Two years on and Brexit is still going strong

By - Thursday 14th June, 2018

Twenty-four months after the EU referendum, where are we in Croydon?

Photo author’s own.

On 24th May Croydon’s Leave campaign team held a public meeting in Clyde Hall, Croydon, to discuss Britain’s opportunities outside the EU. The meeting had guest speakers Chris Philp, MP for Croydon South, and London Assembly member, David Kurten. Each spoke followed by a Q&A, with much follow-up discussion afterwards.

Chris supported the Remain campaign in the referendum, but as a democrat was happy to speak about the path being taken by the government and support the majority vote. David, a former teacher in the borough, has been a long-time Brexiteer and the attendees used the opportunity in the Q&A to extend the discussion to encompass climate change and foreign interference in our politics.

What were those opportunities? Chris Philp spoke about the process of transition and the deal that the government is working on. Chris also spoke of his belief that the EU will want to do a deal on financial services due to, amongst other reasons, the depth of liquidity in London not found elsewhere in the EU. It was especially pleasing to hear Chris’s commitment in saying that Britain will have full control of its fisheries from 1st January 2021. Around the coast we have the prospect of a major industry that provides good, local, long-term jobs.

There will be increased employment opportunities for young people

David spoke about the increased employment opportunities for young people that will come with reduced immigration. David also talked about the reported £40 billion we are paying to leave the EU. He put this into context of the number of full football stadiums’ worth of wages that this represents. At an average salary of approximately £30,000, this is 6.9 years’ salary for every one of the 193,000 workers in the borough. It can also be seen as 52 years’ salary of everyone in full attendance at Selhurst Park. Whatever you think of Brexit, to pay £40 billion we need to gain an excellent deal in return; anything else would be little more than massive theft from the British people.

Sadly, as always today with political debate, we had people who tried to derail the meeting, with large bookings from fake accounts (it had no impact). Democracy is about supporting the validity of a result even when you lose. It is also about accepting others saying things that you don’t like. You don’t have to support, like or fund them, but it is critical that differing views can be aired in the public space.

The campaign for Brexit is two years on from the referendum and still going strong. More events are planned in the borough and it you’re interested please get in touch at . If you would like to know more about what was said, videos from the evening can be viewed online for Chris and David.

Michael Swadling

Michael Swadling

Michael works in the IT Industry for and has lived in Croydon all of his life. He has been a governor in local schools for over twelve years. During the referendum he was the Croydon Area Manager for Vote Leave, Now promoting Classical Liberalism and Freedom. Visit Croydon Constitutionalist for events and articles on Classical Liberalism in our area Former UKIP candidate for Croydon North and Croydon Council.

More Posts - Twitter

  • Mark Johnson

    Excellent article. Don’t let the anti-democracy extremists win.

    • Michael Swadling

      Mark – thanks and yes agree this is now all about democracy, and the vote being fully implemented.

  • Nigel Davey

    Your point about the fishing industry – may I comment on this? With 75% of the fish caught by the UK fleet being exported (much to the EU), how much of this market do you believe will remain after we leave? As the majority of the fish consumed in the UK is imported, how are we going to convert UK palettes to eating the species that are landed in the country? If we don’t do that, it doesn’t matter whether we have full control.

    • Michael Swadling

      Thanks for commenting – a few thoughts on this.
      - why wouldn’t we continue to export 75% to the EU or other countries?
      - If we do face more difficult trade with the EU / some tariffs. We would likely export less but still near to 75% to them.
      - Lots of the fish imported may well be caught in British waters and landed abroad so that would now become domestic consumption.
      - If it’s harder to export to the EU, it will likely be harder to import. This in turn will encourage consumption of domestic fish.
      - If we had a surplus still of fish that would increase supply on the domestic market. In turn prices would fall and consumers would be more tempted to buy British fish.
      - Over time as we sign more free trade deals we can export more fish (now at cheaper prices with lower tariffs) to other markets outside the EU.

  • Bernard Dainton

    That Brexit is practically harmful – particularly economically – is obvious to anyone who isn’t hopelessly naive. The least harmful option would be to stay in the EU; given that is off the table, the next least harmful is the so-called Norway option of staying in the Customs Union and Single Market, but having no say over them. The draw back is that makes us rule-takers rather than rule-makers.

    The further we get away from the Norway option the more economically harmful it will be. A so-called ‘No deal’ Brexit – with no agreement reached with the EU about anything at all – would lead to immediate disaster. For example, all flights from Britain to Europe are governed by EU rules, flights to the US and much of the rest of the world by an EU policy called Open Skies. If we left the EU without a deal on this, then all flights out of the UK would become illegal on 29th March next year. And there are many other aspects of our economy that are likewise governed by EU rules, that if no replacements are in place by next March will cause complete gridlock. So bad would the situation be that I am convinced (?) that the government would rather give in to all the EU’s demands than leave without a deal.

    And that’s to say nothing of the issue of the Irish border, or that the EU’s raison d’être is to so integrate the economies of Europe that they can never go to war with each other again.

    That Brexit is morally wrong takes a bit more thinking about, but is equally the case in my opinion. So far as I can see Brexit seems to be mostly motivated by a mixture (in varying quantities in different Brexit voters, to be sure) of
    * xenophobia – dislike of too many foreigners
    * nostalgia – hankering after a golden age in the past that never was
    * selfishness – an unwillingness to share the benefits of our wealth with other members of the EU (even though it is in our interests so to do, as the only effective way to reduce immigration from Eastern Europe is to develop those countries so that their standard of living doesn’t drive their brightest and best to the West)
    * pride – that we are somehow superior to all the other EU countries
    * solipsism – a desire to be self-contained rather than being willing to cooperate with others.
    None of these are Christian virtues – indeed many of them are generally considered sins. The only motivation others have suggested that seems to me remotely positive is righteous anger at the corruption of the EU, and/or the negative effects of EU policy on parts of the UK – anger which while probably justified seems to me to be misdirected. If anyone can suggest any more reputable motives for Brexit, please let me hear them!