Social Movement Organization: The Opposition to Brexit

Introduction

In June 2016 the United Kingdom (UK) decided to depart from the European Union (EU). This was accomplished through a nationwide referendum in which a majority of UK citizens voted to depart from the EU. This ended a 44 year relationship that the UK had as a member of the EU. This decision is commonly referred to as Brexit, a portmanteau of “British” and “exit”. The results of the referendum were highly controversial, leaving one side of the population in disbelief of the results. Nearly split in half was the population on whether they wanted to leave the EU, 51.9% (17,410,742 votes) in favor of Brexit and 48.1% (16,141,241 votes) opposed. The slim margin of victory left those opposed wanting a revote due to the impact this decision has on the entire country.

Many skeptics felt the public was misinformed on what an exit from the EU really meant. “Large proportions of the electorate were misled by the Leave campaign, whose main slogans, propositions and promises were based on lies, gross inaccuracies, major misrepresentations and populist sound bites” (Susen, 2017, p. 166).This led to a mobilizing of opinions that felt the results would cause serious harm to the UK. Anti-Brexit supporters felt that this move was based on xenophobia, isolationism, and dissatisfaction with politics. Factors that many felt did not deserve to be reflected in a major political action. A departure from the EU has unforeseen consequences to the UK that many citizens are deeply concerned about. As a result several anti-Brexit groups have formed to counteract the referendum, and unit the UK with the rest of Europe. Groups like Open Britain have surfaced as leaders in the fight against Brexit.

History

The European Union was formed in 1957, originally called the European Economic Community (EEC). It was first established by France, West Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. After World War II, European countries vowed to never engage in such a war again, and therefore founded a community where European nations could work together. The belief was that nations that traded together would be less likely to go to war with one another.

It was not until 1973 that the United Kingdom joined the EEC. It first applied in 1963, but was met with reluctance by the then French President Charles de Gaulle who vetoed the application. Gaulle did not want English to dominate the community, but eventually the UK was finally accepted as a new member in 1973. However, two years after joining, the country was already considering leaving.

On June 5, 1975 the UK held a vote that asked the question: “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?” The vote was not as close as the 2017 vote but it did produce startling results. The “Yes” vote was 67% while the “No” vote received 32% of the votes. Only the Shetland and Western Isles won the “No” vote, so this was not enough for the country to leave the EEC. Though in 1984, tensions rose once again when the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher demanded a reduction in British payments to the EEC budget. “Though at the time the UK was the third-poorest nation in the Community, it was paying a lot more into the budget than other nations due to its relative lack of farms” (Pruitt, 2017). However, Thatcher was able to work out a UK “rebate” plan that reduced Britain’s contribution from 20% to about 12% (Pruitt, 2017).

In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty was signed forming the Brussels-based European Union that is still in place today. Relations between the UK and the EU were relatively stable throughout the 1990s. Tony Blair, who was elected Prime Minster in 1997 was a strong pro-EU advocate and fought to keep the relationship strong. Complications arose however, during the mad cow disease scare of the late 90’s when disagreements on how the UK and the EU wanted to regulate beef. The EU and France in particular held strict bans on British beef for years in response to the disease. A similar instance came when the EU began to limit chocolate exports from the UK, criticizing its recipes and labeling. This constant pressure from EU regulations began to stir a sense of distrust in the EU among UK citizens.

In response, the new Prime Minister David Cameron enforced a policy towards the EU that revolved around protecting Britain’s financial sector. “In early 2013, he gave a much-anticipated speech in which he outlined the challenges facing Europe and promised to renegotiate membership in the EU if his Conservative Party won a majority in the next general election. At the same time, support was growing among British voters for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and its hard line stance against the EU.” (Pruitt, 2017). The economic unrest in the UK led to a gradual support of a British exit from the EU.

In addition, the country was experiencing salient reminders of its colonization years of the past. This has been evident in the surge of immigrants coming to the UK in large numbers. Since the UK’s recent economic growth in the last couple years, immigrants have migrated to find work in the UK. “Since 2004, immigration levels have been boosted by an extraordinary wave of mobility from Eastern European countries, particularly Poland, whose citizens have free movement and labor rights following European Union enlargement” (Sommerville, Sriskandarajah, and Latorre, 2009). This recent trend in immigrants has sparked resentment among many natives of the UK. The unrestrictive flow of immigrants, and the harsh regulations from the EU ignited a flame among the public, prompting a desire for change.

As promised in Cameron’s manifesto pledge, he introduced the referendum on the UK’s continuing membership in the EU. “Turnout for the referendum was 71.8 percent, with more than 30 million people voting. The referendum passed by a slim 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent margin, but there were stark differences across the UK. Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, as did Scotland [while] England and Wales, however, voted in favor of Brexit” (Pruitt, 2017). This is an almost complete turnaround from the results in the 1975 vote on what the country felt about the EU. Figure 1 compares the results.

Figure 1: On the left is the 1975 vote with dark green being a strong “Yes” and dark red representing a strong “No.” On the left is the 2016 referendum in which blue represents votes for “Leave” and yellow for votes to “Remain.” Retrieved from EU Referendum Results, 2017.

The Rising Opposition

When the referendum was announced, two advocacy groups campaigned to either stay in the EU or leave. The official campaign group for leaving the EU was Vote Leave, while the opposing group was Britain Stronger in Europe, or informally, Remain. After the campaign of Britain Stronger in Europe failed, many of its top leaders involved went on to form the post-referendum group called Open Britain. Their website states their purpose; “to campaign for Britain to be open and inclusive, open for business, open to trade and investment, open to talent and hard work, open to Europe and to the world.” (Britain, 2017). They are currently the leading force opposing a destructive Brexit.

Open Britain is headed by politicians Pat McFadden of the Labour Party, and Norman Lamb a Liberal Democrat. Former Conservative politicians, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Dominic Grieve recently cut ties with the movement in February 2017 after Open Britain campaigned against anti-EU parliament members. Open Britain inherited the database of 500,000 activists who campaigned with or donated to the Remain campaign, and it also took over its social media channels (Peck, 2016). It continues to thrive throughout the UK, ran by the commitment of its supporters. Working not only with Remain voters but engaging in conversations with those that voted Leave.

Their focus is around the decision to exit the EU that they feel was not an inevitability. They see this as the most drastic response to immigration reform and the European Court of Justice. They fear the UK government and the public are unprepared to survive without the Single Market and the Customs Union that the EU provides. In response, they are pushing to ensure: migration and free movement does not become too restricted, the UK continues to fund and protect EU investments, unprecedented cooperation over security and intelligence, and many other issues.

In order to take on this huge task of creating a smooth transition out of the EU, Open Britain has come up with several tactics and strategies to combat the government’s divisive plans. One plan is titled “Drop the Target” which will lower the “tens of thousands” of immigrants the government currently wants to prevent from settling in the UK. The fear is that this number is too high and will damage the economy which sustains on labor and taxes from EU nationals. Another plan is to encourage local support from voters to write to Members of Parliament (MPs) to vote for an amendment that will give Parliament the final say on Brexit. Additionally, Open Britain wants voters to write to MPs to secure the rights of EU nationals currently living in the UK in the article 50 bill that will be up for vote soon. These tactics are supplemented with rallies and protests like the one pictured in Figure 2 at the Palace of Westminster. These tactics make up the strategy of trying to galvanize public support to get the attention of MPs and other government officials to reject a hard Brexit.

Figure 2: A pro-EU rally at the Palace of Westminster in London, England on September 3, 2016. Taken by Jordon Oliver.

The New Social Movement

Open Britain has become a social movement because it conceptualizes five key elements. First, it is challenging the existing and accepted standard of authority. By refuting Brexit’s referendum, Open Britain is challenging the government and the plan to leave the EU. Secondly, the movement is made up of a consolidation of local grassroots, volunteers and supporters throughout the UK who work together towards the same goal. Third, they work independently of existing institutions to carry out their mission. Fourth, they are organized: with political opportunity from politicians that aid the cause, an in-depth website that details their movement, and grassroots around the country that manage events. Lastly, they are consistent and have continued to persist ever sense the referendum was introduced on the ballot.

The collective identity that drives Open Britain is revolved around the grievances that the supporters are concerned with. These vary depending on individuals but are consistent with the dissatisfaction, fear and moral shock of leaving the EU. The pro-Brexit vote, “gave a large portion of the British population that felt its opinions were disregarded, a single, highly constrained opportunity to express their views, and their resentment” (Hearn, 2017). David Hume a Scottish philosopher made the argument that people are ruled through opinions (Hume, 1985). Therefore, through this opinion a majority of the country voted to leave based on what many Open Britain supporters felt was unprovoked. Instead the public relied on their opinions of immigrants ruining the country, and a lack of political control. This brash thinking is what the Open Britain campaign feels was excessive and based on fabricated perceptions.

A poll by Lord Ashcroft, a former chairman of the conservative party, found that the number one reason for voting remain was that, “the risks were too great to things like the economy, jobs and prices, and that membership of the EU while being out of the euro and the Schengen area was ‘the best of both worlds’” (Ashcroft, 2016). Meanwhile, the main reason to vote to leave was that it, “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders” (Ashcroft, 2016). In an interview with Bernard McGrath, a Meetings Secretary for Open Britain, he states “those that enjoyed reaping the benefits from a close relationship with Europe have now lost that security.” In addition, immigrants and those that believe in free immigration are harmed by this move. The results sent a shock to remain voters who were surprised by the marginalizing nature of the vote. This disruption of, “patterns of everyday functioning and routinized expectations associated with those patterns has led to what is known as a quotidian disruption (Snow & Soule, 2010, p. 36). This change has 48.1% of voters left feeling grieved and unsettled.

Open Britain is not the only social movement organization (SMO) that has mobilized to protest Brexit. There is an entire social movement industry (SMI) that is all working toward the same change. These groups are mentioned by Open Britain as collaborators. They often agree on working on similar plans and consolidating resources because they are working toward the same achievements. Many of these movements are sharing the same grievances as Open Britain so they therefore are fighting the same fight. Figure 3 shows some of the many different titles within the SMI.

Figure 3: Some of the many different social movements that oppose Brexit. Retrieved from Britain, 2017.

In order to deal with the current referendum, Open Britain leaders have acknowledged the public’s demand for stronger immigration reforms. To compromise, Open Britain is pushing to be more selective, but to not close the UK’s door to the rest of the world. Isolation to them is not the answer. Three political leaders of the group have been quoted saying “If we interpret the referendum result as a vote for a more insular and less inclusive country, or one in which the only way to advance working people's living standards is to turn our face against the world, we will have converted a defeat into a tragedy” (Peck, 2016).

As a social movement they conceptualize their argument through frames that people can relate to. These frames are diagnostics of the grievances that people are experiencing. First of all, the title of the movement, Open Britain, implies that Britain is closed. Closed to Europe, by the move of Brexit that they consider to be separatists. The title also suggests that Britain needs to make itself more accessible to Europe. They therefore frame their opposition as one that is revolved around isolationism, xenophobia and imperialism. On the Open Britain website they have stated that to support Brexit means “to squander good will among EU leaders, and instead put all [of the UK’s] eggs in the basket of a special relationship with Donald Trump” (Britain, 2017). Therefore, they have framed pro-Brexit supporters in correlation with Donald Trump supporters. This frame gives Brexit the same type of discourse as the rhetoric used by Trump’s campaign, such as strict foreign regulation policies and putting the UK first, disregarding relationships with its neighbors.

The pro-EU frame however, is illustrated as casualties in an unprovoked disruption of power. Open Britain’s stance is that the UK was in a better position as part of the EU. It now attempts to fight for the rights that may be taken away when Brexit is implemented. Their frames suggest they are fighting to save the UK from a destructive Brexit. They are doing this by highlighting the values of a close relationship with Europe and having open borders with the EU.

Conclusion

In a bid to disrupt Parliament’s exit from the EU, Open Britain has gone after 20 Brexit-supporting MPs to unseat during the next general election. This move has even received political backing from former Prime Minister Tony Blair. By using its resource of humans and collaborating with other SMOs to mobilize numbers, they are hoping to overthrow 20 MPs from participating in the next election. The future for Open Britain and the UK remains uncertain. However, the support for Open Britain has been stable and will remain to push for a compromised Brexit. It appears that the movement will not cease until all of its grievances receive full responses.

Bibliography

Ashcroft, Lord (2016). ‘How the United Kingdom Voted on Thursday … and Why’. Lord Ashcroft Polls. http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-andwhy/. Accessed 15 August 2016

Britain, O. (n.d.). About Open Britain. Retrieved June 4, 2017, from http://www.open-britain.co.uk/about

“EU Referendum Results” BBC.com News. 4 June 2017. Web.

Hearn, Jonathan.” Brexit” Vox Populi: Nationalism, Globalization and the Balance Of Power in the Making of Brexit. Anthem Press. (2017)

Hume, D. (1985). ‘Of the First Principles of Government’. In Essays Moral, Political and Literary, edited by E. F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 32–36.

Peck, Tom. “Open Britain: Remain campaign relaunches - but gives up hope for a second referendum.” Independent. 28 August 2016

Pruitt, Sarah. "The History behind Brexit." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 29 Mar. 2017. Web.

Sommerville, Will., Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan., Latorre, Maria. United Kingdom: A Reluctant Country of Immigration. Migration Policy Institute. 21, July 2009

Snow, David., Soule, Sarah. “A Primer on Social Movements.” Contemporary Societies. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2010.

Susen, Simon. “No Exit from Brexit?” Sociological Responses. Anthem Press. (2017)