Looking for help with the Online Safety Act - Ofcom consultations? Please get in touch. 

Iptegrity deeply regrets the British decision to leave the European Union. I feel that - far from being Indpendence Day or a liberating moment- this decision is a bad sign for democracy in Britain.

The referendum campaign was dominated by propagandist, manipulative and bullying commentary from powerful media owners, who sought to silence their critics, and they succeeded in muffling the voices of those who believed Britain would have been better to stay in Europe. We do not know how

close the ties are between them and the politicians who hope to gain power, but we may suspect the connections are close.

The campaign showed a poverty of political debate that is unbecoming of a country whose Parliament is regarded as the mother of all Parliaments. It owed more to reality TV shows than to a democratic, free discussion.

Over the past nearly 10 yeas that I have run Iptegrity, I have criticised European Union policy. I have been especially vocal where the EU was evidently being influenced by corporate interests for their own benefit, and potentially to the detriment of citizens. I have done this in the spirit of democratic accountability. The European Union has many flaws, but I believe the best way to rectify them is to work from within. It is a positive sign of the EU that does support free speech, and allows a range of voices to be heard. The EU has shown that it is also willing to listen to the voices of its citizens, as in the case of ACTA, and citizens need to recognise that together, they can send strong messages to policy-makers.

The European institutions are subjected to heavy corporate lobbying because the size of the EU market with over 400 million people, dictates that companies want to get influence. It should not come as a surprise that EU policy-makers will bend in the way that these industries want them to. It is our role, as citizens, to keep a watchful eye and be there to remind policy-makers of an alternative viewpoint. I felt proud to be able to add my voice to those EU debates in the sectors where I have expert knowledge.

I fear that I cannot say the same for Britain. The Westminster Parliament is a closed shop. Access is highly restricted. Behind the scenes, ideas can only penetrate from those who have the money or channels of influence to tunnel their way inside. Industry keeps a very tight hold on policies and ensures that those who may take a different perspective are kept out of the way. A closed gallery of elite journalists report on Parliamentary business. Parliamentary seminars are run by a commercial company, and only those who can pay, are permitted to attend.

In a Brexited Britain, industry will either get a closer hand on the strings of government, or it will ignore us altogether, focussing on the bigger political might of Brussels. That leaves Britain at the mercy of the largest corporations who can afford to put lobbyists here, and out of scope where the bigger and dirtier deals risk being done.

The only thing that has been clear from the Brexit campaign is that those who were so keen to leave, had no plan. The financial markets are already telling us, using indices and equity prices as their voice, that they fear a negative outcome for Britain. Universities are also beginning to absorb the possible negative impact of losing not only student income, but research funding, from the EU.

In a State of such extreme uncertainty, we need free democratic speech more than ever. In the 21st century, we need a free, open and unfiltered Internet to facilitate it. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Britain. The filters on British broadband networks are arbitrarily filtering out legitimate business, children's charities, and churches.

When we leave the EU, what legal protection do British citizens have against a government that is hand-in-glove with an industry that wants to sell more and more tools to snoop, and powerful organised lobbies?

I do not take any great pleasure in writing this. It makes me sad that the country which gave rise to free speech rights over 300 years ago, does not understand why it now has to positively support them.

Pause for thought and gather our strength, because we will need it.

If you refer to this article please cite my name as the author, and provide a link back to iptegrity.com. Media and Academics - please cite as Monica Horten, 2016, Brexit: a sad day for free speech in Britain in Iptegrity.com, 26 May 2016. Commercial users - please contact me.

If you like this article, you might also like my latest book The Closing of the Net which is about corporate influence over EU policy, the Internet and free speech.


Iptegrity moves on!

May 2024: Iptegrity is being re-developed to upgrade the Joomla software.

Please bear with us until the new site is ready.

Find me on LinkedIn

About Iptegrity

Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten. I am an  independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. In April 2024, I was appointed as an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. I am a published author, and post-doctoral scholar. I hold a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. I cover the UK and EU. I'm a former tech journalist, and an experienced panelist and Chair. My media credits include the BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.

Iptegrity.com is made available free of charge for non-commercial use. Please link back and attribute Dr Monica Horten.  Contact me to use any of my content for commercial purposes.  

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review