Christopher Tulloch is a senior lecturer with the Department of Communication and director of the master’s degree in International Political Journalism (UPF-BSM).

He grew up in Great Britain in one of the areas most affected by Thatcher’s policies and has lived in Catalonia for 26 years.

He followed the Brexit referendum closely, the result of which has led to the start of the activation process to formally separate Britain from the European Union, scheduled for the month of March.   

— The United Kingdom, within the European Union, already had some distinguishing features compared to countries such as France, Germany or Italy. Why did the citizens vote NO to remaining?

The first observation we need to make with respect to Brexit voting is that the “Kingdom” has been anything but “United”. 62% of Scots voted “remain”, as did 56% of the Northern-Irish. 60% of the inhabitants of Cardiff, the capital of Wales, voted against Brexit, and many major English cities —London, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle— also wanted to stay in the European Union. So, the question is: what motivated the 51.9% of the population to vote against remaining? Well, I can provide five answers among the many possible explanations: i) UKIP, the ultra-right wing party, put immigration at the centre of the campaign; ii) Cameron said that after winning the 2015 elections he would renegotiate EU relations and the voters thought that he came back with few concessions from Brussels; iii) the Labour Party didn’t play very clearly; iv) it was repeated many times that leaving the EU would contribute 350 million pounds per week to the national health service (NHS), another of the campaign’s many lies, and v) three out of every five voters over the age of 65 years opted for Brexit.

— From what you are saying it follows that the Brexit campaign was fought with false information. Can we talk about “post-truth” in this case?

From its inception, the Brexit campaign was fought with false information. The biggest of all was the one that Nigel Farage of UKIP spread when he said that if the British left the EU, 350 million pounds could be allocated each week (!) to the national health service (NHS). Of course the elderly voted to leave with arguments like that! The difference between Farage and Trump, with regard to “post-truth”, is that the morning after the vote, Farage admitted that it was a “miscalculation”.

— What is left in the UK of the policies of Margaret Thatcher? Would she have agreed with Brexit?

There are still lots. The “Iron Lady” left an indelible imprint. The destruction of the manufacturing industry, the dismemberment of the unions, the North-South divide, hyperconsumption... Would she have agreed? You bet! She used to go to Brussels every year, as she said, “so that they will give us back the money they owe us”.

— How would you qualify the national media coverage of Brexit?

I think that none of the so-called ‘quality newspapers’ thought that Brexit would win. On the other hand, the “tabloids” acted most forcefully as spokespeople for the anti-European right wing, and as they have millions of readers, their message “got through”. It reminded me a little of Trump’s campaign, all the media made the most of Trump to increase their sales until they ended up doing his campaigning for him.

— And, now that it’s serious, what do the people say? How will Brexit affect the population of the United Kingdom?

This Christmas I was in England and when I spoke to people from the perspective of someone who lives on the “Continent” — as they put it — and I explained how Brexit will affect them — their children’s education, the withdrawal of the funding for infrastructure, Frankfurt taking over from London as financial capital, etc., it wasn’t well received. Outwardly there is a picture of unity and defiance in the face of the EU, but inwardly people are very concerned, especially the middle aged and the “professional” classes.

— Will leaving Europe have any impact on those who, like you, live and work on the Continent? What do they think of it? How did the ex-pats vote?

One of the few positive consequences of Brexit is that it seems that by 2020 ex-pats will be able to vote in British elections again. Finally our rulers have realized the absurdity of the “Fifteen year law” that has made us “electorally stateless”. According to this legislation, all those British who have spent more than fifteen years abroad can’t vote in national elections and of course, nor can we vote here as we don’t have Spanish citizenship. It is a crucial matter. There are two million of us living in the EU. Now, as far as Brexit affects me personally, as a university lecturer, things look complicated if we decide to keep our British nationality. For example, the principal researchers of European projects have to be EU citizens. And how will we reformulate the Erasmus programme?

— Donald Trump has expressed his enthusiasm for the results of the referendum of June 2016. He said: “You will have your own identity and you will have the people you want to have in your country, and you can make commercial treaties without being controlled”. Didn’t the British already have these privileges?

Trump’s foreign policy is highly predictable. It is a strategy of “divide and conquer”. If the EU is a trade rival, then he will do anything to weaken it, like, for example, giving all his support to Brexit. He even received Nigel Farage as a “representative of British foreign policy”. He applies the same policy to Taiwan and China.

—Who really benefits from the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union?

Three groups: i) the European trade rivals: France, Germany and Italy: France has already overtaken the United Kingdom as the fifth economy in the world; ii) Putin: he was in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU, and iii) ultra-right wing leaders, such as Marine le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands or Alba Daurada in Greece. All three were the first to congratulate the British on their “brave gesture towards the eurocrats in Brussels”.