BREXIT: 'TO BE' OR 'NOT TO BE'

 "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

THE RESONANCE OF WORLD WAR 1: 1914 AND A CENTURY AFTER

Just over a hundred years ago, the armies of the World’s Great powers were arrayed against each other to do battle in what was latter called ‘the great war’ or The First World War--- The War to end all Wars!

Enticed by a rise in industrialization, the race for sophisticated armament of the day and the penchant for global influence in colonial empires amongst the great powers (Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary);  the conflict was sparked by the assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28^th June 1914, thus igniting the gun powder in the Balkan Peninsula that ultimately conflagrated Europe and the wider World in a gruesome conflict otherwise called the first World War.

Arrival of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo (28th June 1914)

"Our ghosts will wander through Vienna, stroll around the palaces and scare the masters."….. anonymous Serbian writ

It indeed happened that the World Powers lined themselves in series of infectious alliances that obliged them to go to war even when their respective countries were not directly under attack. And so after the June assassination, and a diplomatic moribund July, War was contiguously declared from the first day of August as Germany declared war On Russia, and on France by 3^rd August. Great Britain declared war against Germany on August 4 as Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.

A live relic of an helmet on a WW1 battle feild
Source:bbcnews.com

‘The lamps are going out over all Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.’…….

Edward Grey (1862 - 1933)

British statesman.

Although almost all the belligerent nations were European and the major battle fields were in Europe, the war transcended from being a European one to a global one as the colonial powers moved to seize colonial territory from their enemies. As such, Africans had the War experience as Great Britain fought and seized German colonial territory in West Africa (Togo and Cameroun), East Africa (Tanzania) and South Africa (Namibia); whilst a combined British, French and Japanese effort annexed all German interests in the Far East and South Pacific. With the United States entering the War on the side of the Allies on 6^th April 1917 after 3 years of conflict, the War truly assumed its status as a ‘World War’— as it had effectively engaged all the continents.

‘In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place.’….

John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Canadian poet and physician.

A reenactment of the march of Gordon Highlanders on the puppy feilds of Belgium
Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715756/Showered-million-poppies-Soldiers-stand-huge-red-cloud-symbolise-Great-War-dead-enact-scenes-conflict.html

From initial skirmishes at Liege to the serial battles at Mons, Marne, Ypres, Somme, Verdun, Gallipoli, Jutland, Basra, Asiago, Isonzo, Brusilov, Tannenberg and the Masurian lakes countless souls perished in astonishing industrial scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpCUFw-EnNw

‘They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.’…….

Laurence Binyon (1869 - 1943)

British poet and art historian.

In response to the slaughter of World War I.

Poems for the Fallen, "For the Fallen"

The War finally came to an end on the 11^th hour of 11^th November 1918 with the signing of the Armistice agreement and capitulation of the foremost Central Power belligerent in Germany not after some indelible marks have been imprinted in history by the effect of the War; Viz:

1.  Unlike other Wars before this, any conflict between global powers or their client states will automatically spiral effect in dragging nations across continents to a multi-faceting conflict whose resultant will surpass the initial conflicting terms.

2.  With the Use of Chlorine gas by the belligerents, ammunitions will now be classified as ‘conventional’ and ‘Un conventional’ (Weapons of Mass Destruction) weapons.

3.  Civilian centres such as Villages, Towns and Cities will now serve as battle grounds thus effectively negating the notion that wars are to be fought at some distant fields.

4.  The advent of the bombs, rapid firing machine guns and chemical weapons meant that thousands of Soldiers could be mowed down in minutes as seen in the battles of Marne and Ypres. Indeed a Millions of souls could perish in seconds after these weapons were improved on much later after that war.

5.   Regardless of the Military might of the belligerent, wars cannot be independently fought without considering attendant and after effects of conflicting interests and ideologies which will ultimately engage non-belligerent nations in subtle or active Warfare.

 It’s a hundred years spanning ten decades of historical epochs since the First World War was ignited; however, a century on, the world still stands a risk of being dragged to a war of contiguous effect as it was a hundred years ago viz;

1.  Like pre-1914, the World’s powers are now aligned in seeming loose alliance of East and Western bloc ideology as fronted by Russia and the United States.

2.  As seen in the Balkans in pre-1914 of a perfected disdain for occupying forces, the Nations of the Middle East have taken this stance in open disdain for Western Military presence in their lands. Like 1914, the Middle East is serving a simmering ‘Balkan effect’ in global politics.

3.  As it was in 1914 when the War was forcefully promulgated upon Africa due to colonial subjugation; though now independent, African Nations will once again be dragged into a conflict involving the Great Powers as their territories will serve as Military bases for these powers. The US already has an ‘African Command’ AFRICOM bases in Djibouti as the French Military has a ubiquitous presence in almost all its former African colonies. China has so far been only economically present in Africa but one cannot ignore the trade in Chinese and Russian arms by some African countries. They too might come calling for higher military commitment in the event of a conflict.

The resultant of the First World War did not entirely spell doom and gloom for the World as it ensured:

1.  Nationalistic consciousness in colonized territories. That in a sense brought about the emergence of all Nation States as seen on today’s maps.

2.  It brought about the awareness for international cooperation and collaboration amongst the Nations of the World. Though eventually moribund and toothless in effect, the ‘League of Nations’ formed after the First World War was a model precursor to the United Nations and its numerous under-agencies which has in  some ways helped mitigate dire consequences of pertinent global issues.

Like Pre-1914 as seen today, Nations of the World do not foresee a large scale global conflict due to:

1.  Economic and social ties and interdependence

2.  Mutually assured destruction  due to the sophistication of modern arms

Nevertheless, we might be fooled into a state of ‘false global security’ by not taking into account the simmering events of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the wider Middle East conflict from the Arab spring, the Ukrainian tensions and pockets of conflicts around Africa—all of which ironically were creations from the aftermath of the First World War as seen in:

1.  The Arab revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916

2.  The Balfour declaration of 1917 announcing Jewish rights to Palestine

3.  The emergence of a bipolar world with from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917

4.  The awakening of Nationalism, creation of borders by colonial powers with no respect for historical ties and cultures of peoples of the dominated lands as seen in Africa and the Middle East (The Sykes and Picot agreement). As such, agitations for a redrawing of National ‘colonial borders’ could simmer into some sort of global conflict.

‘Six million young men lie in premature graves, and four old men sit in Paris partitioning the earth.’…

Anonymous

 Referral to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I, attended by the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, and the United States.

The World's big four leaders (US, Great Britain, France and Italy) at the treaty of Versailles in 1919
Source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Treaty-of-Versailles-Ends-World-War-I.html

Yes peace was proclaimed in 1918 after the War that was said to end all Wars and a treaty was signed in Versailles in 1919. But several wars involving Great powers as a resultant of their actions and deeds from the aftermath of the First World War has been fought. There was even a Second World War! And today several global conflicts threatening to drag numerous Nations to battle looms. Is 2014 not just a Hundred years back?

‘This is not peace: it is an armistice for twenty years.’……..

Ferdinand Foch (1851 - 1929)

French soldier, 1919.

Remark at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.