As they waited for the first results to come in on referendum night on Thursday last week, members of the Stronger In campaign were sipping water and wine in a stiflingly hot room at the Royal Festival Hall in London.
The “Remain” camp had reason to believe that a good night was in prospect. Final polls had shown them ahead, though not by enough to dispel the butterflies in their stomachs. The TV cameras and crews had been invited in and everyone was on edge.
“It was a strange atmosphere,” said a Tory member of parliament who was there. “It was halfway between a party and a spin room. In the middle of a nice conversation, Kay Burley would suddenly butt in and say: ‘Hi! Kay Burley, Sky News, so what do you think of that then?’”
Illustration: Mountain People
Up the road at Westminster Tower, the Vote Leave team was holding its own deliberately low-key party. Some among its number were fearing the worst.
“When the ComRes and Ipsos Mori polls at the end of voting at 10pm went against us, we thought: ‘Oh shit,’ but we’d had darker moments than that,” one campaigner said. “We just had to be patient and have faith.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron was in Downing Street with his political team, including Chief of Staff Ed Llewellyn and Tory Chairman Andrew Feldman, while former London mayor Boris Johnson and Conservative MP Michael Gove were holed up in their respective homes, pacing around their sitting rooms awaiting the most important decision by the British people in a generation.
Cameron, Johnson and Gove had all been briefed on how to read the early results. Newcastle, which they knew was likely to come first, was a big one in every sense. The number crunchers said that for Remain to have a good night, Newcastle had to vote strongly in favor.
The leader of Newcastle’s Labour-run city council, Nick Forbes, had predicted that if it was much less than 60:40 for Remain in his city, the UK would be heading out of the EU, because surrounding rural areas and towns were so pro-Brexit.
Just after midnight, the mood at the Festival Hall and No. 10 darkened. Newcastle had gone Remain, but by only 51 percent to 49 percent. It was way worse than they had expected.
Sunderland and others followed, developing a trend. Leave was outperforming expectations — consistently.
“The samples we were getting suggested we were 5, 6, 7 percentage points ahead of where we had thought,” a Leave source said.
John Curtice, doyen of election analysts, said it was time for Remain to “put the champagne back in the fridge.”
Remain was said to have done well in London and in parts of the Tory south, but not well enough to counter what was happening across the north in Labour strongholds.
“There was gloom everywhere,” a Tory Remainer said. “The despair was lightened only by great joy and laughter when Epsom and Ewell [the constituency of pro-Brexit Cabinet minister Chris Grayling] and then Wokingham [that of John Redwood] went to Remain. They were the only fun parts.”
GAME’S UP
The country was splitting. For brief periods the overall outcome seemed nailbitingly close. At 2:51am the BBC monitor showed both sides on 50 percent of the vote.
It became clear that Labour areas had defeated Cameron. Sensing the game was up, the prime minister slipped away from the rest of his political team to have discussions with British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.
The pound continued to plunge. By 3:30am, Cameron knew his fate was sealed.
His communications team, including Craig Oliver and press officer Graeme Wilson, who had gone to the Festival Hall hoping to raise glasses to victory, headed back to Downing Street to prepare for defeat.
Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings and communications director Paul Stephenson tried to stay calm before ITV called it for Leave.
“Everyone started to chant: ‘Dom, Dom, Dom,’” one of his team said.
Cummings emerged from his office, jumped onto a table and punched out a panel in the ceiling above him.
Stephenson took himself to an office with air conditioning, wanting it “all to end.”
UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage — who, bizarrely and prematurely, had accepted defeat early on in the evening — was the first politician to declare it for Leave.
“Dawn is breaking on independent United Kingdom,” he said.
Farage said it was “a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people.”
As Leave celebrated, the pound went south and Farage realized his dream of 30 years, much of the population was in despair. The referendum had delivered an outcome and a change to UK governance more momentous than any in living memory, by 52 percent to 48 percent. It left the country split along geographical, generational and class lines. The UK had fractured.
Scotland had voted heavily for Remain, by 62 to 38 percent, and was now on course, according to Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon, for a second independence referendum. It could soon be shorn off from the union with England, as a consequence of the UK-wide Brexit vote — a separation that Tories such as Gove and Johnson will look forward to with dread. So will the main parties.
White working-class areas in the Labour-run north of England had ignored Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s calls to reject Leave.
Labour London, home to the metropolitan elite, had given thumping majorities to Remain, with 59.9 percent of people in the capital voting to stay in the EU against 41.1 percent who backed Leave. Labour Wales went to Leave by 52.5 to 47.5 percent.
The generations went their different ways, too. About 73 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 had chosen Remain, while 60 percent of those over 65 had voted Leave.
“Those who have least time left on this Earth gave young people the very result they did not want. That will be a source of real anger among young people,” one Downing Street official said.
Rosie Warin, cofounder of a pro-EU campaign group called We Are Europe, said: “The referendum has torn this country apart in a way that will have consequences for years to come, across class, age, race and religion.”
“Today we feel like our world is collapsing,” she added.
The despairing Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson, declared — in a reference that applied equally to his country and his party: “We end this referendum more divided than when we started it.”
If Cameron’s intention in holding an in/out referendum had been to heal the Tories’ decades-old divisions over Europe once and for all, it had backfired spectacularly. His resignation statement at 8:15am on Friday added him to the list of Tory prime ministers and leaders who had fallen in the Tories’ never-ending European civil war.
More than 40 percent of Conservative supporters had supported staying in the EU, creating rancor between Conservatives that will take years to heal, if ever.
As he spoke, with his frowning and tearful wife, Samantha, looking on, Cameron blended dignity in defeat with defiance. He would go by the party conference in October. Eighty-six of his MPs had signed a letter asking him to stay on to negotiate the terms of Brexit with Brussels.
No, was his response.
He had been furious with his old friend Gove for many weeks over the way he had campaigned against him and saw Johnson as motivated purely by ambition to take his job. Why should he bail out the traitors who destroyed him?
Cameron’s statement was careful, but deliberate.
“A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new prime minister and I think it’s right that this new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU,” he said.
Brexit was their victory and now it was their problem.
Cameron knows that this appalling end to his six years as prime minister is to a large extent of his own making. He gambled on a hugely risky referendum under pressure from UKIP before the last election, knowing it could go disastrously wrong.
In terms of the campaign, he was hobbled by his own Euroskeptic poses in the too recent past, including his threats to lead the Leave camp during his attempt last year to renegotiate British EU membership.
In the past few weeks, friends say he has had numerous “dark nights of the soul” and has often wondered why on Earth he put himself in such a position. In the referendum campaign, he was the skeptic turned firm believer, but somehow it did not convince.
He never once spoke passionately about the raison d’etre of the EU in binding nations together and hardly mentioned its successes in speeding the advance of democracy, the rule of law, press freedom, and Western economic thinking across the previously moribund former communist states of central and eastern Europe. Instead of telling a positive story, he had focused on the negatives of leaving — and did so often in hyperbolic terms.
As veteran Euroskeptic Bill Cash said: “They just didn’t buy the Armageddon arguments.”
As Tory Remainers analyzed their catastrophic night in the early hours of Friday, it was Labour they blamed as much as Cameron.
“If we had any other Labour leader than Jeremy Corbyn, we would have done it,” one Remain member of parliament said.
With his qualified support for the EU, Corbyn — who said he was not a “catastrophist” and had ranked the issue seven out of 10 on his scale of priorities — failed to shift people in Labour areas who were worried about immigration and too fed up with austerity to Remain.
NO HEROES
Remain won in Labour Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle — narrowly — but Leave triumphed in Labour Birmingham and Sheffield, and a host of stronghold towns such as Salford, Wigan, Lancaster, Bolton and Oldham.
As the Tories head into another leadership contest, Corbyn faces a possible vote of confidence from members of parliament in his own party. Labour pro-Europeans are angry and some criticism is vitriolic.
Novelist and well-known north London Labour activist Linda Grant tweeted on Friday: “And a special circle in hell for that foolish bumbling vain incompetent tosser Jeremy Corbyn, King of the selfie and signed apples.”
Across the country, bitterness lingers as people try to comprehend a future apart from their European neighbors.
“We are at the early stages of our leap in the dark and don’t know where we will land,” a Tory MP said.
When he emerged from his London home after his triumph early on Friday, Johnson did not appear overjoyed. He was jeered and insulted, not greeted as a liberating hero. Some applauded him, but more hurled abuse. Later, when he and Gove held a victory press conference, both men looked shell-shocked. Their short speeches were funereal in tone, no smiles.
As the stock market nosedived, Johnson addressed a message directly to young people, as if he was terrified of their anger, assuring them they would still be able to travel and find jobs in other European countries.
The future was still bright, he said.
“To those who may be anxious, whether at home or abroad, this does not mean that the United Kingdom will be in any way less united, nor, indeed, does it mean that it will be any less European... That this decision involves pulling up a drawbridge or some sort of isolationism — I think the opposite is true,” he said. “We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe.”
On Friday night, hundreds of young people protested the result close to Tower Bridge in central London.
Gove paid a flattering tribute to Cameron, who would go down as a “great prime minister” and adopted a soothing tone.
“We can now, calmly and united, take our country forward in the spirit of the warm, humane and generous values that are the best of Britain,” Gove said.
The message was different from the ugly, hard rhetoric of the campaign. Emphasis on the need to get out of the EU as soon as possible had morphed into a reassurance that nothing would change in a hurry. Only slowly would they loosen the chains of the superstate that shackle the UK. Neither man took any questions, having been willing to do so at every turn in the weeks before the vote.
The referendum is over. The UK is heading out of the EU against the wishes of 48 percent of the country and most of its youngest generation of voters.
The men who told us how important it was to “take back control” did not look to be relishing the prospect of exercising it, or to be very keen to get on with the job.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers