Nothing is really quite as it seems in the Brexit vote

On Tuesday a British woman wrote on the letters page of this newspaper that it was a certainty that Britain would vote to leave the European Union in the referendum, which is to be held in less than two weeks. The average British voter, she wrote, was “totally committed” to British exit from Europe, or “Brexit” in the campaign jargon.

Opinion polls suggest this may be true. The Leave voters, who began the year as outsiders, are now marginally ahead, prompting a note of panic among the political, commercial and financial elites who generally back the status quo.

The Remain campaign is now deploying its heaviest weapons to try to jolt the voters to their senses: former prime ministers Sir John Major and Tony Blair – a pair not usually seen together in public – are campaigning in Northern Ireland with the message that Brexit would threaten the hard-won peace in the province and break up the United Kingdom as a whole.

The prospect of Britain leaving the EU after 33 years has rattled the markets. The Bank of England is preparing for a tight result, which would mean that when European markets open on the morning of June 24 the count might not be finished, opening the way for a global financial storm.

Yet nothing is quite as it seems in this referendum, even the interpretation of the opinion polls.

Despite the rise of the Leave vote, experts distrust the polls, noting that the pollsters got the result of the last British general election wrong. Betting markets give a different picture, with the chances of Brexit at 29 per cent. How can this be? When questioned by pollsters people either have not made up their mind, at this stage, or they are lying to the pollsters or to themselves. Peter Kellner, former president of the YouGov polling organisation, believes that it is natural in referendums for the status quo option, or the less dangerous one, to gain in the final days. That would indicate a last minute swing to Remain.

That, however, suggests voters being driven by logic, which so far has been little in evidence in the campaign.

It is useful to look at the Trump phenomenon in the United States as a model for how democratic elections are fought today. Mr Trump offers no genuine policies but only a good kicking to the ruling classes. This is music to the ears of voters who feel impoverished by the three great waves of globalisation – goods, money and people – and betrayed by the elites, who cannot protect them, but only enrich themselves.

In Britain the bureaucracy of the European Union in Brussels stands as the personification of the invisible forces of globalisation and the impotence of national governments. The Leave campaign’s most effective argument against EU membership is the sacrosanct principle of the free movement of people. This is a right much enjoyed by Britons who want to forsake their rainy land for sunny Spain but it has allowed 100,000 EU migrants to come to work in Britain every year, many of them from poorer countries such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

This depresses wages in low-skilled sectors such as the building trade, to the detriment of native workers. It is also good for the economy as a whole: more Britons are in work than ever before. But it is undeniable that this is at the cost of Britain losing control of who it lets in. Is the EU to blame? Not really. The British government pressed hard for EU expansion to the east, and was quick to relax migration controls,

Strangely anti-EU feeling is strongest in the parts of Britain which have the fewest foreign-born residents. In places where migrants are most visible such as London, which by definition are the most prosperous, support for the Leave campaign is lowest.

The Leave campaign is now focusing on Turkey (“Turkey is joining the EU”) with the implication that 76 million Muslims are about to come to Britain. This will not happen in the foreseeable future, and if ever it was a possibility it could be vetoed by any of the 28 member states. But scare tactics are the currency of the campaign, hard facts being hard to come by given than no country has ever tried to leave the EU.

The view of other EU member states is one of fear and bemusement. Bemusement because Britain, with its island status and a series of opt-outs, has dodged some of the EU’s deadliest bullets: it does not use the euro – a straitjacket which enriches Germany at the expense of poorer member states; it has not signed up to passport-free movement which applies on the continent and allowed one million would-be refugees to come to Germany last year; and it has capped its contributions to the EU budget. To some eurozone countries, it is an ideal situation. The fear is that it could encourage anti-EU movements in other countries such as France.

The most confusing aspect of the referendum is why it is being held at all. It has been called to resolve an enduring split in the ruling Conservatives, a Eurosceptic party divided between those who want to leave and those who believe a critical approach can produce a good compromise. Now that the Labour party has made itself unelectable by veering sharply to the left, the Conservatives, lacking a natural predator, have opted to rip themselves apart in the referendum campaign, perhaps fatally.

The arguments that appeal to the head are on the side of Remain, which should logically win, as the less uncertain option. But in a world of pent up anger where Donald Trump will be Republican presidential candidate, emotive arguments and the appeal of the daring lie could still win on the day. It all depends on who turns up to vote. The only certainty is that if Leave is the winner, no one knows what the future holds for Britain and the great European project.

Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs.

On Twitter: @aphilps