Round The World

New Delhi, 6 July 2016

Britain-EU Divorce

KNIFE-EDGED REFERENDUM

By Amrita Banerjee

(School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi)

The high voltage June 23^rd referendum which decided Britain’s fate vis-à-vis existence in the European Union was ‘one of the most divisive and bitter political campaigns that ever waged’ in its history and made it quit EU after 43 years of membership.

The exceedingly explosive Bremain vs Brexit campaigns before the referendum not only unleashed ‘dark forces’ whereby many saw Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder as an outcome of the ensuing toxicity but also divided the country down the middle: Institutions, Parties, families and individuals in two minds on which way to vote.

Despite the millions of pounds spent on leaflets and other campaign material filled with figures, facts and expert advice by the Remain and Leave sides not many were convinced either way.

However, one message which came through amid the acrimonious din was that the referendum was important and went to the heart of what Britain was and what it wanted to be: A big fish in a big pond or a ‘tiddler in the ocean’.

Undeniably, Britain already had a special place in EU: It was not part of Schengen, out of Eurozone and enjoyed other benefits of membership, like free movement of goods, services, capital and workers.

But, it’s uneasiness in the 28 member States group stemmed from its harsh economic prescriptions in Greece and Portugal, its policies on immigration, widespread perception that the EU is controlled by Germany, its response to the 2008 recession and to the increasing primacy of its laws diminishing national sovereignty.

Besides, after adopting a ‘Remain in EU’  position, the David Cameroon Government churned out a series of studies and projections loaded with Treasury figures on how Britain has benefitted over the decades from its EU membership, and how every Briton would be worse off out of the EU.

However, the economic cause did not convince many.  Rather one issue which  connected the most with the British public was ‘uncontrolled immigration’ from within the EU which could change the face of towns and communities and put more pressure on public services already grappling with major funding cuts.

The ‘Leave’ campaign that gathered 52% vote on a 72% turnout sent ripple effects of this tensed and emotion-driven referendum on several fronts. One, the campaign not only turned friends and political allies into foes, but also led to something of a civil war within the ruling Conservative Party. There were talks about a ‘revenge reshuffle’ had Bremain won.

But after Britain decided on Brexit, Cameroon announced his unwillingness to run for the 2020 elections and declared the Party elect his successor by October under whom a divorce between Britain and EU would take place.

Bluntly, democracy in Britain seems to be in doldrums and the political class seems to have imploded. The names of Boris Johnson, the star of the Leave campaign are floating as the next UK PM. His ambition to succeed Cameroon was known but few thought referendum could be his route to No. 10, Downing Street.

Loved and loathed in equal measure, Theresa May is being seen as the best ‘stop Boris’ candidate. Meanwhile, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn suffered a humiliating defeat. With a ‘zombie’ Government in place and Labour and Torries in turmoil, Britain’s political woes continue.

Two, Brexit has caused a splinter in UK itself. This second referendum held in two years has propelled yet another call for referendum by Scotland as it starts its drive to protect its EU membership and prepares for possible fresh independence vote from UK.

It has also raised questions over Gibraltar’s future as Spain has come forward to jointly govern it with Britain. The relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has also come under the scanner.

Three, the climate in Britain after the 46.5 million electorate gave its decision to ditch EU, was of regret and despondency. In fact, a petition on Parliament’s website calling for another EU referendum was signed by more than 1.6 million people making it eligible for a debate.

Four, EU has talked tough with Britain and asked it to follow the procedure laid down under the Article 50 of EU’s  2009 Lisbon treaty to leave as quickly as possible because Britain’s domino effects were visible in other countries like France, Slovakia and Netherlands with several European leaders calling for similar referendums in their countries.

Moreover, EU also clarified that Britain cannot cherry pick provisions of the treaty as it warned it of no access to single market without migration.

Five, even though Brexiteers claimed that Britain outside EU promised a ‘massive boost’ to relations with India along-with fairer and better visa system for people in herein and the Commonwealth, New Delhi underscored it had wanted Britain to stay in EU as it supported British internationalism and not insularity.

However, as apprehensions regarding the vote continued, India kept itself insulated through the three lines of defence --- good economic policy, plenty of reserves and phasing out maturities of foreign borrowings.

Undoubtedly, the vote outcome has profound implications for 800 Indian companies which employ 11,0000 British workers and operate using London and Britain as a gateway to work across Europe. There are indications that some of these might relocate to other European capitals and Indian investments in future can get diverted to the EU.

Secondly, the future of Goans who opted for Portuguese citizenship and moved to Britain hangs in a limbo. Thirdly, Indian students would find education in Britain more expensive henceforth.

Fourthly, this referendum has created great amount of uncertainty because the outcome takes Britain into unchartered territory where promises of a land of milk and honey outside the EU were made during the long campaign but no one knows the path for it. 

Today, London’s pre-eminent position as the capital of global finance is under challenge with a negative rating from credit rating agency Moody. When Britain extricates itself after a two-year process, it will no longer benefit from tariff free movement of goods and capital.

Further, issues such as tax laws and immigration rules would take years to settle and British firms which sell across Europe would have to ensure that their products meet safety and environmental standards.  In short, the many claims of Brexit benefits would be put to severe test. 

Lastly, Brexit has a distinct fallout for Britain: Energy infrastructure investment would be costlier, free movement of Britons would be hindered as they would no longer enjoy visa free travel.

There is foreign policy bad news too. Washington has declared that they would be less interested in London as an ally because of its perceived loss of influence.

Clearly, Britain has turned its back on John Donne’s 16^th century conception that ‘No man is an island’. Indeed, ironic in this globalization age whereby Brexit has turned Great Britain into ‘Little England’. 

In sum, a piquant situation has arisen for Britain similar to wading in unchartered waters as UK stands a nation divided.  It has certainly a long road to cover between ‘leave’ and ‘left’ and only the future holds the key to Britain’s sticky situation. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)