You were right to want to take control

“Take back control”, that was the powerful (and winning message) that the Leave campaign delivered to voters in 2016. As someone who emphatically rejected that campaign, I want to say that you, Leave voters, were absolutely right to endorse that sentiment. Many communities do not feel connected to politicians and the political system.

Some of this sentiment is a consequence of the way the world’s structure has developed. The world has become increasingly complex and interconnected and it has become harder to see where decisions are made and who is accountable for those decisions. Remain voters do not necessarily understand this structure much better than Leave voters but they may have more trust in it delivering good results. It is not a failing or either camp to trust or not trust such systems. But let me suggest something to you.

Other parts of the feeling of having lost control are not structural, however. In some cases, decision-making is genuinely too removed from voters in a way that might be justifiable on its own grounds but is not actually necessary. It is natural and fair for voters to look at this situation and say: “Enough. Give us back control, leave the EU and let us make decisions directly.” This position is internally completely consistent.

But let me suggest something. As a Remain voter, I too want control. Indeed, as a Remain voter I want citizens to have much more control than the EU currently gives. Given this feeling, why did I not endorse Leave?

Well, maybe I would have, if I had believed for even one second that to leave the European Union would give us more control over the decisions that affect our lives. But I do not. At the European level, the EU will continue to be our main trading partner. As such we will have to comply with regulatory systems we have had no hand in designing. This much is obvious. Yet at the global level too, where increasingly we are seeing regulations being set, our influence on these standards will be diminished. The United States and China exert immense influence in the content of these standards because of their economic weight. For European countries (even ‘top’ countries like the UK), the only way to exert similar influence is by working together. Our ability to influence decisions at the global level will be weakened when we cannot rely on the backing of the other states of the European Union.

When a UK government sends off a trade delegation (which will no doubt feature some of those terrifying ‘unelected bureaucrats’, a bizarrely self-evident phrase) and agrees to give another country’s citizens visa-free travel to the UK in exchange for tariff reductions on certain key goods, will that be ‘control’? It may be a good thing but I do not believe it would satisfy the lack of connection to politics felt by Leave voters (and Remain-voting marginalised communities).

Meanwhile, focussing on Europe again, we need to recognise that a European level of decision-making does exist. It’s simply not possible for us to turn back the clock to where decisions were entirely made at the national level. No country can do this in the 21^st century. All countries have to work with their neighbours, establish agreements and take action collectively to ensure their prosperity and security. Those countries that are best able to do this will have the competitive advantage in the future. Cooperation is the key to success. The only exception to this are countries so massive they already form the equivalent of a group of other countries.

So what are we to do with this European collective decision-making? How do we take back control and bring the system closer to voters? Do we leave the EU? All that will do is exclude us from the room where the decisions are being made, leaving us to pick up, adapt to and follow whatever agreements others have forged. Maybe it would work if the EU collapsed entirely? We’d be in the room then. Certainly it seems that a number of Brexit campaigners were aware of the contradictions of their position and were betting on this in order for their plan to work. But if the flaw with the EU is that too many decisions are being made by government ministers, sequestered away in private rooms, cutting deals with no real accountability or transparency, then abolishing the EU would make the situation even worse.

The reality rarely acknowledged is that there is very little in the international system that could be deemed democratic or accountable. International politics is not designed to be democratic and often is based on governments taking executive decisions with very little oversight. At least the EU, for all its faults, has forced some transparency and has the European Parliament which openly makes decisions in concert with national governments.

Yet I agree that it is not good enough. If I voted Remain then it is not because I was happy with the status quo. It is not because I was sitting back contentedly, believing that I had all the control in the world. Rather it was because the alternative world Vote Leave presented would and will absolutely fail to deliver on its promise. It won’t give communities control over the issues that affect their lives. My preference for staying in the EU was because it gave more control not because it delivered enough control.

So what is the answer? When international politics is inherently undemocratic and unaccountable, how do we deliver control for citizens?

I do not have an answer for the global system as a whole. Nor am I convinced that for now, an answer exists, we will have to get there by progressive steps. But for Europe I do believe we can build one of the first of these steps. A federal union.

Only through a federal Europe can the citizens of all these states, from Britain to Poland to Sweden to Greece, take back control. Through a transparent system of democratic accountability, citizens will be able to directly elect the representatives that take the key decisions at the European level while retaining their representation at the national level. By shifting the European political system away from the undemocratic mechanisms of international organisations and towards the competitive party politics of democratic states, citizens will be able to clearly see what politicians stand for when it comes to European policy and come together in Europe-wide elections that will not just contribute to policy-making (as is the case with the current European Parliament) but be decisive.

For more than 70 years now, Europeans have been trying to grab hold of our destiny and to take back control of our futures. Following not one but two world wars, the second of which in particular resulted in unfathomable bloodshed and destruction, we have been left as weakened bystanders for too long. Divided between east and west, one under American tutelage, the other under Soviet repression, we were not the masters of our own fate. We still are not. The Soviet bloc has fallen away and we have edged closer to unity and freedom but we are still undone by our own divisions. If we do not act quickly, Europe will be carved up once again into spheres of influence for the grand games of other powers.

Through a federal union, Europe will have the strength to stand up on its own two feet and match up to the other superpowers of the modern world, playing the role of decision-makers in global affairs that most Europeans want. By pooling our sovereignty and our interests, we will be able to more effectively defend both than we ever could by striving alone or even through the incomplete construction of the European Union.

So yes, let’s take back control. Let’s put ourselves in a position where what Europeans say matters both at home and in the world. Let’s build a federal Europe.

Image via Flickr