The day-after: from idiocracy to self-inflicted

righteousness.
The Brexit: an in-depth analyse.
7 am in the morning: I put the BBC on and learn about the fact that the leave campaign has won with
51,9%. By the afternoon, Im reading, listening and watching the so-called experts tell us how this
historic event has occurred. Some partially right, some are selling BS and some have a quite worrying
undertone.
It is the fault of the PM, he shouldnt have gone to the people with such an important matter or the
big evil is populism (that overnight almost became synonym of racism), people like Nigel Farage or
Boris Johnson are the ones to blame for this shambolic event. Its the media, they were against us
from the start. And then, my personal favourite was the quote of Martin Schultz, president of the
European Parliament, who pretty much said that the EU should and will be severe to Britain, because
what if other member states start thinking from themselves. In a nutshell, some arguments may
explain at best a part of the problem, but mostly raises as many questions as disgust. The elites,
from either sides havent got it, the only ones who came close to explaining it where the populists, at
least they had the merit of understanding the people. What they did with that understanding, how
they used it, even manipulated it, is only politics and the art of convincing people. An art form that
most of the right honourable gentlemen cultivate.
Understanding British Euroscepticism is understanding who we are as an individual, a group, a
nation. It is the story of identity forming. This article has the pretention to try to explain, the What,
Why, Who, When and How. It isnt a scientific article as it would need many more statistics.

Me, Myself and I

Understanding politics always start with yourself. In order to understand this article there is a thing
or two you need to know about me, the author of this article. First of all I am a follower of the
behaviourist approach of politics. A fancy word to say I believe that perceptions, our subjective
perceptions, are at the basis of our actions. Not one person holds the universal truth, but it is the
way we look at facts and our interpretation of these facts that defines what we do. Objectivity is an
illusion, intersubjectivity is the measure in social science, as what is stated above means we cant see
the reality as is. Accepting the behaviourist approach is acknowledging the fact that individuals
arent merely computers that perform a SWOT-analyses but that there is an emotional, cultural and
identity element into ones own decision-making process.
Secondly, I am an EU partisan, I believe in the idea of the European integration, but I also see many
problems and inequalities. So, you might consider me as a positive Eurosceptic.

The UK: from Union Jack to local individual problems

Accepting that it is the perception of the world, our world defines our actions, means that we need
to get an insight in how we are as a person or a group. It brings variables into the equation such as
education, personal history, morals, values, dogmas, wealth, contact with European union, and the
list goes on. This means that on the individual basis, we all look at the European Institutions in a
different way, and we select which arguments are more or less important, we decide if we consider
them true or false. Once in a group, other elements have a part as well, such as group dynamics,
communication skills and so-on. That being said, we can classify the arguments and the output,
thats why defining those feelings is so important.

DEFINING EUROSCEPTICISM:
Euroscepticism is the expression of a structural and repeated form of opposition towards parts or the
whole of the European integration and/or European institutions done by a member of that
institution and with the aim to modify that institution/integration or the relationship with it. It is
expressed in a positive or negative way (the attitude of Euroscepticism) and ranges from soft to hard
Euroscepticism (the amplitude of Euroscepticism). The nature of Euroscepticism is expressed
through economic, political and cultural arguments.
Basically, we are talking about a repeat criticism or opposition, if we want to change the EU by having
more EU it is positive Euroscepticism, if less, it is negative Euroscepticism. The hardness of the
stance is a scale that moves from soft (modify) to hard (abolish, change it fundamentally and in
total). That is the output of Eurosceptic behaviour.
The input of the Eurosceptic phenomena is the argument where one person puts his beliefs upon. It
is not the subject of the argument but the nature of the comment. In general we can identify 3 main
categories:

Economical Euroscepticism: the nature of the argument is based on economical

argumentations such as for instance growth, economic interdependence,
Political Euroscepticism: the nature of the argument lies in the political realm, such as
political party loyalty, decision-making processes,
Cultural Euroscepticism: the nature of the argument lies in our individual culture. The basis
are our morals and values, the context we are living in and shape our beliefs

As an example we could refer to the Euro case. Not joining the euro has in general more to do with
cultural Euroscepticism than economical Euroscepticism (all 3 aspects are present in the end), as the
pound for Britain is more of a national symbol, defining who they are, together with a certain
amount of chauvinistic reflex. People grew up in that culture, breathe their national pride, a
banknote becomes a national symbol, as much as Nelson or Churchill is.

The Why?

Why did the Brexit leave campaign win? Many answers can be given. Following the above, we can
look at the nature of Euroscepticism (input) and the attitude and amplitude of Euroscepticism
(output)

ECONOMICAL EUROSCEPTICISM:
First of all, we notice that economical Euroscepticism on its own rarely translates to hard negative or
positive Euroscepticism. The arguments that were mentioned such as the access to the common
market, the effects on the FTSE and the Pound, the fear campaign of Osborne and his punishment
tax, werent retained by the general public. The City votes in for obvious reasons. Multinational
companies or export oriented companies (at least the leadership) also vote remain. Let us be honest,
most British citizens dont lie awake over the FTSE or the London bankers. There is actually a dislike.
As it comes to Scotland and Northern Ireland, who were for decades a net benefactor of the EU and
has close ties with the EU it might explain the positive outcome. Furthermore and as mentioned
later it is a guarantee and necessity for independence (political and cultural element)
Finally one can make the argument it has an effect on everyday life, if one doesnt perceive the treat
as such, one wont act upon it. The lesson that should be learned from this is that personal contact
with Europe is vital to create a European sense of belonging.

So what are the economical treats who added to the Brexit?

They are 2 arguments relevant that might have led to a Brexit stand

The fisheries made the argument for the Brexit as they want to get rid of the quotas, and this
is in direct correlation to the size of their wallets.

Unemployment and the migration treat is the other bigger one. Remember facts dont
matter, the belief that UK citizens have less jobs for them - and that they have been given to
non UK citizens - is in poor areas a common good. Furthermore, even with financial aid of
the European Union, they look at their own situation nearby. That being said, this form of
stereotyping is also in correlation with political and cultural Euroscepticism. The
combination of these 3 aspects makes it very hard to alternate those views and feelings.

POLITICAL EUROSCEPTICISM:
Where a change in personal situation, can quite easily alternate the economical Eurosceptic stands,
when it comes to political Euroscepticism it is already a lot harder. Furthermore as for the UK it must
almost always be combined with the cultural element.
For one, we have to remember the UK history. We are in the country of John Stuart Mill, the Magna
Carta, a country that gave voting rights as one of the earliest in the world. Democracy, if it comes to
the suffrage aspect of it, is embedded in the UK. Moreover, there is a closeness between the local
constituency and its MP. Even if they have trust issues against London and the house of commons,
this is the political culture the UK is living in.

Then there are the leave-campaign arguments of political nature:

The European Union is fundamental undemocratic, as they are not elected. And those who
are elected (MEP) are only a minority in the whole of the European Parliament
Bureaucrats are deciding what to do with our money, understand unelected people are
deciding what to do with our money
The EU has no sovereignty and takes it away from us, every time a bit more
...

Basically, remembering again that the perception prevails, even if someone can counter the
argument, it is a problem of legitimacy and the perception of it. Brussels is far away, their local MP
isnt. Communication doesnt come across, and is seen as elitist. The people doesnt know Europe or
their decision-making processes and the media or local politicians arent explaining it to the general
public. Europe is the escape goat, the black sheep we can use for our mishaps. Believing an
overpaid EU official, who isnt elected, is so tough. He is not neutral. And so-on.
Whatever we say, there is a democratic deficit. And unfortunately, both parties to the problem are
speaking a different language. The European institutions are speaking of a stepped democracy and
the general public of universal single suffrage and knowing their representatives. Official
communications, let us be honest, arenot aimed at the general public. It is over intellectualised and
Europe hasnt understood the basic question with the simple answer: What are you doing for me?

How can we address this problem? Education is one, but then again, dont expect the population to
become political scientists or lawyers. Explain it to them, dont use Europe as an scapegoat, and
show your realisations to the individual. It is maybe blunt to say, but you dont explain E=mc to a
five-year-old in scientific formulas. And remember, those who are day-to-day in contact with the EU,
usually support it (even with criticism). Who to blame? The populist? The media? The educational
system? The EU? Everyone is to blame, as no-one can communicate in an appropriate manner. They
all communicate with a sense of self-righteousness and the idiocrasy of it is that no-one understands
they speak a different language. Reflection is void.

CULTURAL EUROSCEPTICISM:
Cultural Euroscepticism is almost always translated into hard Euroscepticism. It is the most difficult
type of Euroscepticism to define, as we bread culture. From the day we are born, we live in a
context, a setting, a space that has a clear impact on our identity. We define ourselves by it, we are
an Englishman or Scot, we are democratic, we have our common value system and history, we are
partly what the world says we are, what our family says we are, what our education says we are,
what our heritage says we are Culture makes us for a large part, so if we perceive a treat to our
individual culture, we are going into self-defence mode. Usually by stereotyping, we are we and they
are them. It feels good to have a sense of belonging and recognition.
The UK has that history, have national pride, speaks in groups that common language defined by the
values it cherishes so much and expressed in common symbols. From the great empire to the Union
Jack, from the Queen to democracy. We are Englishmen, Scots, Welsh,
Europe hasnt understood this. Their main life moto is: United in Diversity. But diversity has that
stereotypical element. We are we. And now that the Brexit is a fact, it is even communicated as
such by both parties. The European Union doesnt have the symbols that are widely accepted. The
European flag is no match to St. Georges cross or the Union Jack. The anthem, Ode to Joy, is for most
of us just a nice piece of music. The 8th of April, the official European holiday, is unknown and if
known, it is seen as the armistice of WW II. What European symbols does Europe have in the UK?
Brussels, symbol of bureaucracy, unelected bodies, overpaid officials, lobbies The only exception to
this is the younger generation, who defines themselves as world citizens, who are inclusive, like to
travel Hardly something new, since the 60s, it has always been the prerogative of the youth to be
more open.

So, the natural human reflex, when their culture is seen to be threatened, when we perceive an
attack on the British way, is one of defence. Going back to its roots, to our identity, to our culture.
As said before immigration was one, if not even the main argument, for the Leave campaign.
Foreigners that are threatening our employment (the Polish plumber), but even more, the Islam that
is threatening our way of life. At least, Indians bring us curry and where a part of the great empire.
The populists understood this, David Cameron didnt when in the middle of the campaign he
endorsed Turkeys claim to become a member-state of the EU.
And unfortunately, no argument is strong enough to change our stance when attacked. We go in
self-defence mode, we protect ourselves. Does that make us racists? To some extent, we all are in a
small way, there is always that one cultural difference that we find unacceptable. The UK culture
isnt the French culture, or German one, and even further away from the Bulgarian one. Yes, the UK
is an open society, but as any society, there are no-gos. The European integration and institutions
culture goes over a red line, without explaining themselves in a clear manner. Without subscribing
that, it takes time to change culture (it can be done overnight), without emphasizing the common
grounds on daily bases.

The when?
European Integration, as an organic body, evolved over time. It started as a peace project, became
an economical one, to finally in 1992 become a political one as well. Changes for the better or worst.
Some can argue. The problem however is the top-bottom approach of the project. Elites (whatever
elite it might be) put their will on the public.

I could make the amalgam with democracy. Democracy cant been enforced onto the people, like
weve seen with the Arabic spring. It is something that needs to grow, be nourished, within the
people or a civilisation.

Whereas the people, nourishing the idea of peace on the European continent after 2 world wars,
agreed with the common market as a better way to do business and make money (understand
improving their standards of living), the people werent ready for a political union. Even with some
exceptions (such as Schengen) for the UK, it was seen as forced upon them. Trying to explain a
pragmatic and natural evolution and approach went into nothing.
That top-down view came even very apparent in the latest referendum. Not only was there the
general acknowledged fear campaign on the national political scene, European officials where part of
it too. The president of the European Parliament, The president of the European Commission, The
president of the Council, different heads of state, all of them used threatening language. Going as far
as to say there was no other option, even attacking democracy in itself by claiming that the people
cant comprehend such a difficult matter and therefore should have no say in the matter. As
mentioned above, this give a clear political and cultural problem. Even more, it is contra productive
to nourish a European idea, let alone identity, into the UK citizens. The EU is dictating a petulant
child so to speak, the child will move towards a rebellion instead of planting a seed that might grow
into something that might work.

Understanding human behaviour is understanding politics and voting systems, it is to understand

who we are, it is an answer to demagogic stances, playing on it might bring change, dictating or
behaving like a monarch / benevolent technocrat might give you opposition. The EU forget to make
a platform, to create a bottom top approach. So, for most of them, the political union is unwanted
and something by and for the elites.

Conclusion:

The Brexit was announced a while ago. We couldnt predict the outcome as the margins where too
small, but either way, it was and is a problem of lack of support, lack of symbols, lack of solutions to
day-to-day problems, lack of communication and bad PR.
It is a problem for the European institutions, as they are unable to communicate on a non-educated
peoples level (this is not the peoples fault, it is the EUs responsibility to get the message across). It
is the EUs self-righteousness and unwillingness to understand this. Not everyone is an intellectual.
It is the national politicians fault for not explaining it either, without even mentioning the
disinformation by the media. It is a problem of distance between the citizen and the institution, it is
a problem of only looking at the big picture and forgetting that most of us are looking at our own
situation and environment. It is a problem of governance, or the lack of it, as the structure in place is
too heavy to act and communicate the actions effectively.
It is a problem of Identity, understanding that a person defines himself through economic, political
and cultural variables. Taking them into account might help hugely to start growing support. It is a
problem of having the right symbols, things that make us proud. Winston Churchill makes us proud,
he is a symbol of righteousness, victory, willingness to act, doing the right thing, we like to identify
with such a person. What symbol does Europe have?

Blaming one another is pointless, whats done is done, and history will tell. To the UK I say: I
understand, I dont agree but I do understand. To the EU I say, if not now, it is time to take the
identity area into account and change. Change in the institutions, in the communication and start to
create a bottom-top approach, non-elitist, and make us feel proud of Europe. May I suggest using a
populist approach, it is not below you, you wont become an idiocracy if you do so, and humbleness,
acknowledging your faults might help you avoid this type of situations. Dont act as an intellectual
pompous civil servant. Sir Humphrey Appelby was a fictional character.

Vincent Desmet
Drs. European political science
specialized in Euroscepticism