Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European Union

Product Information

He’s clearly given a lot of thought to this stuff, but you don’t have to be a trade expert to find out that the EU doesn’t have a tariff on Chilean wine, and that the tariff on Australian wine isn’t 32%. You’d think that a member of the European Parliament would know that, but you’d be wrong, in this case. A lot of it is simply climate. But there’s a reason why we go on holiday there a lot more than vice versa, it’s because it’s a lovely place to go on holiday. But there’s also a reason why they come and work in London. For a long time no one ever talked about politics. It was a boring thing to be endured every general election. Suddenly it was everywhere.” Chris Grey is one of a kind: perceptive, brutal, forensic, eloquent and fair. Like all his work, this book bulges with masterful, well-judged analysis. There’s simply no better guide to Brexit.” Ian Dunt, author of How Westminster Works… and Why It Doesn’t Talking about the opportunities for global trade after Brexit, let’s turn to the first book on your list, which is Daniel Hannan’s What Next: How to get the best from Brexit. He has visions of the UK becoming like Singapore or Hong Kong and entering a new era of free trade and prosperity. Why have you chosen this as a good book to read on Brexit?

What economists are saying is that leaving the European Union is very likely going to lead to a reduction in the UK’s trade, and that that reduction in trade is very likely to make us less prosperous than we otherwise would have been. Even recited so suavely, these doctrines are no more convincing to the unbeliever. Given Tombs’s genuine intellectual standing, this is probably as good as it gets. Brexit, like it or not, is a fact, and it would be a great service to us all if someone could set out a half-convincing case for why it makes sense. Since Tombs can’t, maybe nobody can. The author is an expert, deft and fluent guide to the story. He brings clarity of explanation to even the most tortuous twists of the tale while offering penetrating and frequently caustic commentary on the consequences, many of them never intended by their architects. Bale brings clarity to the most tortuous twists of the tale, offering frequently caustic commentary on the consequences The EU itself came about as a direct response to the Second World War and German militarism, the idea that we Europeans can’t control Germany except as part of a larger bloc. The Germans believed in that and wholeheartedly signed up, so did the French. Of the original six countries in the EU in 1957, five of them had been invaded by Germany and the other one was Germany. The UK hadn’t. It sounds facile, but it’s not. We’ve always had that, ‘we are apart, we are different.’ That has informed attitudes towards the EU on an emotional level very, very deeply. In doing so he exposes the absurdity of the claims of some Brexiters that leaving the European single market would reduce bureaucracy and red tape, and promote free trade – inevitably the reverse has been the case.All the people who go, ‘Oh it will be a disaster’ and all the people who go, ‘It’ll be fine.’ No one knows. Even in 20 years’ time, no one will know, because you can’t prove a counterfactual.” So most of our readers are in the US and other countries around the world, for whom Britain’s decision to exit the EU is almost completely inexplicable. How would you explain why the people around you in Dorset voted Brexit? What were they aiming for?

In terms of voting for Leave, distance from London was a factor, communities which had lower skill levels was a factor, and people who were older.” And this ties into another of the books I’ve chosen, by Ivan Krastev. Theresa May also had a good quote on it, which is that you’re either a citizen of everywhere or a citizen of somewhere. For the people who move around the continent a lot for work—mainly white collar workers—the EU is a great opportunity. For the people who have lived primarily in one place, who are tied to their locality, it’s not. Those are the divisions that people find it hard to get over because you’re seeing the same thing from a 180-degree difference. In the first instance, Tombs is too true to his profession to peddle the Brexiter myth that continued membership of the EU was incompatible with the historic identity of “our island nation”. He knows that other European countries have “histories of struggles for independence and democracy at least as proud as our own, but which so far they find compatible – if with some strain – with European integration”. He seems to be very exercised about the EU’s ban on some vitamins and herbal remedies. It comes up twice in the book. I thought it was quite funny, in terms of the bigger picture, that this should be viewed as a key issue. I want to emphasise that I was neutral, during the campaign, between Remain and Leave. I have very strong views on some of the economic aspects, particularly relating to free movement and immigration. But I do think that there are arguments on both sides. I try to be as objective as I can in weighing them up.

I think one of the reasons it is so divisive is that we’ve got, fundamentally, two countries here.” In terms of voting for Leave, distance from London was a factor, communities which had lower skill levels was a factor, and people who were older. There was this combination of economic and social disconnection from the global economy in some areas, and the perceived contrast with London and other more prosperous areas like Oxford and Cambridge, York, and so on, that appeared to be doing relatively well. So lastly on your list we have Brexit and Ireland: The Dangers, the Opportunities, and the Inside Story of the Irish Response.

One of the key things that comes out of the book is that Hannan—and many others in the UK—never wanted to be part of this political union, this ever closer integration of the EU. When he looks at the history, he argues that Britain would have been more comfortable with a European Free Trade Association or EFTA-type arrangement. Don’t you sympathise with that Brexiteer sentiment, that they never bought into the European project in the first place and are much happier on the periphery? A superbly written chronicle of how Britain chaotically cut ties with its closest economic partners. Chris Grey’s rigorous analysis of how Brexit unfolded should be mandatory reading for anyone who cares about politics.” Shona Murray, Europe correspondent, Euronews The point that’s important is that this was not just about immigration. In some areas—say Lincolnshire and East Anglia—it related very much to immigration from the EU. But in lots of other areas that was not the case. These are places that have been economically depressed since the deindustrialisation and decline of the manufacturing industry in the 1980s and 1990s, i.e. well before the current wave of immigration from eastern Europe. It’s much more deeply rooted. It relates not just to the social impact of immigration but also of deindustrialisation, trade, technological progress, and so on.The number of people on either side of the argument who actually understand the EU and what it does is pretty minimal. I include Remainers in that quite as much as Leavers.” It’s not clear what exactly we’ve gained. We haven’t become less regulated. We’ve just accepted that we don’t have a say in the regulations that apply to us. And AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical companies want regulatory approval. They might not like what the regulators do but they need regulators. They’ll tell you that.

There is, but it came on top of these broader and more well-established economic drivers. Immigration, for some people, has become a symbol of something that was there already—the fact that some communities were being left behind, the fact that people with lower skills or qualifications are relatively very disadvantaged in the UK labour market. This book explores wonderfully well the bombshell of Brexit: is it a uniquely British phenomenon or part of a wider, existential crisis for the EU? As the tensions and complexities of the Brexit negotiations come to the fore, the collection of essays by leading scholars will prove a very valuable reference for their depth of analysis, their lucidity, and their outlining of future options.' The other thing that makes it so seismic is how it has split the country down the middle. There are positives and negatives. There’s the hostility, the name-calling and the tribalism which are the bad things, but there’s also the level of engagement. Suddenly, politics is interesting and sexy. Certainly one of the Brexit books I chose reflects this, that everyone was talking about it. For a long time no one ever talked about politics. It was a boring thing to be endured every general election. Suddenly it was everywhere. Which are the best books to get a better understanding of Brexit? For an economic perspective, we asked economics professor Jonathan Portes for his book recommendations in early 2017, less than a year after Britain's momentous decision. For more of a political/historical perspective, we turned to novelist Boris Starling, author of The Bluffer's Guide to Brexit.Our most recent interview on books to read about Brexit is with Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at Kings College London and Director of the UK in a Changing Europe project. It’s entirely sincere. What I think is interesting is that Hannan is clearly an intelligent person. He’s lucid, he’s sincere and he believes in it. And yet, as soon as you start to apply any depth of knowledge into any of the things he’s talking about, it becomes clear that what he’s saying doesn’t add up. He combines intelligence, vision, and honesty with a complete superficiality about how trading arrangements work.One of the things I struggle with, in terms of the split over Brexit and people being cross with people who voted the other way, is that we do all want the same things. We want a prosperous country and a good relationship with our neighbours. No one wants another war in Europe. So why is it so divisive when the goal is the same? V for Vendetta is a graphic novel set in a future, fascist Britain. It mirrors 1984 in some ways. The fascists are called Norsefire. In the film, they come to power after a virus or some cataclysmic event beloved of movies; in the novel they’ve been elected in by the people’s apathy. Krastev argues that in western Europe, people tend to trust their own politicians more than Brussels politicians. In eastern Europe, it’s the other way around. They’re so used to their own politicians being crooked, that they believe that the EU has got greater standards of governance, of transparency of regulation and so on. And therefore they respect the EU more. That, in turn, further erodes trust in their own governments and also means that more people go from east to west than vice versa. And does it argue that the divisions were about identity and that economics was very much subordinate? Yes, absolutely. I didn’t tell David, the editor, which way I voted and I’m not going to tell you. I challenged him to work it out from the text and he said he couldn’t. I’ve tried to be equal opportunities in being as rude as possible about people on both sides of the equation.