Wikipedia's late timeline doesn't include this, but Brexit was first proposed by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in a January 2013 speech: he said what everybody was thinking back then that the Eurozone is structurally flawed, that the EU is democratically unaccountable, and that public disillusionment with the bloc was at an "all-time high". He thus promised a Brexit vote if the Conservatives won the 2015 election.
Forgetting this "all-time high" is the number one strategy of the fundamentally insulting, provoking and inadequate "Brexit Vote 2" campaign. Cameron has seemingly earned his daily bread by giving speeches which are a mea culpa, but he fails to remind listeners how the problem in 2012 was not just the pan-European project's crisis but the realization that it is impossible to remedy given the current structure, which is organized and modeled on American neoliberal and bourgeois (aristocratic) ideology.
Clearly, Brexit did not and obviously could not start with the vote in 2016. Nor did it start with the Global Refugee Crisis in 2015. The reality is that the pan-European project lost the UK far earlier due to mismanagement, worrying performance, and a lack of democracy.
What came first: Euroscepticism or the ineffective, undemocratic pan-European project?
That doesn't really matter. My primary point is that Brexit sentiment reached a point where mainstream politicians had to respond/capitalize on it way back in 2013. This was long before the far-right UKIP won seats in 2014, the Global Refugee Crisis and when Wikipedia finally took note.
Does anyone honesty believe that if all things being equal, economically that migration alone would have produced such a pro-Brexit vote? Preposterous there is no way that 51% of the UK is xenophobic to the point where that is the one issue they make their votes on. Of course, the capitalist-dominated private Western media is 100% pro-globalization so they have to make it seem as if xenophobia was the only motivation. They absolutely never want to talk about the undemocratic nature of the EU, nor the massive opposition to banker bailouts and their compound interest which is ruining the present and the future.
In late 2015 Cameron was using, correctly, the pan-European project's continued failure to argue that the UK would be distanced from their continued bailouts, QE, economic stagnation and totally unchanged-and-still-at-risk structure: by early 2016 he got it written down that Europe's "ever closer union" doesn't include the UK, which concisely describes the nature of the concessions. The Brexit vote was in June 2016.
Brexiteers, seeing that the Eurozone was only worsening, knew this was their chance to get free. Euroscepticism had been proven correct and democratic, even though fake-leftists and Europhiles will say that in 2015 the Global Refugee Crisis hit and that is what scared voters into Brexit.
Predicated on that idea is the assumption that British voters don't have the capacity to recall long-term memories, and that they are easily manipulated by whatever is the latest headline. We journalists would like to believe this is true, but that is only our arrogance, stupidity and absurd belief that people believe every single thing we say. Why should we ignore, or why should the Brits turn a blind eye to, the Eurozone's long-running crisis?
The Brits didn't and, combined with their initial lack of faith in the pan-European project it is historically logical that they are the first out.
If there is one thing which a journalist must do it is to honor the man on the street. Literally, that is what a journalist does often stick their microphone into the face of someone on their way to work and ask their opinion. I guarantee that if you do this it is IMPOSSIBLE to not realize that such answers are repeatedly off-the-charts intelligent and astute. However, this experience and knowledge is fundamentally at odds with Western capitalist decision-making, which foolishly values technocratic skills at the expense of morality and practical experience.
If the status quo is bad, why not change it when you can?
Because of the December 12th election I decided to publish this part of my 10-part series on the current state of the Western QE economy out of order. It was supposed to be the 9th part, but is now the 6th, for those of you keeping score at home.
This 10-part series uses as its jumping-off point the 2018 book Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World by Nomi Prins, a former Wall Street executive who saw the light and is now informing on the crimes of Western imperialism-capitalism. Prins gives a thorough and chronological account of central banker doings in key areas Mexico, China, Brazil, Japan and Europe ever since US banker crimes set off the Great Recession in 2007. The essence of her thesis is that the US orchestrated collusion among the central bankers of many of the G20 economies and the Eurozone in order to primarily save busted US banks, and then also to maintain the 1%-enriching policies of QE, ZIRP and no-strings attached bailouts.
Even though Prins' book is chronological she fails to note these events I listed. However, she at least gets the start date of Brexit a bit better than Wikipedia, and she understands better the economic and pro-democracy foundation of the Brexit movement. She recounts the "ever closer union" discussions back in November 2015:
"Two weeks later, speaking at the Federation of German Industries (BDI) lobby in Berlin, British chancellor (of the Exchequer) George Osborne said Britain would only support a treaty to save the euro from collapse if its own renegotiation demands were accepted. The project to strengthen the Eurozone through a French fiscal arrangement was aimed at avoiding a repeat of crises. It was supported by Germany, France and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. The idea was to prevent crises from attacking the common currency.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).