Ten years on from the Brexit referendum I have been reliving that depressing experience and reminding myself of some of the lies and misinformation which so marred the campaign.
“Faceless bureaucrats”?
Having served as a government minister in three departments and in each of those having represented the government in decision-making meetings of the European Council of Ministers, I was particularly appalled and dismayed by the claims that decisions in the EU were taken by “faceless” bureaucrats in Brussels, that Britain’s democracy was at stake and that Ministers simply rolled over and agreed to whatever was being demanded by the EU powers that be.
Indeed Michael Gove claimed that “remaining in the EU meant voting to be hostages, locked in the back of the car, driven headlong towards deeper EU integration.” The more you think about that quote the more ridiculous it becomes! And this in an EU where more recent member countries see membership as a way of safeguarding their independence and of strengthening, not weakening, their democracies!
Unfortunately, such claims alarmed voters and were not properly challenged. Nobody seemed to query why it was that elected MPs and Ministers, known for standing up for their views in the British parliament were then apparently happy to go to meetings in Brussels and lie down supinely before bureaucrats and unelected officials and apparently agree to everything they demanded!
Real EU decision-making
The reality of EU decision-making was totally different to that caricature. Having over four years attended frequent European summits and ministerial councils as Europe Minister, as an agriculture minister and as a home Office minister dealing with EU justice and home affairs matters, I do not remember Britain being outvoted on any of these occasions and meetings always proceeded towards achieving consensus. Indeed, voting at the meetings was rare because of this consensual approach. Being bullied, overridden or locked in the back of a car was never on the agenda!
Ministerial meetings were the final part of a decision-making process by which proposals initiated by the European Commission in Brussels were scrutinised both by national parliaments and the European Parliament and also routinely put out to consultation with the wider European public and to the industries or interest groups who could be affected by them.
Furthermore, the role of elected MEPs had grown significantly over the years of the UK’s membership of the EU, with European parliamentary committees often suggesting legislation to the Commission and also amending legislation in the course of its Parliamentary passage. That didn’t prevent however the European Parliament being derided as a powerless talking shop during the Brexit referendum.
Not surprisingly, after such an inclusive process involving parliamentary and public scrutiny, by the time ministers from national governments in the Council of Ministers came to give their final decision on whether or not the proposed legislation should be approved a wide measure of agreement had already been achieved making the final outcome uncontroversial in most cases.
Looking back
Looking back at some of the campaigning literature produced at the time of the referendum I have also been struck by the fact that the main Leave leaflet did not mention the Single Market. This sits ill with the subsequent claim of Leave campaigners that the result of the referendum was a massive endorsement not only to leave the EU but also to abandon our membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Of course we were also promised by David Davis, the Conservative Minister leading the negotiations for the post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the EU, that we would get “exactly the same benefits” in the future as we enjoyed in the past in our trade with the EU. A claim which now rings very hollow to British businesses, to industry and to agriculture, hampered by and struggling with new regulations and procedures in trying to export to what was previously our home market.
It is clear that there has been a shift in public opinion and the emergence of a widespread view that it was economic madness to turn our backs on our nearest and biggest market in which we had been very successful and influential. There is a realisation too, that in our current unstable world forging a close alliance on many levels with our European neighbours makes obvious common sense.
Future relationship with Europe
But it is important that in whatever future relationship we forge with the EU that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and that a greater understanding of the reality of the EU and its decision-making process exists. Achieving this will not be easy given the hysterical reaction by some sections of the press and media who cry “Betrayal” every time even a tiny move closer to the EU is mooted, and even when this is clearly in Britain’s national interest. It would be tragic however if the myths and misinformation that were the hallmark of the 2016 referendum once again gain traction as we try to move forward.
Baroness Joyce Quin is a former MP, MEP and Government Minister
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
