Brexit
or Bust...!
How did we get here?
Philosophically the
Anglo-American model of the State is quite different from the
European State. Derived from Hobbes and Locke, it is rooted in a
belief that man is, at core, evil and government exists primarily to
protect us from ourselves. For the British relationships with the
State are based upon a contract, whereby citizens grant authority to
the government in exchange for guarantees to protect life, liberty
and property. As Margaret Thatcher discovered, whilst trying to
impose a new tax upon property, governments that are perceived to
have failed to honour this contract swiftly pay the price. There can
be no doubt that a large number of people perceive the EU as a threat
to their liberty. This contrasts with the European model, derived
from Rousseau, who believed that people are basically good, but
corrupted by their environment. Thus the job of the European States
is to manage and improve the society, with individual rights taking
second place to the achievement of that objective.
Sociologically,
Britain exhibits an island mentality, characterised by a resistance
to distant authority. As maps of how different regions voted have
shown, however, the strength of this feeling and the direction of its
expression has revealed a highly fractured country. London voted to
continue its leading international role. Scotland expressed its
preference for rules made in Brussels to those made in London.
Northern Ireland voted for continued EU financial aid and an open
border with Eire. Whilst England Wales, beyond London, both turned
their back on Brussels and revealed the disconnect between London and
its governing elite, which increasingly are perceived to have more in
common with elites in other global cities than with their own people.
As a Guardian
columnist wrote immediately before the vote whilst it may be true
that East Europeans are willing to do jobs for the minimum wage that
the British are not, does that say something about the need for
immigration or the exploitative nature of capitalism. Instead of
bringing immigrants, he argued, we should consider paying a more
realistic wage to start with.
Historically Britain
has had a foreign policy based upon keeping out of European Affairs,
only entering the fray when one state tries to dominate others. A
cynical observer, such as that best captured in the satirical comedy
Yes Minister1,
might describe such an approach as divide and rule. Unable to make
any further mess of the project from the inside the British have
decided that the utility of membership has expired! True, or not, alongside the
rise of scepticism across the continent combined with a series of
overlapping crises, the British have drawn a line under the period of
ever deeper political integration.
For both the Euro
crisis that engulfed Greece and the immigration crisis flowing from
the Middle East are rooted in the same problem. You cannot have a
open borders policy or a common currency without a common policy on
immigration and finance. To imagine otherwise has been shown to be
folly. Yet such policies would be highly political in nature and
could only work with some sort of federal agreement. It is this; a
United States of Europe, led by an unaccountable self-serving elite,
rooted in a communitarian view of the State that the British have
turned their back upon. A willingness to trade freely and cooperate
they have not. However, such was the awful level of the debate
served up by Britain's leaders that such nuances were lost in the
reactionary mud slinging of false and exaggerated statistics.
What does this mean?
Although he was
mocked for raising this point during the campaign the one thing that
Cameron did get right was the historical fact that whenever Europe
has not been united the result has been conflict. Let us hope we
have leaned our lesson!
For the Union of
nations that is the United Kingdom, it is hard to escape the feeling
that this is the end. Scotland will get the referendum it seeks and
it will vote into the EU and out of the UK. Whilst Republicans in
Northern Ireland are demanding unification with the South and
Unionists will be forced to choose between their historical
allegiance to London and their immediate economic interests in EU
subsidies and grants. Brexit may yet have achieved what 30 years of
conflict in Ireland could not – national unity. Yet equally it
could be sufficient to re-ignite the conflict.
For business, in the
short term, nothing much will change, beyond a devalued Pound, which
will suit British exporters anyway. In the long term it simply isn't
clear. As Britain is primarily a service based economy now, the EU has more to lose from a trade war and anyway access to London as the
leading centre for global finance cannot be ignored. Equally Britain
needs access to European markets to sell its services. I am minded
of an article that appeared in The Independent newspaper
arguing that the result of the referendum would make little
difference: depending upon your point of view Britain will only need
to accept EU rules where it wishes, or alternatively Britain will
have to follow the rules without being able to influence them.
For education things
are more clear cut and the news does not look good. EU students will
be very unlikely to gain access to the British student loans scheme
to cover their fees. There will be significantly less Erasmus exchanges
and the ability of British Universities to participate in large
pan-European research projects will be far less. Equally the EU will
lose direct access to the second largest group, after America, of
premier league Universities. British Universities, that have sought
to become global education providers and invested heavily in European
recruitment, are deeply concerned about how they will make up the
shortfall in in finances and student numbers.
Alternatives for the UK
The simple model, as
suggested above, is that nothing much changes and Britain, like
Norway and Switzerland becomes a sort of adjunct member of the Single
Market. However, this does assume a level of goodwill and vision
from the EU that is unlikely in the present circumstances. Not least
because it would encourage other truculent member states to follow
the British Example. Although it may be the best possible outcome
for all.
Forced to go it
alone the British would need to define their competitive advantage in
the global market place. Given the centrality of services,
especially financial services, to the British economy they may well
decide to leverage their economic flexibility to become a low tax
home from which to invest into Europe and suck profits out at lower
tax and bureaucratic cost. A sort of giant Jersey, or for those of a
more left wing disposition a race to the bottom!
One of the ideas
that was mooted by Eurosceptics at the time of the Maastricht Treaty
was to join join existing alliance like NAFTA, to create an Atlantic
Free Trade Area. Whether the US, Canada, or Mexico would welcome
this, or Britain could accept an inevitably junior role, is far from
clear. However, the British do share a common language, culture,
system of government and law with the US and Canada.
Alternatively the
British could try to form new trading alliance, based upon the old
EFTA around the North Sea, with other Eurosceptic countries like
Norway, Iceland, probably Denmark and possibly Holland. With more
ambition, an attempt could be made to resurrect some form of the old
Commonwealth, most likely with more developed English speaking
nations such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and possibly
India. This would take a gigantic leap of faith and require Britain
to surrender much of its leadership role, but is not impossible.
What is most
remarkable of all is that the Leave campaign was won without ever
outlining any kind of positive vision of the future for Britain. It
was an entirely negative campaign. This does not make it wrong, but
it does create a vacuum, which some sort of new vision of the future
will be required to fill. We can only hope that it does not come
from the likes of Mr. Farage.
1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe beginning is very good but I disagree with most of the last two-thirds. We do not know what will happen next.
ReplyDeleteI am optimistic Scotland will not leave the UK for many reasons. Nicola is just playing games at the moment. A third of SNP supporters voted leave and nearly two fifths of Scots. Oil is very cheap, the EU won't want Scotland and has enough problems without the Scots.
The EU has not helped keep peace in Europe - that's simply a fact not an opinion.
I was struck by your quotation last night from Paddy Ashdown: 'We can't give people a vote because we know they'd vote to leave'. I wrote about it here. http://pvewood.blogspot.ro/2016/07/brexit-quotes.html … via @paulica44
This is good. The lost leader. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/tory-candidates-need-a-plan-for-brexit---heres-mine-in-5-points/
ReplyDelete