9 reasons why I as a Christian, am in favour of remaining in the EU, and opposing the current Brexit path

9 reasons why I as a Christian, am in favour of remaining in the EU, and opposing the current Brexit path (4000 words)

INTRODUCTION

There are a number of reasons why my Christian Faith leads me to support remaining in the European Union. Of course it’s right to respect that other Christians support Leave, and I have sought to understand their views. It’s reasonable to say that membership of the EU or not is a means to various ends, and people may disagree as to how remaining or leaving would fulfil those ends. This is a practical question; Leave or Remain is not an issue where one answer or the other is intrinsically moral or immoral.
I have searched online and have not found much written that covers my nine main reasons, listed below – hence this article. I would be interested in responses, particularly from Christians who support Leave.

This is a personal view. But it represents a strong conviction. I  am not denying that others may have different opinions, but I do have difficulty in understanding how a Christian could support the Boris Johnson government’s approach - and I have not found any explanation that reconciles such support with the deceit that established this government.

Andy Flanagan of “Christians in Politics” advocates talking to people with views different from our own and seeking to understand those views. I agree, and have found this useful. I set up a forum for this purpose at the New Wine Christian Conference (“Brexit and Faith – Listen and Dialogue”), but sadly bad weather curtailed the conference and meant that the forum didn’t take place.

I have listed a few of the results of my Internet search below. I am not aiming to provide much commentary on them; some of the arguments have become no longer applicable, because the articles were written at various dates.  But I will say that some of the arguments seem to rely on abstract quasi-Biblical principles favouring the nation-state and opposing international treaties; I don’t see an absolute moral principle in this respect, and I think that the considerations we should take note of need to be more practical and attuned to the specific situation. And to the writer who considered economics to be unimportant, however, I’d like to refer to Reason 1, and the point that the nation's ability to do any good - education, welfare, health care, environment, social development , science – depends partly  on economic prosperity. 

The articles I referred to are here:

Some reflections (1^st April 2019), including a Christian case to leave and a Christian case to remain

https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/reflecting-on-brexit-from-a-christian-perspective/

Joe Boot’s Christian case to Leave (April 2016)

https://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/blog-entries/voting-and-the-role-of-the-state

A Christian Case for Brexit  (undated)

https://www.gerv.net/writings/brexit/

British Christians and Brexit To claim that somehow Britain is morally superior to the other 27 countries of the EU is a dangerously arrogant position to take.

http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/3652/Christians_in_the_UK_and_Brexit

A Christian Case for a People’s Vote

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/21-september/comment/opinion/the-christian-case-for-a-people-s-vote

The majority of people voting in the 2016 referendum who identified (in opinion polling) as Christians voted to leave the EU. However there are strong correlations between identifying as Christian with being white and being over 65, and so this does not mean that a Christian faith itself is a factor that caused people to vote Leave; the vote among Christians was certainly divided, as among the population as a whole.

I am treating the question of our EU membership as still undetermined – firstly because it is undetermined, and secondly because (see Reason 5) what was campaigned for was not possible.

Here are my reasons as headlines, and each is expanded below.

1. I believe we need to make the best use of our talents.

2. I believe in a positive future for the UK.

3. I believe the more vulnerable members of society should be at the forefront of our planning

4. I don't believe you achieve a good outcome by a commitment to repeated deceit.

5. I believe that we can learn from mistakes.

6. I believe we have responsibilities for our children and for future generations.

7. I believe we need to work together to tackle the world's biggest challenges.

8. I believe we need to respect international treaties, including the Good Friday Agreement

9. The EU is rightly legislating to prevent tax evasion.

-------

You'll see that I will be identifying statements made in support of Brexit that I consider to be untrue. Please don't read on if you would be offended by this - it's an important factor in my view.

This is not a complete list of arguments for EU membership. It focuses on the aspects where I see a strong Christian moral perspective rather than on "purely political" points - though of course there is no hard and fast boundary. Point 5 is an interesting one in this respect however - on point 5 my position is that there are understandable moral arguments both ways (but that we are not morally obliged to agree with the government).

1. I believe we need to make the best use of our talents.

The UK is a comparatively prosperous country, and we should not lightly throw away that prosperity. And in response to "it's not all about money or the economy", bear in mind that the nation's ability to do any good - education, welfare, health care, environment, social development , science – depends partly  on resources.

Both in 2016 and 2019 the Brexit argument rapidly shifted from making an economic case towards an argument that "We'll take a (unspecified) hit but it will be worth it". 

Since Brexit will make trade with the EU more difficult and will lose us the EU trade deals with other countries (which are not just "rolled over"), the implications for damage to our economy are quite clear, and are borne out by Government analysis.

It seems that Leave campaigners argued that because it would be theoretically possible for trade deals to be replicated, that is what would happen; in reality the strength or weakness of a negotiating party affects this, and a Britain desperate for trade deals does not have the bargaining power of the EU.

Personally, every day at work for an international charity I grappled with the challenges that the money we could use was worth less after June 2016. Now in my case this was about international development - we had less ability to help rebuild in Nepal after the earthquake, for example,  because the money that the UK public had chosen to give was now worth less. But in every area of expenditure – not just international development -  our resources have become worth less and fall further whenever no-deal Brexit seems more likely.  Yes, we might receive a greater amount of (lower value) sterling for our exports, but even there we are unlikely to gain real value.

I am reminded of the parable of the talents. For the man given five talents, it wouldn't have been good to refuse to deal with anyone else and see the five talents devalue to four.

Since I have mentioned international development, I’ll add a side-note here that I do not feel guilty for the methods by which the UK became a comparatively prosperous country before my birth, though many of those methods are not defensible. But I  do feel a responsibility that British assets should be used well. To those who say "Let's leave Africa alone" I suggest that if that was our approach we should have thought of that 500 years ago.

We have a responsibility to use our comparative prosperity well, not to throw it away for undefined benefits.

2. I believe in a positive future for the UK.

We have had a special and beneficial relationship as a key player in the EU. This contrasts with the Brexit campaign where there is no clear vision or an untrue vision ("easiest trade deals in history"). Brexit seems to be being pursued by many as an unreasoned obsession rather than for any good positive reason. Brexit is generally advocated with negative motivation - if there was good reason for leaving the EU it should be to achieve something better, but many advocates of Brexit seem content with destroying what we have. I believe that there needs to be a good reason for change. “If Britain wants to leave the EU it should be because it wants to go somewhere, and it has not worked out where it wants to go” is a quote which for me sums up the dilemma, but I am still searching for the source.

To be fair, there are some references to “an independent U.K. free to make its own trade deals wherever it wants”. This often seems to be something of an afterthought, and is certainly not proving to be the reality.

3. I believe the more vulnerable members of society should be at the forefront of our planning.

Leaders of seven Church denominations wrote an open letter warning of the impact on the vulnerable of a No Deal Brexit.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/26-july/news/uk/church-leaders-warn-johnson-about-consequences-of-no-deal.

The letter states, from a  position of knowledge, that “we are compelled to write expressing our urgent concern about your position that leaving the European Union without a deal is acceptable. Advice and data from multiple reputable sources, including the UK Government, indicate that failing to agree a deal will hit those held back by poverty very hard indeed”, and the full text is in the link.

The letter’s key conclusion is “The impacts of a no-deal Brexit are at best highly uncertain, and at worst deeply worrying. Our view that it would put at risk the welfare and safety of the poorest communities in the UK is formed on the basis of the best available evidence, including our presence in local communities in every part of the UK . It is notable that assurances about our ability to cope with a no-deal Brexit, while frequent, are yet to be supported by substantial evidence.  Evidence-free dismissals of well-founded concerns are at this stage both dangerous and inappropriate. Your Government’s willingness to embrace a no-deal Brexit places upon it a responsibility to demonstrate that the most vulnerable in our communities, those locked in poverty, will not be harmed.”

I spoke to a Christian member of the Government and asked her about the Churches’ letter, She didn’t agree with it and simply said “There will be economic consequences of Brexit”, as if I was denying this fact but asking for Brexit. The attitude from Leave supporters seems to be “We will take a hit” without specifying how bad this “hit” will be and who will be most “hit” by it. I recognise that sometimes a Government needs to take decisions with difficult economic consequences, but it is not Christian to do so blindly or recklessly.

4. I don't believe you achieve a good outcome by repeated deceit.

This argument is not an argument against every possible Brexit, but the current path to Brexit is based on deceit. This cheats the 52% as well as the 48%. If the 52% wanted what they were being offered then they will not be getting it. Clearly most of the leaders of the Leave campaign did not believe in a real Brexit, otherwise they could have campaigned for it. And "Remain lied too" is not an answer even if you believe it - two wrongs do not make a right, the end doesn't justify the means, and we are on a path driven by the Leave campaign's deceit. If you are pondering two possible cars A and B to buy, then even if both car salespersons lie to you, and you buy car A, it is salesperson A who has defrauded you; you have a legal case against salesperson A, not salesperson B.
A good summary by Stephen Fry of the deceitful personalised adverts sent in the biggest electoral fraud of the last 100 years, using stolen personal data, is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

Once deceit starts, it continues and multiplies. The Government was in contempt of Parliament, we paid millions for non-existent ferries after being assured there would be no cost if there were no ferries, and even in the leadership debates Boris Johnson asserted we could rely on GATT 24 in the event of No Deal – which is not the case.

The Euro elections tell us that "Everyone just wants Brexit done" according to many Tories. This is demonstrably not true, but presumably their hope is that a lie repeated often enough will become accepted.

The appointments of July 2019 appear to demonstrate that it's ok to lie, cheat, leak, and break the Ministerial code and none of those flaws debar you from serving in Boris Johnson's Cabinet, or as his adviser.

Could there have been an honest Brexit campaign? - yes, certainly, Brexit could have been advocated based on the merits of whatever Brexit option was proposed. But that's not what happened, and that is because of the actions and words of the Leave campaigners.

Blaming the EU for our inconsistent negotiation is not edifying. Wouldn't we expect the EU to be supportive of members if another country was leaving, but when EU  considers the interests of Ireland for example some UK. politicians insult them ?
Who is acting in a Christian way)?
There are a few occasions in which a move for an honest Brexit could have been made:
- in the campaign if we had had a defined-outcome referendum
- at the start of Theresa May’s premiership; I think she missed an opportunity to be a facilitator for a fair result, and instead sought to prove her hard-line credentials by going straight for a hard Brexit.

- in 2018 in December or earlier, when Parliament’s opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement became very clear, a cross-party group could have been established
- at March or April 2019,
- potentially in the future after a new General Election, provided we look at the question afresh.

But the pursuit of Brexit now involves trust in the major deceivers; I do not see how they can expect to be trusted.
"In an unmissable talk, journalist Carole Cadwalladr digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK's super-close 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Tracking the result to a barrage of misleading Facebook ads targeted at vulnerable Brexit swing voters -- and linking the same players and tactics to the 2016 US presidential election":
https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

Is No-Deal something which has a “vanishingly small” probability as per Boris Johnson  on 30^th July 2019 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/30/boris-johnson-says-uk-could-stay-eu-customs-union-single-market/   (though he appears to have no plan to avoid it) or “the Government’s default assumption” (Michael Gove) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49141375 (28 July 2019). Nothing significant changed between 28 and 30 July, so one of them is telling us things that are not true.

This is not a question of a basically sound campaign with one or two over-enthusiastic proponents over-promising; this is a campaign and a project which has repeatedly relied on deceit where the truth would not result in the level of support sought. If Brexit was a result that Christians should support, then it should be achievable without relying on deceit.

5. I believe that we can learn from mistakes.

The best argument (best of a bad bunch in my view) is the 2016 referendum result.

To listen to some Leave-supporting politicians, you might think this is the only argument now, which is somewhat worrying, but let's consider it anyway.

It is argued that democracy will die and people will lose trust in politicians if the referendum result is not implemented. We can question whether the politicians who argue this most strongly believe in the argument,  because many of them are those who have done most to weaken trust in politicians by their deceit in the referendum campaign and subsequently. But let us examine the argument on its merits

Do Christians have a responsibility to respect authority and therefore respect the result?

Alternatively, can we learn from what has happened and have the wisdom to learn from mistakes?

I think there are points to be made on both sides here. I would agree for example that you shouldn't keep pushing referenda indefinitely if you're not happy with the result. But we should bear in mind that:

* We know much more about what is on offer than in 2016

* The Government made every effort to implement the result (perhaps not effectively, but they tried - they did not “ignore the referendum result” as is sometimes claimed)

* The referendum was advisory 

* The referendum was won with lies and electoral cheating which would have meant that the result, if mandatory, would have been cancelled; Vote Leave’s analysis was that the £350m EU membership funding the NHS was crucial and Leave would not have won without this, even with the many other deceits

* Opinion polling demonstrates that opinions have indeed changed 

* We have not left yet - the decision itself is reversible, (though admittedly nobody has argued that the economic damage we have suffered could be fully reversed).

* The Johnson/Cummings plan for Leaving on October 31^st now seems to be based on side-lining Parliament, which seems substantially at odds with the claim that Leaving the EU would enhance our democracy.

So there is a balance to be drawn in our parliamentary democracy between

1. following – if it is possible to do so -  the 2016 result come what may, because there was a result then (though what for was undefined) OR
2. recognising that the objective was to consult the people, and that to fulfil that objective we need to establish whether there is a majority for the new proposal - whatever it may turn out to be.

It is still, 3 years on, unclear whether the "Will of the People" is, according to our new government, to be fulfilled by a No-Deal achieved without EU agreement ("We can just walk away ..,") or by some as yet undefined No-Deal-with-side-Deals which has not been defined in 3 years but which according to some is going to be defined, agreed, legislated and implemented by 31^st October, and which will then be, retrospectively, found to be the Will of the People.

I don't find that credible; how can you say "this is what people wanted 3 years ago" when you cannot define it now?

Let me be clear - on this point I am not arguing that there is a moral case in favour of a Final-Say referendum, though there may be a case to be made for that. But I am arguing that it's a morally valid position to hold - that we are not required as Christians to agree politically with everything our leaders say, as some would argue. We need to respect authority, but legal dissent and protest is an important part of our democratic system. Marching and petitioning seems to me particularly valid when what we are seeking is for the will of the people now to be heard.

But will democracy die if there is a Final Referendum on the final option? Let's ask 3 questions:

• Has there ever been a second referendum where nothing substantial had changed?
• Has there ever been a third referendum on anything ?
• Did democracy die in Denmark and Ireland ? 

Since the answers are No, No and No, I don't see a Final-Say Referendum as anti-democratic or immoral.

6. I believe we have responsibilities for our children and for future generations.

If the decision, once made, has implications for a period of a generation or more, as I believe it will, then young people will be impacted more. And the loss of employment will of course have most impact on those of working age.

It is well- established that younger voters were more inclined on average to vote Remain and older voters to vote Leave, though of course with many exceptions (myself included). 

This is a difficult factor to address with legislation (other than to enfranchise 16 and 17 year olds, which personally I believe is right to do anyway, but that's another debate). You can't give greater weight in a referendum to the votes cast by the young without eroding the principle of "one person, one vote". But is there not a moral case for older voters to take into account the wishes of those of working age who stand to lose most as a result of Brexit? 

Of course many Brexit supporters may argue that they believe that a future outside the EU will be better for future generations. But as Robert Chambers said, concerning the question of making good decisions for the benefit of other people, we can be guided by a simple principle: "Ask them!" - see for example http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.487.8068&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

– this is in a development context but the principle is equally applicable.

We are entitled to our vote, as a constitutional principle, But, morally, should we not take account, when deciding how to use it, of the wishes of those who are most affected?

7. I believe we need to work together to tackle the world's biggest challenges

If you ask me which is the bigger issue – EU membership or tackling man-made climate change -  I have no doubt in answering “tackling man-made climate change”. But our ability to influence big issues like this is much greater as part of the EU.
In the 3 years since the referendum we have already seen that on our own we have very little influence on our own.

The Paris Climate Change accord is a good example – the USA is openly pursuing its own path with Trump as President, and the EU has much better leverage than individual countries to press for what is right for the planet.

8. I believe we need to respect international treaties including the Good Friday Agreement

The Good Friday Agreement represents significant efforts and sacrifices by all parties on both sides of the border, both sides of the Irish Sea, and both sides of the Atlantic. Of course there are historical wrongs on both sides, but the Good Friday Agreement represents the best effort ever to move forward in a spirit of co-operation. Crucially, it recognised that it was valid for residents of Northern Ireland (if they wished) to identify as Irish, to have Irish passports, and to pass freely across the border. This is an international Peace Treaty which the UK signed.

The backstop was proposed by the UK Government as a mechanism to ensure that the GFA was not subverted by Brexit.

I genuinely have difficulty understanding the opposition to the backstop – the opposition seems to be based on the idea that “alternative technological arrangements” will rapidly be available to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and Eire -  but if the “alternative technological arrangements” will be rapidly available then the backstop will not need to be applied, and so why is there a need to object to the backstop? I am not saying that there is outright deceit on this point, but since the opposition seems to be based on unsound arguments, there js a concern that there is a hidden agenda. But, hidden agenda or not, the point is that a guarantee is needed that there will be no hard border – not just a hope based on government ability to implement new information technology, which I have to say from personal experience is not actually something I place great trust in.

Of course we avoid the problem, and incidentally support the union of the United Kingdom, if we stay in the EU. But Brexit as currently proposed by Boris Johnson involves reneging on the negotiation of the backstop and therefore doesn’t support the Good Friday Agreement, so we would be failing in our international treaty obligations. It is also interesting to note that in the USA Democratic Representatives have talked of blocking any UK-USA Trade Deal if the UK is undermining the Good Friday Agreement.

9. The EU is rightly legislating to prevent tax evasion

By leaving the EU we would perpetuate the status of the UK as a tax haven.

The suspicion persists that this is the real reason why many of the rich men of the right wing are in favour of A No-Deal Brexit – declaring their faith in Britain while moving their assets abroad, and backing moves that would take Britain out of EU tax evasion controls. It’s difficult to have confidence that they are acting with integrity when the evidence for the damage to Britain as a whole is clear. See point 1 above. Should we be advocating a move which damages most of us and benefits a few?
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/uk-tax-reform-must-be-condition-eu-post-brexit-trade-accord-say-meps

This is not a fundamental reason that says we must Remain, because we could implement similar legislation nationally – however it does not seem likely that we would do so.

_______________________________

So there are my nine reasons. Many of these reasons would, on their own, convince me to support Remaining, or at any rate to oppose the current path towards No Deal. Some apply more specifically to the “No Deal” that is seemingly now the Government assumption. I have read a fair number of articles proposing the opposite view, but most of these nine points are simply not addressed in those articles, so I know of no Christian response to many of these points. I await comment, with interest!  (and I will edit, if any inaccuracies are identified).