Skrevet i:

Brexit special: Young Brits on Brexit or Bremain

Interview with Brexit supporter Christopher Jackson

© by iStock

Slaget om fremtidens Storbritannia er heldigvis i de unges hender: det er tross alt de som skal forvalte den. Når britene om knappe tre uker skal stemme over om de vil forbli en del av EU, ligger mye av makten hos de yngre generasjonene: sitter de hjemme, eller bruker de helgen på Glastonbury-festivalen og glemmer å forhåndsstemme, øker sjansene for at Storbritannia sier “au revoir” til EU. Sørger de for at noen kan stemme på deres vegne (ja, for det er mulig i Storbritannia) mens de selv hører på Coldplay, Sigurd Ros og Adele, er utsiktene for at Storbritannia forblir en del av EU – eller snakkeklubben, fredsprosjektet eller verdens mest ambisøse politiske prosjekt, avhengig av hvem du snakker med – betydelig større. En meningsmåling gjennomført på vegne av avisen Observer i mai tyder på at kun halvparten i aldersgruppen 18-34 er sikre på at de kommer til å stemme den 23.juni. Den samme meningsmålingen viste at i denne aldersgruppen ønsker 54 % å fortsatt være EU-borgere, mens kun 29% ønsker å trekke Storbritannia ut av EU.

I en serie videointervjuer med unge briter frem mot valgdagen 23.juni ønsker Tja til EU å bli litt mer kjent med generasjonen som kan tippe balansen. Vi har bedt de dele sine refleksjoner om valgkampen, politikerne som driver den, om de kommer til å stemme og om Brexit er noe som engasjerer vennekretsen. Først ut er Christopher Jackson, som ønsker at UK skal gå ut av EU. Legg gjerne igjen din kommentar!


Av Christopher Jackson

The starting gun has been fired and now begins the race. By the end of June 2016, the UK will have made the most important decision it has faced in 25 years. Do we stay or do we go?

The BREXIT debate is one of identity, and it is on this issue that the referendum must deliver a clear answer. The question of Britain’s role and place in Europe has always been defined by this question: are we Europeans or are we something different?

The BREXIT debate is one of identity

Many misunderstand this notion. To say you are different makes people uncomfortable. In this context, it inspires claims either that British people are exhibiting national chauvinism or that they are being willfully ignorant of the realities of today’s world. These claims, however natural they may be given the appalling narrative on immigration in Britain today, are wrong. Britain is different not because we do not share with other Europeans the common bonds of humanity, shared love and respect for liberty and human decency, respect and tolerance of others and a commitment to helping those in need. We are different because we do not believe, nor do we accept, that Europe’s methods of how to build a society are the right ones.

Most would like this vote to be about a simpler issue. The “vote leave” seeks a migration narrative, the “vote stay” wants an economic narrative. But for the future of Britain, they must both fail in their endeavours. Instead, voters should understand the clear meaning of their actions. To “vote stay” means that British people must finally accept that they have a shared responsibility to working with Europeans to help solve their problems as well as our own. To “vote leave” requires British people to acknowledge that if we do not feel a responsibility to help Europeans outside of our national interest, then we must acknowledge simultaneously that Europe has no responsibilities to support our national interest.

I believe in BREXIT because in viewing my home and those from it, I see the world differently from those on the continent.

In the narrative of history, we must all hope that the story of Europe continues. The European Union has made life better for the continent and its people. It is a symbol of hope and idealism to many across the world, despite all its failings. But it is not our story. I believe in BREXIT because in viewing my home and those from it, I see the world differently from those on the continent. Our nation is not afraid of no longer being a titan on the world stage, nor are we afraid of a world where we do not control the global agenda. Britain has always thrived on its ability to innovate, to be pragmatic and to take risks in order to survive. Such has always been the necessity of island nations.

Europeans see the EU as a mechanism to sit at the world table in the rising new world order. As an equal to China, the US and to India. Today’s modern Britain does not see that necessity. The reality of the modern world is that no nation, or body of nations, can unilaterally determine their economic environment or their security environment. The age of autarky and isolationism is dead. The challenge of our time is not do we choose to work with others, but how we choose to do so. In this context, one must always remember that national interests reflect national character.

The UK does not believe that protectionist trade tariffs, strict labour laws, state controlled economies or heavy state regulation leads to a greater quality of life for our people.

The UK does not believe that protectionist trade tariffs, strict labour laws, state controlled economies or heavy state regulation leads to a greater quality of life for our people. The history of our nation shows that our prosperity has been driven by the periods where we innovate, where we seek out new ideas and where we search the world for new markets. The wealth of our nation similarly should never be dependant on one single trading block. It is often forgotten that before the European Union the UK’s biggest trading market was India. Why it is that such a pattern could not re-emerge is one of many unanswered questions that the “Vote stay” movement has yet to address.

The security of our nation has been achieved through the strength of our national endeavours. No foreign-armed force has landed on the British islands in over 300 years and when left alone to defend our citizens rights abroad, we have shown our ability to act unilaterally to protect them. Many mistakenly associate peace in Europe with the European Union. This is wrong. Peace in Europe has been achieved by NATO and de-facto by America. The “Special relationship”, for all its failings, has always been the recognition by Britain that Europe lacks the motivation internally to unite collectively in its own self-defence. If evidence of that were ever needed, the use of NATO in the Balkans and the European reliance on new US armoured brigades in Eastern Europe, provide two immediate examples (there are of course others). The Freedom of our nation therefore will always rely, first and foremost, on our own efforts and our relationship with the US. As to threats of terrorism and transnational crime, it is often forgotten that the UK’s worst period of terrorism came during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. If at the height of the cold war our allies were unwilling to help us when it conflicted with their national interest, it seems disingenuous (to say the least) that this will change in the future.

The challenge facing those who campaign to leave has been to explain “what comes next”.

The challenge facing those who campaign to leave has been to explain “what comes next”. Setting aside the unchallenged assumption that staying in Europe will ensure that the UK follows a clear and predictable path for 20 years, it is not unreasonable to say that a vote to leave also requires a plan on how to leave and what should happen after we leave. As with all well laid plans, few survive contact with reality. Assumptions of behaviour and of processes are notoriously challenging even where precedents exist, let alone where they do not. But setting these aspects aside, a strategy for the UK would go as follows.

Following a vote to leave the UK will not immediately leave the EU. This is the reality and yet it appears often ignored. The UK will enter into a period of negotiation on the terms of our exit, while remaining in the Union. The negotiations are likely to require 4-5 years and, in essence, they will require the UK to accept EU governance for its companies who wish to trade in Europe. Conversely, European firms who wish to trade in the UK will have to follow English laws and governance. As most global regulation is increasingly being harmonised, over time there will remain few significant differences in regulation between the two. On immigration, the UK will move to a points based system. In so doing, it will significantly ease work and residency related visa requirements for Australian, New Zealand, US and Canadian nationals. Over time, these restrictions are likely to be expanded to other commonwealth states as their levels of development increasingly reach parity with our own.

From a trade perspective, we will work with the WTO to expand its effort for a new set of global standards and a reduction in global trade restrictions. We will also explore deals with ASEAN and other regional markets across the world. Such action was how we once thrived. We will re-discover this talent, as many of our young entrepreneurs already are doing.

A UK that remains a friend and partner of Europe, whilst remaining an independent nation state that pursues the best interests of its people on its own terms.

At the International level, the UK will continue to sit and act in partnership with European nations. We will join with Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, New Zealand (and occasional the USA and Japan) as part of the EU+ grouping which exists within the major multilateral banks and other international organisations. On security matters, we will remain committed to the defence of Europe and particularly Eastern Europe, where we have already increased our presence and where we played an instrumental role in bringing these nations into both the EU and NATO. For issues of transnational crime, a bilateral extradition agreement will be made with the EU as part of our terms of exit. On this last matter, there is little disagreement between the EU and the UK and little incentive from either party to prevent such an outcome.

This is the case for BREXIT. A UK that remains a friend and partner of Europe, whilst remaining an independent nation state that pursues the best interests of its people on its own terms. To “Vote leave” is not a rejection of liberal values and a statement of disregard for the well-being of Europeans. Instead, it is a re-assertion of the well known principle that the best form of governance is self-governance. It is time British people remembered this principle.

To my countrymen and women, whatever your opinion, please make sure that you vote on 23rd June. This is our future and I hope you vote to leave with me.

Skrevet av Espen Berg-Larsen

• Født i 1986, fra Skien, Telemark
• Har jobbet som maskinfører på et smelteverk i Porgrunn før jeg studerte Europastudier. Har en master i europeisk samfunn og vitenskaps- og teknologiforståelse.
• Jeg jobbet som generalsekretær i Europeisk Ungdom før jeg flyttet etter kjæresten til Brussel hvor jeg jobbet med å mobilisere ungdommer til å stemme i Europaparlamentsvalget i 2014. Jeg fullførte masteren min ved Universitetet i Oslo høsten 2015. Nå jobber jeg for Geelmuyden Kiese Brussel og fremmer norske og skandinaviske interesser i EU.

13 posts

Retningslinjer for kommentarer

Kjære kommentarfeltbruker! Vi ønsker dine argumenter og meninger velkommen. Vær saklig og vis omtanke, mange leser det du skriver. Gjør debatten til en bedre opplevelse for både andre og deg selv. Vennligst gjør deg kjent med våre regler.