If you point out that “Europe”, unlike in 1975, the last time we had an EU in/out referendum, does not feel like the future, people respond. The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening: those who want to leave are reaching out for something better. That is the exact opposite of 40 years ago. It puts the wind in our sails...
The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening
Charles Moore
1 May 2016
The Telegraph
In our village hall in Sussex on Saturday night, we held an EU referendum debate. No political party was involved, nor was the Remain or the Leave campaign. A local solicitor and a man with a small publishing business in London spoke for Remain. The novelist and biographer Alan Judd, ex-Army and ex-Foreign Office, spoke for Leave. So did I.
I found the occasion very encouraging because of its tone. People seemed to want to think about the questions at stake. Except for one speaker who laid in to the motives of Boris Johnson, almost no one mentioned politicians. There was very little rancour.
The unattractive side of the Leave campaign are those people who have it in for foreigners. The unattractive side of the Remain campaign are those people who have it in for their own country. We picked up some eddies of both these feelings in our debate, but very few. Overwhelmingly, we saw the better aspect of both sides. The Remain people wanted to emphasise how nice it was to have good relations with continental neighbours and to find positive experiences of dealing with the EU. The Leave side wanted to assert that democracy should be stronger than bureaucracy and say how much they appreciated Britain’s opportunities in the wider world. Most of what was said showed sincerity and sense.
The level of engagement was striking too. Our village has only 600 inhabitants; nearly 200 people turned up. Most crowds at public meetings nowadays are predominantly elderly, but I would say that about a quarter of our audience was young, and more than half the rest were of working age. There were contributions by teachers, farmers, exporters, professionals of various kinds and a woman who was defying her own family’s support for Remain because she was so worried about what President Obama and the TTIP (the EU/US trade treaty) might do to bees.
The village butcher and a lawyer counted the votes. At the beginning of the debate we were 61 for Remain and 78 for Leave. An uncounted number (about 40, I guessed) did not express a view. At the end, a few came off the fence. The final vote was 64 for Remain and 86 for Leave.
From a Leave supporter’s point of view, I would say that the most ground we need to make up concerns trade and exchange of all kinds. A significant number of people seem to think that we need permission to trade with other countries and that this can somehow be denied us if we leave the EU.
Others, particularly the young, imagine that we might be stopped from flying easily to the Continent, or working or studying there.
Yet others believe that all successful regulations originate in the EU. The Remain proposer in our village debate, for example, said how much better it was nowadays because, thanks to the EU, we had got rid of London smogs. In fact, what stopped the old “pea-soupers” was the Clean Air Act, passed by our sovereign Parliament in 1956, 17 years before we joined the European Economic Community (which became the EU in 1993). It needs to be explained again and again that virtually all the good things which the EU sponsors can be done without being in it.
The most encouraging thing I picked up from Saturday night is the sense of possibility. If you point out that “Europe”, unlike in 1975, does not feel like the future, people respond. The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening: those who want to leave are reaching out for something better. That is the exact opposite of 40 years ago. It puts the wind in our sails.
The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening
The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening
Charles Moore
1 May 2016
The Telegraph
A volunteer wearing a campaign t-shirt listens to a press briefing by the 'Leave.EU' campaign group in central London in November 2015
In our village hall in Sussex on Saturday night, we held an EU referendum debate. No political party was involved, nor was the Remain or the Leave campaign. A local solicitor and a man with a small publishing business in London spoke for Remain. The novelist and biographer Alan Judd, ex-Army and ex-Foreign Office, spoke for Leave. So did I.
I found the occasion very encouraging because of its tone. People seemed to want to think about the questions at stake. Except for one speaker who laid in to the motives of Boris Johnson, almost no one mentioned politicians. There was very little rancour.
The unattractive side of the Leave campaign are those people who have it in for foreigners. The unattractive side of the Remain campaign are those people who have it in for their own country. We picked up some eddies of both these feelings in our debate, but very few. Overwhelmingly, we saw the better aspect of both sides. The Remain people wanted to emphasise how nice it was to have good relations with continental neighbours and to find positive experiences of dealing with the EU. The Leave side wanted to assert that democracy should be stronger than bureaucracy and say how much they appreciated Britain’s opportunities in the wider world. Most of what was said showed sincerity and sense.
The level of engagement was striking too. Our village has only 600 inhabitants; nearly 200 people turned up. Most crowds at public meetings nowadays are predominantly elderly, but I would say that about a quarter of our audience was young, and more than half the rest were of working age. There were contributions by teachers, farmers, exporters, professionals of various kinds and a woman who was defying her own family’s support for Remain because she was so worried about what President Obama and the TTIP (the EU/US trade treaty) might do to bees.
The village butcher and a lawyer counted the votes. At the beginning of the debate we were 61 for Remain and 78 for Leave. An uncounted number (about 40, I guessed) did not express a view. At the end, a few came off the fence. The final vote was 64 for Remain and 86 for Leave.
From a Leave supporter’s point of view, I would say that the most ground we need to make up concerns trade and exchange of all kinds. A significant number of people seem to think that we need permission to trade with other countries and that this can somehow be denied us if we leave the EU.
Others, particularly the young, imagine that we might be stopped from flying easily to the Continent, or working or studying there.
Yet others believe that all successful regulations originate in the EU. The Remain proposer in our village debate, for example, said how much better it was nowadays because, thanks to the EU, we had got rid of London smogs. In fact, what stopped the old “pea-soupers” was the Clean Air Act, passed by our sovereign Parliament in 1956, 17 years before we joined the European Economic Community (which became the EU in 1993). It needs to be explained again and again that virtually all the good things which the EU sponsors can be done without being in it.
The most encouraging thing I picked up from Saturday night is the sense of possibility. If you point out that “Europe”, unlike in 1975, does not feel like the future, people respond. The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening: those who want to leave are reaching out for something better. That is the exact opposite of 40 years ago. It puts the wind in our sails.
The EU’s defenders are clinging to something that is weakening
Last edited: