Wessex Scene Brexit by Wessex Scene

NO SYMPATHY FOR THE MAYBOT 08-09

TRAVEL AFTER BREXIT: WHAT DO THE PARTIES THINK OF BREXIT? 14-15 UNPICKING THE UNCERTAINTY 32-33

BREXIT

E DITO R Ivan Morris Poxton editor@wessexscene.co.uk DE P UTY EDI TO R Zach Sharif deputy-editor@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F PRI NT D E S I G N Rac hel Winter design@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F I MAGERY Avila D iana Chidum e image@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F MARKETI N G Joe Br io dy publicity@wessexscene.co.uk FEATURES EDITO R Linnea Lagerstedt features@wessexscene.co.uk OPINI O N EDI TO R Rachel Mather opinion@wessexscene.co.uk POL I TICS EDITO R Charlotte Colombo politics@wessexscene.co.uk SC IENCE & TECH E D I TO R Lau ra Nelso n science@wessexscene.co.uk LIFESTYL E EDI TO R Me gan Ha rt lifestyle@wessexscene.co.uk IN T ERNATIO NAL E D I TO R Tabassum Rahman international@wessexscene.co.uk

WELCOME EVERYONE! Whichever degree you study, whatever political persuasion you are, no matter the colour of your passport, the UK’s attempted departure from the EU will affect you in some way. I say “attempted departure” because, the only certainty during the lengthy process of “Brexit” is Brexit’s uncertainty. At the time of writing, we still don’t know if we we’re leaving by no deal, Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement deal or leaving at all on 29th March 2019, with some MPs wanting a delay in the departure lounge of Brexit, or even cancelling the flight altogether. It also appear as though a potentially seismic shift in the UK political landscape is underway as handfuls of MPs from both main parties formed The Independent Group (TIG). It’s clear from student contributions to this magazine that the unpredictability of Brexit’s path has created concern and interest on how Brexit will affect a variety of issues, such as the ease in which we can travel to different countries post-Brexit and how human rights may be affected. There’s also strong criticism regarding how 2 years of negotiations have seemingly slipped away with no withdrawal agreement deal in place and the way the original referendum campaign was conducted by some.

SUB- EDI TO R Am y Picknell

‘Brexit means Brexit’ said Theresa May as she was confirmed as Conservative leader and incoming Prime Minister in July 2016 - oh, how those times seem a world away now. Yet we still don’t know what Brexit really will mean, probably because we all have so many differing opinions on what it should be. Perhaps the satirical piece by Tom Ford of Brexit being settled by a series of Olympic sports challenges provides the Brexit panacea? We’ll have to wait and see, but in the meantime we hope you enjoy reading this issue!

SUB- EDI TO R An n abel Gadd

Editor’s note: The last edit of this magazine took place on 9th March 2019

T RAVEL EDI TO R George Hart travel@wessexscene.co.uk SPORTS EDITO R Aarya ma n Baner ji sport@wessexscene.co.uk

SUB- EDI TO R Emily Fry SUB- EDI TO R Hazel Jonckers VP DCI Evie Reilly vpcomms@soton.ac.uk

Your editor, IVAN MORRIS POXTON Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this magazine belong to each author alone - Wessex Scene is a neutral publication which aims to publish views from across the student body. To respond with an opposing opinion, please contact opinion@wessexscene.co.uk or join our Opinion Writers’ Group.

FRONT COVER IMAGE BY SOPHIE PEACH 2

BREXIT

FEATURES THE DARK SIDE OF BREXIT 04 HATE CRIMES AND BREXIT 06 NEGOTIATING BREXIT 07

OPINION 08 NO SYMPATHY FOR THE MAYBOT 10 WHY WE CAN’T AGREE 12 BREXIT: A NATION REUNITED?

POLITICS WHAT DO THE PARTIES THINK OF 14 BREXIT?

SCIENCE & TECH 22 THE PARTING OF THE SEA

HOW WILL BREXIT AFFECT HUMAN 16 RIGHTS? LEAVE CAMPAIGN REVISITED: 18 IMMIGRATION DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE 19 EUROPEAN UNION KNIGHTS OF THE HOLY BREXIT: THE 20 EUROPEAN RESEARCH GROUP

LIFESTYLE AS IF CREATIVE CAREERS NEEDED 27 MORE INSTABILITY...

INTERNATIONAL 28 JAPAN’S TAKE ON A NO-DEAL BREXIT 29 IS THE FUTURE OF EUROPE ALL THAT BLEAK?

TRAVEL HOLIDAY’S COMING HOME- 30 STAYCATION STYLE TRAVEL AFTER BREXIT: UNPICKING 32 THE UNCERTAINTY

SPORT 34 FIRST DAY OF BREXIT OLYMPICS 35 BREXIT AND ITS IMPACT ON SPORT TRANSFERS

W ESSEX SCENE. CO . UK @ W ES S E XS CE NE BREXIT

F B . C OM / W S C E N E @OF F IC IAL W E S S E X S C E N E 3

BREXIT

The Dark Side of

Brexit

When Prime Minister David Cameron announced the infamous referendum in 2016, it is safe to say that he, along with the rest of the UK, severely underestimated the implications. Even before the referendum was decided, the campaigning alone led to divisions and hostility bubbling over amongst politicians and the general public. Ever since the shock verdict of Brexit became a reality, things have become more out of control than anyone could have anticipated. The culture surrounding Brexit has bred a lot of hate and toxicity, but what exactly are the problems that Brexit has uncovered? Simply, voting to leave the EU was a popular choice due to more money being freed up for the NHS and for the UK to gain its “independence”. No longer would we be subject to the checks and balances of Europe, we’d regain our status as a utopian, omnipotent island who play by our own rules. As a staunch Remainer, perhaps I am a bit biased in thinking that this sounds a bit absurd, but what makes it worse is that for some Leavers, these reasons for exiting the EU were merely excuses for a much more troubling idea: their perception of immigration. It would be wrong to say that everybody against immigration is a racist. With the issues surrounding national security and overpopulation, it is reasonable to want some limitations in place. But at the same time, there is a minority who oppose EU migrants coming to Britain and calling it their home for more superficial reasons. Their main concern is not so much keeping the UK out of the EU, but keeping the EU and its inhabitants out of the UK. They have a skewed notion of freedom of movement which, to them, means that fewer Europeans will come to Britain and take their precious jobs, and they will not have to deal with those of different cultures, beliefs and skin colours. As one narrow-minded Leaver originally put to me, the end of free movement meant that we could ‘make Britain great again’. 4

WORDS BY CHARLOTTE COLOMBO IMAGE BY CHARLOTTE WILLCOX

There have always been groups who are against immigration and the integration of “foreigners” into Britain, but one unfortunate thing Brexit has achieved is giving them a somewhat legitimate platform. Far-right extremists like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, for example, are able to twist and manipulate Brexiteer rhetoric to suit their own bigotry and hostility towards immigrants. With this in mind, it’s surely no coincidence that according to the Home Office, reported hate crimes rose by 17% in 2017-2018 compared to the previous year. In terms of numbers, this translates to 94,098 reported hate crimes in total during this period, compared to the 78,101 last year. It’s hard to not see the correlation between this dramatic surge in hate crimes and the rising antiimmigration rhetoric that has come from Brexit, and this doesn’t even cover the vast number of micro-aggressions and attacks that go unreported. Therefore, it’s essential that we question whether Brexit is a breeding ground for discrimination. In addition to the public facing racial abuse, politicians have also found themselves on the receiving end of abuse from the media, protest groups and countless individuals on social media. Whether or not it’s warranted, the anger that has stirred up as a result of Brexit is, for many, a matter of life and death. The tragic murder of MP Jo Cox in 2016, for instance, is cited as an example of how extreme and dangerous a politically divisive situation can be. Also, if James Goddard’s “yellow vest” group is anything to go by, the public aren’t learning from the mistakes of the past. Consider, for instance, their abuse of Anna Soubry MP. There is some disturbing footage online of her being hounded and heckled on the way to Westminster as she is called names such as ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’. Although it can be argued that as a public figure Soubry should expect such abuse, she equally has a right to feel safe at work. The problem is that when it comes to politics, one’s humanity BREXIT

and rights are often overlooked.

the enemy is easier than engaging in debate with them.

This disease in attitudes has spread beyond certain ideologies and infected a wider range of people. For example, when statistics following the referendum showed that older generations mostly voted to Leave, this led to a public outcry about whether older people should be allowed to vote at all. To me, this debate was blatantly ageist, and the fact that it came mostly from the left doesn’t make it any less discriminatory.

So, what is “the Brexit effect”? To me, it signifies a rise in hatred and crime and a fall in valuable discussion and debate with your dissenters. It has led people to stop respecting one another in various forms, ranging from discrimination to hate-fuelled violence. The one thing Brexit has exposed is the ignorance of the British public which, ironically, is something that people from both sides of the war have in common. We need to stop, listen and learn, since ignorance is by far the biggest crime in politics.

It’s due to the far right’s distortion of the average Brexiteer’s ideas and reasons for voting that Remainers have also become angry and unwilling to associate with anyone who disagrees with them. The minority like Stephen YaxleyLennon and James Goddard have seemed to convince each other as well as Remainers that all Brexiteers are racist maniacs, which in turn leads to the Remainers slapping harmful labels like “racist” on Brexiteers without giving them a chance to give their reasons. If they do turn out to be racists, then fair enough, but most of them aren’t. They just disagree with you, and maybe assuming they are

BREXIT

BREXIT AND HATE CRIMES

being stabbed in the neck for speaking Polish. When such violent attacks are carried out on an individual purely for not conforming to the perceivably restrictive English “mould”, the question must be asked whether we can truly call ourselves the modern, forward-thinking nation that we would like to consider ourselves to be. Social media has undoubtedly played a part in the alarming spike in the reported number of hate crimes committed against non-English individuals. Keyboard warriors are able to band together and create a more widely recognised rhetoric of hate and intolerance that is able to reach a wider readership. Some have speculated that social media has aided the normalisation of hate, with many becoming desensitised to the emotional and physical suffering inflicted on innocent citizens. That does not, however, negate the fact that 96% of flagged crimes are still physical. The Independent also notes that these crimes not only include physically harming the victim, but also damaging their home and property. To many people, this statistic is nothing but shocking and sickening. Moreover, it’s unrepresentative of the values that the United Kingdom claims to hold dear: tolerance and egalitarianism.

Brexit continues to dominate political debate, with many of us growing increasingly disinterested as discussions continue with little progress being made. The United Kingdom’s separation from the EU has the potential to disrupt business and trade, but it has already negatively impacting life in the UK for countless individuals. Hate crimes are on the rise, and this is being increasingly associated with Brexit. It’s been reported that the British police are preparing for a dramatic rise in reported hate crimes following the nation’s withdrawal from the EU in March. This is hardly surprising - after the referendum, the number of reported hate crimes rose to an alarmingly high number. That’s right, following the referendum of June 2016, Britain saw the second biggest spike in hate crimes, surpassed only by the terror attacks committed last year. Whilst the attempts to prepare for an increase in such crimes is not surprising, it remains disappointing that such measures are even necessary. The Independent reported a young student 6

Quite rightly, many despise Trump and the wall that he wants to see built. It stands for exclusion, societal fragmentation and the ultimate erosion of human freedom and liberty, but isn’t that the very essence of what these hate crimes are doing here in the UK? Whilst we won’t be seeing any physical walls being built in the future to separate “us” from “them”, by failing to acknowledge and condemn these hate crimes, we passively permit them to continue. To be singled out and either verbally or physically assaulted because of your nationality, religion or ethnicity implies that you are not welcome in this country, and further entrenches the “us” versus “them” mentality. Regardless as to Brexit and whether we leave or remain, it absolutely remains the case that everybody is equally as human and has the right to respect and safety. That should just go without saying.

WORDS BY ANNABEL GADD IMAGE BY CHARLOTTE WILLCOX

BREXIT

NEGOTIATING BREXIT WORDS BY SHAHEER ALI IMAGE BY RACHEL WINTER

I think we can all agree that the Brexit negotiations since March 2017 have been nothing short of a miserable failure. The process was erratic, cloudy, and even maddening, with new plot-twists emerging every time you viewed BBC News. But aside from theatrical media coverage, negotiating Brexit wasn’t going to be an easy feat, given the ‘power imbalances’ between the UK and the EU. It’s no surprise that after all this, the UK has ended up with a botched Brexit Deal that unites the whole country in their passionate displeasure towards it. This article will explore why exactly the process of negotiations proved unfruitful and what the UK could have done better, in light of the forgotten “art of negotiation”. Article 50 was invoked before the government had even decided what type of Brexit they would pursue. Without much clarity or consensus in parliament and government alike, the process was bound to be messy. Internal divisions create competing visions, which means negotiators on both sides were unclear on what ends were being sought. Secondly, Theresa May’s style indicated an unfounded level of optimism in her expectation for the EU to compromise, which clearly didn’t happen. This was a flawed strategy, because the EU had already made their red lines clear from the onset. A more appropriate strategy would therefore have been to not persist at making them compromise, but instead adopt a strategy that either accepted them fully, or rejected them outright. How would the latter work? Simply, by refusing to negotiate, and happily walking-out. Yet what would this achieve, other than failure and a no-deal? The answer to this question lies in “brinkmanship”, a forgotten negotiation strategy. “brinkmanship”, is when a nation that is in some form of conflict with another power, uses its resolve to outmanoeuvre the other power. Think of ‘resolve’ as a variable that measures how much risk a nation is willing to take towards realising the worst-case scenario that both parties wish to avoid at any cost. In negotiations between nuclear-armed nations on the brink of war, this could be mutually assured destruction. In this case, the worstcase scenario is to crash out of the EU without a deal, for both parties alike. The country that shows more resolve towards accepting the worst-case scenario is the country that prevails in the “brinkmanship” battle. What would this look like with negotiations between the EU and the UK? BREXIT

Let’s suppose that the UK did walk out of the negotiations, and decided to pursue a “managed no-deal”. This would have signalled to the EU that Britain indeed has plenty of resolve and will not acquiesce. The EU, being on the verge of recession, would have also taken the threat of a nodeal Brexit very seriously, as multiple economies would be affected, strengthening our hand at the ensuing battle of “brinkmanship”. The government would have gained a strategic bargaining chip in the process, especially because there would be no Brexit backstop for Northern Ireland, creating a sense of alarm in the EU that would also pressure them into making accommodations. More importantly, this would have also given the UK government more time to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. Yes, this tactic certainly doesn’t come without risk, but nothing good comes without risk either. However, even after having adopted a spirit of compromise, the UK is left with nothing but more chaos, and yes, an increased chance of a no-deal Brexit without the slightest of preparation. In closing, I believe a reasonable question that I can’t help but ask is could the UK, as the 5th largest economy in the world, have played its cards any better?

BREXIT

NO SYMPATHY FOR THE

MAYBOT WORDS BY DAN PARKIN IMAGE BY EMILY KILMARTIN

When writing about Brexit, the most common, almost comical phrase used is that this is the “most turbulent time in British politics since...” The UK has had its fair share of unstable political issues in recent history, including World War Two, The Suez Crisis, The Miners’ Strike, The Iraq War, Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a bigot (she was) or any number of events which seemed like the end of time. Putting the tendency of the British press to sensationalise everything to one side, it’s important to recognise that even though life will continue after Brexit, we are still living through a moment that will shape this country for generations. There is no doubt that leaving the European Union is a complex and painstaking task. However, the narrative whenever negotiations stall is that we should feel sorry for Theresa May, a noble woman persevering in a tough job. This is nauseating. Brexit is a crisis of her own making. Theresa May’s direction has only served to estrange us from our closest allies. Many still pander to the ridiculous belief that we have a “special” relationship with the United States, or (driven by a case of imperial nostalgia) think that “our” Commonwealth countries are going to bend over backwards as soon as we leave. However, our closest diplomatic and trading relationships are with EU members. Theresa May alienated them from the moment she assumed her premiership and declared herself a ‘bloody difficult woman’ instead of negotiating from a position of BREXIT

respect. The EU has argued that the UK’s deal is constrained by ‘red lines’. These conditions were placed down by May to appease her far right colleagues who want to see the UK leave a customs arrangement with the EU. This, however, only covers the calamity of the negotiation process. Theresa May sewed the seeds of the crisis by activating Article 50 without cabinet consensus on the desired outcome of negotiations. After this botched beginning, her position was weakened further by calling a general election after the process of leaving began. Finally, I have no sympathy for May because outside of Brexit she has supported discriminatory decrees. She has a history of voting for homophobic legislation, including voting against equalising the age of consent and the right for gay couples to adopt. She voted for British military involvement in Iraq, an unjustified conflict which has resulted in countless civilian deaths. In her roles as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, she has been responsible for morally repulsive policies, such as the ‘hostile environment policy’ and the Windrush scandal, where British citizens were detained, denied medical attention and, in some cases, lost their jobs. Furthermore, May has a horrific record on welfare issues. Over 2,000 people have died after being declared fit for work under her legislation, while her government has been warned by the United Nations for systematically undermining the rights of the disabled people. With this history of inhumane heartlessness, there is no justification for sympathising with Theresa May. She has made her uncomfortable bed. Now she must face the nightmare consequences.

BREXIT

WORDS BY ZACH SHARIF IMAGE BY SEAN KEAR

WHY WE We seem to live in a world that is conflicted, some would say. Others would say absolutely mental. We used to have moments like this; history would work in slow-buildups, massive climaxes. Satire was rife and subtlety key. This comparative golden age was the same as we have now, but for a veil of decency. But somewhere in the last few years, there came a moment in which the veil was ripped from the mirror, the gleaming crystals turned black and our own ugliness stared back at us through the stained glass. Dorian Gray lost his Snapchat filter. Lying became not just commonplace, but unapologetic. Gone are facts and arguments, primitive emotions now reign. Where did it all go wrong, and why can’t we agree on anything anymore?

The obvious place to start is with Donald Trump. The rhetoric he mastered in his presidential campaign set the tone for misinformation across the Western world. It was a scale of bullsh*t that the media just wasn’t ready for. A landslide of insults, lies and corruption from the Twitter president. The media, instead of calling out his blatant fabrications, simply reported all the lies, otherwise known as “mistruths” or “alternative facts”. A journalism analogy springs to mind here. If one man says it’s raining, your job is to look out the window and report the truth. It isn’t enough to just report that it is raining. A combination of complicity and incompetence meant that the American national media gave Donald billions of dollars’ worth of free airtime, largely unchallenged. By the time he’d emerged as a serious candidate, it was too late. The formatting of the Republican primaries contributed to this too. There were 17 candidates to start with. 17! In such a crowded environment, the man with a short, simple, emotive message was king. There was no time for complexity, because there was no time at all. “How will you solve immigration? Build a wall!” “How would you solve climate change? It’s fake news!” “How would you build the economy? Tax cuts!” Everything had a simple, clear message. In this world of chaos and confusion, simplicity is gold. This rhetoric was mirrored in the Brexit campaign. The ‘Take Back Control’ mantra reflected ‘Make America Great Again’ in its utter meaninglessness. It didn’t matter that we subscribe to the vast majority of EU law because we agree with it. It didn’t matter that we have the power to veto many decisions (a right that we have made use of ). It didn’t matter that immigration (a central issue for many Leavers) would likely increase after Brexit rather than decrease to cope with our consequentially weaker economy. None of this mattered. Because that feeling of powerlessness, the lack of control millions feel when they’ve had communities decimated by austerity, a world around them failing and a society collapsing before their very eyes, had already 10

BREXIT

CAN’T AGREE taken hold. Here was something that offered hope. Two fingers to the establishment. Finally, a solution to the problems we’ve all had for so long. This is what Leave promised. What did Remain offer? A message of negativity, fearful projections, patronising comments, and pitifully weak leadership. Cameron’s arrogance in calling the referendum in the first place was only surpassed by his incompetence at campaigning. It allowed the Leave Campaign to run riot, and run they did. When the results were in, and Brexit was a genuine likelihood, they fled the scene. They were always going to. It was always Tory infighting, a battle for Conservative superiority with the nation’s future as the ultimate political football. Boris Johnson wrote two columns pre-referendum, one for Leave and one for Remain. Jacob Rees-Mogg explored the idea of a second referendum in the House of Commons not so long ago. However, this reality does not matter. The message was powerful enough to obscure it. The UK has a very stringent immigration policy, it has done for decades. But, phrases like “uncontrolled mass immigration” and “open borders” provoke such a knee-jerk reaction that their vapid nothingness is irrelevant. This rhetoric also blurred lines between EU immigration and immigration in general. This is incredibly useful - you can get people to vote to leave the EU due to their opposition of immigration from the Middle East. This is not to blame anybody who voted Leave at all. There are many rational arguments for leaving the EU - none of which were even mentioned in the referendum. It’s no wonder so many people voted to Leave when this is what their elected representatives are telling them. Yet an even more damaging consequence of this Trumpian form of debate we’ve crossed into is the destruction of what was left of political discussion. How can we possibly agree with each other on anything when the base standard of argument is so poor? In Britain, climate change is still barely mentioned in General Elections or as a central focus of our main parties. The Green Party remain a reclusive bunch of hipsters in the eyes of the general public. Similarly in America, climate change denial is not just common, but is institutionalised as the state policy. And yet this is the single greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced. When this is how our politics works, it’s no wonder we can’t agree on anything.

BREXIT

BREXIT: BREXIT

WORDS BY MOLLY JOYCE IMAGE BY HELENA HENRY

One of the most discussed issues throughout all of the Brexit negotiations has been how the United Kingdom leaving the European Union will affect both countries either side of the Irish border. Not only will Brexit have a significant impact on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland’s (ROI) economy and travel, but due to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement being based upon EU law, the peace agreements that are currently in place may need to be rewritten. Despite The Troubles having been brought to an end over 20 years ago, the question of whether Northern Ireland and the ROI should be reunited has been raised once again. At the height of The Troubles, an estimated 3,600 people had been killed in shootings, bombings or other means of violence that were a direct result of the ongoing fight between the mostly Protestant unionists (who wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom) and the mostly Catholic nationalists (who wanted all of Ireland to be reunited as one sovereign state). The 1998 Good Friday Agreement overcame various problems that had been a point of contention between the two sides and, as a result, was able to resurrect peace within Northern Ireland. One

of the major solutions was removing armed guards and passport checks at the border that runs between Northern Ireland and the ROI. Today, the only distinction when crossing the 310 mile long border is a road sign telling you that you have left one country and entered another. The lack of border controls and checks satisfied nationalists as there was not a physical separation between the two countries. Simultaneously, it also satisfied unionists as Northern Ireland was able to remain part of the UK. Crucially, this relaxed approach to border regulation could only be enabled because both countries possessed EU membership. This enrolment to the EU meant that citizens from either side of the border had the right to travel freely between their countries. With the United Kingdom leaving the EU and currently having no set Brexit deal (and therefore having no insurance that UK residents will still be able to travel freely), there have been discussions as to whether a controlled, manned border will have to be put in place instead. Professor Rory O’Connell (Director of the Transitional Justice Institute at Ulster University) has said that ‘the 1998 Agreement found nuanced solutions to difficult issues of sovereignty, identity and the border, embedding these in a rights-

BREXIT

a nation reunited? respecting framework. Brexit risks unpicking these carefully, painfully-worked out solutions.’ The argument over whether there will be a physical Irish border or not has led to renewed arguments to reunite Northern Ireland and the ROI. Worryingly, this has increased fear that the carefully constructed peace pact that has existed for 20 years may be about to come to a crashing halt.

It’s important to note that both unionists and nationalists within Ireland do not want a physical border and controlled border checks. An estimated 20,000 people cross the border every day for work and many resources such as specialist cancer treatment facilities and children’s hospitals - are shared between both countries. The need for freedom to travel across the whole of Ireland is imperative not only for economic growth, but also in order to ensure social cohesion. However, the problem is that, as the UK will no longer be apart of the EU, the goods crossing over the Irish border must be examined - if they are not then the UK will have to open its borders to the rest of the world and not impose any checks or tariffs. Consequently, the UK cabinet has stated that the goods passing between Northern Ireland and the ROI will have to be inspected once the UK departs from the EU.

BREXIT

This uncertainty over whether there will be a physical border put in place and if so where, has provoked panic that there will again be political turmoil and violence throughout Ireland. Due to internal divisions, the devolved government within Northern Ireland - which will always be a mixture of unionists and nationalists - has not been functioning since 9th January 2017. As a result, whilst Scottish and Welsh representatives have been present at Brexit negotiations, Northern Irish delegations have not. Many politicians on both sides of the border have raised their concerns over the possible re-emergence of variants of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) if a physical frontier is put in place to separate Northern Ireland. Residents living next to the border have also voiced their unease that there will be a return to the upheaval and bloodshed that many still remember and fear. These two nations have fought so hard to maintain peace for the past 20 years and there has been a concerted effort to raise a new generation that is built on the values of reconciliation and unity. It’s a scary thought that the psychological barrier that many have strived to overcome may be reinforced again by a physical border.

BREXIT

WHAT DO THE PARTIES THINK OF BREXIT? When we consider the public disagreements with Brexit, this can be divided into two broad categories: Leavers and Remainers. There are those who like the EU and want to stay in it and those who don’t. For political parties, however, the disagreements surrounding Brexit are more nuanced and messy than they first appear. The question of whether to stay “in” or “out” of the EU was only the beginning, and it seems that with every twist and turn in Brexit, there is fierce opposition.

THe conservative party

Brexit started out as the brainchild of David Cameron, as he put the referendum in his 2015 manifesto to arguably secure a Conservative majority. Some critics have argued that this radical promise was made in an attempt to appeal to the more hardline right-wingers who had begun to shun the Conservatives in favour of UKIP. It seems that nobody, including Cameron, expected that the referendum would actually happen. However, he decided to hold one anyway to save face to his voters. The referendum exposed the splits in the party over Brexit, as various prominent MPs such as Boris Johnson passionately campaigned to leave the EU whilst Cameron, alongside future Prime Minister Theresa May, made it clear that they thought remaining in the EU was the best option. Cameron’s stance on Brexit was most likely the reason that when the referendum results where announced, he resigned shortly after. His gamble went on further than he ever planned it to, and had led to what he saw as drastic consequences to the UK. With Remainer May stepping up as Prime Minister and leading Brexit negotiations, it’s safe to say that Brexiteer Tories were far from impressed. Simultaneous to her battles with the European Reform Group (ERG), May started to lose grip on her party further with a string of high-profile resignations from her cabinet as well as a humiliating vote of no confidence within her party. Although the Tories ulimately unified behind Theresa May by largely supporting her leadership of the party, it’s clear that her problems are far from over unless she returns to the Commons with a Brexit deal that satisfies everyone. BREXIT

the Labour party

Labour also shows sign of a split, but it isn’t so much between the members. Instead, there seems to be a split between the Labour Party’s public and private persona regarding Brexit. Although the party itself appears to support Remainers and the idea of a People’s Vote/second referendum, how much of this is just a ruse to just appeal to the younger voters? During the referendum, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn did outwardly at least support remaining in the EU. However, then and during the Brexit process, some have questioned his true preferred stance on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, given his track record of Euroscepticism before he became Labour leader. It was difficult to understand Labour’s precise policy regarding a possible second referendum for a long time, perhaps influenced by Corbyn’s own possible ambivalence over Brexit. However, on 25th February, the Labour Party swung behind backing another EU referendum.

The Liberal Democrat party

Although they don’t have the same presence as Labour or the Conservatives, the Lib Dem stance on Brexit has been consistent since the result was announced: they want a second referendum. Many Lib Dems claim that the public weren’t given enough detail on what Brexit would actually mean, and that the Leave campaign was deliberately misleading. Although this approach has been deemed by some as undemocratic, the Lib Dems would argue giving people more of a say is the opposite.

The Independent Group (TIG)

Newly formed and at the time of writing not yet a formal political party, this group is composed currently of former Conservative and Labour MPs. They also support a People’s Vote.

WORDS BY CHARLOTTE COLOMBO IMAGE BY SEAN KEAR

BREXIT

How Will Brexit Affect Human Rights? WORDS BY LAURA BARR IMAGE BY KAYLEIGH LITTLEMORE Recently, it was reported that Theresa May is considering ‘axing the Human Rights Act after Brexit’, as revealed by an unnamed Minister. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, while the UK is a member of the EU, human rights in EU law extend to and protect those in the UK. This includes many of our rights to non-discrimination, which are protected by EU law. When Britain leaves the EU in March, this means that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union will have no legal effect on UK law. This also includes trade agreements that demand respect for human rights within the clauses, and upon entry to EU trade. When Britain leaves the EU, it will still be signed up to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), which is protected by the 1998 Human Rights Act. Back in 2015, the Conservative manifesto included scrapping this to have a “British Bill of Human Rights”, and was planned as new legislation to replace the Human Rights Act. This has been recently discussed again and is becoming an ever growing worry for those who agree that human rights should be a universal agreement, rather than defined by each nation.

What rights do we get from the EU? We get many of the rights we are seeing and arguing over today, including data protection, protection from human trafficking, rights for victims of crimes, equal pay, and action against workplace discrimination. It was the EU that outlawed discrimination in the workplace, and advocated for improved protections and accessibility at work for disabled people. The EU also ensured that individuals had greater protection and power over their data, including the current GDPR laws. It’s the EU as an entity that holds others to account when certain “modern” human rights such as workplace discrimination and data protection are threatened. It also holds other nations to account that disrespect other human rights, such as the right to be free from poverty, the right of freedom of expression (Article 10) the right to healthcare (Article 2), the right to be free from violence from authority and freedom from torture (Article 7/3/4/5), through their trade laws. Some Brexiteers are in support of a “British Bill of Human Rights” because they argue that the UK needs to have control over its own laws, its own accountability and its own ethical development. For example, discrimination against someone for their sex, race, and disability was already outlawed in the UK, and equality in the public sector already comes from domestic law in the UK, as well as the provision of goods and services. They have also criticised the convention for

BREXIT

its perceived flaws, such as giving voting rights to prisoners, protecting foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in the UK, and other “loopholes” that people who commit crimes can use to avoid persecution. However, many are worried about Brexit affecting accessibility to healthcare, with many medicines coming from EU trade, and the right to affordable healthcare being protected by the ECHR. People are also worried about prices of medicine skyrocketing, especially with the recent privatisation of the NHS. The NHS is also threatened under Brexit, through many angles, such as access and trade of medicine, immigration laws affecting the intake of specialised doctors working in the NHS who are immigrants, as well as the stricter laws possibly affecting migrants accessibility to the NHS. In 2017 it was reported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that overall, 14 million people lived in poverty in the UK, which is approximately 1 in 5 of the population. In the context of the so-called “Brexit election” of 2017, there was a 40% rise in hate crime against people because of their religious beliefs in 2017-2018 compared to the previous year, and 52% of all offences were aimed at Muslims. Temporary migrants already have to pay double the charge to access the NHS, and the government’s policing cuts have seen a surge in crime across the country. It seems already, human rights are not being respected as it is. It’s a scary time for minorities whose rights could be threatened by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, for refugees and asylum seekers with hate crimes on the rise, and LGBT+ people who are afraid of progress being stunted due to the UK’s ever flirtatious relationship with the US, who recently outlawed transgender people from serving in the military. The answer to this debate about how our human rights are going to be affected by Brexit is the same as the answer to many other questions- we simply don’t know. There

BREXIT

are many outcomes that could affect different people and communities. However, the future very much depends much on who is Prime Minister when and after we transition, what the next election could bring us, and the current culture surrounding Brexit. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws asked that if the government is ‘sincere’ in its commitment to the ECHR, ‘why has it failed to give assurances that it will not repeal or reform the Human Rights Act, which in essence incorporates the rights set out in the ECHR into domestic British Law?’. The declaration back in December noted that it would ‘agree to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights’, which is a stark change from pledging its ‘commitment’ to it. Junior Justice Minister Edward Argar attempted to assure that the ‘difference in wording does not represent a change in the UK’s position on the ECHR’. However, he later suggested that the HRA could be scrapped when Brexit is concluded, adding that ‘it is right that we wait until the process of leaving the EU concludes before considering the matter further in the full knowledge of new constitutional landscape’. It may be reductionist to state that no matter the outcome of Brexit, the whole point of human rights is are their universality. Why should a government feel threatened or trapped by a framework that ensures legal accountability of nations to protect its people as fundamentally, human beings? It’s hard to provide statistics, to be factual. We can only comment on the current arguments, on the current situations and balance the benefits we get from the ECHR compared to a “British Bill of Human Rights”. It seems evident, though, that above all, it’s the uncertainty and lack of national solidarity of Brexit that is harming the people the most.

BREXIT

LEAVE CAMPAIGN REVISITED IMMIGRATION

Three-quarters of Leave voters were concerned with the EU and immigration; taking back control meant more than just reclaiming the UK’s sovereignty and independence. For many, it referred to our borders just as much, if not more. So, what did the Leave campaigns have to say about this issue?

In its ‘20 reasons you should vote to leave the European Union’ article, the Telegraph includes such gems as ‘proper vacuum cleaners’ and being able to do away with ‘stupid recycling bins’. Cut through this and we see a major aspect of the Leave campaign: immigration. UKIPs ‘Breaking Point’ poster is one of the most prominent examples of Leave’s anti-immigration material, as it suggested EU rules allow a sea of unchecked mass immigration into the UK. Yet, was this true? Of course, most displaced Syrians are still in the Middle East, but was the EU bringing the UK to its breaking point through its policy of free movement? The Schengen Agreement abolishes border checks and allows anyone to cross EU borders without the need to show a passport. Yet, the UK was never part of this system, and this opt-out cannot be amended without consent from the government. Anyone entering the country must, therefore, show their travel documents at the British border to enter the country. No valid EU passport means no entry. British border controls in French ports actually keep many asylum seekers out of the country, hence the previous existence of migrant camps in places like Calais. The impression of the UK’s borders that the UKIP poster gave, is consequently very misleading. The UK’s special status didn’t end there. The Dublin Regulation stipulates that when an asylum seeker arrives in the EU, the first country they arrive at must process their asylum application. As an island far from refugee hotspots, this suited Britain well. Of course, as Mediterranean countries failed to cope with an extra 150,000 migrants

from Syria and North Africa, the EU planned to spread them out amongst member states instead. Yet, the UK used its opt-out to avoid these demands. The EU could not simply force the UK to accept refugees- it seems that we may have had more control than Leave made you think. Of course, EU membership means that migrants holding an EU passport are entitled to move freely into the country. Vote Leave suggested that ‘a quarter of a million EU migrants come here every year – a city the size of Newcastle’. This may seem a lot, but when you factor in the number of migrants that left the country, net migration was 185,000 migrants in 2015, the population of Swindon. This may still seem too many to some, but you cannot ignore the misleading nature of Vote Leave in this regard. Bear in mind also that migrants have to have lived in the country for three months and to be intent on working in order to receive benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance. Also, according to The Independent, EU migrants contribute an average of £78,000 over their lifetime more than they take out in public services and benefits, compared to the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution of zero. Lastly, fears about Turkey joining the EU were stoked by Vote Leave in videos and adverts. A common theme was to highlight the population of Turkey, as if all 76 million citizens would come to Britain? Leave also stressed that Turkey ‘is’ joining, but negotiations that began long ago stalled because of human rights abuses. President Macron of France said there is ‘no chance’ of Turkish membership. Yet Leave was confident enough to assume Turkey will soon join. This is a simple overview of some of the biggest antiimmigration arguments the different Leave campaigns gave. Exaggeration and fear tended to dictate the discourse.

WORDS BY TOM FORD IMAGE BY RACHEL WINTER

BREXIT

DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

As a broad supranational union of countries, it’s essential that there are democratic elements in the operations of the EU and this is the case. However, exactly how the EU operates isn’t too well known to the general public, particularly in the UK.

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Parliament is elected in multiple ways – depending on the country. Aside from general democratic legitimacy of the elections, they must also be held under some form of proportional representation. Almost all EU countries use some form of “list” system, except for Ireland, Northern Ireland and Malta which use Single Transferable Vote, and one of Belgium’s three electoral areas – the German-speaking community – which uses first-past-the-post to elect one member. Members of European Parliament (MEPs) are elected from the lists of national parties, but they usually belong to a larger ‘Europarty’ within the parliament. The largest is the centre-right European People’s Party, which no UK party belongs to, whilst the second is the Socialists & Democrats group, to which Labour is affiliated to. Others include the centre to centre-right ALDE (the third largest and to which the Liberal Democrats belong to), the right-wing, soft Eurosceptic ECR (including the Conservative Party) and the left/centre-left Greens-EFA (including the Green Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru). A few parties, such as the DUP, don’t belong to any group. The layout of the parliament is a hemicycle, and votes require a simple 50% majority to pass. The allocation of seats to countries is largely proportional to population.

their nation’s interests. It can be compared to the House of Lords, in that it is a non-directly elected body which “double checks” the legislation passed by the elected body (the European Parliament/House of Commons). “Qualified majority voting” is used, where for a vote to pass it must be supported by 55%+ (at least 16) of member states’ representatives and where the majority in favour represents over 65% of the EU’s total population. This came into effect due to the Lisbon Treaty, replacing a system under the Treaty of Nice which used an ‘arbitrary’ vote weighting system to reflect the population differences of member states.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

The European Commission is the “executive branch” of the European Union. There are 28 members – one nominated by the government of each EU country. This occurs in line with elections to the EU parliament, and hence the political affiliation of a country’s EU commissioner doesn’t necessarily match that of the country’s government. Regardless, the members are officially bound to represent EU interests rather than their specific country’s interests. All EU legislative bills pass through here first.

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

On certain legislation which would be implemented on a local/regional level, the European Committee of the Regions must be consulted. It’s an indirectly elected body of elected representatives across Europe from the subnational level (e.g. councillors).

WORDS BY NED WILLIAMS

THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

The European Councils consists of the heads of government in all 28 member states. There are at least 2 ‘summits’ every six months, and its purpose is to decide the direction of the European Union. It’s intended that decisions are made by consensus, rather than close votes on a politicised basis. It’s a relatively recent addition, coming into existence after the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. However, leader summits have played an important (albeit informal) role since the EU’s formation.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Council of the European Union (distinct from the European Council above despite the similar names) consists of representatives from the governments of the 28 member states, who are intended to represent BREXIT

BREXIT

KNIGHTS OF THE

THE EUROPEAN WORDS BY IVAN MORRIS POXTON IMAGE BY EMILY BEASLEY

As Prime Minister Theresa May has frantically attempted to craft a majority in the House of Commons for her withdrawal agreement deal, the European Research Group (ERG) has played a key role. The ERG can only be described as a somewhat shadowy group as it has no definitive list of members and lacks a formal role within parliament or any party. It’s believed to have been started in 1992 with its first chair Michael, now Lord Spicer, a Conservative MP who consistently opposed the UK’s signing up to the Maastricht Treaty. Maastricht established the fundamental pillars of the EU as we know it today. The UK eventually signed up, although not without massive Tory infighting first. The ERG was born then in the fire and brimstone of Conservative divisions over the UK’s relationship with its closest European neighbours - to borrow a phrase from Ms May, ‘nothing has changed’! Its membership consists almost entirely of Conservative backbench MPs, almost entirely backbenchers, who can’t stop ‘banging on about Europe’, to borrow a phrase from former Prime Minister David Cameron. Precisely who was a member of the group was almost entirely unknown until 2010. MPs were then for the first time required to provide the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) with full details of their expenses. Some ERG member MPs set aside a small proportion of their taxpayer-funded office allowances to fund the group, including for a researcher to publish private briefing notes. Use of such funds is supposed to be for non-partisan, objective research only which some have questioned whether the ERG fulfills, but IPSA has said while unusual, the ERG does merit the allowance as its briefing notes are ‘not emotively phrased’. Regardless, the expenses accounts confirm at least 53 MPs to have at one time been an ERG member. Surprisingly, considering the ERG’s hardline Brexit negotiations stance, 20

this list includes a mixture of remain and leave-supporting MPs, including current Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who campaigned for Remain. The ERG is consequently less a Leave supporters’ club and more a home for Conservative MPs on a wide spectrum of euroscepticism. While expenses filed to IPSA provide definite evidence of membership of the group, ERG-penned open letters indicate its wider membership and its influence within the Conservative Party. For example, a letter written to Theresa May in February 2018 urging her to stick to her Brexit plans for the UK to not be part of the single market or customs union with the EU, had 62 signatories. Some basic principles help explain the ERG’s stance during Brexit. Freedom of the individual and open international trade are what members aspire to. A distrust of government, particularly supranational government (the likes of the EU and UN), and as David McCay described it in Prospect in January, a chauvinistic view of the superiority of the UK and the British political system in comparison to continental Europe, are also core beliefs. Based on these principles, the ERG, chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg since the early part of last year, has been for the most part a thorn in the government’s side, pushing for a harder, more ideologically pure, version of Brexit. This pursuit of a “Holy Brexit” if you like, envisions a complete break from the EU, with the exception of a free trade deal. Back in September a number of prominent ERG members published a paper on solving the Irish border issue without a backstop, as well as talking up the benefits of no deal. Hailing a report by pro-Brexit pressure group Economists for Free Trade which claimed that the UK would be £1 trillion better off under no deal after 15 years than staying within the EU, prominent Brexiteer MPs like Rees-Mogg and former Brexit Secretary David Davis lined up to say if the UK’s requirements could not be met in negotiations, walking away was perfectly feasible. Most BREXIT

HOLY BREXIT:

RESEARCH GROUP

economists have rejected the Economists for Free Trade report, while the ERG’s paper on how to solve a problem like the Irish border received a great deal of criticism for lacking much substance. The paper advocated for both a 20km buffer zone either side of the border for agricultural checks and for technological solutions to maintain a soft border, including computer-based customs clearing. Unfortunately for the ERG, the European Commission has rejected the buffer zone idea, while a computer-based customs declarations system isn’t thought realistic for the small businesses which cross the border on a regular basis. Theresa May’s victory in the party vote of no confidence in December was also bad news for the ERG whose most prominent members had called for it, with party rules meaning May cannot be challenged again until BREXIT

December 2019. Rees-Mogg, never one to criticise others for perceived failings to respect the result of a vote, tried initially after the no confidence outcome to argue that May’s position was still untenable and she had to resign, but this failed too. Despite these setbacks, the ERG’s persistence has undoubtedly influenced the shape of Brexit with a big victory for ERG members at the end of January when the government accepted a parliamentary amendment to seek ‘alternative arrangements’ to the backstop in early February. For any future successor to May, you discount the influence and reach of the ERG at your peril.

BREXIT

THE PARTING OF THE SEA

As parliament is still debating the Brexit deal proposed by Theresa May, marine scientists and environmental activists are wondering about the future of British marine management, a pressing challenge as we enter a critical era of adaptation to the changing climate and affected ecosystems. To say that the British parliament has struggled to adopt a consensus before the country officially leaves the EU would be euphemistic. While a lot of press has been given to the economic and political aspects of Brexit, very little is known about the UK’s plans for future environmental law making, if there are any. Environmental protection, and especially the oceans and the complex ecosystems they host, seems to be an issue politicians need in their agenda to please conservation agencies and ensure the continuity of the ecosystem services they provide, but it’s never fully understood or addressed as a priority. Although the objective stated by the British government regarding its marine environment is to have ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’, marine management is most often seen through the obsessive filter of putting a monetary value on the ecosystem services provided by the oceans. Yet, it’s now widely accepted that we have entered a new era of a warming climate and shifting ecosystems all around the globe. The Arctic sea ice is melting, subtropical seas are warming up, and many of the previously established equilibria of marine ecosystems are either standing dangerously too close to the brink, or have already irremediably 22

been tipped. Thus, legislation and policy making must demonstrate a fast and efficient governmental reaction to environmental problems if we are to keep benefitting from the many functions the ocean carries out.

To this day, however, most of the UK’s environmental and marine management laws fall under European Union legislation. The EU defines fishing quotas, determines what a “healthy” marine habitat should be and allocates a certain amount of money to member-nations in order to transition towards “sustainable fishing”. Of the European Maritime and Fisheries fund (a grant aiming to support sustainable fisheries and aquacultures in applying countries) the UK’s share amounts to €243.1mn for the period 2014-2020. The likelihood of the EU closing this tap is rather high, leaving the British government to find other solutions to fund the highly necessary transition towards less harmful fish exploitation. Lack of external financial aid is only one of the many impacts of isolated management of national waters. Most of the current groundbreaking scientific discoveries in European waters are enabled by initiatives from scientists from various nationalities and organisations, demonstrating once again the importance of international cooperation over environmental matters. Thorough research is the foundation of efficient policy making, but the time lag between the discovery, its communication to the public and authorities and the execution of the law might worsen after Brexit. This is due, on the one hand, to delays in the adoption of a “divorce” deal, BREXIT

and on the other, a potentially hurt communication between the EU and UK in the future. Territoriality might cause further tensions, should disputes arise between fishing vessels operating in the same areas, and cases such as the recent fights between British and French oyster harvesting boats might become more frequent and heated. Marine organisms are not concerned by such boundaries or fishing season opening issues, and whether they want it or not the British do share the English Channel with France.

A report issued at the end of the workshop summarises these challenges and the potential matching measures the UK can - and probably should - implement in order for the country to be a prominent marine conservation and research leader. Amongst these “recommendations” is the appointment of a Minister of the Marine Environment. One can only hope that, should this role be created, the health and protection of our oceans will finally be more than a political afterthought.

Following the concerns raised by this colourful canvas of new Brexit-derived obstacles, the Marine

Biological Association and the British Ecological Society gathered together last June to assess the impact of leaving the EU on marine biodiversity and fisheries management, as well as additional challenges faced by researchers. Ironically, while Brexit has been supported by some in order for the nation to get back its prestige on the international scene, it might actually damage the UK’s position as one of the world’s leading marine scientist communities. Also, the possibly strengthened control of British citizen entry into European territory is likely to make the international projects mentioned earlier more difficult. BREXIT

WORDS BY LÉA SOLER IMAGE BY RUBI-BLUE COLLINS

As If Creative Careers Needed More Instability... Unlike any other industry, the creative sector is unique in that it cannot be outright regarded as “British”, or any other nationality for that matter. While the production industries manage British produce and manufacturing, and business services manage British businesses, the arts - at their core - cannot be, and never were, confined to one nation. They are completely fluid by nature. Ever since the first instance of an individual’s creativity supplying them with any sort of gain, art has been shared with anyone and everyone, across all borders and all peoples. Now while that may seem rather whimsical, applying Brexit to the fluidity of the creative industries leads to very real financial issues. One of the most significant of these is to do with touring. The end of free movement between EU countries means that touring artists - primarily musicians - will be faced with high costs and tiresome waiting times when applying for visas to play in European countries, as well as for the rest of the world. Also, touring artists will have to carry out a carnet - a list of all the equipment they aim to bring across the border - and if any single error is made, they will be held until they are able to re-audit. This process can add hundreds of pounds to the cost of touring, on top of travel and visas.

Freedom of movement has also proven to be an issue of great concern to the UK’s dance sector, and not only due to touring setbacks. One Dance UK found that, on average, the workforce of performing companies is comprised of around 25%-50% EEA migrants. EU funding for UK dance companies and schools also plays a huge part in their ability to produce some of the world’s greatest dancers, and contributes to the education, health and wellbeing of thousands in our country. If Brexit compromises this funding, there could be disastrous consequences for the UK dance industry. The UK boasts one of the world’s most creatively gifted populaces, and these artistic industries provide great contributions to our economy. It’s a dire shame that, with its uncertainty and “big picture” approach, Brexit could stifle our homegrown talent. The government needs to set out their plans for the stability of our artists, musicians, dancers, comedians, and others who currently feel like their career is in a state of limbo, and they need to do so quickly.

WORDS BY MAX BURT

In the age of streaming, touring is now the primary and most vital part of a musician’s income. While it may not affect famous artists as much, the costs and disruption to touring in Europe for up-and-coming musicians will no doubt lead to potential talent being driven away from a creative career. Due to the prevalence of streaming services, it is common for a British musician to have their main support base in a different country. However, with the end of free movement the necessity to play shows in that country would likely be detrimental for the artist’s financial situation, despite selling many tickets to their gigs. The monetary impact does not just apply to individual artists. A significant impact to the economy is at stake too. A UKMusic.org study found that 10.4 million ‘music tourists’ came to the UK in 2015, spending a total of £3.4 billion. Seeing as the end of free movement will impact incoming artists as well as outgoing ones, fewer EU artists will choose to tour in the UK and fewer tourists will be attracted to the remarkable music culture inherent in our country ever since The Beatles. BREXIT

BREXIT

JAPAN’S TAKE ON A

NO-DEAL BREXIT In December the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, urged Theresa May to avoid the prospect of a no-deal Brexit scenario to ‘ensure transparency, predictability as well as legal stability’. It’s no doubt that Japan remains hesitant on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Abe’s rhetoric had been firm in the lead-up to May’s defeat in the Commons last January, even questionably stating that the prospect of a no-deal Brexit was against the wishes of the ‘whole world’. While Japan committed unyielding support for May’s deal, even suggesting that it could improve bilateral UK-Japan relations, this now remains uncertain in the run-up to March 29th. But why does Japan, a nation 6,000 miles away from London’s financial hub, remain unduly devoted to a dealwarranted Brexit? Japan remains one of the leading investors in the UK and has been using London as a gateway entry into the European markets. Prominent Japanese car firms such as Honda and Nissan, which have big stakes in the capital, have been reliant on the frictionless borders provided under the European Single Market’s ‘Four Freedoms’. Despite this, Tokyo is willing to accommodate any measures that will uphold the current liberal international order of honest free trade and cooperation. Back in October, Shinzo Abe stated that Japan would welcome the UK with ‘open arms’ if it wanted to join the CPTPP (Comprehensive & Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), a revised version of the TTP which President Trump initially withdrew from. Although the International Trade Minister, Liam Fox, tinkered with the idea of joining the new pact, the UK’s priority currently lies with its European partners.

WORDS BY MATT ALFREY IMAGE BY AVILA DIANA CHIDUME

are characterised as “politically cold, economically hot”. What is most important for the UK, thoug, is the EU-Japan free-trade agreement (FTA) which has recently come into force. The FTA covers nearly a third of global GDP and will scrap between 97%-99% of import tariffs for the two blocs. If the UK leaves on no-deal terms, it could only reap the benefits of the FTA for 59 days. How can Britain learn from the Japanese and recommit itself to the values of capitalism, free trade and cooperation? Japan used to remain quiet on international affairs and free trade due to its core dependency on the US, but recent occurrences have changed this dynamic. When states show desperation, they strategise, negotiate and act. A core element of this demands good leadership, and this prominently comes about through national unity. There are no easy answers for Brexit, but persistent fragmentation only exacerbates the lack of progress we have been observing for the past two-and-a-half years. Britain must analyse the methods Japan has been undertaking for the past two years and stress its firm commitment to upholding the international liberal order if it wants to succeed in global affairs. Japan’s ability to further trade with China, help revive the TTP, and sign an FTA with the EU in only two years should inspire optimism for the UK - which is why we should learn from them.

Japan encountered many international difficulties in the past two years but has shown its ability to remain flexible and resilient. Not only did Abe emerge as a key player in the revival of the TTP, but following President Trump’s instigation of a US-China trade war has sought greater diplomacy between Japan and China to establish further trade between the two nations. This comes amid omnipresent territorial disputes between the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and fierce historical antagonism which has fuelled nationalism in the region. It’s no surprise that Sino-Japanese relations 28

BREXIT

Is the Future of Europe all that Bleak? WORDS BY STEFANIA ZENIOU IMAGE BY FRANCESCA D’COSTA

One of my most vivid memories of A-Level Economics was the discussion of how Brexit would affect not only the UK itself but also the rest of the European Union. The day of the final Economics exam seemed to ironically coincide with the referendum and I remember sitting in that exam thinking about how the future of Europe will evolve and change if Brexit is voted through. Despite the fact that almost three years have passed since that fateful day, not much has changed and a few weeks before Brexit the effects of the UK leaving the EU can still only be speculated. Nevertheless, despite a very negative outlook on event, some argue that the EU as a whole may benefit from this occurrence. First and foremost, Brexit will result in the strengthening of the Eurozone ideals within the EU. One of the biggest antagonists of the adoption of the euro has been the UK who despite the fact that they met all the criteria required to abolish the pound and enter the Economic and Monetary Union, adamantly refused. Not only this, but they pushed for the declaration of the EU as a “multicurrency union” in an effort to undermine the adoption of the euro in the remaining countries. While this minor act of sovereignty may have benefitted the British economy, it put a damper on further economic integration and with Brexit, the balance between the power of those in and out of the euro will shift. BREXIT

Furthermore, public opinion favours the EU. It shows support for the EU is at an all-time high, at least in accordance to the past 35 years. Surprisingly, not just within the EU but also within the UK where certain groups almost instantly regretted ttheir referendum vote evidenced in a rise in EU-based support. Nevertheless, there has been a dichotomy within the social wave of support with the euroscepticism encompassing politics. A prime example of this can be seen in Marine Le Pen’s campaign during the French Presidential election in 2017. Likewise, many other changes are likely to take place such as many agencies like the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency based in the UK moving their headquarters to cities such as Amsterdam and Paris and migration patterns rapidly shifting. One of the greatest effects will be felt in trade, even though it will have a greater impact on the UK in comparison to the rest of the EU. Consequently, even though no-one can really predict the future, there is a vast spectrum of possibilities for the EU in the following years. While there is much confusion within the British government at the moment, and the divisions amongst the citizens are vast, the EU will probably not be plagued by much resistance from member states. Only time will tell the true impact of Brexit on the EU.

BREXIT

Holiday’s Coming Homestaycation style

Brexit, Brexit, Brexit... it’s all so confusing. Whilst its effect on travel is still unclear, bring the “BritStaycation” on!

personal touch to immerse yourself into, thus reliving a piece of British cultural history.

As someone who goes away every year, I used to take travelling to Europe for granted. However, the outlook looks bleak for a poor explorer like me. Although I tour other countries in Europe to escape the rubbish weather here, the UK is not all bad; we can often be hotter than Spain in the summer!

Swansea Bay (Wales) As Nicki Minaj says ‘let’s go to the beach, beach, let’s go get away’. This is a place to sit back and catch the rays or build sandcastles! It seems like a sandy beach is a rare find in the UK, but they do exist. Time to get your cameras out and capture this picturesque beachfront that features a natural tidal lagoon and try your hand at a range of outdoor recreational activities. Who would ever think that the small and mighty Wales could offer something so awesome?!

The British Isles offer a rich tapestry of history, arts, culture and beauty - something that many of us forget. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each have their own unique natural landscapes to take your breath away and only seeing them in person can do them justice. And yes, even the north has a lot to offer- it is like a whole other world. The UK has so much to see, and whilst this list is not extensive, here are a few examples of places to ‘staycate’ or day visit: Camden, London (England) For a relatively small part of the city, Camden packs a mighty punch. From those who are looking for trendy and swank food to Instagram, to those who have an interest in fashion, this is the place to stay and indulge in. There is always something to do here: go along the locks in a boat, eat, see street performers, eat global street food, visit the Cereal Killer café, shop the flea markets or grab a cheeky ‘Spoons! It also boasts a handful of some of the best concert venues for those who love live music too. Liverpool (England) Even if you are not a fan, you should do The Beatles Tour. You cannot deny that The Beatles are one of the most influential bands of all time, so why not see the places which inspired some of their most beloved songs? You can have a professional tour or go freestyle and use Google Maps. If you choose the latter, this allows for a more BREXIT

Glencoe (Scotland) This is one for those with a taste for adrenaline and extreme sports. Glencoe is one of five ski resorts that offer outdoor skiing and snowboarding in the UK. You can ski down the slopes whilst overlooking the Highland and Aberdeenshire scenery as a beginner or as a seasoned skier. It might not be the Alps, but beautiful Glencoe can give them a run for their money. It’s also a cheaper way to experience this extreme sport within the UK, being only a 1 hour, 20 minute flight from London. The UK has much to offer and should be explored. We may not get what we want in regards to Brexit, but one positive thing can come from it - a celebration of what this nation has to offer. A staycation for every occasion.

WORDS BY JO LISNEY IMAGE BY RACHEL WINTER

BREXIT

TRAVEL AFTER BREXIT: importantly, all easy to get to, right? Wrong - potentially.

WORDS BY GEORGE HART IMAGE BY FRANCESCA D’COSTA Ah, Brexit. Who would have thought that one little word, one of the dictionary’s more junior members, could cause such enormous chaos? Be you a Remainer, a Leaver, or even apathetic towards the whole thing, I’d wager that Brexit’s far from being your favourite topic at the moment. The saga drags on, with no obvious end in sight, and continues to characterise our United Kingdom as one more of division than unity. One thing we can all agree on, however, is that we Brits love going on holiday. What better way to escape the endless Brexit turmoil than a week on the sparkling sandy beaches in sunny Spain, a ski trip to picturesque alpine slopes, or perhaps even a weekend city break in somewhere like Paris, Munich or Budapest? All great destinations, all relatively affordable, all perfect for removing oneself from the stresses and strains of everyday life. Also most

Our exit from the EU significantly muddies the waters in terms of what the state of affairs will be regarding travel between the UK and what will soon cease to be our fellow 27 member states. After all, travel is one of the few areas of life where it’s easy to imagine just how much Brexit could change things forever. Yes, the precise form and impacts of Brexit still remain somewhat vague, uncertain and ambiguous, but it’s very much clear that our ability to travel will be affected at least in some way. This article aims to provide some reassurance and advice for all this, in an impartial, unbiased way. (To eliminate any speculation, I love Europe and like the European Union in theory, but not in practice, although I voted remain and stand by that to this day- but this stance will not affect this article.) Brexit could take a variety of forms. We may leave with a deal similar to what the Prime Minister has proposed, or maybe with no deal at all. This latter scenario would mean that no travel agreements would exist between us and the EU, which many are speculating could lead to flights being

BREXIT

UNPICKING THE UNCERTAINTY cancelled, as we would be removed from the “open skies” policy. Indeed, Ryanair have inserted a “Brexit Clause” into many bookings, which could render bookings invalid in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Wessex Scene contacted the airline for comment, but have as of yet received no reply. However, Wessex Scene also contacted the Department for Exiting the European Union, who provided the following reassurance:

the relative (and possibly further growing) weakness of the pound against the euro and other currencies, when assessing what you can afford. Furthermore, take extra care to keep your passport and other travel documents safe and with you at all times whilst travelling, and allow extra time to cross borders when both entering and leaving the UKespecially during the transition period whilst authorities adjust to the new circumstances.

“We are seeking visa-free travel for short-term visits, including for tourists and business travellers. We are also seeking to allow students and young people to continue to benefit from world leading universities and the cultural experiences the UK and EU have to offer.”

The most important advice I can give, whether you be travelling for business, pleasure or otherwise, is to relax and enjoy yourself, and make the most of the chance to briefly forget all the controversy back in the UK for a bit. Travel, at its best, whisks us away from the everyday, refreshes and rejuvenates us, allowing us to return home with a fresh outlook on life. With the looming advent of Brexit, we might need this more than ever.

They also insist they are preparing extensively for a nodeal Brexit. Ultimately, much of the aforementioned amounts to little more than speculation. What will actually happen not just immediately following Brexit, but in the years to come, is anybody’s guess. Brexit is too much of a moving target, and government announcements for travel arrangements are far too sparse, to produce a comprehensive article for this magazine on post-Brexit travelling. Wessex Scene doesn’t have a crystal ball, much as we’d like to! Consequently, in my mind, the best advice to give regarding travel after Brexit is to exercise caution and to go back to basics. I’m not going to tell you whether to avoid booking travel until the impact of Brexit becomes clearer- I’m not qualified to say that and I honestly have no idea whether you should anyway. That said, a great way to plan a trip guaranteed to be untouched by Brexit is to take the opportunity to visit places elsewhere in the UKrecommendations for which can be found on a preceding page. If you do book holidays or any other travel for dates after we leave the EU, make sure you familiarise yourself with the terms and conditions of the purchase you’re making, especially regarding any potential “Brexit Clauses”, as raised earlier. Perhaps contact your travel company to clarify what their policy is on the issue, and what your rights are in the event of Brexit compromising your plans. Be prepared for potential extra costs should the need to obtain a visa arise, and budget this into your trip accordingly. In the same vein, be sure to consider BREXIT

BREXIT

First Day of Brexit Olympics WORDS BY TOM FORD IMAGE BY AVILA DIANA CHIDUME

of Independence Day on every 23rd of June will now be enforced. Only Stella, Lambrini and Greggs (meat) sausage rolls shall be consumed.

The first day of the Brexit Olympics has been a day of Next came the sailing, in which Tim Martin, founder and mixed success for Team GB in a last-ditch attempt to reach chairman of JD Wetherspoon, faced off against the EU a Brexit deal. Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Karmenu Vella, to settle the future of British waters and fishing. The week of games come after Jacob Rees-Mogg MP said Things began smooth sailing for Martin as he handled his to a constituent that the negotiations should be settled boat, HMS Brexit, expertly, even if it did look as if he didn’t through a pistol duel between himself and chief EU know what on earth he was doing. This was not enough to negotiator Michel Barnier. bring him to victory, however, as HMS Brexit foundered and sunk halfway through the race and with it, himself and Critics pointed out this would not have reflected the the UK’s chance of regaining its waters and fisheries. spirit of Brexit accurately, as it would have been over way too quickly. A week of Olympic games, in which Meanwhile, Jacob Rees-Mogg thrashed Emmanuel representatives of both sides of the table compete to settle Macron in the fencing after the French President quickly specific parts of the deal, is therefore being hosted instead. surrendered. This event was widely anticipated as the expertise of each contender in this sport is well known. The first day began with the EU cruising to victory in the After all, Macron is French and Rees-Mogg was born in the 4x100 metre relay, and so Northern Ireland will remain 18th century. The proud Englishman took gold to give the within the customs union. The defeat for Team GB was British public blue passports and straight bananas, at long laid at their own feet by most spectators. David Cameron last. had assured the crowds he would, in fact, carry the baton the entire 400 metres himself, but he caught Theresa May Finally, Boris Johnson tied with Angela Merkel in the off guard by actually passing her the baton instead. Former cycling, calling into question what happens next concerning Brexit Secretary David Davis hurried next into position, the divorce bill. Mr Johnson, believing he had, in fact, won followed by Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, and the race, proudly boasted that all money destined for the then Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay, after confusion over EU would instead be put into the NHS. Unfortunately for who exactly was supposed to be in the race. him, Merkel won the rematch and so the divorce bill stands and Johnson, who must receive a haircut, who has since The highlight of the day for many was to see Nigel Farage given his firm support to a no-deal Brexit. in the tumbling, performing as many physical somersaults as we saw him perform mental ones in the run-up to the Tomorrow will see another day of events that will probably referendum. A flurry of slippery twists and turns came baffle the rest of the world. Games to watch include blind naturally to the former UKIP leader. His EU opponent, football to decide the UK’s ability to set trade deals with European Council President Donald Tusk, stunned the rest of the world, and Michael Gove and Boris Johnson crowds as well, but Sir Nige took back control of the in the synchronised diving to decide if they should have performance to gain victory. The mandatory celebration spread fears about Turkey in 2016.

BREXIT

BREXIT AND ITS IMPACT ON SPORT TRANSFERS Brexit will impact the signing of foreign players for UK domestic sports teams. Although the precise implications for this depend on the withdrawal deal the UK leaves the EU with, the transfer of foreign players into our domestic sports leagues will, and already has been, affected. For instance, the pound’s weakness against the euro since 23rd June 2016 has handed an even greater advantage to top French rugby union clubs to nab players compared with the English Premiership. Rules imposed by the respective rugby governing bodies in France and England place a cap on the total amount a top division club can spend on salaries. With the French Top 14’s salary ceiling at €10m compared to the English Premiership’s £7mn, the weak pound has enabled French clubs to more easily poach and retain the best players, like Scottish international Greg Laidlaw. Then there are county cricket clubs hurrying to sign players under the Kolpak rule before Brexit likely ends this. This rule comes from a court challenge by Slovakian handball goalie Maros Kolpak who had re-signed in 2000 with a German second division handball club. Kolpak challenged the national federation’s decision to class him as a foreign player. Slovakia wasn’t then in the EU, but had signed a trade agreement with it. Kolpak argued this allowed him to play in Germany without restrictions. After a year of deliberation, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2003 in Kolpak’s favour, setting the rule that where a nation and the EU had an association agreement, sports players from that nation could be classed as non-foreign by EU nation domestic clubs. Most players qualify for this rule via one agreement the EU reached with 78 other nations including South Africa in 2000. 8 county cricket players signed under the Kolpak rule from 2013-2015. From 20162018, 14 players including 9 South Africans signed under the rule, with 3 signings for Hampshire alone.

in club squads. The FA introduced in 2018 an even tougher regime for work permits for footballers from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), requiring players to have played a certain percentage of recent international games, dependent on the Fifa ranking of their nation. The end of free movement will see new players from the EEA probably require work permits too, while English football clubs being outside of the EEA after Brexit will no longer be exempt from a Fifa rule banning the signing of foreign players under 18. Fundamentally, Brexit’s impact on sport transfers hits home at the wider, ever-continuing debate about how many foreign players is too many before homegrown talent is stifled and too few before the quality of rugby, county cricket and football deteriorates. I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think that debate will ever end!

WORDS BY IVAN MORRIS POXTON IMAGE BY AVILA DIANA CHIDUME

In rugby if no deal occurred, the Kolpak and other EU country players would no longer be classed as non-foreign, causing a real headache for Premiership rugby clubs. Only allowed 2 foreign players in their matchday squads, one rugby correspondent’s analysis for the first weekend of fixtures in December 2018 concluded that just one club would have met the foreign players quota that weekend under a no deal Brexit. Perhaps less ability to import top-class non-British players will result in more homegrown talent developing. The governing bodies of English cricket, football and rugby all have rules in place to restrict the number of foreign players BREXIT

BREXIT