My Thoughts on Brexit

“The personal is political” the feminist slogan from the 60’s and 70’s could be applied to the response by those who voted in the UK referendum of June 2016 resulting in the decision by the UK government to leave the European Union (EU). In the referendum, over half the population of Great Britain voted to leave.

A brief historical backdrop

The European Union, initially known as the Common Market, was created in March 1957 as a commercial agreement between West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and it was the first step to the  creation of the European Economic Community (EEC). This was a European attempt to gain a measure of economic independence from the United States and the ideological influence and power of the Soviet Union. Most European countries joined this institution, including Great Britain in January 1973.

The EEC became the basis for the creation of the European Union, established in 1993. Although still essentially focused on benefiting trade and not human rights, economic growth and ideologies aimed to make Europe a major player in world affairs, resulted in the setting up of political institutions like the European Parliament, the central European Bank and a common currency, the Euro.

This decision created deep anxieties in conservative minds of citizens of some European countries who felt that a political European Unity would threaten their National independence.

The recession of 2008 showed clearly that the EU did not protect its member nations and expected them to carryout severe economic measures to deal with financial problems by imposing sanctions. As often is the case, the poor in many countries, including the UK, bore the brunt of the financial disaster. At the same time other countries seemed in the EU, seemed not only not to suffer, but to benefit from the economic policies agreed in the European Parliament and backed by the European Bank and other financial institutions.

This created resentments in many populations that were subsequently exploited by conservative forces in their countries who directed the discontentment towards the EU.

But what is of interest to me is how the EU became a symbol of all that is good for the UK remainers. Why? How did the ideal of living in a more open and just society turned into the idealisation of the EU when UK membership was threatened?

It’s true that along with the often unfair economic policies of the EU there were some beneficial outcomes; freedom of movement was one of them, upholding basic human rights another. Membership of the EU stimulated travel to the continent as well as cultural and educational exchanges; it benefited the environment by implementing regulations about purity of water in beaches, but mainly for many of us who for economic or personal reasons had settled in the UK, it made us feel less foreign, we could keep many of our cultural values and still feel that we were accepted and acceptable, we increasingly started to believe that we could be part of the British society. At the same time for many British citizens, mainly the younger generation, it allowed them to feel that they had choices, it was no longer only the USA culture and values they could aspire to, but also a variety of other ‘European’ cultures were now within reach, accessible, open to be explored, adapted and absorbed. A curious example of this phenomena is the name given to one of my local bars in East London “A Touch of Noir”. Restaurants and cafes like ‘ROBINS PIE & MASH’, traditional East-end London

and ‘BELGIQUE’ or ‘ELCHE TAPAS BAR’

stand alongside each other in my high street. The excitement of change and the taste for all things coming from the European continent were felt not only in Central London or in the well-off parts of the capital, but also in working class areas.The creative excitement of the melting of cultures into each other was very present.

So it seems that while the EU became a ‘bad object’ for those in the country who felt left behind because they had not benefited from any of the economic booms of the last 40 years, for many others, mainly middle class young and more educated it became a ‘good object’.

Those discontented because of financial hardship, were joined by the more conservative and older members of the British population who had seen their way of life threatened by the influx of continental immigrants. The political sections of the establishment took advantage of this discontentment to achieve their own personal and political goals or for ideological reasons.

The decision to leave the EU could be construed as a step back, a move away from a cooperative approach toward the building of a more just and democratic society in Europe, but it is only so because of the reactionary political forces who have led to it. If it had been motivated by a force who sought to introduce a more fair system who protected the member states weaker economies and its citizens from the ups and downs of the unstable economic system it might not be perceived in such a negative way.

So why did I say that the personal is political? Personal decisions like choosing to leave ones country, or being forced to do so, and settling in another, are either facilitated or hindered by political forces and these in turn are changed by the consequences of these personal decisions both for the good and the bad of society as a whole. In group analysis we look at the figure-ground configuration, the figure has an effect on the ground and vice-versa.

At a time in which we are facing the devastating changes imposed in our life by the world wide spread of the Corona virus, when we are made anxious of fearful about our own survival, the anxieties and fears felt by the prospect of living in a country who is putting in place political systems aimed to alienate Britain from the rest of Europe, goes into recess, identity crisis no longer seems so important, what takes the centre stage, is the figure. What is now paramount in most people’s minds is: Will I survive?

Carmen O’Leary
carmenoleary@icloud.com