Brexit: why networks might be important

The romantic notion of our agrarian past where people tilled the land in ignorant bliss of timetables, debts and email traffic is cherished by many 20th Century writers and thinkers. They tended to ignore the reality of low life expectancy, high levels of birth defects and infant mortality.

The bicycle rather than modern medicine was an important moment in time. It broadened our horizons. It meant that men and women met people in a 50 mile radius rather than a 5 mile radius. The gene pool widened and fitter stronger people were born – lowering infant mortality, reducing birth defects, and increasing life expectancy.

The train, the car and the plane have extended these networks. As a nation, we have been able to visit places such as Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam for a weekend. If you are in business and willing to get the first train or flight – you can go for the day.

This has brought new perspective, new ideas, new markets and we have all benefited. In Europe the idea of economic interdependency has given us peace and prolonged prosperity.

International networks provide us with inexpensive solutions – IT from India, clothes from China and cars from Malaysia. Globalisation is seen as a problem by many, but few can imagine a world where we live in the same village for our entire lives - returning to an agrarian lifestyle filled with the stench of death.

As we consider our future in or out of the European Union, we are being hit with anecdotes about the cost of MEPs, the tariff barriers that the French impose on Chinese goods and the cost of membership as a whole. The opposing side reminds us of how much Britain benefits from foreign direct investment, from non-European multi-nationals headquartering in London and the risk of flight of the big US Investment Banks.

The truth is that no-one knows what the real impact will be.

Personally there is a long list of reasons why I will vote to remain:  the risk of losing Scotland, the certainty that a trade deal will take a long time to sort out, the effect on the pound and foreign direct investment (we receive more than any other EU country), a prolonged period of economic uncertainty, the potential loss of education cooperation such as ERASMUS - as well as the fact I am certain, from personal experience, that we have much more in common with Europe than the US. Better to influence and reform from the inside than pay for something (as we surely will do just like Norway and Switzerland) and have no say. The loss of foreign direct investment which helps balance our national books is of particular concern. Our enormous trade gap is funded by FDI – let’s not forget it.

As a UK resident I accept that tax revenues will not all be spent in my county and that some of these revenues will go to another county. Do I expect them to pay the money back to my county? No.

As a global citizen, should I feel any differently about somebody from Romania or Greece? No. They are part of my network. I trade with them, I reciprocate with them and our futures are interdependent. If they need help, I feel I should do something.

So in the end, I have concluded that Brexit is about the size of your network. Is it your village, your district, your county, your country, or wider than that? People cannot choose based on the economics because the case is unproven either way. I think that those who spend time in Europe, have found out that ‘they’ are just like ‘us’ and have made friendship bonds will see themselves as European and will vote to remain. Conversely, those who believe that our sovereignty (whatever than means) is at risk from Brussels, and dislike immigrants will vote to leave. 

Of course, it’s just a theory.