Many of the Brexiteers voted ‘Leave’ over immigration, but few in the U.K.—and Canada—seem to understand how vital immigration is for economic growth.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2019.

OTTAWA—Brexiteer Boris Johnson is taking his country to the brink.

Parliamentary chaos, left in his wake, is a reminder to all of us that governments matter.

British singer-songwriter Billy Bragg characterizes the current mess as “the most divisive years” in the history of his homeland. Bragg compared last week’s hasty prorogation to the work of the last proroguer, King Charles the First, who was ultimately beheaded.

“Consensus is further away than any time I can remember,” bemoaned Bragg in a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview.

Brits are getting a bird’s eye view of the importance of government.

Johnson is pledging to leave the European Union on Halloween, whether or not his country has been able to negotiate an exit agreement. He may not succeed in prorogation, as senior members of his own inner circle have resigned in protest. But the self-imposed, drop-dead departure date of Oct. 31 is sure to throw the United Kingdom into deeper crisis.

The whole exercise is a glaring example of how not to operate in a democracy. The country is split right down the middle between Leavers and Remainers. The financial centre of London is overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, while most other parts of the country are slightly in favour.

The initial referendum was launched by former Prime Minister David Cameron as a way of shutting down internal Conservative opposition to the country’s increasing integration with the rest of Europe. Cameron made a foolish miscalculation on the matter, setting the benchmark for referendum victory at a simple majority. His country is now reaping the results of this ill-advised decision.

The younger the voter, the more likely they are to want to remain in the European Union. Conversely, older citizens, who remember the days before the United Kingdom joined the European Union back in 1973, are more likely to want to leave. Polling shows a strong correlation between age and a desire to exit the union. The majority of older people hold the view that European membership has deprived Britain of the power to control immigration. Younger pro-Europe voters believe immigration has made the country a more vibrant place and assisted economic growth, in complete contrast to their older counterparts.

Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain: the importance of governments in planning for the long-term future has never been clearer.

Liberals took a beating in Canada when we asked the courts to establish a clear path forward in the event of another referendum on separation. The courts confirmed that separation approval would require a clear question supported by a clear majority. This principle was enshrined in the Clarity Act. A similar British law would have ensured that any decision to leave the European Union would have required a clear majority. The only thing clear today is that the country is split in half.

If the United Kingdom does exit with no deal, Scotland and Northern Ireland will quickly be knocking at Europe’s door to get back in. One country ends and another begins. The notion of a painless exit from the European Union is a pipe dream that not even Johnson will be able achieve.

Confusion belies a bigger question. Modern Canadian Conservatives claim that less government is better. They are positioning the upcoming federal election as a fight between over-governing Liberals and the party that wants to keep government out of your pocketbook and your life.

Libertarians like Maxime Bernier go even further. They believe the job of government is to get out of the way so the private sector can have free rein over the economy.

Most of us understand very little about how immigration policy and economic development go hand in hand. As Canadians have fewer children, the only way the country can meet workforce demand is by increasing immigration. Bernier’s plan to cut those numbers by more than a half is not only bad politics, it is bad economics, especially in struggling regions of the country. With an aging population, we need more young people to replenish the retiring workforce.

But the older we grow, the less we seem to understand or welcome the integration of immigrants and diverse populations into Canadian communities. Immigrants are key to revitalizing Canada’s flagging rural economies. They bring families, spending power, and entrepreneurial talent.

It is no surprise that British younger people welcome immigrant diversity as an economic asset. Their world has been turned upside-down by a generation that will not be around to bear the pain of Brexit madness.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published in The Hill Times on Monday, April 3, 2017.

OTTAWA—If ever the world needed a sexism wake-up call, the Brexit debate offered it up last week.

Just as two leaders were meeting to tackle the thorny issue of the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union, the best a British tabloid could do was serve up a piece on the shape of the leaders’ legs. “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it!,” the headline read, “Sarah Vine’s light-hearted verdict on the big showdown.”

Worse than even committing the sexist sin was The Daily Mail’s defence of its piece, admonishing upset readers to “get a life.”

One cannot imagine a “light-hearted piece” comparing the size of U.S. President Donald Trump’s butt cheeks with those of Vladimir Putin.

So why is it considered fair game to make light of women’s body parts, especially in the context of a political negotiation?

The Daily Mail’s piece served its purpose, reducing the seriousness of the conversation to a seduction attempt using women’s best weapons, sexy legs. In so doing, it trivialized the gravitas required to successfully negotiate the extraction of the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe.

The Brexit opening salvo last week involved British Prime Minister Theresa May triggering clause 50, in a six-page letter stating her intentions for a proposed departure from the EU within two years.

There is a huge amount at stake, for Britain and the EU. Speaking to Parliament, Prime Minister May heaped praise on Europe, focusing on the longstanding relationships and shared values developed over centuries. She also proposed a two-track parallel negotiating process, where costs and conditions for exiting are determined in tandem with a new trade pact mirroring that of the former common market.

If Europe refuses to negotiate on the British timeframe, the current integrated commerce rules would be forfeited in favour of those of the World Trade Organization, which some are characterizing as disastrous for the United Kingdom.

Remaining European states will be reluctant to negotiate preferential trading arrangements at the same time as they are finalizing the divorce, fearful that too sweet a deal might prompt other countries to follow the British lead.

The first runoff of the French election this month includes a leading candidate from the far right who is actively promoting an end to the European monetary system and a return to the French franc.

If the United Kingdom is seen to retain all the benefits of European integration without any political responsibilities, that could be an attractive catalyst for further disintegration.

On the other hand, Europe is Britain’s largest trading partner and vice versa, so there is a mutual need to keep borders as seamless as possible.

Then there are the internal challenges of the not so United Kingdom.

With Scotland voting over 60 per cent to remain in the EU, the Scottish Parliament just decided last week to hold another independence referendum.

Serious stuff indeed. And May’s meeting with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was designed to tackle that issue as well.

So how could a newspaper possibly deduce that focusing on duelling pairs of legs was in any way relevant or worth reporting? In the first edition, the legs story led front page coverage, and actually played larger than an adjacent political piece referring to proposed British Brexit details.

The columnist writing about the legs of May and Sturgeon claimed that she was analysing the messages being sent out by each leader, based on where and how they placed their legs.

The writer, whose husband happens to be a Conservative MP, claimed the Scottish leader won the battle of the gams, by crossing her legs and pointing one of them directly at her audience in an effort to seduce them. She chided May for her vicar-approved posture.

The twittersphere exploded with harsh rebukes for the newspaper which must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The sexism angle vaulted the story to the lead on multiple newscasts around the world.

Even those reporting on the incident used inadvertently sexist language.

The London journalist covering the story for CNN pointed out that these two were among the most powerful women in politics. The anchor, another woman, corrected that unintended misstep, by stating the obvious. They were two of the most powerful people in politics.

In the current Brexit drama, May is arguably one of the most influential political figures in Europe, facing another potent leader in the person of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Their legs should not be for turning.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter @Sheila_Copps.