the EU will enjoy anything like a seamless passage through their customs.  The EU will have to change its customs procedures to adapt to the different  status of the UK on Brexit. Are they prepared to do this?

We will have to wait a while for a formal response. So far, the main comment from Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, is that no discussions on customs can proceed until sufficient progress is made on the UK’s exit bill, the Irish border and the rights of EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. Guy Verhofstadt, representing the EU Parliament, was  very sceptical, dismissing talk of a shadow customs union and invisible borders as “fantasy”.

One also would like to know if the author(s) of this paper are sufficiently aware of the differences between a customs union and a customs clearance agreement.  The latter is essential, the former almost certainly not, even as an interim arrangement.

The CBI has nonetheless described the proposal as “encouraging”.  David Davis’ interview made it clear that his Department still has a few cards up his sleeve and that for tactical reasons, he was not prepared to give anything further away. What has been put into the public domain has shown that the Government is aware of the issues UK businesses will face but offers little detail on how they will be resolved.

The remoaners aren’t giving up – yet

Life in the remoaner bubble remains as surreal as ever.  The Guardian newspaper has publiushed an article by David Cameron’s former tutor Vernon Bogdanor, claiming that “A second Brexit referendum is looking more likely by the day.”  Wishful thinking perhaps? As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Mrs May and the Tory Party dare not row back on their commitment to deliver Brexit. Not only would it be as good as handing the keys of No. 10 to Mr Corbyn, but it would precipitate the worst crisis the party has faced since the split that followed the repeal of the Corn laws in 1846. What Bogdanor fails to take into account is that now Article 50 has been triggered, we are on the way out. Even EU sources  have suggested that it may not be reversible. Furthermore, Mrs May shows no sign of conceding a second referendum, not to mention the fact that no one in their right minds would want to go through that gruelling campaign again, especially given the lack of interest among the general public

Still, it’s the silly season aka the Parliamentary summer recess, so editors have to be a bit more creative in trying to fill the columns. The Financial Times, another bastion of remainiacs, is no better than the Guardian. In a piece entitled Brexit reveals Britain’s enduring flaws, Simon Kuper claims that the idea of leaving the EU was hatched in the Oxford Union in the 1980s by the likes of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, because “This generation of mostly former public schoolboys didn’t want Brussels running Britain. That was their caste’s prerogative.” No better proof of the decline in the standards of journalism can be found than this once respected newspaper  giving space for such utter tosh. Is Mr Kuper completely unaware of the long-standing opposition to EU membership within the Labour Party? Or of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, which was set up in 1969 to oppose our accession – before Boris Johnson or Michael Gove were old enough to go to school?

True, both articles acknowledge that the Brexit talks are not going as well as David Davis and his team had hoped, but widely-reported differences of opinion within the Cabinet over the “hardness” of Brexit does not mean that Brexit isn’t going to happen. Whether it is seamless is another matter, of course, but happen it will. I wouldn’t normally quote Jean-Claude Juncker approvingly, but he does seem to have the measure of the mood in the UK (including the government) and has distanced himself from those Brexit sceptics who are expecting  a big back-pedalling “My working hypothesis is that it will come to Brexit”, he said.

Meanwhile, our attention has been drawn to a piece by Jonn Ellidge in the New Statesman, which claims that a recent YouGov survey proves that Brexit voters hate their own children.  The reason for this astonishing statement  is  because:-

A healthy majority of Leave voters, it found, claimed that ‘significant damage to the British economy’ would be a price worth paying for Brexit: 61 per cent, compared to just 20 per cent who disagreed. More bizarrely, when the question was made more personal, and respondents were asked would it be worth “you or members of your family” losing their jobs, 39 per cent still thought Brexit was totes worth it – slightly more than the 38 per cent who, like normal, sane people, replied ‘obviously not’”.

So QED, Brexit voters, which the author equates to retired baby boomers “who are prepared to crash the economy because they don’t like Belgians” are a selfish generation who must hate their offspring because “when asked directly whether they’d swap the wealth and security of their own children for a blue passport and the ability to deport Polish plumbers, they said yes in huge numbers.

As blogger Samuel Hooper says, Ellidge’s claims are “vile” and totally ignores the real reason why a significant majority of older voters supported Brexit. “Does he not realise that the counterfactual, unrecorded by YouGov (who did not bother to probe more deeply) is that perhaps these older people – rightly or wrongly – thought that by voting for Brexit they were preserving some other vital social good for their descendants, something potentially even more valuable than a couple of points of GDP growth? I would posit that the supposedly hateful Daily Mail-reading generation of grey haired fascists scorned by Jonn Elledge actually do not have any particular desire to inflict economic harm on their children and grandchildren, but simply realise – through having lived full lives through periods of considerably less material abundance than those of us born since the 1980s – that other things matter too. Things like freedom and self-determination, precious gifts which were under threat during the Second World War and the Cold War, and which the older generations who remember these difficult times therefore do not casually take for granted.”

Absolutely, but no amount of debunking is going to stop the blinkered fanaticism of the remainiacs. Among the chief of these is the European Movement, which is ramping up its campaign to stop Brexit altogether, linking up with other  like-minded groups including Scientists for EU, Healthier IN the EU and Britain for Europe to try to stop Brexit. I debated with a few members of the European Movement and although I didn’t always win, it was fun to embarrass them by mentioning the funding they received from the American CIA during the 1970s. A recent e-mail has encouraged recipients to join this iniquitous organisation which sees itself as able to “represent the groundswell of opinion against departure from the EU.”

Sorry, European Movement, but the ground isn’t swelling round here. If even I, as a political “anorak” and long-standing opponent of our EU membership, am getting fed up with all the debating about how badly the cabinet is divided, how much we will have to pay to leave, trading arrangements and so on, Joe Public is even less interested. He cast his vote a year ago and whichever way he actually voted, he was never really very excited by the EU, never really understood what we had joined and just wants the country to move on. Hopefully on March 29th, when we finally leave, the European Movement and its fellow-traveller remainiacs will move on – preferably to well-deserved oblivion – but I’m not holding my breath.

 

North v South, East v West

Cast your eyes no further east than Berlin, Vienna or Rome and all looks pretty rosy in the EU’s garden. Apart from the shock of Brexit, most of the critical votes during the past year have gone the Establishment’s way. Even before our referendum, the Austrians set the scene by choosing a former Green party leader as President rather than Norbert Hofer of strongly eurosceptic FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria). Now this year, the Dutch and French elections have not seen any breakthrough for eurosceptic parties and looking to the future, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is losing support, with Angela Merkel looking unassailable while Italy’s Five Star Movement does not now look likely to make any sort of breakthrough when the country goes to the polls. It too may have peaked.

Meanwhile, the economic news looks positive. The €urozone is enjoying a decent recovery with deflation beaten and business confidence returning. After almost a decade of one problem after another, the EU does appear on the surface to have turned a corner. Frexit, Iexit and other variations on the same theme don’t take up many column inches now.

In actual fact, one other country would vote to leave the EU if granted a referendum – the Czech Republic. At the beginning of July, the Spectator Magazine published an interesting report on the state EU in collaboration with Project 28, a polling organisation.  47% of Czechs would vote to leave as opposed to 43% who want to stay. The country  is very much an outlier, however, as the next most anti-EU country, Greece, would vote to stay in by 54% to 39%.

Scratch beneath the surface, however, and the picture isn’t so positive. Some 41% of Italians, 32% of French an 28% of Germans do not think that the EU in its present form will still exist in 10 years’ time. What is behind this sentiment? – or to put it another way, what are the most likely causes of conflict within the EU, causing it to splinter?

Firstly, the €urozone’s overall improved economic performance conceals real problems within individual countries. Youth unemployment is still over 40% in Spain and 45% in Greece. Italy recently bailed out two of its banks and, along with Spain, the overall indebtedness of its country’s banks increases while the net credit of German banks is also increasing. Such imbalances within the Single Currency area have the potential to cause problems if uncorrected. Furthermore, any push for closer political and economic integration within the €urozone would risk reopening old wounds when they have not had long to heal. Club Med is still resentful of Germany, whereas German taxpayers will not want to subsidise what they regard as the profligate and lazy southern countries.

More destabilising than the north-south divisions, however, are the east-west tensions. The Spectator claims that Hungarians have little appetite for “Hexit”, with only 15% of voters wanting to leave the EU. Viktor Orbán, the country’s leader, is a frequent critic of Brussels, however, He is no enthusiast of further integration and according to a piece in the Guardian, “he doesn’t want to leave the EU; he wants to subvert it, which is far more dangerous.”

The refugee crisis has inflamed East-West tensions. Hungary’s initial opposition to accepting large numbers of immigrants was worded roughly along the lines of “we’re not ready to accept immigrants; our country is still rebuilding itself after years of subjection to the Soviet Union. Come back in 20 years’ time and maybe we’ll be able to handle the sort of multicultural society you have in the West.” Now the rhetoric has hardened. Orbán doesn’t want multiculturalism now or ever and has announced that his country will offer a home  for “Germans, Dutch, French and Italians, terrified politicians and journalists who here in Hungary want to find the Europe they have lost in their homelands.” In the same speech, he also attacked political correctness while elsewhere, he claimed that Europe’s Christian identity was under threat from Moslem migration.

It is quite clear that there is a vast difference between his vision of the EU’s future and that of Macron and Merkel. “In 1990,  Europe was our future, now we are Europe’s future,” he said on another occasion. Meanwhile, according to one blog, in the Czech Republic, the country’s parliament has voted to enshrine in its Constitution (subject to Senate approval) the right for its citizens to carry arms. The reason for this seemingly drastic measure seems to be a concern about the possible problems which migrants might cause. The blogger wasn’t able to provide too many sources of information and any extra detail about this surprising development would be welcomed.

Such attitudes are light years away from the pathetic defeatism of Sweden’s former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who said that his countrymen were “boring”, going on to rubbish his own country to an incredible degree, claiming that “only barbarism is genuinely Swedish.” Well, the Swedish Vikings were a pretty rough lot a thousand years ago, but since then, European civilisation, including Sweden , has much of which to be proud. Is he unaware of the heroic efforts of Sweden’s king Gustav II Adolf who played a huge part in saving Europe from barbarism in the Thirty Years’ War? Or the great Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus whose categorisation of plants into different genres is still the basis of botany today?

It is quite unbelievable for any western leader to be so dismissive of  his country, but although perhaps the worst, he is far from unique. Douglas Murray’s book The Strange Death of Europe claims that the entire continent is “weighed down with a guilt for its past.”  While his arguments are persuasive, they hardly apply to the former Soviet bloc countries like Hungary and Poland who are proudly patriotic and defensive of their culture after years of subjection to the sterile ideology of Marxism-Leninism. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of guilt in the utterances of Mr Orbán nor indeed, in those of Poland’s most influential politician Jarosław Kaczyński.

Furthermore, we are not talking about a straight west-east split. I am sure that many people living in Western Europe probably sympathise far more with Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic than with their own guilt-ridden political leaders. It is these leaders, however, who will be trying to drive European integration forward and if it is on their multicultural, self-loathing politically-correct terms, then Hexit, Czexit, Polexit may be on our lips sooner than you can say Jack Robinson.

 

Clash of cultures – the root of our Brexit difficulties

Can the conflicting opinions on the EU’s intentions in the Brexit negotiations be reconciled? In my hearing, a staunch Brexit supporter recently referred to Michel Barnier as a “reasonable man” whereas  I have read numerous comments from people convinced that the EU wants to punish us and will deliberately be as unreasonable as possible. Who is correct?

It cannot be denied that Brits and Continentals do seem to have a different mindset when it comes to negotiations. Our attention was recently drawn to an interesting article on this subject on the Conservative Home website by James Arnell, a lawyer with some experience of negotiating with people from European countries. He claimed that such people begin with unreasonable demands and only at the last minute does a deal emerge.

Fair enough, but this does not get to the heart of the conundrum. The fundamental problem is that many of us don’t understand the difference in culture between our country and the majority of the other member states.

It goes back centuries, possibly longer. Essentially, our Common Law legal system bequeathed to us a love of liberty and flexibility. We don’t like everything to be rigidly codified and prefer laws to which we can adhere to in spirit rather than obeying to the letter. Such a mindset is as inevitable outworking of Common Law with its insistence on equality and inalienable rights.

Across the water, the two most influential figures in the development of law were the Byzantine emperor Justinian (d.565) and Napoleon. Their legal systems, which form the basis of  most of the law codes in Europe, were very top-down. Freedoms were conditional and the concept of everyone being equal before the law was unknown.

The EU’s approach to lawmaking is very much in that tradition and like all such systems, tends to be very exact and very bureaucratic. It will legislate in great detail in areas where an independent UK would not have been so precise or perhaps, not bothered at all. We may have laughed at the cuddly toy sheep depicted in Regulation 1462/2006, but it graphically illustrates the difference in approach which has been one of the biggest problems facing our politicians and civil servants since 1973 and which lies at the root of the lack of progress with the Brexit talks.

Very few UK politicians have appreciated the difference in mindset between ourselves and the rest of the EU – even those who have supported our membership. On one occasion, Sir John Major was taken to one side by Helmut Kohl, the former German Chancellor, and told to go home and read the treaties as he clearly had never done so.

This mindset manifests itself in various other ways, some mildly amusing, others frustrating. The Civil Service did not always find it easy to convert EU directives into UK law and often ended up “gold-plating”  – in other words, interpreting them in an excessively strict manner. A German motorist was once apprehended by the police for driving his Porsche at well over 100mph on a UK motorway. His excuse was that the 70mph limit did not seem to apply as so many other cars were going faster. In other words, he could not get his head round the concept of obeying the spirit but not the letter of the law – a guideline rather than something always enforced to the letter.

The different legal status of a UK policeman compared with a Continental Gendarme is another aspect of the same clash of mindsets. As Christopher Gill, one of the former “Maastricht Rebel” Conservative MPs explains,

“The tradition of British policing has been to protect individuals and their property from criminal activity and to apprehend those who transgress whereas on the continent police act almost like an army of occupation, responsible for public order enforcement, crowd control and generally buttressing the authority of the civil state as opposed to defending the freedom of the individual citizen”.

On a personal note, I can recall during my time working in Brussels how often colleagues used to moan about Belgian bureaucracy. The amount of form-filling required to register for residence or to let the authorities know that you worked for the EU and were thus covered by different tax arrangements was quite staggering. Yet it didn’t seem to bother the Belgians that their taxes were being used to pay the salaries of some public sector workers whose sole occupation seemed to be to stamp forms!

When we joined the EU, however, whether our politicians understood it or not – and most of them almost certainly didn’t – we agreed to play by their rules and in leaving the EU, it is exactly the same. Under Article 50, we have two options – to come to an agreement or leave without one. As M. Barnier has pointed out, it was our decision to leave. If, therefore, we want to leave by the EU’s approved route, our exit negotiations have to be conducted according to EU rules which limit the scope for flexibility. The EU in other words will not be flexible because it CANNOT be flexible in some areas where our ministers would like a bit of “give and take”.

For instance, Liam Fox’s claim that an EU-UK trade deal would be “the easiest in history” because we are beginning with zero tariffs and maximum regulatory convergence fails to take into account the simple fact that under EU rules, we become a “third country” on independence and the treaties cease to apply. Whatever the levels of convergence, in March 2019 our entire current relationship with the EU will be no more and any new trading arrangements will need to be put together on a totally different basis.  The EU can’t bend the rules for us, whether it wants to or not.

This clash of cultures shows why it was right to vote to leave last year. It also explains why we are likely to prosper once we have left, even though when it comes to international trade, we will still be subject to any regulation originating with global bodies. David Davis’ “sunlit uplands” are therefore not a total fantasy, but we’ve got to get there first! We will only do so if our negotiating team fully get to grips with the nature of the organisation we are trying to leave. It may be boring, tedious stuff, but if we are to leave smoothly, there is an urgent need for Civil Servants and politicians alike to heed the advice which John Major never took – Go and read the treaties!

 

 

Photo by archer10 (Dennis) 100M Views

So we’re all stupid racists?

It’s over a year since the referendum but some remoaners just will not give up their belief that a group of ignorant racists bear the prime responsibilty for our leaving the EU. As stubborn as the most ardent flat earthers, no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake their convictions.

Last August, our Chairman debunked the claims of an alleged increase in racist hate crime, showing how easily the statistics can be manipulated.  Undeterred, Channel 4 thought they had struck gold when featuring Sivalingam Rajan, a Sri Lankan-born shopkeeper from Swindon, who suffered a racist attack after telling a customer that she didn’t have enough money to pay for her purchase. The offending girl was interviewed by the programme and asked about Brexit, no doubt in anticipation that she had voted to leave the EU.  Instead, she replied, “I didn’t watch it, things like that I don’t get involved with – nothing to do with me.”

You would expect better things from the respected Nature journal but sadly not. Last January, we highlighted an article by Colin MacIlwain of Edinburgh who called Leave voters “a loose coalition of dissenters, doubters and right-wing jackals.”  Undeterred by its descent into the levels of the gutter press, Nature subsequently published a piece by a certain Jane Green who claimed that “voters with less education cast ballots consistent with populist waves.” So there you have it. We’re all thickos. Richard North, with a PhD to his name, the trilingual Daniel Hannan MEP with his history degree from Oxford, the multi-millionaire inventor and businessman Sir James Dyson and Cambridge-educated Dame Helena Morrisey, one of the most influential women in the City of London are all complete numbskulls because they supported Brexit.

OK, perhaps on average, a higher percentage of remain voters may have had degrees, but there is a world of difference between having a good brain and actually using it!

 

 

Photo by LauraLewis23