Caribbean citizens with long memories, or with knowledge of the establishment and demise of the West Indies Federation, of which of course Guyana, then British Guiana, was not a part, will probably have cringed when Prime Minister Cameron announced a referendum on Britain’s continued participation in the European Union. For experience has told us that referenda questions tend less to be influenced by the specific issue involved, as by the variety of political prejudices, unrelated to the main issues, that the voters have had in their minds and have wished to have an opportunity to strongly announce to their governments.
In the case of the recent British referendum, it seems to have been fairly clear to observers that Prime Minister Cameron was forced by a tactical strategy of persons and groups opposed to EU membership, or at least to its form, adopted largely by specific members of his party, and related as much to the issue of leadership of the British Conservative Party as to the substantive issue of the economic and political consequences of remaining in the European Union.
And some will, of course, recall that in the case of the Federation of the West Indies, the tactical opposition was largely led by the then Jamaican opposition leader, Jamaica’s Labour Party (JLP) Alexander Bustamante, and a minority grouping in the Peoples National Party, being sympathetic to the local opponents of Federation.
Britain’s response to the opposition victory in Jamaica was that the will of the majority of the voters of Jamaica needed to respected, and that therefore, British consent to the voters’ decision was an inevitability. Prime Minister David Cameron in effect accepted this position, insisting that, the status quo of Britain’s current membership of the EU could not stand.
In the case of the fate of the West Indies Federation the decider of such matters was Britain, the colonial sovereign; while in the case of Thursday’s referendum, it will essentially be the responsibility of the European Union to decide on whether Britain is entitled to a new agreement on a status quo acceptable to both that country and the EU.
Unlike the situation of the West Indies Federation, when Britain was the sole arbiter and, in effect, did not provide much incentive to those in the Caribbean who wanted to negotiate a Federation minus Jamaica, it seems that the membership of the EU, led it would appear, by Germany, or a combination of Germany and France, is prepared to entertain discussions with the British Government on, as some would say, repairing the current breach.
How easy it will be for a British government with, so to speak, its back against the wall, to rescue any part of the demands which it originally wished to make, and so satisfy the British electorate, is open to question. As in the case of the demise of the West Indies Federation, Alexander Bustamante’s Jamaica Labour Party seized the initiative in insisting on independence, and eventually drove Norman Manley and his People’s National Party out of office in the inevitable subsequent early general elections.
And now that Cameron has inevitably indicated his resignation, it may be the case that any successor will have to face the polls in order to seek legitimacy – although Gordon Brown of the Labour Party did not do it when he took over from Tony Blair. Whoever David Cameron’s successor may be, he would have to go to the polls – should these be held ‒ in a situation of uncertainty about the outcome of any British negotiations which the country has with the rest of the EU. For it has become almost patently clear that whoever leads the Conservative party will have to accept that the position of those opposed to membership of the EU as it is, will be caught between serving the interests of the majority of the electorate who voted against the government’s position, while simultaneously seeking agreement with the leading members of the EU who have obviously been opposed to the position put forward by Conservative party opponents of the ‘Remain’ camp.
Governments of Caricom must already have begun to contemplate the implications for our countries in their relationships with the EU, and particularly in relation to the future status of the EU-ACP relationship. It is, of course, the case that Britain has essentially taken the position of giving support to policies in relation to the EU advocated by our governments. At least, in any case, we have tended to feel that seeking the support of a British government is an essential first step to achieving our objectives.
But the present situation not only suggests a persistent effort of reinforcement of our relationship with the EU within the framework of our current ACP-EU agreement, but also a more decisive effort to use our diplomatic arrangements to come to terms with the wider membership of the EU. In this way we would be walking, as it were, on more than what we like to believe are the stout legs of British diplomacy.
It is to be hoped that our Caricom governments will at least begin to do two things: first, to reinforce the institutional strength of our diplomatic initiatives more firmly beyond the British location, taking into account the fact that both Britain and France, as well as the Netherlands are geographically located in the Caribbean and the South American mainland. This will imply minimising the distinction in our strategizing on regional economic integration initiatives between Caribbean countries which are independent (or Anglo-Caribbean), and those which more firmly remain elements of the imperial presence of those European states.
Secondly, there must be a review of the functioning of the ACP agreement and its institutional arrangements, in order to more firmly utilize that institution’s focus in terms of relationships with the member-states of the European Union. This should not simply be restricted to France and the Netherlands, but should arrive at a deeper outreach to other European countries, in particular Germany and Eastern European states which tend to follow its lead.
It is to be hoped that even though the present situation is the major concern of Britain, that has largely been influenced by the political play within that country, we will ourselves be seeking to begin to contemplate, and strategise on, possible variations of relationships within the EU itself that may have an effect on Caribbean prospects for aid to, and facilitation of, the region’s development. Perhaps a start should be made by a summoning of the perspective on this matter by the ACP Secretariat, led after all, by Dr Patrick Gomes, one of our Guyanese nationals.
