Featured

What best explains the rise of Euroscepticism in Italy and Britain in the 21st century?

Contents:

  • Immigration and Migration
  • A desire for more sovereignty 
  • Propaganda from Eurosceptics
  • The economic motif
  • A discontent with the Euro zone
  • A discontent with the European Court of Justice
  • The EU’s mismanagement of money
  • Domestic political chaos 

1.   Introduction

Euroscepticism has led to a rather prominent political division predominantly in Britain, however similarly at an increasingly alarming rate in Italy and has rapidly turned one of the six founders of the ECSC[1]into one of the most Eurosceptic EU member states. The term Euroscepticism can be divided into two distinct segments, with ‘hard’ Euroscepticism being defined as a complete rejection of EU integration, which is delineated in THE BREXIT PARTY’s aims, the Lega Nord then represents a more ‘soft’ Euroscepticism. A notion defined by them not having “a principled objection to European integration or EU membership but are concerned on one (or a number) of policy areas leading to the expression of qualified opposition to the EU”[2].

Euroscepticism in Italy and Britain has been surging in the recent political climate. The European Union (EU) has been criticised as “a failed experiment”[3]which in turn thoroughly expounds the burgeoning views of Eurosceptic parties: as being paralysed by political dysfunction, mired in high unemployment and plagued with stalled or contracting economies. The also seamlessly failure by the EU to address the migration flow that increased gradually since the Arab spring and has culminated since 2015 initiated a fear-factor in both Britain and Italy, evoking a Eurosceptic attitude. The abounding propaganda spread by the Eurosceptic parties and the opposing political parties’ failure in successfully exposing these fabrications and falsehoods to the general public merely augmented the animosity of the general public towards the EU. It would be an understatement to claim that Euroscepticism has been a subject of profuse conversation in the political landscape of the David Cameron era. The most notable party in the Eurosceptic field in Britain is the Brexit Party , which gained 31.6 % of the UK votes in the 2019 European Elections.[4]The Lega Nord in Italy similarly gained 34.3% of the votes, amassing 29 seats.[5]Whilst Eurosceptics in both Italy and Britain have very similar correlations in their animus with the EU, they have a striking differentiation in generational demeanour towards the EU. An incredibly large amount of young people in Britain favouring the EU and this being juxtaposed in Italy with young people having a conspicuous dislike for the EU.[6]

2.   Immigration and Migration

Many Eurosceptic politicians have denied straight comparisons of the Brexit vote to a vote on immigration, however, the predominant reason for the rise of Euroscepticism is in fact almost unequivocally due to the progressive masses of immigration flooding into both Italy and Britain. Almost all the surveys, questionnaires and interviews directed at why people voted in favour of Brexit have the same constant rebuttal, the immigration ‘problem’. This rationale for leaving the EU is propelled by the consolidation of propaganda and the immigration crisis generating a victimisation towards the EU. Research shows that 73% of the public that is worried about immigration voted to leave the EU in Britain, in contrast to 36% of those that did not see this as a problem.[7]Roger Harding, head of public attitudes at NatCenendorses this belief in claiming that “for leave voters, the vote was particular about immigration and the social consequences of it”[8]. 

This ‘problem’ has similarly hit Italy. Many supporters of the Lega Nord similarly fear the alarming flow of immigration into Italy, around 6.2million people in Italy have an immigration background, which is close to 10% of the population.[9]A 20-year old supporter of the Lega Nord and first-year politics student at the University of Trieste believes that “immigration could endanger Italian democracy, because it is causing revolutionary and even violent feelings in the working-class areas, in the stomach of the country”[10]. The EU has forced Italy to create migrant centres called “hotspots”[11]for the ever flowing number of migrants entering Italy, which has led to a record of 104,000 asylum applications.[12]This mismanagement by the EU has led to dissatisfaction with the EU from numerous Italian politicians, notably the Prime Minister Matteo Renzi threatened “to withhold Italian contributions to the EU’s budget if fellow states don’t show more solidarity”[13]. The Interior Ministry responsible for the “hotspots”[14]also declared that “we’re angry”[15]and describes them as being “a solution to the EU’s failure to come up with a real immigration policy”[16].

Both eurosceptics in Italy and Britain, whose acrimony for the EU derives from their domestic immigration problem, want more sovereignty on the ability to refuse immigrants from entering. There has also been a prominent increasing fear of migrants due to the horrid terrorist attacks suffered by Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Spain by radical Islamists.[17]Particularly, the attacks suffered by Belgium and France during the Brexit campaign were quintessential to the increasing fear of migrants in Britain and Italy. One of the pivotal moments of the Brexit campaign and the event which gathered further dislike for the EU was “inOctober 2014, when Merkel made clear that the simple, obvious solution, an emergency brake on the number of migrants, could never work and would never be given. A journalist from the Daily Mail has told me [Craig Oliver, who was David Cameron’s director of communications] they honestly don’t believe the paper would have campaigned for leaving if that emergency brake had been granted”[18].

3.   A desire for more sovereignty 

Politicians from both The Brexit Party and the Lega Nord have continuously argued for more sovereignty from the EU and this certainly has been an pivotal part of the rise of the Eurosceptic attitude domestically in Britain and Italy. However, the predominant reason behind this inclination for more sovereignty stems from the mass immigration problem and the yearning to be able to control their own domestic borders, and a profound disapproval with the European Court of Justice (CJEU).  it is therefore simply an underlying aspect of the immigration problem. There has certainly been a progressive power shift on domestic policies from individual member states to the ‘central EU bureaucracy in Brussels’[19], the EU has taken over power for laws such as copyright and patent law, competition and agriculture policies. Eurosceptics are similarly discontent at the lack of major influence they have over the selection of the members of the EU Commission who are directly accountable for British and Italian policies. Many leave politicians, such as Michael Gove, who was co-chairman of Vote Leave, criticised the argument that Brexit was solely on immigration. Instead he would argue that the British public predominantly and simply “wanted to take back control”[20]. A poll of 12,369 people on the day of the Brexit vote found that 49% of leave voters voted in favour of Brexit for the “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”[21]. Both Italian and, more prominently, British politicians have also an acute dislike with the CJEU and the manner in which it, apparently, disrespects sovereignty. Eurosceptic politicians were deceptive in convincing the British public in particular that Britain could successfully take full sovereignty and still be a prosperous economy by staying in the single market was sold through fabricated propaganda. Italian eurosceptics tend to call for more control over their spending. 

4.   Propaganda from Eurosceptics

The underlying reasons for the rise of Euroscepticism such as immigration, the economy, and, as some may argue, the failure of the EU have all been melodramatically magnified as threats to both Britain and Italy’s domestic situation by the media. Many Eurosceptics and leave politicians sold outright lies to the British public, such as claiming that Britain sends £350 million a week to the EU, which Nigel Farage immediately denied after the Brexit vote, or continuously claiming that Britain wanted Turkey to join the EU[22]. The director of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings cleared his own campaign website promptly after the referendum which is an embodiment of how the whole Brexit campaign from the Eurosceptic politicians was built on distortion to produce erroneous and arbitrary antagonism onto the EU[23]. Popular newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, were one of the many instigators into this deceit and fuelled this hatred of the EU with headlines such as “Queen backs Brexit”[24]and “EU seeks control of our coasts”[25]. The newspapers latched onto the migration crisis and repetitively directed it as being the EU’s fault and thoroughly inflated the magnitude of the problem. The Daily Mail headlined “3 million more migrants to come”[26]and in the article stated that “up to three million asylum seekers will arrive in Europe in the next two years”[27]and further claimed “the EU’s asylum system is ‘unable to cope’”[28]. The major Eurosceptic newspapers predicted the NHS waiting lists, the Benefits bill and unemployment to all fail should Britain stay in the EU, this was however based off no substantial evidence and directly influenced the increasing pessimistic attitude towards the EU in Britain. Italian media has also contributed to the rising Eurosceptic attitude in Italy, newspapers such as Il Libero Quotidiano target young audiences and predominantly denounce the EU for domestic problems. Headlines such as “Ue, pronto il piano per favorire l’immigrazione economica in Europa”[29], which translates to “EU, ready the plan in favour of economic immigration in Europe”. The media in both Italy and Britain have indulged themselves into the growing migration problem, and in Italy the economic stagnation, and directed the blame at the EU’s bad management. 

5.   The economic motif

Britain and Italy are in complete juxtaposition for the economic motif for the surge of Euroscepticism. Italy’s youth, who are the predominant supporter of the Lega Nord, have suffered the most and abided under Italy’s economic stagnation in the last two decades. Italy has endured a triple-dip recession since 2007 and the economy has therefore shrunk by near 10%[30], overall unemployment is around 13% and most inordinately youth unemployment is about 35.7%[31]. Many Italian Eurosceptic politicians have directly blamed the EU and the introduction of the Euro in Italy in 2002 as a reason for this, the Lega Nord directly called for a referendum to return to the Lira in 2005 which brought increased suspicion of the Euro in Italy[32]. A Kantar survey by the EU showed that only 61% of Italians believe Italy has economically benefited from being in the EU[33]. There was however major economic stagnation in Italy even before the Euro was inducted into the Italian economy, however, many of the youth in Italy have been led to believe through propaganda that it is due to onerous regulations and bad economic management from the EU. The older Italian public who suffered through the various economic recessions recognise that it was due to continuous domestic political failures. The world economy is generally looking healthy as almost all of the big economies are significantly developing and emerging, unemployment is increasingly falling in the EU, dropping to 8.5% in 2018[34]. Italy are however lagging behind and the dramatic economic prosperity of neighbouring countries in contrast to the ever-slow Italian economy has frustrated the general public who are in increasing numbers demanding change. 

The Brexit campaign would however suggest that the potential for a more prosperous economy through leaving the EU was unequivocally not one of the predominant reasons for Britain voting to leave the EU. The Remain politicians even tried to linger on how economically cataclysmic leaving the EU would be however immigration and the want for more sovereignty, potentially for the first time ever, trumped the economic argument. Craig Oliver reflected on this in his book about the campaign in saying “The view that the economy would trump immigration as the primary concern of voters was backed by plenty of solid polling evidence, as well as the pattern of how electorates had behaved going back over a century. It was wrong”[35]. Numerous economists had consistently warned the British public of the mass negative economic implications Brexit would have on Britain, which they accurately predicted. The people who were persistently confused between voting for the status quo or change were anticipated by the Remain campaign to have voted for remaining in the EU, however, before the Brexit vote Britain was also, unlike Italy, generally in a particularly strong economic position for European member state. The 2008 credit crunch did not instigate these problems but further exacerbated them, producing a further polar disparity between the domestic elites and the working class. This provided not only a renewed anger from the working class towards their domestic governments but towards their supranational EU. Furthermore, this has been increasingly exacerbated by the propaganda from the Brexiteers. The belief that Britain would be capable of opening up new markets across the world, particularly in connection to the Commonwealth, almost immediately following the Brexit vote was sold to the public as a way of protecting Britain’s economy. Italy’s GDP growth was the strongest of all other major European countries, and was approaching the level of the US. Its unemployment rate was second lowest, and the rates of employment was at its highest since the data has been recorded in the 1970s[36]. The rise of the Eurosceptic attitude due to the economic motif in Britain and Italy has therefore been very different, Italy’s youth have been indoctrinated by Eurosceptic politicians into blaming the EU for Italy’s mass economic stagnation and triple-dip recessions. Britain, in contrast, had an economy that was thriving before Brexit and numerous economists warned the British public of the mass economic problems Brexit would produce however the sovereignty argument prevailed.

6.   A discontent with the Euro zone

The increasing Eurosceptic attitude however, whilst it has been propagated by the media, does indeed stem from some bad management and the economic decline of the euro zone since the euro was introduced. The EU’s failure to accordingly govern the immigration levels from Africa and the Middle East since the Arab Spring has conducted hostility towards the EU’s policy decisions. The addition of the euro in 2002 and the subsequent economic crashes and stagnations also not only affected Italy but also Britain even whilst remaining with the pound. Europe’s catastrophically regulated economies, such as Greece, eventually crashed which led to European banks having to be bailed out at a tremendous cost to the European taxpayer. The Eurosceptic newspapers then indulged in this catastrophe and, notably, the Daily Mail came out with the headline “Europe tells Britain it MUST pay for £1bn share of Greek bailout”[37]. The introduction of the euro has however had a substantially adverse effect on Italy. The extensive exasperation with the Euro can certainly be seen by the mass sudden popularity of the Lega Nord, which wants a referendum on euro membership and is predicted to win around one quarter of the votes in the next election. Evidence does in fact prove that the Euro has benefitted certain countries with stronger economies like Germany whilst has simply led to further economic decline and decreased the competitivity in southern Europe generally. Eurostat data further shows that Italians have generally become increasingly poorer in terms of what they can buy since 2005[38], which exacerbates the attitude the Euro and the economic management of the EU. 

7.   A discontent with the Court of Justice of the European Union

The rise of Euroscepticism in Britain may also originate from a profound dislike of the European Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The British governments’ anger at the CJEU stems from a number of cases which it deemed unfair to Britain. Notably, the Factortame Ltd vs UK Transport Secretary case[39]. In which a Spanish company took the UK to court over the claim that the UK had breached EU law by “requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK”[40]. This case has produced conflict between UK and EU officials over who has the ultimate power and the limit of sovereignty Britain whilst being part of the EU. European courts have numerously stated that they have primacy over UK law with cases such as Costa v ENEL[41]in which the CJEU stated that “the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields”[42]. Also with the Van Gen den Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen[43]case in which the CJEU also stated that “the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights”[44]. However the UK have stated that they have the ultimate power in the Thoburn v Sunderland City Council[45]case when it was stated that “there is nothing in the European Communities Act which allows the European Court, or any other institution of the EU, to touch or qualify the condition of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom”[46]. This conflict between the EU and the UK has produced hostility over the UK’s right to sovereignty and has been a major aspect which influenced the Leave campaign’s “take back control” slogan. There have however been mixed messages on the importance of the CJEU as a reason for Brexit and the stringent British dislike of the EU. Conservative MP and Brexiteer Peter Bone said that “It was very clear in the referendum knocking on doors, people said ‘we want our parliament to make the laws and our acts of parliament to be interpreted by our courts not a foreign court’”[47]. However, the director of the Centre for European Reform argued that in reality “a fairly small minority of people”[48]have a problem with the CJEU, and the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke would also argue that “at least 95 percent of the British people don’t give a toss about the CJEU, of which probably 75 percent haven’t the slightest idea what it is”[49]. It may certainly be convincing that the CJEU has not had a major impact on the growing Euroscepticism of the general British public, however, it certainly has caused relentless resentment of the EU from many British politicians. Notably, Jill Rutter, former Whitehall official who served in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury and No. 10, said that “Sometimes we like the Court [of Justice] when it is forcing other people to do the right thing. It is fine to make sure everyone else is doing the right thing. It is when the court applies to us that ministers find it gets really annoying”[50]. Similarly, Environment Secretary Michael Gove said that “It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country”[51].

There has also been conflict between the Italian courts and the CJEU, notable in the case C-276/07 where the CJEU “found the University of Florence to be in breach of EU treaty obligations that prohibit discrimination based on nationality”[52]. A Florence court did in fact implement the CJEU principles at first however the Grand Chamber of Italian Supreme Court of Cassation repealed the CJEU and therefore asserted that Italian law has primacy over European courts. 

There has certainly not been as major backlash against the CJEU in Italy as there has been in the UK  however it has aided in implement hostility and has proved the dissatisfaction of the juridical system and politicians over the EU in both Italy and Britain, which has been spread to the public. 

8.   The EU’s mismanagement of money

The EU has certainly been criticised by many British and Italian politicians as having wasted mass amounts of money on pointless projects, which it could alternatively have been used in the numerous economic recessions. Many reports and politicians in 2014 castigated the EU for spending vast amounts of money on unnecessary and ineffectual investments in airport infrastructure from 2000 to 2013. A report found that €666 million was spent on airports in Italy, Greece, Spain, Poland and Estonia and in which it concluded that only half theses airports needed the funding[53]. The Italian government lambently criticized the EU as they profoundly required the economic aid to be spent on their economy due to the triple dip recession and them being one of the countries hit the hardest by the 2008-2009 Great Recession. During the Brexit campaign the Leave campaigners consistently accused the EU’s Court of Auditors, which annually verifies the EU’s budget and its management, deeming whether it has been accurate and reliable, of not having signed off on the EU budget and its accounts since 2007[54]. Notably, Philip Davis, MP and Brexiteer argued that “they [the EU] haven’t had their accounts signed off for 20 years”[55]. The auditors deny this however there has been concise evidence that there has been errors in the management of the money since 1995, from 1994 to 2006 the auditors themselves deemed the management of the money to not having been fair and accurate[56]. This is however another example of the propaganda used by the leave campaign to wrongly criticise the EU as in reality the EU institution manages only 20% of its budget, with the remaining 80% handled directly by its member states[57]. The media and the Leave campaign targeted the public with a limited knowledge of the EU and indoctrinated them into thinking the EU was directly accountable for taking Britain’s money and wasting it on futile projects and mishandling it. Many southern Italians have also suffered as a result of the economic stagnation in Italy and the suggestion that the EU has mishandled its budget and spent it on impractical projects has also certainly led to a growing Eurosceptic attitude. 

9.   Political Chaos

Particularly in Britain the failure of the Remain Conservative and Labour politicians in the Brexit campaign to excessively expose all the propaganda from the Leave politicians, to extensively focus on the economy rather than immigration, and the notable failure of the Labour party to convince its voters to vote remain all were major contributions to the Brexit vote. David Cameron, who was Prime Minister at the time of the Brexit campaign was encircled in controversy, specifically where he admitted to having benefitted from his father’s Panama offshore trust, which was set up to avoid tax[58]. This brought significantly bad press to the Remain campaign and was profoundly divulged by the Eurosceptic newspapers, notably the Daily Mail with the headline “PM’s secret £30,000 stashed in a tax haven”[59], and the article included a “call for Cameron to quit”[60]. The failure of Labour, specifically Jeremy Corbyn, to effectively provide a clear stance on their desire to remain in the EU led to uncertainty and confusion over a large proportion of their traditional voters. Labour’s obvious failure led to “remain’s worst performances… to be found in working-class Labour heartlands in the north of England and the Midlands”[61]. Many of the working class voters, of which a majority tends to vote for Labour, felt like they had been “left behind”[62]by the EU and the Leave politicians indoctrinated the idea that the EU was to blame. Jeremy Corbyn was consistently inconsistent with his explanation of what exactly leaving the EU would sustain and a large majority of Labour voters did not even know whether he was pro or anti-EU[63]. The Remain team during the Brexit campaign also failed to accordingly educate the British people in the positive functions of the EU and the fundamental principles of it, the top search after the Brexit referendum on google was “what is the EU”[64]. Craig Oliver emphasised this in his reflection of the Brexit campaign by saying that “Hardly anyone had much concept of the European Union, or how it impacts on their lives”[65]. He also later admitted that  “an organisation could have been set up way back then [when the referendum pledge was made], designed to explain the benefits of the EU and why it’s crucial to our economy”[66]. The propaganda and the admitted effectiveness of the Leave campaign extensively convinced the public that the EU was defective to Britain and they heavily overemphasised the growing dilemma’s Britain faced, such as migration, and extensively blamed the EU. The failure of the Remain campaign and the success of the Leave campaign propelled the public to vote for Brexit due to their unbalanced view on the beneficial and contradictory aspects of the EU.

Silvio Berlusconi’s reign as Italian Prime Minister singlehandedly led Italy to global embarrassment with his sexual scandals and led Italy’s economy to continuously decline. His complete disregard for Italy’s economy led to a triple-dip recession and Italy being one of the lowest GDP growths in the world from 2000 to 2010, only Zimbabwe and Haiti had a lower GDP growth[67]. The EU’s criticisms in the manner it has handled much of its budget and the criticisms of its auditors has manifested much of the Italian public into feeling victimised by the economic dysfunction of its own political system and the EU. Berlusconi’s reign ended 2011[68], and much of the Italian public feel they can economically prosper with the further end of the EU’s constraints on Italy. In Britain, however, the abhorrent failure of the Remain campaigners, predominantly in their failure to correctly address the immigration issue undoubtedly played a significant role in the success of the Leave campaign.

10.Conclusion  

Therefore, there are numerous similarities in the explanation of the rise of Euroscepticism for both Italy and Britain however the differences are inordinately compelling. The age demographic is strikingly juxtaposing, with the young favouring Euroscepticism in Italy and the older generations favouring it in Britain. The economic landscape is exceedingly contrasting, with Italy being drowned in economic stagnation and Britain prospering economically before Brexit. Both countries have, in very different manners, been mired in political instability and confusion however admittedly at very different times. Italy’s political instability has largely been due to the corrupt Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Britain was politically divided during the Brexit campaign. The however most predominant similarity of the rise in Euroscepticism from both member states  is the overwhelming fear of the seamlessly never-ending migration crisis which has predominantly increase from the Arab Spring. The migration crisis has poised a fear-factor in many British and Italians that their public services are going to be over flooded and inaccessible. The terrorist attacks in neighbouring European countries and Britain have also prominently increased the fear factor of radical Islamists entering their countries and spreading these radical views of bringing terror to the Western world. A dislike and contradiction to the CJEU has stemmed far more in Britain than it has in Italy however the Grand Chamber of Italian Supreme Court of Cassation has also had its conflict with the CJEU and overruled them on a number of occasions. Britain has consistently argued that the CJEU has no control over its own sovereignty, which the CJEU has however declined. Whilst there certainly is prominent conflict between the CJEU and British politicians, and it may have been a cause of the vast amount of British MPs evoking to Euroscepticism, it has not had a major impact on the general public, of which an overwhelmingly large amount have little to no overall knowledge on what the CJEU does or even is. The media played a prominent role in the Brexit campaign and it was propagated by the Leave campaigners as a method of propaganda to accuse the EU as being the instigators for all of Britain’s domestic problems. These domestic problems certainly were exaggerated and propelled by the media however the underlying nature of the migration problem in particular had already been set as a fear-factor in a large amount of the general public in both Italy and Britain. It is therefore certainly convincing to argue that mass migration is one of the main causes for the rise of Euroscepticism in Italy and Britain, the media and dishonest politicians have propelled this into a fear of the failure of the public services and the security of the general public from radical Islamists.  

[1]Encyclopedia Britannica. (2018). European Coal and Steel Community | European organization. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Coal-and-Steel-Community [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[2]Taggart and Szczerbiak. 2002. 

[3]Tom A. (2018). Tracing the origins and evolution of Euroscepticism in the UK. Available at: https://eusvox.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/tracing-the-origins-and-evolution-of-euroscepticism-in-the-uk/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[4]France 24. (2019) In UK, Farage’s Brexit party storms to EU election victory

https://www.france24.com/en/20190527-uk-farage-brexit-party-storms-eu-election-victory

[5]Politico, Nathalie Tocci, How Italy lost the European election, https://www.politico.eu/article/how-italy-lost-european-election-2019-national-maginalization/ [Accessed 17 June 2019].

[6]Leary, N, Zampano, G, Faris, S. and Kaminski, M. (2018). How Italy turned Euroskeptic’. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-euroskeptic-surge-migration-crisis-eu/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[7]Sascha, B and Thiemo, F. (2018). Immigration continues to be unpopular but cutting it will hurt Britain’s economy. Available at: https://theconversation.com/immigration-continues-to-be-unpopular-but-cutting-it-will-hurt-britains-economy-78645 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[8]Bulman, M. (2018). Britain voted to leave the EU to stop immigration, definitive study finds. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-leave-eu-immigration-main-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]

[9]ANSA.it. (2018). 2015 statistical report on immigration – English. Available at: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2015/10/29/2015-statistical-report-on-immigration_8a5ca854-c3b3-4b04-8566-2414006466fb.html [Accessed 8 Jan. 2018].

[10]Leary, N, Zampano, G, Faris, S. and Kaminski, M. (2018). How Italy turned Euroskeptic’. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-euroskeptic-surge-migration-crisis-eu/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[11]Steve, S. (2018). The migration problem in Italy is getting completely out of control. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-as-asylum-seekers-clog-italys-courts-europe-is-no-help-2016-11?r=UK&IR=T [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[12]Ibid.

[13]Ibid.

[14]Ibid.

[15]Ibid.

[16]Ibid.

[17]Weller, C. (2018). Startling maps show every terrorist attack worldwide over the last 20 years. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/global-terrorist-attacks-past-20-years-in-maps-2017-5?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[18]Oliver, C. (2017). Unleashing demons. [S.l.]: Hodder Paperback, p.382.

[19]Timothy, L. (2018). Brexit: the 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11992106/brexit-arguments [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[20]Cooper, C. (2018). Gove urges referendum voters to take back control from EU ‘elites’. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-gove-urges-voters-to-take-back-control-from-europes-unaccountable-elites-a7064711.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[21]Daniel H. (2018). A compromise on immigration will profit Brexit Britain. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/5ed95f78-8c94-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[22]Kroet, C. Kroet, C. Dallison, P. and Kroet, C. (2018).

[23]Kamen, M. (2018). Vote Leave’s campaign website is rebuilt for posterity. Available at: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/developer-rebuilds-wiped-vote-leave-website [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[24]Martin, K, Mance, H. and Brown, J. (2018). ‘The Sun’s ‘Queen Backs Brexit’ headline rebuked by regulator’. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/56d287fc-1ccb-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[25]Greenslade, R. (2018). Press reminds former PR David Cameron how to handle a crisis. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/08/press-reminds-former-pr-david-cameron-how-to-handle-a-crisis [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[26]John S and Hugo D. (2018). Europe tells Britain it MUST pay £1bn share for the Greek bailout.  Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3161585/Europe-tells-Britain-pay-1bn-share-Greek-bailout-Osborne-strongly-opposes-plan-use-money-EU-members.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[27]Ibid

[28]Ibid

[29]Liberoquotidiano.it. (2018). “Gli immigrati irregolari sono…”. La frase che svela la vergogna: il piano Ue per farci invadere. Available at: http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/esteri/13248514/ue-commissione-juncker-piano-pilota-favorire-immigrazione-economica-africa-asia-disoccupazione-.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[30]Thomas, N. (2018). Italy’s economic growth picks up to 0.3%. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/daeb7656-5435-367a-bb49-15095133dd43 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[31]Tradingeconomics.com. (2018). Italy Youth Unemployment Rate | 1983-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar. Available at: https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/youth-unemployment-rate [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[32]Leary, N, Zampano, G, Faris, S. and Kaminski, M. (2018). How Italy turned Euroskeptic’. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-euroskeptic-surge-migration-crisis-eu/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[33]European Parliament (2018). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Main_Page [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[34]European Commission (2018). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61964CJ0006 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[35]Oliver, C. (2017). Unleashing demons. [S.l.]: Hodder Paperback, PUT IN PAGE.

[36]Rogers, R. and Walters, R. (2015). How Parliament works. London: Routledge. P.346.

[37]John, S and Ian, D. (2018). 3million more migrants are set to enter Europe by 2017. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3307035/3million-migrants-set-enter-Europe-2017-Britain-warns-crisis-20-years.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[38]European Parliament. (2018) Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/parlemetre/eb88_v2.pdf [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[39] R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, UKHL 7, C-213/89; (1991) C-221/89; (1996) C-46/93, UKHL 44, EWHC 179

[40]Rogers, R. and Walters, R. (2015). P.346.

[41]Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL[1964] ECR 595

[42]European Commission(2018). EUR-Lex – 61964CJ0006 – EN – EUR-Lex.

[43]Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1

[44]European Commission (2018). EUR-Lex – 61962CJ0026 – EN – EUR-Lex. 

[45] Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, [2002] EWHC 195 

[46]Fairhurst, J. (2016). 

[47]Dickson, A. Ariès, Q. Murphy, C. Dickson, A. Cooper, C. Baume, M. and Temple-West, P. (2018).

[48]Dickson, A. Ariès, Q. Murphy, C. Dickson, A. Cooper, C. Baume, M. and Temple-West, P. (2018).

[49]Dickson, A. Ariès, Q. Murphy, C. Dickson, A. Cooper, C. Baume, M. and Temple-West, P. (2018).

[50]Dickson, A. Ariès, Q. Murphy, C. Dickson, A. Cooper, C. Baume, M. and Temple-West, P. (2018).

[51]Dickson, A. Ariès, Q. Murphy, C. Dickson, A. Cooper, C. Baume, M. and Temple-West, P. (2018).

[52]Bulman, M. (2018). Britain voted to leave the EU to stop immigration, definitive study finds. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-leave-eu-immigration-main-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]

[53]Keating, D. (2018). EU wasted money on new airports, say auditors. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-wasted-money-on-new-airports-say-auditors/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[54]Ibid

[55]Ibid

[56]Full Fact. (2018). Is the EU’s budget ‘signed off’ by auditors?. Available at: https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[57]Ibid

[58]Walter B. (2018). Available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/david-cameron-s-taxes [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[59]Walter B. (2018). Available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/david-cameron-s-taxes [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[60]Ibid

[61]Curtice, J. (2018). ‘Where’s the evidence that Jeremy Corbyn is to blame for Brexit?’The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/evidence-blame-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-remain-labour-conservative [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[62]Ibid

[63]Ibid

[64]Neetzan, Z. (2018). UK’s second most Googled question after Brexit: what is the EU?’ Available at: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/leave-remain-brexit-uk-google-trends-what-is-eu-european-union-referendum-what-happens-now [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018].

[65]Oliver, C. (2017). P.48.

[66]Oliver, C. (2017). P.48.

[67]The Economist. (2018). The man who screwed an entire country. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/18805327 [Accessed 8 Jan. 2018].

[68]Ibid

Was the FIA legally correct in giving Vettel a 5 second time penalty?

This was the stewards reasoning: 

Fact: Car 5 left the track, re-joined unsafely and forced another car off track.

Offence: Involved in an incident as defined by Article 38.1 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Decision: 5 second time penalty (2 point awarded, 7 points in total for the 12 month period).

Reason: The stewards reviewed video evidence and determined that Car 5, left the track at turn 3, rejoined the track at turn 4 in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track. Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

WAS THIS THE CORRECT LEGAL DECISION BY THE STEWARDS?

The sporting regulations objectively say: “Unless it is clear to the stewards that a driver was wholly or predominantly to blame for an incident no penalty will be imposed.”

It is interesting to note that they say “driver” and not “car”. Vettel makes no major error in going onto the grass with it being his car, specifically rear tyres who failed him. 

The significant aspect to look at however is the report saying he re-joined the track in an “unsafe manner”. 

Whilst on the grass, Vettel first tries to re-join the track out of the racing line by veering his steering wheel to the left. This is clearly then problematic, as Sky Sports F1 commentator Karun Chandhok notes, due to the possibility of him hitting the left barrier, possibly causing a spin in the middle of the track which is unequivocally more dangerous than the status quo. 

Vettel then proceeds to being forced to turn the steering wheel towards the right to balance his car, avoiding the potential for him spin in the middle of the track, again, more dangerous than the status quo.

DID HE HAVE ANY CHOICE?

Vettel ultimately had 3 options:

1 – Stop completely, which would have potentially caused a car driving at 120ish km/h to drive straight into him. 

2 – Try veer towards the left side of the barrier, outside of the racing line. But he was very close to the barrier and there would have been a high probability of him hitting the barrier. 

3 – The status quo, which has to be taken into high consideration considering it caused no accident. 

Ultimately, thus what the stewards call an “unsafe” re-entry, was most probably the safest outcome possible following him going onto the grass. Apart from the legality of the incident, the stewards must take into account that Vettel had approximately 1-2s to make this crucial season defining decision. 

IS THE PENALTY CONSISTENT WITH PRECEDENCE?

Let us now look at the 5 second time penalty they placed on Vettel. Admittedly, legally they have no manoeuvre in awarding a lower-scale penalty. However there must be a clear distinction between Vettel’s mistake, and Verstappen’s unsafe release in the pit lane in the Monaco Grand Prix, which compromised a drivers entire race. 

Both got awarded the same penalty, yet one driver was trying to avoid crashing into the barriers and creating a dangerous incident, and the other achieved a competitive advantage as well as causing another car to pit again due to damage. 

Do both these events merit the same penalty? A rational mind would suggest no, there is a lack of consistency which creates ambiguity and a dangerous future for Formula 1.

There seems to be a legal precedence of forcing a switch of positions if the stewards determine that an unfair competitive advantage was achieved. 

However, due to the incompetence of the stewards in their decision making, it took them 10 laps to make the decision. This completely nulled out the possibility as it was thus too close to the end of the race. 

This was legally the wrong decision, and there must be a change in the types of penalties the stewards can award.