"We are with
Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and
associated, but not absorbed.".......Winston Churchill
 |
| Source:http://www.knowledgeatwharton.com.es/article/estrategia-crucial-de-salida-por-que-el-brexit-puede-hundir-la-ue/ |
The results of the recent European
Union membership referendum of 23rd June in the United Kingdom, in which the Country narrowly voted to leave the 28-member socio-political continental wide body has generated attendant worrying
ripples amongst the EU power broker Nations and ponderous aftershocks within
the United Kingdom itself; with the economy and cooperate entity of
the Country being called to question.
Priding herself as a stand-alone
European victor against Nazi dominated Continental Europe after World War Two,
whilst yearning for a peaceful and prosperous Europe; the United Kingdom preferably stood back on the side-lines during
the formative periods of what is now known as the EU today. Despite being
invited to be one of the founding countries of the ‘Pan European’ project, the UK twice declined the offer as a
founding member of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951
and the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957.
As a global power with far flung domains across the Oceans which at its
peak comprised about 25% of the earth’s surface, the UK
leveraged on her colonies across North America, Africa and especially the
Indian subcontinent for raw materials to feed its burgeoning industries and
market to satisfy her industrialization demands. Even with an imminent empire
liquidation after the World War 2, the UK still hoped for business as usual in
terms of international trade in a renewed relationship arrangement with her ex-colonies now referred to as ‘The Common Wealth’.
 |
| The British empire at its heights in 1920 Source: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=173340&start=375 |
And whilst the economies of the EEC (European Economic Community) member
nations flowered in the 1950’s and 1960’s, that of the UK foundered as emergent
independent nations from the ‘British
Empire’ sought new trading relationships overlooking a much loathed British
colonial trading arrangement.
Aiming to catch-up with the now fast economic paced EEC member Countries
and seeking to explore the continental market, the UK launched a bid for EEC
membership in 1963 and 1967 during which both membership bids were blocked
courtesy of vetoes by the then French President, Charles de Gaulle.
 |
| Charles de Gaulle Source:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26515129 |
Aside glaring scepticism to the Pan-European project at its founding
even when initially invited to join, De Gaulle identified an inherent adaptation
problem of the British to Euro idealism which the EEC stood for in these words.
“England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her
exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most
distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial
activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very
marked and very original habits and traditions”
Only the exit of De Gaulle’s presidency in France in 1969 was the United
Kingdom application to join the EEC accepted in 1973. Even at that, the
question of how much power be devolved from the UK to the EEC besmirched the long-term
membership commitment of the UK to the Pan-European socio-political project. As such, referendum came calling in 1975 with an overwhelming 65%
voting to stay in the EEC. Yet the underlining intrigues of British Euroscepticism
kept being brought to bare viz:
·
Not being able to
benefit from EEC Agricultural subsidies because of its low agricultural output
compared to other EEC member nations
·
The reluctance to
devolve economic and political power to the EEC.
"We are not prepared to accept
the principle that the most vital economic forces of this country should be
handed over to an authority which is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to
nobody!"
Clement
Attlee, 1950
Renewed British choosiness towards the
Pan-European project was evident during the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 which led to the
formation of the European Union; the UK opted out of the section of the treaty dealing with social policy, as
well as of joining the monetary and economic union. As such, it was no surprise
that the British
earlier opted off the Schengen free border agreement in 1985.
Ultimately, growing discontent that the UK was giving more than it gets
from the EU led to a call for a second EU referendum resulting in a shock
narrow victory of 52% for the leave campaigners. Unlike in 1975 when dissenting
referendum voices were not discerned, the devolution of powers to the sectoral
constituent makeup of the United Kingdom in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland with each able to pursue an option of self-determination has added a
new twist to the BREXIT debacle, as the constituent referenda votes in
these constituents voted to stay in the EU; the majority ‘leave’ vote coming from England.
Not forgetting the Gibraltar (a
British enclave on the Iberian peninsula claimed by Spain) which also voted
overwhelmingly to stay in the EU for the sake of economic viability, calls for
a second Scottish referendum should the UK leave the EU has made BREXIT a pyrrhic
victory for the leave campaigners, as this might
trigger an unhappy dissolution of the UK leaving England isolated outside the
EU in a diminished status; thereby calling to question the global power status of the UK within the United Nations and the International
commune.
To evade such, the UK will have to find a way of renegotiating its
relationship with the EU without necessarily leaving, though the referendum in
itself is only advisory and not legally binding. Even when the UK decides to
finally trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to leave
the EU, it might take extra-long years outside the stipulated two years for the
UK to find its feet with treaties to enact her EU exit status.
With the economy already taking a nosedive and the Pound sterling
already taking a plunge due to uncertainties about the UK’s long-term EU status,
there are already regrets even amongst the leave campaigners that the UK might
just have shot herself in the foot.
Accepting her diminished status as a once great power is hard for the
British and whilst striving hard to salvage national pride, current trends
bothering on international trade has to be taken cognisance of. And yes, the
British just like the Swiss can preserve her distinctness whilst still being
part of Europe
"This is a painful choice and it is
deeply regrettable both for the UK and Europe. But this choice is theirs and we
must respect it, accepting all the consequences. ”.. Francois Hollande
No comments:
Post a Comment