Is This Why The British Public voted for BREXIT?!

I am a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, a party that is pro-EU. In the game of Westminster party politics I would be expected to take a position against all those who disagree with my party line. However, that is not my approach to politics. Before I was a member of a political party I was a philosophical liberal and have continued to be a philosophical liberal and open-minded. Although the Remain position may have been my default position rather than engage in a political civil war with half of my fellow citizens I consider it best to try to understand the public and what drove them to make this momentous political decision. As a Democrat I respect the will of the majority whilst understanding that democracy can be a bitch and that everyone does not get what they want all the time. As a liberal I see it as a duty to understand the public not to dictate to the public but to respond to the democratic will of the people as a public servant and to understand the zeitgeist.

As someone committed to public service and from the community organising tradition I consider it a duty of politicians to deliver what the people want. That is not to argue that a politician cannot teach, guide or offer educated opinion but recognition that democratic society depends upon politicians accepting the will of the people and then responding to that will as public servants. Therefore politicians are charged with using their political skills to shape the best course to the destination that the public has willed. Today, I want to examine Brexit from a perspective that exists in the UK and across the world but has not been picked up in any substantial way by the media. A perspective that I believe played a key role in the Brexit vote.

Since the beginning of the 21st century there has been a movement growing amongst the citizens of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom for greater integration between these "Anglosphere" nations within the Commonwealth. The argument has been made that the Commonwealth "Anglosphere" nations share a Head of State, common language, legal system, cultural values and political system as well as historical ties that are well documented.  What began as an obscure idea by a relatively unknown Canadian policy researcher James C Bennett in a little known book titled, The Anglosphere Challenge: Why English Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century published in 2004 and then later explored by Canadian theorist Brent Cameron in another little known book called The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade: Options for a New Globalization in 2005 has slowly gained momentum over a decade or so and is now becoming a heavily debated topic amongst policymakers in the political mainstream as we start to imagine Britain's post-Brexit future.

After publishing these, frankly, very interesting books, Bennett and Cameron alongside a number of peers and well-educated academics from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK launched the CANZUK movement dedicated to promoting greater integration between the "Anglosphere" Commonwealth nations. In 2012, think tank Commonwealth-Exchange was formed in the UK with a vision to lobby for a more integrated Commonwealth. Commonwealth-Exchange would later come to the attention of the then London Mayor Boris Johnson who has since became a quiet advocate of their ideas; hence his position on Brexit.

In much of the commentary in the media on the referendum it was characterised as a debate about immigration. A battle between good British people that wanted to keep Britain's borders open and good British people that wanted their country back from what they consider to be an influx of immigrants from the EU. Whilst there were certainly strong elements of an undeniable xenophobic and anti-immigrant feeling in amongst the Leave campaigners and Remain campaigners were right to challenge the xenophobic aspects of the campaign in defence of an open, tolerant and internationalist Britain, the tactics of Farage and others largely took away from what I believe was at the centre of the intellectual debate. Should Britain's cultural, economic and political future be with the EU or with other "Anglosphere" nations in a Commonwealth Union?

Whilst the intellectual debate was not about immigration, there is no doubt that anti-immigration sentiments were used as a populist ruse for those supporters of the new and perhaps emerging political paradigm to win the vote. Those who have made the intellectual argument for greater Commonwealth integration between "Anglosphere" Commonwealth nations such as Ralph Buckle at Commonwealth-Exchange, have argued since 2014 for the need for more Commonwealth immigration, an idea that Leave campaign front-man Boris Johnson MP has embraced. Even contributing to writing the foreword to the Commonwealth-Exchange 2014 publication, "How to Solve A Problem Like A Visa?" A call to make it easier for citizens of Commonwealth nations to travel in the UK by removing Visa restrictions. The ideas of the non-partisan think tank Commonwealth-Exchange have also gained the support of now International Trade Minister Liam Fox MP who also wrote a foreword for one of their publications The Commonwealth's Call to Duty.Today; we have a Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and an International Trade Minister that have made clear their support for working towards a more integrated Commonwealth and developing new relationships with "Anglosphere" nations in favour of the EU.

It does not take a rocket scientist to recognise that the dream of a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is an

appealing one to the British public. In a 2015 YouGov poll citizens in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK were asked if they wanted free movement within the "Anglosphere" with approximately 2/3rd's of citizens polled outside of the UK welcoming free movement and more than half of the UK population considering free movement as a positive. There are many UK citizens that have relatives living in "Anglosophere" nations and Australia and Canada alongside the US are the 3 nations most favourable to UK citizens according to a recent YouGov poll. The dream of sun, sand and sea in culturally familiar settings, plus even familiar soap opera's, makes the concept of an integrated "Anglosphere" a dream that many Brits want to see made a reality.

Australia and Canada are vast lands of continental sizes with a vast array of climates where UK citizens could think and dream bigger, unhampered by any notion of overcrowding and bring forth a new geo-political paradigm. There would be no need for them to learn new languages and cultural mores, they will be immediately situated in a familiar linguistic and cultural framework with only geographical adjustments needed to be made in order to integrate, work and communicate. Whilst the EU is a nation of many nations, cultures and political ideals the "Anglosphere" nations share the ideals of Liberal Democracy and free trade as well as a Head of State, legal system and language. For many the idea of a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone appears exceedingly obvious. Almost like "why didn't we think of that before?"

Ideologues of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone also offer an interesting take on the relationship that the

"Anglosphere" nations could have with the US. Arguing that the union would act as the US's main partner in maintaining global order and stability. With a combined population of more than 125 million and strong armed forces and an economy in the top 5 biggest economies in the world, the union could become a better partner to the US than the EU. The US like Commonwealth "Anglosphere" nations shares much in common with the UK such as language and history and have a well-documented "special relationship". In many ways the "Anglosphere" is an idea that British citizens can be aroused by; an idea big enough to instigate the biggest political decision that Britain has made in decades.

I am a Liberal Democrat; a member of a party that is pro-EU but I am also a member of the British public and sympathetic towards both the Leave and Remain camps as citizens of the country that I call home. I understand many of the deep-rooted fears of those who perhaps think than Britain leaving the EU could result in a rerun of 1939. I understand the desire of those who consider a fall-out with the EU too much of a risk and would rather remain as part of an organisation that may not function in a way that the British would like in order to secure peace. I understand that we should not let those who use the Brexit vote to preach anti-immigrant hatred and promote a culture of hate and xenophobia towards EU citizens in Britain gain any ground. However, I believe that the notion of the "Anglosphere" is a rational and credible one not to be sneered at. There have been intelligent and insightful intellectual arguments of a ground-breaking new geo-political paradigm that have been made. I understand absolutely the reasons why British citizens would naturally find it easier to integrate politically and economically with those that share a multitude of things in common not to mention a Head of State and who also occupy such beautiful sunny surroundings. My only obvious dispute with the ideals would be the theoretical exclusion of those in the British-Caribbean that also share the same Head of State as the aforementioned.

Today, the British public have made a democratic decision to leave the EU. Now Britain must chart a new path and the idea of the "Anglosphere" is on the table. We have key government figures now who have quietly accepted these ideas and there has been money spent by powerful financiers and others to make the Leave vote a reality so that Britain could pursue this new course. Those who have sought to pursue this journey have dishonestly and ruthlessly used anti-immigration rhetoric whilst knowing that the project that they were setting out upon would not seal the immigration debate.

So, it appears like there is no other post-Brexit pathway on the table. The question now is who should lead the way in negotiations with the EU and in birthing the new political paradigm? For this I would argue that the Liberal Democrat Party is best placed to lead negotiations towards it. Why? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a liberal who shares many policies with the Liberal Democrat Party. Therefore he is ideologically aligned with us as Barack Obama and the US Democrats are aligned with us in our global movement to defeat tyranny and oppression. It would make negotiations easier to begin when there are two ideologically aligned minds and parties sitting down to make a move that would perhaps dramatically change the political landscape. "Anglosphere" nations are clearly and squarely Liberal Democracy's with decentralising and free-market instincts. The Liberal Democrat Party is the party of those traditional "Anglosphere" values, the party of J S Mill and John Maynard Keynes two of the Anglophone's greatest liberal intellectual icons.

Our philosophy and political platform of an open, united and tolerant UK is music to the ears of the citizens of Australia, Canada and New Zealand that look upon the idea of free movement favourably and the 58% of Brits that would welcome more immigration from the Commonwealth. We are the internationalist party a party whose ideology is about having strong internationalist relations. We have been the greatest advocates for the European Union and we will be the most fervent voices in working towards the integration that many British citizens desire.

Whilst the Conservative Party cynically ride's on the tails of anti-immigrant feeling we must develop our new internationalism and take the lead on the new paradigm. Whilst some have quietly accepted it, we must take the bull by the horns and declare it before the British public before it is too late.

God Save Britannia!