Round The World

New Delhi, 28 April, 2016

UK’s Referendum Gamble

O BREXIT OR NOT TO BREXIT

By Amrita Banerjee

(School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi)

In his last visit to the UK as President, Barack Obama set the tone of his three-day visit by making an impassioned appeal which urged British citizens to vote for staying in the European Union (EU) in the referendum on June 23.  

Notably, what began as a bloc of six countries today has transformed into a gigantic transnational entity of 28. Consequently, forcing leaders of many countries to confront the cumulative and complex realities of competing nationalisms.  As, for Britain, the question whether to stay or leave the EU has overshadowed the better part of over 40 years.

Moreover, amidst the influx of millions of immigrants from North Africa and West Asia UK feels the urgency to define its equation with the rest of the bloc in precise terms. Thus, President Obama appeal evoked mixed responses: On one side it punctured the Eurosceptic Britons’ arguments who advocate ‘Leave’, on the obverse, it gave a boost to the ‘Stay’ campaigners given the miniscule margin with which they led over the ‘Brexit’ group in opinion polls.

Pertinently, with almost one-third of the electorate still undecided, Obama’s intervention might sway votes in favour of the ‘Stay’ campaign thanks to the influence and popularity the US President enjoys in UK whereby his visit has kick started another serious discussion on whether Britain should continue staying in EU.

Despite, all the fury and noise over the referendum in June, the question to stay or leave the bloc has cast a long and troublesome shadow on the country which joined EU in 1973 under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. But when Labour leader Harold Wilson won public approval for that step in a 1975 referendum, the hope was that the overwhelming mandate would be irreversible.

Years later, Prime Minister David Cameroon finds himself in Wilson’s shoes. The irony is that even though Cameroon himself wants Britain to stay in EU, most of Cabinet colleagues are now spearheading the leave campaign.

Importantly, today as in 1975 the main argument against membership is the perceived loss of national sovereignty. With Britain’s history as an imperial power, the prospect of a destiny inside Europe that is driven by a dominant Franco-German alliance is deeply unpalatable to sections of the political class.

They feel UK could retake seats on international institutions thereby be a stronger influence for free trade and cooperation. Two, the over 20 billion dollars given to EU’s kitty every month could be spent on scientific research and new industries. Three, leaving EU would return control over areas like employment, law, health and safety.

Four, Britain would also be able to negotiate a new EU relationship without being bound by EU law. It could secure trade deals with other countries like China, India and America. Five, immigration which is a key element in the Eurosceptic armoury, has acquired renewed potency following large refugees inflows from Syria into EU.

Moreover, the exit camp is exploiting the cracks in EU policy over refugees’ rehabilitation to frontally attack the free movement principle underlying the Schengen borderless travel zone. Thus, UK now wants to change the ‘expensive and out-of-control’ system which offers an open door to the EU and blocks non-EU immigrants who could contribute to Britain.  

That, Britain is in a minority of countries which neither share the euro nor participate in the Schengen border free zone, does not diminish its weight and importance in the larger EU framework. To entice Britain and prevent its exit from EU, the European Council President Donald Tusk also published a draft plan offering Britain new terms of membership in the EU Summit in Brussels.

The proposed deal has four main features: First, an ‘emergency brake’ that allows Britain to restrict EU migrants’ in work benefits. Second, a ‘red card’ mechanism allowing the Government to block some EU legislations and accommodate national concerns. Third, Britain could slowdown some European legislation and finally, UK would be recognized as ‘not committed to further political integration’.

This deal would enable Cameroon to ask lawmakers to favour staying within the EU to prevent the UK losing its ‘negotiating muscle’ in future trade and investment deals in this trans-national bloc.

Undeniably, an EU membership has substantial benefits for Britain too. One, UK’s membership objectives have always been primarily economic rather than political. It is apparent that these interests are better served if London assumes its rightful place at the European high table. Non-EU members Norway and Switzerland have access to the bloc’s internal market, but no voice in shaping its laws. Such an arrangement might not befit a country with the wealth and influence of Britain.

Two, UK has benefitted immensely in science as a shared enterprise within the EU due to increased funding that added to its advantage because of a competitive edge and ability to recruit many best researchers from continental Europe including young ones who obtained EU grants.

Three, EU membership which is a delicate and difficult deal stitched together among leaders of sovereign nations carries immense diplomatic significance and value for its near future. Even from Washington’s standpoint the ‘special relationship’ that it shares with Britain would carry real meaning only if it translates into an effective voice inside the EU, the world’s largest single trading bloc.

Conversely, even EU leaders are extremely wary of ‘Brexit’ because they acknowledge Britain as one of the continent’s biggest economies, one with immense international clout and a permanent UN Security Council seat.

Four, Britain could also lose automatic access to Europe’s single market, provoke economic uncertainty and leave the country more isolated internationally. Demands for a new referendum on Scottish independence could be triggered if the English vote differently from the more pro-European Scots.

Five, a breakup of EU, which today is a successful transnational organization could be effectively placed at par with other post-war international institutions and initiatives like the United Nations, Bretton Woods, Marshall Plan and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is not at all welcome.

In addition, EU has done its part by helping to spread British values and practices-democracy, the rule of law, open markets-across the Continent and to its periphery.

Against this backdrop, it is important to note that in UK the Conservatives led by Cameron are traditionally against Britain joining EU while the main Opposition, Labour, favours EU membership. With the recent coming out of the London Mayor, a powerful and a rallying post to build public perception in favour of no-EU voting and President Obama appealing in favour of EU membership, the referendum has got interesting.

In sum, notwithstanding the uncertainty over the June vote, it is hard to imagine Britons being excited over exit mode, never mind the frenzied media campaign. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and  Feature Alliance)