Situating the Brexit Appreciation

When you are up to your arse in alligators, so the saying goes, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the main aim was to drain the swamp.  The particular swamp in which Theresa May finds herself immersed is the reinvigorated debate over Brexit.  The aim, as defined by the popular vote in the referendum, was to free ourselves from the shackles of the EU – to make our own laws and control our own borders.  I do not remember any mention on the voting paper about caveats over trade, markets, and free movement and the instructions were quite clear, leave means leave.  Mrs May, so far, has made herself admirably clear; leaving means leaving, both the single market and the customs union.  This is a perfectly logical position and entirely consistent with the intention to free ourselves from the EU.  Any lingering ties with both the single market and the customs union would, most certainly, come with unacceptable strings attached so any compromise is a non-starter.

Nevertheless, the Remain camp continue to fight the last war.  The latest counter-attack seeks to change debate to one of pure economics rather than identity, perpetuating the lie, first sold to us by Edward Heath and reinforced by every Prime Minister since, that the EU is just a trade agreement which is overwhelmingly to our benefit and which must be defended at all costs.  The BBC, already spreading global despondency over the UK’s post-election prospects, has gleefully accepted every line that it has been fed.  Doubtless the Twittersphere will soon be proclaiming that Great Britain is finished and that Theresa May must now go back to the EU with a grovelling request to be readmitted to the tyranny.

Let us be clear, the referendum was about identity, not just economics.  As conservatives, we should be principally concerned, in the present, with ensuring that the best of our heritage is bequeathed to our successors.  It is lamentable that many, these days, seem most concerned with rubbishing our past and opening our doors to unmoderated “enrichment” from overseas.  All that enrichment comes with a permanent cultural price tag which is already plain to see.  But to take on the economic argument as well, if the price of preserving our identity is a couple of hundredths percent off someone’s growth forecast, then it is a price worth paying and we should stump up willingly.  Happiness is more than Mr Micawber's bottom line.

As Staff College students, when writing a paper, we were warned of the danger of selecting only those facts that suited the argument, a process of “situating the appreciation.”  This is just what is happening in the media at the moment so let’s not let them get away with it!