|
|
|
UK's
anti-EU
victors
will
find it
hard to
fulfill
promises
By JILL
LAWLESS
Associated
Press
LONDON -
Politicians
who
wanted
Britain
to leave
the
European
Union
were not
shy
about
making
promises.
They
plastered
their
campaign
bus with
vows to
"take
back
control"
on
immigration
and
boost
funding
for the
beloved
National
Health
Service.
But with
Britain
facing
months
or years
of
negotiations
to
detach
itself
from the
28-nation
bloc,
victorious
"leave"
leaders
will
find
their
pledges
of
prosperity,
sovereignty
and more
public
spending
hard to
keep.
They
know it,
and are
already
lowering
expectations.
Conservative
"leave"
supporter
Iain
Duncan
Smith
now says
the
campaign
had not
laid out
promises
but
simply
"a
series
of
possibilities."
And
having
shocked
the
world -
and
global
markets
- with
the
referendum
result,
Britain
appears
in no
hurry to
rush out
the EU's
exit
door.
The
"leave"
campaign
led by
former
London
Mayor
Boris
Johnson
has yet
to lay
out what
it
thinks
Britain's
future
relationship
with the
EU
should
look
like,
and
Prime
Minister
David
Cameron
says
Britain
won't
trigger
formal
divorce
talks
until a
new
prime
minister
is in
place
after
the
summer.
Before
Thursday's
referendum,
however,
the
"leave"
side's
tone was
considerably
less
unambiguous:
They
wanted
out,
they
wanted
control
of EU
immigration
and they
wanted a
lot of
money
back
from the
EU.
"Let's
take
back
control,"
said a
slogan
on the
"Vote
Leave"
bus that
traversed
the
country,
as its
leaders
argued
that
Britain
could
secure
its
borders
and
limit EU
immigration
only by
exiting
the
bloc,
therefore
eliminating
the
right
that EU
workers
have to
live and
work in
Britain.
An
estimated
2
million
Poles
have
come to
work in
Britain
since
2004,
and
850,000
are
still
here.
Another
bus-side
"leave"
pledge
said:
"We send
the EU
350
million
pounds a
week -
let's
fund our
NHS
instead."
Many
economists
think
there's
a
conflict
between
the key
promises
of
reducing
EU
immigration
and
producing
a
flourishing
economy.
They
argue
that
Britain
needs
access
to the
EU's
tariff-free
single
market
of 500
million
people,
and
won't
get it
if it
tries to
restrict
the free
movement
of EU
labor.
Jonathan
Portes,
principal
research
fellow
at the
National
Institute
of
Economic
and
Social
Research,
said
anti-EU
campaigners
chose to
ignore
the link
between
economic
access
and EU
immigration
in order
to win
votes.
"They
told
lots of
people
that
these
trade-offs,
which
were
reasonably
obvious
and are
now
coming
to the
fore,
didn't
exist,"
Portes
said.
"Sooner
or later
they
will
have to
deal
with
it."
The
desire
to curb
immigration
motivated
many
"leave"
voters,
since
more
than 3
million
people
born in
other EU
nations
now
reside
in
Britain.
An
estimated
1.2
million
Britons,
including
many
retirees,
have
moved to
other EU
nations,
but
Britain's
relatively
thriving
economy
has
meant
that
immigration
has far
outstripped
emigration
in
recent
years.
Many
Britons
who
voted
"leave"
believe
those EU
immigrants
have
placed
strains
on
schools,
hospitals
and
housing,
even
though
they
have
paid
taxes
and many
economists
argue
that
immigrants
are an
economic
boon.
Leaving
the EU
would
allow
Britain
to "take
back
control"
by
renouncing
the
free-movement
principle.
But if
it did,
it would
be
unlikely
to get
open
access
to the
EU's
single
market,
with
which
the U.K.
currently
conducts
half its
trade,
exporting
everything
from
beef and
lamb to
financial
services.
Portes
said a
deal
offering
free
trade
but not
free
movement
would
have
"fairly
significant
negative
consequences"
for the
British
economy
and
British
living
standards.
An
alternative
could be
to let
Britain
keep its
access
to the
single
market
in
return
for
paying
the EU
and
accepting
the
free-movement
principle
-
roughly
the deal
that
Norway
has.
That
would
eviscerate
"leave"
side
promises
to curb
immigration,
however.
Still,
Johnson,
one of
the top
prospects
to
become
Britain's
next
leader,
seems to
favor
that
option.
He said
in a
column
for
Monday's
Daily
Telegraph
newspaper
that
Britain
would
forge "a
new and
better
relationship
with the
EU -
based on
free
trade
and
partnership."
Some
senior
"leave"
campaigners
acknowledge
that
under
that
model,
immigration
would
not
necessarily
fall.
Daniel
Hannan,
a
euroskeptic
Conservative
member
of the
European
Parliament,
told the
BBC he
favored
"the
idea of
staying
within a
common
market
but
outside
the
political
integration"
of the
EU.
"(That)
means
free
movement
of
labor,"
he
admitted.
A
British
exit
could
also
complicate
a key
piece of
Britain's
border
controls.
France
currently
lets
British
officials
conduct
border
checks
on its
soil, so
non-European
migrants
hoping
to reach
Britain
get only
as far
as
Calais,
on the
French
side of
the
English
Channel.
The
mayor of
Calais
has
threatened
to
change
that
arrangement,
saying
"the
British
must
take the
consequences
of their
choice."
Another
whopping
"leave"
promise
was that
the move
would
shift
350
million
pounds
($462
million)
a week
away
from the
EU and
into
British
health
care.
The
figure -
labeled
grossly
misleading
by
"remain"
campaigners
- is
roughly
Britain's
gross
contribution
to EU
coffers.
But the
U.K.
gets
half the
money
back
through
a rebate
and
other
discounts,
and also
receives
billions
a year
from the
EU, for
everything
from
farming
to
science
and
heritage
projects.
It's not
clear
how much
Britain
would
save
under
any
future
deal
with the
EU.
Norway,
which is
outside
the
bloc,
pays
almost
as much
per
capita
to the
EU as
Britain
now
does.
And even
if
Britain
makes
some
savings,
its
hospitals
will
have to
compete
with
many
other
areas of
the
economy
for
funds.
Asked if
he could
guarantee
that 350
million
pounds a
week
would go
to
health
care,
U.K.
Independence
Party
leader
Nigel
Farage
said:
"No, I
can't."
He said
the
claim
"was one
of the
mistakes,
I think,
that the
'leave'
campaign
made."
Even the
most
fundamental
promise
of all -
that
Britain
will
take
itself
out of
the EU -
is not a
certainty.
Cameron
says he
won't
fire the
starting
gun on
formal
exit
talks,
leaving
that for
a new
prime
minister
to be
selected
after a
Conservative
leadership
battle
this
summer.
But that
leader
may want
to call
an
election
to seek
a
mandate
for the
EU
negotiations.
If that
election
produces
a pro-EU
majority
of
lawmakers,
they
could
seek to
stall,
or
refuse
to
implement,
the
referendum
result.
Scottish
leader
Nicola
Sturgeon
has
already
said she
would
try to
get
Scottish
lawmakers
to block
Britain's
departure
from the
EU.
Many of
the 48
percent
of
Britons
who
voted to
remain
in the
bloc now
feel
angry,
worried
and
hurt.
That
feeling
of
betrayal
may soon
extend
to
"leave"
side
voters
when
they
realize
the
political
promises
they
counted
on have
not been
kept,
says
David
Blunkett,
a former
Labour
government
interior
minister.
"We've
ended up
with the
likelihood
of a
far-right
Conservative
government
in the
U.K.,
with the
U.K.
disintegrating,
with
resentment
about
the fact
that
those
who have
been in
favor of
"leave"
won't be
able to
deliver
the kind
of
things
they've
promised,"
Blunkett
told the
BBC. "I
fear
greatly
for
democratic
politics
here."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|