By Luke Davies
So why exactly did 51.9% of Britain’s voting population choose to ignore world leaders, 90% of economists, the UK’s top business leaders and independent EU law experts last Thursday?
The easiest answer is that they were misled: the blatant lie that the UK has been losing £350 million weekly to the EU and that this money could be spent on the NHS; questionable claims about the threat of Turkey joining the union; and backtracking following the last minute decision to put immigration at the forefront of the Vote Leave campaign.
Stories of people googling ‘What is the EU?‘ the day after the referendum, and tweets, interviews and confessions from people who have come to regret voting Leave are widely circulating social media.
But the idea that voters were blind to the debunking of myths on both sides of the debate, or that they somehow voted against their own will, is to skirt around a difficult truth – which is that Vote Leave and media organisations that supported Brexit won because they spoke to the general public’s very real concerns.
During a post-recession age of austerity – it was the Vote Leave camp, and not Britain Stronger in Europe, who reached out to people in their misery and promised them change.
In a bizarre reversal of political norms, Boris Johnson was the one putting inequality at the top of the agenda in the BBC’s Great Debate(drawing 3.9 million viewers). He argued that: ‘the differentials in income in our country have become too great’, before bemoaning a state of affairs in which ‘FTSE100 chiefs are now earning 150 times the average pay of people on the shop floor’.
He even cast the Remain Stronger in Europe campaign as being callously disinterested in the welfare of people on lower incomes, quoting the Remain campaign leader Lord Rose’s remarks that wages of low skilled workers could rise in the event of a Brexit (which Rose had inadvisably insisted was ‘not necessarily a good thing’).
Johnson – in common with his fellow Leave campaigners – was drawing on and taking advantage of a popular belief that the EU is a fundamentally inegalitarian institution.
A YouGov poll published back in April revealed that even before the referendum campaign had got going, most people imagined that Brexit would have minimal negative impact on the working classes, whilst having a significant negative impact on people running big businesses.
Media coverage of the referendum in leading pro-Leave publications firmed up these convictions by concentrating on the impact of EU membership on Britain’s poorest – the success of which has been clearly demonstrated by the class divide in the nation‘s voting patterns.
The Sun, for instance, continuously fixated on the cost for British workers of EU open borders, whilst arguing that in turn ‘big businesses’ have ‘benefitted from cheap labour’. The Daily Express led with articles about EU regulations keeping food prices high.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail ran stories on the impact of EU open borders on those awaiting social housing.
Of course many of these claims are questionable. Most obviously, research carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that low-income households are likely to shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs of Brexit – immediately detracting from any claims of potential positive gains.
And yet Vote Leave still won the argument. Why?
It is true that the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign also put jobs, prices and workers’ rights at its forefront. But it made a basic error: it adopted the position of defending the status quo at a time of hardship.
Britain Stronger in Europe told Britons: you and your family have ‘more opportunities and more financial security‘ now than you would outside of the EU. It tried to convince voters that they were already enjoying the benefits of ample workers’ rights; of saving £350 a year through lower prices; of massive investment from the EU; and of unprecedented employment opportunities courtesy of Europe.
Its campaign leaders adopted the policy of trying to persuade the nation that they’ve never had it so good at a time when 4.6 million people live in a state of persistent poverty, homeownership is majorly in decline, foodbank use is continuing to rise, people face long-term wage stagnation and claims of a return to acceptable employment levels mask a reality in which precarious new forms of employment have replaced stable, full-time jobs.
Under these circumstances, spelling out the benefits of EU membership is a bit like a doctor patronisingly telling a patient in acute pain that the medicine is working.
The tragedy is that the Remain vote could so easily have accepted people’s complaints and shifted the debate in the direction of the need for change.
Whilst Brexit may well be a red herring – deceiving people into believing that they have found the single solution for all of the social injustices that they are subjected to – the EU is hardly a blameless target.
It is an undemocratic institution that in Greece, Portugal and Ireland has shown that it puts the interest of bankers and big business before the people.
Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Owen Jones and Yanis Varoufakis are among those on the left who have been busy arguing that people’s anger at the EU is legitimate and should be turned to good use.
The point is that in conceding points against the EU and speaking about the need for reform, Corbyn was completely at odds with the referendum strategy of Britain Stronger in Europe.
The campaign sidelined Corbyn and MsDonnell, choosing Sadiq Khan instead as their Labour representative in the televised debate, and rejecting the Another Europe is Possible movement in favour of their rose-tinted vision of life inside the EU.
Of course, this strategy failed spectacularly.
It is deeply ironic that Corbyn is now being blamed for this failure. His acknowledgment of the valid basis of people’s anger was the only seriously credible alternative to the blind veneration of Britain Stronger in Europe.
So what of the criticisms currently being made of his apparently spiritless campaign?
It was back in April when Corbyn first faced the accusation (from the same group of MPs who staged the recent coup) that his position was unclear. Four days later he responded by delivering a definitive speech to the party in which he quelled all suggestions that he was pro-Leave: ‘Europe needs to change. But that change can only come from working with our allies in the EU‘. Ever since, he has campaigned tirelessly in favour of Remain.
His Twitter feed provides irrefutable evidence of this – with photographic proof of him canvassing on the streets, speaking at rallies and touring the country promoting Labour In For Remain.
The idea that Corbyn failed to throw his weight into his campaign should be seen for what it is: an opportunistic attempt by the party establishment to quash the grassroots movement that Corbyn has established and reclaim the middle ground.
Before resigning, deputy leader Tom Watson was more than willing to acknowledge how much work Corbyn has been doing, stating in response to criticisms of a lacklustre campaign: ‘Of all the bricks that are thrown at Jeremy, I think this is the unfairest I’ve seen […] He’s done speech after speech after speech.’
Corbyn’s Twitter feed proves that he has made more public and television appearances than David Cameron during this campaign.
If Corbyn’s voice was quiet, it is because others made it so. It is because Britain Stronger in Europe – a campaign group run by business leaders, Blairites and Conservative politicians – chose instead to put forward an uncomplicated vision of our present prosperity. And because news coverage reflected this, whilst failing to report on Corbyn’s parallel campaign.
Anyone pushing the line that Corbyn sat back and watched as everything imploded is either practising the dark art of New Labour spin or has imbibed its noxious fumes.
And they are all around us – with underhand tactics being used evocative of the Mandelson era, like the circulation of rumours that Corbyn himself voted to Leave.
MPs have even resorted to levelling the objection against him that he tried to sabotage the Remain campaign by deleting excessively pro-EU messages from speeches – completely missing the fact that this euroscepticism was the much needed antidote that could have won over Britain’s voters, if only it had been more widely adopted.
Still, it would be wrong to say that Corbyn had no impact.
63% of Labour voters voted to Remain.
As for whether he lacks the strength and recognition to lead the party in a snap election – since April, Corbyn has polled favourably with significantly more voters than Cameron.
By no means is his leadership ideal; he campaigns like its still the 1990s, failing to make good use of social media and to exploit the unprecedented levels of support for him among the young and the politically engaged.
But even so – this referendum was not a defeat for Corbyn. It was a defeat for Britain Stronger in Europe, who sidelined him and ran with a strategy completely at odds with the campaign he fought – which succeeded in spite of being underrepresented in the media and unsupported by his fellow Labour MPs.
There has never been a greater need for a socialist candidate to refocus the debate.
The world’s media are in little doubt that this was a vote against the establishment. At the same time, it is clear to all that Brexit is not going to calm the waters. As the myths are exposed, a void will be left for new narratives that can explain to people the true causes of their discontent.
Only Hilary Benn and his cohort of Blairites could possibly think that now is the time to take us back into the dark ages, when there was little to distinguish right from left.
Of course it is not just the Blairites who are walking out, as the exodus has left a few loyal Corbyn supporters feeling that they are on board a sinking ship.
But Corbyn will win any future leadership election.
His detractors should seek solace in the knowledge that Corbyn’s strategy was right. The failure lies in the fact that it didn’t receive enough attention.
That should be a challenge – not a cause for defeat.
Andy Newman on said:
I have tried and failed to sort out the formatting, sorry you will just have to read it as it is!
Doug on said:
‘Media coverage of the referendum in leading pro-Leave publications firmed up these convictions by concentrating on the impact of EU membership on Britain’s poorest – the success of which has been clearly demonstrated by the class divide in the nation‘s voting patterns. ‘
This needs serious qualification. In England, the working classes of several major cities voted Remain, those in areas left behind by Thatcherism and neoliberalism voted for Leave.
There’s an enormous task on for socialists to win people from reactionary politics. The only solution can be delivering practical improvements in peoples lives – in building good quality, affordable housing, decent, worthwhile and secure jobs with a good wage and working conditions, building up the public services infrastructures messed about by cuts and lack of funding etc. Talking the talk is no good – I learnt that canvassing in the local elections last year. Many people are cynical about anyone involved in politics, even those of us who have never held office and then let people down! We need to deliver.
John on said:
Motion of no-confidence passed by Labour MPs 172-40
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458
Talk of Tom Watson as possible candidate to challenge Corbyn and case being made that JC’s name has neither the legal nor constitutional right to be on the ballot as existing leader.
John on said:
If Watson does emerge as the candidate to challenge Corbyn then it will be a smart choice. I believe the unions will find him acceptable as an alternative if push comes to shove.
Mickyd on said:
Win or lose the leadership election / coup … No matter … The Labour Party is dying … Not enough people are fooled by the PLP anymore
Andy H on said:
Have a look at his Twitter timeline to see the great extent of his campaigning the article said. So I did.
Labour IN campaign launched on 10th May, nothing about Europe before then.
There is a lot of pro-EU stuff on his timeline, but generally its retweeting other stuff, or highlighting events other people have done. I’ve pulled out all the events he went to I can see, and highlighted where they were events for the referendum (generally Labour IN events).
May 13 – Young people event in London
May 14 – London event
May 15 – Half arsed interview with Robert Peston
May 19 – Gloucester & Bristol events, same day, several events
May 21 – London event, nothing to do with EU vote
May 24th – Hastings event
May 25th – London, not EU vote event
May 27th – can’t work out where, maybe Wales?
June 3 – London event
June 4 – Cornwall
June 7 – Advert launch. In London.
June 8 – London, not EU event
June 9 – Birmingham event
June 10 – TV appearance on Last Leg
June 11 – Aberdeen
June 13 – London, not EU event
June 14 – London photo op
June 16 – Sheffield
Jun 17 – Birstall for Jo Cox event
June 21 – Manchester Speech
June 22 – London
From this, half his events were in London, with only one visit to the north of England, where the a great number of Leave votes were cast. I’ll leave people to make their own decision on whether he could have done more, and / or focused better on working class areas with large Leave majorities.
Luke Davies on said:
Andy H,
You’ve just listed 16 different events in at least 8 different cities up and down the country in 38 days…. Are you being serious?
George Hallam on said:
“So why exactly did 51.9% of Britain’s voting population choose to ignore .. 90% of economists..”?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/75538/boost-remain-90-economists-say-brexit-would-harm-uk
There are two sorts of economists: microeconomists and macroeconomists.
The difference between them is that microeconomists are people who are wrong about specific things, while macroeconomists are wrong about things in general.
So how many of the gallant 600 economists surveyed called the recession?
I’d be surprised if there was a single one.
jock mctrousers on said:
It would be nice if Corbyn would just cut through this shit and just say plainly that though he personally was never enthusiastic about the EU, he accepted the collective responsibility to go with the majority cabinet position, in the interest of party unity. That’s the obvious truth and no-one can ask more of him.
John on said:
I have just written a piece on this for HuffPo. I will post it here when available. We have been duped by Corbyn and Milne.
I do believe that they worked to minimise Corbyn’s role in the Remain campaign.
Luke Davies on said:
You’ve identified 16 rallies in 38 days, in as many as 8 cities (including Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham and Aberdeen) . By any standards that is a very busy, inclusive campaign.
Andy Newman on said:
The party generally decided to postpone campaigning on the EU until after the May elections.
Andy H on said:
@Luke Davies
Very few of the events look to me substantial. The Gloucester & Bristol day looked like it covered a lot of ground, along with the Hastings, Aberdeen, Sheffield and Cornwall events. The others were either speeches to a small invited audience, a TV interview or quick photo op. 5 substantial days of campaigning in 38.
John on said:
Whatever my issues are with Jeremy’s role in the Remain campaign, you can’t fault his tenacity. As I have said elsewhere, for a fruit juice drinking, sandal wearing, allotment growing middle class socialist, he’s a tough old bastard.
I just hope his health is bearing up under this enormous pressure. He’s only human.