Brexit was about sovereignty, not economic gain

To the Editor,

I have to respond to Nick Inman and others who believe they are right in saying “I told you so” in the debate over Brexit.

The problem that Brexiteers like me (someone who has become a French resident despite some of the adverse impact of Brexit on expatriates) have with his arguments is that while we may no longer be a paid-up member of the EU, the real Brexit – the one most Leavers actually voted for – has never really happened.

For us the main attraction of Brexit was actually sovereignty, not economic gain.

Most of us expected that there would be short-term economic pain from having to develop new bureaucracy to handle trade deals (although I believe the negative effects of the loss of trade with Europe for some industries has been at least partly offset by better deals with other non-EU countries, and that the net adverse impact is overstated by many Remainers).

While we hoped that in time the position would improve, economic advantage was never our main concern.

What was important was control over not only our borders but, more importantly, our laws. 

However, the establishment has blocked every attempt in this regard, and to this day we are still under the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the ECJ.

Whether it is the small boats, the Rwanda Scheme or any other initiative to separate ourselves from the EU, the establishment (many self-serving departments) seems to have found a way of convincing weak governments that delivering the change voters requested was not in their best interests.

Remainers may delude themselves into thinking that Leavers have changed their opinion over Brexit because Boris Johnson and subsequent prime ministers failed to deliver the economic benefits promised.

However, those of us who have more insight into the machinations of government, the civil service, the judiciary and other self-serving arms of the establishment, know better.

Covid and the war in Ukraine have not helped, as the true economics of Brexit have been masked, and many of the opportunities for Boris Johnson to deliver on his manifesto were scuppered by these significant demands on central funds and resources.

Perhaps if Reform or Restore manage to resolve their differences and get into power, we may see a truer reflection of a government committed to delivering the actual will of the people.

S.C., by email

To the Editor,

We live in France and arrived just after the Brexit vote but before Theresa May pushed the button.

Negotiations by Boris Johnson were a botched job. Many areas were not thought through and caused damage to businesses and expatriates alike. There were too many ‘red lines’ so it was not really a negotiation at all.

The fallout has damaged relations between the EU and the UK. It has also damaged the economy of the UK and, as predicted, caused shortages of workers in the NHS and care industries.

It has also restricted our ability to return people arriving by boat to France and has cost billions for their accommodation and to bolster deterrent efforts in France.

Can we return? I suspect the terms would be unacceptable, such as adopting the euro.

But I do feel that this government needs to work towards a closer alignment to facilitate the free movement of goods.

The strong regulations on food are a good idea and should be a benchmark for the UK, which has kept them for the past 10 years.

Student exchanges and the ability to work in Europe – and have EU citizens work here – should also be priorities, as well as the reinstatement of expatriates’ right to vote in local elections and recognition of qualifications. 

Come on UK – get round the table and sort this out.

G.M., by email

Have you changed your opinion on Brexit? Let us know why at letters@connexionfrance.com