Brexit

Great Britain goes to the polls on 23rd June to vote as to whether or not to stay in the European Union. This vote will bring to an end, at least for a generation, a saga that has bedeviled the country for over 40 years. Britain become a member of what was then the Economic Community in 1973 (which then evolved into the European Union in 1991) but has struggled with its membership of this supranational body. Britain joined in the 1970s when it was undergoing significant economic turmoil and still finding its place in the world after the demise of its empire. As the world solidified into regional trade blocs, membership of the EC seemed the best way forward. However, at the same time, Britain found itself ever more unhappy at the constraints of membership. This was after all a country which for three centuries been a rule maker – now it had to adapt to becoming a rule taker.

The election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1979 brought these tensions to the fore as she became increasingly outspoken in her opposition to the EC and what she saw as its slow but sure encroachment on British sovereignty, despite the immense benefits the Single Market had to offer. At the root of her challenge was a very simple, profound belief: Britain’s thousand-year-long independence and the sovereignty of its parliament, was being eroded by a supranational body led in many cases by unelected officials.

While debates around membership were common to all political parties, they were at their most heated within the Conservative Party, the “traditional” ruling party of Britain. After losing power to the pro-European Labor Party between 1997 and 2010, the Conservative party (Tories) turned inward and became increasingly obsessed with the European issue. This was especially after the appearance of a new party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which stands on a single issue platform – withdrawal from the EU – and which started to attract conservative voters.

The Brexit camp (those promoting a British exit from the EU) base their case for withdrawal on two essential arguments. Firstly, they argue that there is a democratic deficit within the EU meaning that Britain is subject to laws it has had little or no say in making; Parliament is no longer the supreme law making body for the country. Secondly, they suggest that owing to the EU’s four freedoms (goods, capital, services and people) Britain no longer controls its own borders: in theory any citizen of any member state can go and live in any of other member state. In fact, since 2004 over two million EU citizens have come to the UK; more are anticipated.

The success of UKIP in deploying these arguments threatened to tear the Conservative Party apart and in order to prevent this happening David Cameron, British Prime Minister, proposed a referendum on membership of the EU to quell the rebellion. While himself not a great fan of the EU, the Prime Minister has nevertheless campaigned to remain in the EU. He argues that the economic consequences of leaving the EU are so dramatic that Britain, despite being the world’s fifth largest economy, would suffer significant economic turmoil and a reduction in its security if it leaves. Furthermore, not being part of a major trading bloc, Britain would have to go through the painful process of having to renegotiate terms of trade with bodies far more powerful than itself. In sum, at a time when the world is ever more integrated, he is arguing the costs of casting Britain adrift are too high.

It has yet to be seen which of the two sides of the arguments are more appealing to the 45-million-strong British electorate.

However, the ramifications of the vote go far beyond mere membership of an organization; the results will determine the fate of the Britain as a unified body, and, the EU itself.

Firstly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. For some time, centrifugal forces have been evident within the Kingdom, particularly on the part of Scotland which in 2015 held a referendum on independence. However, the failure of the referendum did not quieted the call for independence, and the pro-EU nationalist administration in Scotland has already indicated that it is likely to push for a second referendum on independence should Britain leave the EU. That would then open up a can of worms, including questions as to Great Britain’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its nuclear submarine bases stationed in Scotland.

Secondly, there are profound implications for the EU itself. If Britain were to vote to leave, it would leave the EU dangerously unbalanced – after all, British foreign policy towards the continent for the last 400 years has been to side with the weaker party. The lack of Britain would also deprive the EU of a critical friend: for example, London advised against the creation of the euro (the governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, said at the time that it was a great idea that had come 20 years too early) and was against the creation the Schengen zone, which has effectively ceased to function owing to the refugee crisis. In addition, should Britain leave, both its and the EU’s voice on the world stage would be attenuated.

Furthermore, it is increasingly conceivable that should Britain vote to leave, other countries might be emboldened to hold similar referenda and seek concessions similar to those of Britain from a weakened Brussels. And as the popular mood across the EU grows increasingly skeptical towards the Union, an unraveling is not beyond the realms of possibility. As has been stated by Niall Ferguson, a British historian, “The lesson of history is that British isolationism has often been associated with continental disintegration.”

The dangers to the EU of a Brexit are vastly exacerbated by the fact that the EU is currently grappling with highly challenging issues, including the Syrian refugee crisis in the South; the systemic fissures in the euro zone; the bankrupt and debt-ridden Greek economy; the extremely fragile Spanish and Portuguese economies; increasing right-wing sentiment in France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, and parts of Scandinavia; high youth unemployment; low growth and a lack of tools to deal with another economic crisis. Any one of these issues would represent a threat to the Union: a Brexit could just make them overwhelming.

It hardly needs stating that the implications for Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, of any weakening of the EU are profound. There is little doubt that any diminution in the power of the EU would enhance Russia’s strategic objectives in the region and Moscow would quickly look to fill any vacuum that appeared. It is for this reason above all that world leaders, including President Obama, have contributed to the debate in the UK by unambiguously supporting Britain’s membership of the EU.

To conclude, the UK is at something of a cross-roads in its long history. Withdrawal would lead to a marginalization on the world stage with unknown consequences to its economy. Yet at the same time it is desperately trying to hang onto an identity which, owing to the vast numbers of immigrants, is changing almost literally by the day. Furthermore, it is evident that when facing the economic behemoths that are China and the US, the Europeans can speak with an equal voice only when united – and in doing so subdue Russia as necessary. The loss of Britain would be a devastating blow to this power. Yet at the same time, the internal tensions within the EU are so great, that it may not take much to lead to at least a degree of fragmentation.

The great irony is that it was Winston Churchill, the great statesman, who saw the obvious benefits of a United States of Europe when he recommended its creation in 1944 and it could be his beloved Conservative party that leads to the end of this long-cherished ambition.