Brexit from a Catalan point of view
The Brexit result has shocked the markets, the political institutions and the wider European societies. This notwithstanding, what lessons can be learnt from the perspective of Catalonia?
For instance, Brexit has laid bare that events can take a different path to that traced by Brussels and the European establishment. Doubtless, the turmoil has been fuelled by the neglect (call it hubris) from the European institutions to consider such a scenario. This also goes for the quasi-religious prophecies from Brussels on the trouble for Catalonia in remaining anchored in EU institutions in the event of independence.
Brexit can be interpreted as many results rather than one, as it has shown the contrasting approach towards the European project from the different nations of the UK, most notably Scotland and England.
Thus, the massively pro-European vote in Scotland (up to 62% voted Remain) can be explained by the positive effect of the EU on its economy , which serves to counterbalance the dominion that England has traditionally exerted over its economy. It is therefore ironical that, two years ago, most Scots may had voted against independence under the (false) threat that leaving the UK would automatically mean leaving the EU, considering that there is not an equivalent Article 50 of the Treaty allowing for an internal secession of an EU member.
To build on this line of thought, it is worth mentioning Alesina and Spolaore's classic, The Size of Nations, in that large countries (compared to smaller ones) achieve a significant scale – mostly to finance an army through a wider tax base – but at the expense of producing policies that create discontent among some of its regions. As seen with the Brexit results, the differences within Scotland were much slighter than within the UK as a whole. The authors suggest that sub-state ad-hoc agreements might be a solution to such a conundrum. However, this seems unfeasible, given the rigidity with which states function, or, for that matter, multilateral institutions – as proved these days by Brussels' rejection of any specific agreement for the Scots. It is also because of such structural problems within large countries and multilateral institutions that nations like Scotland or Catalonia are pursuing a process of political independence, as difficult as it may appear to be.
Under this rationale, Catalonia may benefit from independence by escaping from majority decisions that do not favour its goals, and by pursuing its own international agenda, decoupling it from that of Spain. An example of the first case would be Spain's concentric (to Madrid) rail passenger and cargo networks, in terms of both design and investment, against any criteria of cost benefit analysis. Another pertinent case is that of the European Unitary patent, firmly opposed by Spain, almost in isolation, thus undermining the economic prospects of the Catalan milieu of innovation .
The last lesson we suggest from the Brexit crisis is that, beyond its xenophobic overtones (e.g. the refugee crisis), it has been a monumental slap to the establishment and to the cosmopolitan urbanites by the lower income groups of the countryside and de-industrialised regions. Thus, it epitomises the extent of social division within Western societies that jeopardises the idea of common state-building. To an extent, this can apply to Catalonia, too, one of the few cases of industrial revolution in Europe's south. Recalling The Economist magazine's fair and surprising recent mea culpa (July 2), for globalisation to be accepted by society as a whole, we need “a relentless focus on dismantling privilege by battling special interests, exposing incumbent companies to competition and breaking down restrictive practices.”
What expats in Catalonia think about Brexit
Poll
Robbie Kavanagh is a British-born foreign resident based in Vilafranca del Penedès. Realising in the run-up to the EU referendum in the UK that he was effectively disenfranchised due to his expat status, Robbie decided to contact other English-speaking residents in Catalonia to get their take on the Brexit vote. What follows are the opinions of five long-term residents, who all answered the same three questions that Robbie put to them.
Follow Robbie and his work at: www.robbiekavanagh.net.
Berni Armstrong Lecturer in the Universitat Autònoma's translation department and singer/songwriter
1 I think it is a scandal that long-term British residents in Spain cannot vote in British elections nor in Spanish elections. We have been effectively disenfranchised. If we lose the right to vote in Britain we should automatically gain the right to vote in our country of abode.
2 The FPTP [First Past the Post] system in the UK is the most anti-democratic voting system in any modern democracy. If you live in an area that represents a “safe seat” (most seats are safe seats), and if you don't vote with the majority then your vote is simply a waste of time and energy. I lived in solid Tory areas when I was in the UK and my vote for Labour was always just an exercise in futility. No Brexiteers should harp on about the lack of democracy in the EU while the FPTP system is still operational in the UK. It is absolutely scandalous. My students think I am having them on when I describe the British FPTP system. They immediately say. “But that's not democratic!” – If they can see it, why can't the British?
3Even though it was the result I expected, I was still bitterly disappointed that the English turned out to be as small-minded and insular as I had expected them to be. I was hoping that they would prove me needlessly pessimistic. On a recent visit to Britain I discovered many of my family had voted for Brexit, but when I asked them why, their reasons lacked any basis in logic. Despite the variety of answers given, their basic justification seemed to boil down to: “Because we're British and we don't want any foreigners telling us what to do!” There was no reasoned debate behind any of their answers – most seemed to have voted with their guts, rather than their heads. However, despite their joy at the victory of the “out” camp, very few of them believed it would actually happen. They largely thought that the government would find some way to get out of the commitment to leave. I hope they're right since I firmly believe that pulling out of the EU is turning your back on the future in favour of a past that can never be recovered.
Matthew Tree writer
2 I don't know enough about certain European countries that seem to have problems understanding the meaning of democracy. In Spain, which refuses Catalonia a referendum after years of some of the largest demonstrations seen in Europe, and despite a pro-independence parliamentary majority in Catalonia, there seems to be a head-in-the-sand approach to any kind of freedom not approved by the central government. That also applies to people all over Spain with family members murdered by the Franco regime and unable to obtain any form of recognition of the crimes. As for Britain, it has a first past the post voting system which means that any government in power is voted in by a physical minority of voters. It allowed the Scots to vote on independence, but then did all it could to scare and coax them into voting to stay in the UK. The Brexit referendum comes from a Tory electoral promise designed to lure votes away from UKIP, so it was the result of political strategy, not popular pressure. As for the EU, it could be more democratic, but that means staying in it and pressurising its institutions. Otherwise, I like the freedom of movement, the single currency, and that there is a third judicial option in Brussels to correct or repeal unfair sentences from state governments, or obliging them to compensate citizens wrongly treated by state authorities.
3Brexit has probably been the stupidest thing the English have done since the Crimean War. Stirred up by media which deliberately obfuscated the probable economic outcomes of Brexit and played up in the most disgusting way possible the idea that England's green and pleasant land was being overrun by a horde of undesirable foreigners, people voted to leave the EU thanks to skewed information and inflamed prejudices. The EU can be criticised for a lack of transparency and its democratic deficit, but that is partly because the member states have wanted to keep it that way. The UK now has an unelected Prime Minister slightly to the right of Enoch Powell, and a country in which xenophobia and racism have been released like a gale of uncontrolled farts in which people are divided more than ever across social, economic, national, and even age lines. It's not just the 48% that wanted to stay in the EU who've lost. Every last mother's son alive on the British Isles has lost. And all this has happened with no parliamentary majority backing Brexit, or under any popular pressure. What's more, the real percentage of the UK population who voted for Brexit is less than 40%. In other words, an incorrectly-informed minority has caused the biggest economic and political shake-up in Europe in the last 40 years. While a certain fascist murderer laughs his head off in jail.
Martin Kirby writer & farmer
2 There is serious discontent, a palpable sense of unease, a feeling that something is not right in the UK. This is a core wellbeing issue for me as the social cohesion is undermined constantly by the economic drivers that dismiss basic social needs and morality, and which undermine community. There has to be monetary profit in everything, and it is sickening. This is a global issue, of course, and it has to be approached with common sense not as a political issue. Proportional representation is a vital step forward to people feeling they have representation, a voice. Very sadly, the EU vote has been seen as a chance to bring change, as people want change. But this isn't the answer. The change needs to be within the British electoral system, in communities and related to core wellbeing issues. Economy is very important. But in balance with social sustenance, and the EU is a vital democratic, peaceable entity with flaws that need addressing, yes, but with examples of how the UK can be more democratic, fair and family and community focused. The world population has trebled in 100 years. Nobody can step away from this and we have to work on sharing, understanding and supporting tolerance and goodwill in the face of huge global change and challenge.
3 I am deeply saddened and anxious. I didn't think it would affect me so much, but, months on, my concerns seem to be heightening not diminishing. These are not concerns for me, my family's life here, but for the social and economic consequences for the people of the open, multi-cultural United Kingdom. Socially there is palpable unease now. Mud has been stirred from the bottom of the pond and a few intolerant and wholly unacceptable people feel empowered. Regardless of the good intentions of the millions who voted to leave for whatever “logical” reason and promises, this is a dire and deep consequence that is shocking regardless of how one may have voted. Economically it will be very grim in the mid term, and the indications are already there of recession and struggle, to be felt most in the hard-hit communities that thought exit was a solution to core UK governance issues. The long term is a world away, and the economic consequences looming fast will have a great bearing on the social stress. I wish all of the above was not true, but they are. And then there is the other truth, that a hugely complex question was boiled down into sexy soundbites on sovereignty and greatness. It was a travesty of misinformation, lack of understanding and, ultimately, democracy.
That all said, we have to play this out. Those that proclaimed and those that voted in good faith to follow must be given the time and opportunity to understand what they have done. Meanwhile, my hopes that I will be proved wrong diminish by the day.
Brian Cutts English teacher and activist in Tortosa's anti-fascist monument movement
2 Each system has its pros and cons. I like the UK parliamentary system as you know who your MP is, but it's not fair on smaller parties who do better under the PR systems in many European countries. Yet, many government decisions at all levels, all the way up to Brussels, seem decided by business lobbies, and I think that's the same Europe over. I don't hold to the idea that the UK government is somehow better than the EU institutions. They all have problems.
3 Sad and disappointed but not surprised. The “Leave” campaign has been going on for 40 years in the press, as most newspapers have run anti-EU stories based on half-truths or lies. This general anti-EU feeling has not been helped by a lack of information on why or how EU bodies work, especially at school. It's clear most of us vote based on “feelings” and newspaper headlines and not facts. I hope common sense prevails and a compromise is reached, or even “Leaving” is delayed sufficiently for a rethink, and a re-vote if necessary.
Brian McClean retired – member of the ANC
2 I am sceptical about the state of democracy generally, the elections in the US have turned into a televised pig-circus for competing big-business lobbies. The influence of big corporations in the UK and Europe has reached a point where their interests are flagrantly favoured over anybody else's. This is most obvious in the UK at the moment given the background of the Tory party leaders. The secrecy surrounding the TTIP talks, which will carve up the world to the benefit of large firms is a classic example.
3 My first reaction was disbelief. After a campaign based on gut reactions and little or no information, the uninformed voted to leave. The next day, their reaction was similar to mine and all seemed to be asking themselves: “What have I done?”
I must point out that I myself have very serious doubts about many aspects of the EU, but failed to find any of my misgivings in the general scaremongering and rabble-rousing. The two figureheads of the Leave campaign lost no time in abandoning a sinking ship. The beratings received by Farage in Brussels were priceless FB fodder.
My personal feeling is that, as “Dubya” once said: “That dawg ain't gonna hunt!” The requirement for a vote in parliament means that Article 50 is never going to be evoked. All that has been achieved is to convince our partners that Britain cannot be trusted .
The latest joke is that May's government has announced the scrapping of the European Bill of Rights to be replaced by a British one. Do the Sun and Daily Fail readers really believe the Tories can be trusted with that? Cameron has opened a huge can of worms that will take years to close if that ever happens.
Simon Harris writer
1 I find it very annoying. As I'm not a Spanish citizen, I'm effectively disenfranchised on all important votes.
2 Europe has a problem of democratic transparency and accountability and the system seems the wrong way round. In the UK, legislation is proposed, debated and voted on in the democratically elected House of Commons and then filtered and amended by the unelected House of Lords. In the EU, legislation is proposed mainly by the unelected European Commission, I think, and filtered and amended by the European Parliament. The only way for the EU to start to work is for the European Parliament to be the motor behind new legislation with the Commission working like a Senate or House of Lords.
3I'm very pleased. I was uncertain on the morning after but as time has passed, the more confident I am that it's best for everyone. Hopefully, it's the first step in all European countries regaining their sovereignty. With a bit of luck the elections in France and Germany will reflect similar levels of dissatisfaction with the EU.
We need to start thinking about how we can dismantle the Euro and the European monetary dictatorship next.