In
this essay I will be discussing whether the british public was deceived into voting
for brexit. I will be looking at the history of brexit, emphasising how british
society once before had a nation wide referendum to decide whether they should
leave or not. I will explore the the main arguments and issues that drove
people to vote for a certain party and how the outcome that they expected was
overturned, leading to many people regretting their choices almost immediately.
The essay emphasises the negotiations of a hard and soft brexit introduced by Theresa
May.

Thursday
23rd June 2016, the people of United Kingdom took part in a vote. The
vote would determine the future of Britain and the future of all citizens in which
the public had to decide whether they wanted to stay within the European Union
or leave the European union. “Leave
won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30
million people voting” (Hunt and Wheeler, 2017)

Britain
once before had attempted to leave the european union. The historical event
traces back to after the world war. After the war had ended the post war
society began to collapse. There was a dire need for reconstruction after the
masses of deaths and destruction that tore Britain appart. It was a simple theory
that was formed. The theory was an attempt to make stronger ties between countries,
making one another allies. The Uk at first was not included within the treaty
signed by many countries in 1957. Britain
attempted to join the European Union 1963 and 1967, but was blocked by French
President Charles de Gaulle as he didn’t trust the British and their allies,
the United State. However, once de Gaulle was out of power, the UK were finally
able to become members of the European union also known as the European
Economic Community at that time, in 1973. But after many attempts and efforts
to join the EU, not everyone was happy with the decision made. So just two
years after joining, the United Kingdom held its first ever national referendum
to decide whether it should turn around and leave. The vote drew up the reults
that 67% of the electorate chose to stay which concluded in Britain remaning in
the European Union.  (Plank and West,2017)

 

 

The main arguments that drove people to vote to leave was the
influence of the key message ‘take back control’. It was time for Britain to take
matters into its own hands and time for them to handle problems themselves.
They wanted to take back control over borders, It could be argued that almost
three quarters of those who voted leave were driven by the problem of immigration.
EU laws indicate the free movement of EU citizens in to Britain and all European
countries. In the 12
months ending in September 2015, an estimated 257,000 EU nationals arrived in
the UK. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are more than 2
million EU nationals working in the UK (View, 2017). British society feared a loss of jobs and
housing and to them the only way to get rid of this problem was to vote leave. The
United Kingdom wanted to take control over their own laws and legislations and
the money Britain contributes to the EU budget. Meanwhile the remain sides
arguments revolved around the benefits that the European Union brings to Britain.
They argued that once Britain left, we would be going through a period of instability
and economic shock, Britain would be at a massive loss as being a part of Europe
brings many opportunities. Over 3 million of UK jobs are linked to trade with
the EU meaning there is much more opportunities available for individuals and
their families. Over 200,000 UK businesses trade with the EU. Other than job opportunities
and financial stability, being in the European union provided a more secure and
safe Britain. The European arrest warrant helps arrest criminals across the EU (Britain
Stronger In Europe, 2017). If we were to leave, we would have to leave behind
the goods and stability the EU offers. We wouldn’t be able to receive vital EU funding’s
that will help contribute and change British society for good.

British
Society was eventually deceived, especially after the vote was tallied up and the
news was announced that Britain was set to leave the European Union. The term ‘bregret’
was coined by astonished and enraged citizens implying the regret they felt for
voting leave. Many felt that they were deceived by the promises made by party
leaders as less than 24 hours later key pledges that were promised changed. Ukip leader, Nigel Farage,
had distanced himself from the claim that £350m of EU contributions could
instead be spent on the NHS and instead called it a ‘mistake’. Citzens argues
that if they had known that the leave party had just told lies then they would
have voted to remain. Khembe Gibbons, a lifeguard from Bury St Edmunds in
Suffolk, said she had regrets about her decision after Mr
Farage said he could not guarantee NHS funding. “We’ve left the
EU, David Cameron’s resigned, we’re left with Boris, and Nigel has just
basically given away that the NHS claim was a lie, I personally voted leave
believing these lies, and I regret it more than anything, I feel genuinely
robbed of my vote” (Dearden,
2017).

Leave party leaders
painted the idea that britain would be able to immideitaely ‘take back control’
once we left the European Union. However the idea that we can immediately
reduce immigration is deemed to be misleading and inaccurate. The public were
led to believe that by voting to leave there would be an end for free movement.
Tory MEP Daniel
Hannan explained “taking back control” of immigration didn’t necessarily mean
cutting and exclaimed that the united kingdom would still be allowing the free
movement of labour (Dearden, 2017).

British public once again were deceived by the brexit campaign when ‘Leave’
party leaders falsely projected immigrants as being a burden and strain of british
enconomy. They made people belive that these people entering the country were stealing
jobs and money that was meant for them. Instead they did not see the benefit
that these immigrants brought to the UK and instead labelled them as outsiders.
Approximately immigrants from the EU contribute £1.36 in revenure for every £1
they cost (HuffPost UK, 2017).

After many complains surfacing and many people making their ‘regrets’
for voting to leave known, many people argued that if they had a second chance
to vote, they would vote remain. Theresa May however who was just recently
elected at the time made it clear that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Britain was
leaving the European Union no matter what. Britain is set to leave the EU by
March 29th 2019, and it has come to light that prime minister Theresa
May has been pushing for what is called a ‘hard brexit’ also known as a ‘clean
brexit’. A hard Brexit brings
forward many opportunities for UK. But upon leaving the EU, Britain will also
have to leave the EU’s single market and customs union. A Hard Brexit would allow
Britain to leave the trade agreement completely, allowing it to strike up deals
with other nations around the globe. Severing ties with the EU would mean that Britain
is free to negotiate new trade links with countries including USA, China, India
and Commonwealth states. (LBC, 2017) However negotiating deals usually take numerous
years to come together which means that Britain will be less able to form deals
with the EU and other countries up until we leave on the 29th March
2019. Unless a transitional deal with the EU is reached, it is quite likely
that for a period of a few years the UK would have to trade with the EU and
other countries under World Trade Organisation rules (Ukandeu.ac.uk,
2017). This is expected to have a negative impact on the UK economy, the
best decision to take since Britain is leaving the EU is to try and remain
within the single market as it is the best outcome for society as it will help
us to retain jobs as well as investment.

 Instead politicians who
voted to remain have called for a ‘soft brexit’ where Britain continues to keep
some sort of a relationship with the EU and continue to be a part of the trade
deals. The scenario created outlines that the
UK stays either within the EU’s Single Market by becoming a member of the
European Economic Area like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein or in the
European Customs Union. If they were to remain in the customs union, then it
would mean that exports would not be required to have border checks. If this theory
was to come true, then there would be a less severe economic impact on Britain when
they leave the EU. However, the problem explained it that if the UK was to take
a ‘Soft Brexit’ approach then they will have to remain subject to judgments of
the European Court of Justice. (Ukandeu.ac.uk, 2017)

 

Written by
admin