Ten years on from the seismic Brexit referendum, one leading academic's transformation from ardent Remain supporter to fervent Leave advocate encapsulates the complexities of the debate. Nigel Biggar, Rhodes Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford University, has revisited his stance, arguing that Britain's departure from the EU has ultimately reinforced national sovereignty.
Professor Biggar's journey challenges prevailing narratives surrounding Brexit. In particular, he rejects Richard Drayton's assertion that his views represented 'imperial nostalgia', driven by a desire to reclaim 20th-century global dominance. Professor Biggar insists there is no empirical evidence to support this claim and notes that his own 2016 blog post was often misinterpreted – it actually concluded that Britain may have had valid reasons for remaining in the EU.
Initially, in 2016, Professor Biggar admitted to voting Remain, even backing the pro-EU campaign financially. However, his concerns were rooted deep within. Economically, he felt the UK's membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) had failed to yield tangible benefits, especially as post-war economic growth had begun to wane by the time Britain joined. Furthermore, while free trade within the bloc may have benefited French agriculture and German industry, it did little for Britain's larger service sector.
Beyond economic considerations, Professor Biggar was troubled by the influence of unelected Brussels bureaucracies over British lives, without any direct electoral accountability. He found this 'remote' power structure particularly irksome, describing it as 'impervious to the needs and complaints of its populace'. More fundamentally, he questioned the 'ever closer union' project, viewing it as an attempt to forge a new European identity at the expense of national sovereignty.
Professor Biggar's reflections offer a nuanced perspective on the Brexit debate, highlighting the diverse reasons individuals held for their positions. His personal journey serves as a poignant reminder that perspectives can evolve over time, particularly in light of actual political developments post-referendum.