My thoughts on the outcome of the EU Referendum

As I hope you know, I campaigned for a ‘Remain’ vote, and I am deeply disappointed by the result. I know many residents in Barnet and Camden, and indeed London as a whole, are also profoundly disappointed.

For the record, the results in Barnet and Camden (which were far better for ‘Remain’ than was expected):

Barnet: remain 62% ;  leave 38%

Camden: remain 75% ;  leave 25%

London: remain 60% ; leave 40%

Before I comment on the implications, a few words about the call for a second referendum, supported by millions of outraged people.  I fully understand the frustrations of those who back this call, but I think it is the wrong thing at the wrong time, though I do not wish to dissuade anyone  from signing the on line petition.  In the unlikely event that there were to be a rerun (presumably due to a legal technicality), then the result could be worse- experience tells us that usually when elections are rerun, the result is confirmed more strongly. We have to respect the outcome.

However, there is much still to be decided. I consider  the opportunity to examine the detailed implications will come soon. I believe a General Election in the Autumn must follow, after a new Prime Minister has been appointed by the Conservative Party. I hope that our European partners will accept that the formal process (‘Article 50’) should not commence till then, and after such an election has given a new Government a clear mandate on how to address the consequences of the vote. Those consequences are profound: for the cohesion of our society; for our national and London economy; and for our politics.

There is little doubt that the referendum has exposed deep fractures in our society: geographic, intergenerational, class, ethnicity and many others, divisions exploited and exacerbated  by demagogues in the campaign.  The challenges looking ahead will be to address these social impacts and their causes. I believe the referendum was seen by many as the chance to express  their alienation  and dissatisfaction.  The cause of that alienation I believe has its roots in the fallout from austerity and its impact on public services, and for which immigration became a convenient scapegoat.  The consequences we are now seeing include an increase in hate crime against  minorities,   especially  towards migrants both from the EU and elsewhere.  I am pleased that Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has emphasised to the Metropolitan  Police  his policy of zero tolerance towards such crimes.  I also fully endorse his statement that EU migrants, who make such an important contribution to the life and economy of London, are welcome here.

By the Autumn, the early economic consequences will become increasingly clear and biting: It is not just a case of more expensive foreign travel unless the pound recovers against the dollar and euro (which seems unlikely),  but prices will start  to rise as the impact of higher fuel prices  affect not just motorists at the petrol pump, but feed through into transportation costs for all other  goods;  and the cost of  imports of all types will rise.

The consequences for  London’s   financial services’ contribution to the  economy cannot be underestimated . Lord Hill, the UK’s EU Commissioner  who held the financial  services portfolio on the EU Commission   is resigning, which means we will not have a say in the setting of policy for this sector,  which is  so vital to London’s jobs and economy , and where we have had to resist changes that would have affected the sector detrimentally.

We have to do all we can, to ensure that the country does not leave the single market, for which the referendum did not give a mandate. Although this is  important  for the  trade in goods, for London it is also vital for the provision of services which is not yet fully  covered by the single market. The risk is that any further  implementation  of the single market  for  services will not reflect the circumstances of London’s business in services,  and will be to our detriment.

This is why Sadiq Khan is right to demand  that London  has a seat at the ‘EU exit’ negotiating table, to do the best we can to minimise the impact on our capital’s economy and by extension, the nation’s.

Although most of the rest of the country voted the other way to London, they are heavily dependent on the resources generated by and  in London.   Overall, London provides a net subsidy (money raised in London but spent elsewhere)  of 20.3 per cent of GDP, so one pound in every five earned by Londoners is used to fund the rest of the country, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR).

Therefore, in my view, the result makes irresistible the case for much more devolution to London over fiscal powers as well as services, so that we can address the consequences for  ourselves, given that the London economy is so different  from that of most of the rest of the country-If London were a country, our economy would place us 11th largest among EU countries.

London Government also needs to find common cause with the other ‘Remain voting’ big cities, including Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle, and work, so far as it is London’s interests to do so, with Scotland too.

What of our politics? It is clear that the main parties are in crisis, over the disconnect  with the communities they represent. In this I include Barnet, where two of the local  ‘Brexit’ supporting Conservative MPs, those  for Hendon and Chipping Barnet,  were out of step with their  ‘Remain’ voting electorates by a large margin. In Finchley, although the  MP supported ‘Remain’ he was invisible in the campaign. Almost all of  Barnet’s Conservative Councillors ( with a small handful  of exceptions)  also supported Brexit.

On the other hand, I am pleased that the Labour Party  in both boroughs- MPs, Councillors, local parties as well as myself as London Assembly  member- campaigned for Remain, in accordance  with the majority of our constituents’ wishes. Labour  carried out the ‘heavy lifting’ of the Remain campaign in Barnet and Camden.

The challenge nationally is how to reconnect with the disaffected voters I referred to at the start of this  email, when there are such clear differences  between the regions of the  country. I believe in due course the answer should lie in party political devolution   to London  so we can set out own domestic political agenda, in the same way that  political devolution has been  granted by the  parties to Scotland. If this is not granted, then any party manifestos  risk alienating one or other part of the country, when there are such  disparate aspirations of  London, the regions and the other nations.

Finally, for the long term, we are in uncharted waters: the effect  on our economy and trade, on  savings and  pensions,  and our  political role in the wider world remains to be seen. These consequences will be the subject of my further updates in due course.

best wishes

Andrew Dismore

Andrew Dismore AM

Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden