He was for, she was against – now both worry about Brexit

My English husband, John Rose, is a retired UK parliamentary official who was once heavily involved in European affairs. When a decade or so ago he offered a continuing ed class in Raleigh titled “Everything You Ever Wanted To Know about the EU,” no one signed up! This week, however, we have been flooded by inquiries about Brexit from friends, acquaintances and former students.

Predictably for those who know us, we have not seen things the same way. Though he was happy to vote “yes” in the original referendum to join the EEC, my husband sees the EU today as a very different organization from the mutually advantageous, peace-enhancing economic union that was envisioned. He has long been concerned about the all-encompassing policies the EU has increasingly embraced and enforced.

To put it simply, he made his decision to vote OUT on the basis of an escalating loss of UK sovereignty to the EU, which most agree is an inefficient, bureaucratic, costly and not incorruptible entity. Nepotism and extravagant expense accounts are to John additional EU problems. Also, politicians on the continent, he observes, can have different standards of probity, many hailing from countries without longstanding democracies.

What it came down to for many, including John, was whether it were better to remain in the EU for the immediate future, hoping against hope that it would reform, or to bite the bullet and exit now.

We agree that the debate that surrounded the decision was horrid – both sides trying to scare voters (one side declaring financial collapse and the other, tides of immigrants). Voters were left with little sound data upon which to build an opinion, leaving many undecided even as they entered the polling booths. Some voted OUT in protest, only to be surprised – even dismayed – that they won.

We agree, too, that many Brexit folk undoubtedly voted emotionally and wrongheadedly – some on a racist basis (fearing lack of border control), some longing for the day when Britannia ruled the waves, some because the economic changes of the last few decades have been hard for them personally. The EU was an easy target.

John actually looked hard for reasons to vote STAY, and would have, had reform seemed possible and the unification process likely to proceed at a much slower pace. He feared the inevitability not only of open borders but also of a common currency along with a unified foreign policy, diplomatic service and common army.

Reasons to stay

I argued that the UK did not have to leave now. There seemed no crisis that required immediate action. Membership has, in fact, clearly benefited the UK, at least Scotland and parts of England. London for the last decade has been a vibrant construction site, for example, with exciting skyscrapers redefining the skyline. It has carved out a niche as a stable global economic center, serving not only a UK need but an international one. Unemployment is at an all-time low, in contrast to many continental countries.

Even more important to me, however, is that undeniably the UK speaks with a unique moral authority earned at a great price during WWII, an authority that is needed inside the EU. The EU, encouraged by Britain, is large enough to make a difference on huge global issues like climate control, the widening gap between rich and poor, and mass migration – particularly in partnership with the United States. Alone, I see it having less authority on these matters, inevitably.

The years ahead will reveal which side was wiser. I must say as an aside that I have never been happier that in the USA, we cannot make constitutional changes on the basis of simple majorities.

So now we sit, and the world sits with us, waiting to see what will happen. The very future of the UK is at stake: Scotland and Northern Ireland may leave. And the EU itself has suffered a real blow. The big questions for the long run (exchange rates and stock markets being, we hope, short run matters) are: Can the EU reform itself? Will the UK remain united? Might it ever rejoin? Will other countries leave? Will the UK, in whatever form, be better off in five years? Ten years?

According to today’s news, the UK Parliament has the option of not acting on the referendum. John says it must. I say I hope it won’t.

This story was originally published June 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM with the headline "He was for, she was against – now both worry about Brexit."