We revert to a look at the political campaign proceeding in Britain towards a referendum promised by Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative government on whether the country should remain in the European Union (EU), due on June 23 of this year. As earlier reported, the matter has been transformed into an electoral issue, in the sense that for the most part, leading elements of the Conservative Party have been vociferous in insisting that the country should withdraw, and the Prime Minister has felt that there is no alternative to settling the issue well in advance of the next statutory election year of 2020.
The campaign, in effect, represents a challenge to the survival of the Cameron government, even though the issue of withdrawal from the EU is presenting a challenge to the unity of both the main political parties. For the Labour Party has itself had a strong degree of ambivalence, particularly since then Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, in 1975, had to struggle hard to keep his parliamentary group in line on the issue; though on this occasion, present Labour leader Jeremy Corbin, coming from the left of the party, has given his commitment to supporting remaining in the EU, as against a British exit (now referred to as Brexit) which also has significant support in the party.
David Cameron’s government is conducting a campaign based on the strategic need for the unity, in geopolitical terms, of the EU, even though, it concedes, there is a need for some changes in the functioning of the Union that would minimise any further closer integration of Britain into the system.
From that perspective, Cameron, again in his latest public statement on the issue last week, has insisted that in today’s world, it is crucial that the European Union, as a geopolitical entity, must maintain its coherence in order to be able to ensure a significant role in ensuring that changes occurring do not negatively affect the strategic significance and influence of the European continent. And it is notable in that connection, that in his latest remarks, he insists that Britain’s presence in the EU is critical to maintaining the integration system’s strategic coherence vis-à-vis other countries of significance, beyond the Euro-Atlantic system defined in strategic terms as the Nato alliance.
From that perspective, Cameron has sought to insist to the electorate that Britain’s membership in the EU, and therefore its capacity to influence that political system’s continuing integrity or coherence, is a strategic factor in ensuring a wider global equilibrium. He has emphasized in his latest major speech in the course of the current referendum campaign, that the EU “has helped to reconcile countries which were at each other’s throats for decades”, and that Britain, therefore, “has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid further conflict between European countries”.
It appears, however, that from the perspective of what is a substantial domestic opposition to remaining in the EU, membership has facilitated the creation of a migration of not only Europeans into the United Kingdom, but also a large number of non-Europeans as well. Such persons, particularly from the Middle East, are seen as utilizing access to the continent of Europe in large numbers, subsequent to the continuing crises in that area. (In passing, it is worthwhile recalling that a similar British sentiment occurred in the course of early Caribbean migration to Britain.)
The antagonism to the EU of those favouring Brexit, is really therefore not entirely dissimilar to that experienced by Caribbean migrants, and in that context, those not favouring continued membership are focusing on the extensive migration which countries like Germany have had to encounter, Chancellor Merkel now having to face a certain antagonism from her nationals to the process. The increasing opposition in Europe to extensive migration has given the protagonists of Brexit further fuel, to the extent that they, including the former Mayor of London Boris Johnson, have insisted that withdrawal from the EU will permit the UK to have greater control of its own borders.
What is therefore interesting, of course, in the current debate in Britain, is that is has caused disruption in both political parties, with the government in particular faced with strong opposition from significant individuals not only like outgoing Mayor Johnson, but including, for example, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s administration Nigel Lawson.
In a sense, from a Caribbean perspective, it is difficult to see what the outcome of the present referendum process will mean. If there is a vote in favour of what we would call British secession, this will impose on the Caricom states the need for a much more strategic and stringent approach to the present EU-ACP relationship that was, in effect, negotiated as part of Britain’s accession to the then European Community.
By now, of course, Caricom has had the opportunity to position itself in a more direct negotiating posture towards the EU than was the case when we first approached the constructing of the EU-ACP relationship. But it is also the case that the EU has itself spread its wings geopolitically, so to speak, vis-à-vis a variety of countries over the globe; and secondly, that a reconstruction of the EU system without full membership of the United Kingdom, is likely to lead to the creation of a system towards developing countries that will not have a uniformity, but will be a function of the EU’s view of its strategic relationship with the diversity of countries that in 1975, we referred to as developing, a term that today has little connotation of a commonality of strategic ACP economic development objectives.
