Articles - June 2016

Historic Month Fatal Decision

The United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union
By Roland Flamini



At the solemn service of thanksgiving in St. Paul's Cathedral on June 10 to mark Elizabeth II's 90th birthday the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, declared that the queen had sustained the nation "through war and hardship, turmoil and change." Little did he know that his words foreshadowed a political storm ‐ fresh turmoil on a scale never before experienced in her long reign.

In that landmark week-end the queen took the salute at the annual birthday parade, the Trooping the Color ceremony. The longest reigning monarch in British history has attended the intricate military choreography involving hundreds of bearskin clad troops from the so-called Household Brigade ‐ the queen's royal guards ‐ for 64 years since her coronation in 1952.

Following the parade, the Queen appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with members of the family, including her husband Prince Philip, who had reached 95 the previous day, her son Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, her grandson Prince William and his wife the Duchess of Cambridge, the former Kate Middleton, with their two children Princess Charlotte and Prince George, third in line to the throne. The frieze of royals on the balcony embodied the succession to the British monarchy for three generations possibly even into the next century.

In the evening, to the cheers of thousands of her subjects, she attended a gigantic ‐ if rainy ‐ street party in the Mall opposite Buckingham Palace.

Commentators spoke of how the queen's birthday united the nation in a remarkable outpouring of affection for their monarch, but thirteen days later deep fissures would open up in that same nation even as Britons voted in a referendum to end its 43-year membership of the European Union. World reaction was first astonishment and then near panic as the so-called Brexit vote won comfortably by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Always punctilious in her behavior as a constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth had expressed no public preference in the political debate leading up to the referendum. It was history playing one of its ironic tricks that the national celebrations of her 90th bringing people together should be juxtaposed with the vote that divided the country on many levels.

The British vote to leave the European Union opened up a seismic crack in the European surface, with Britain on one side and Europe on the other. But it is also a narrative of serious disconnect on many levels in the United Kingdom itself -- geographically, generationally, and politically. Many commentators are calling it the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom: Scotland, which voted to remain in the EU, is threatening to hold a second vote for its independence (in 2014, Scots voted 53.3 percent to 44.7 percent to remain in the UK).

Northern Ireland, which has benefitted from virtually open borders with the Republic of Ireland and which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, was questioning the wisdom of remaining tied to England and Wales.

In England itself, the big "Leave" vote came in economically stagnant areas of the north which had benefitted least from globalization and economic liberalization, as against prosperous London, which had delivered a strong vote to stay in.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the referendum result was its exposure of a generation gap. In the vote, Britons between the ages of 18 and 34 overwhelmingly supported remaining in the EU, while the over 55s voted to leave. The result has left younger Britons uncertain of the future, and bitter about lost opportunities offered by membership of Europe.

Politically, the country was in disarray because the electorate had pushed back against the urgings of the leaders of both the Conservative government and the opposition Labour party to vote against Brexit.

His legacy tarnished beyond repair, Prime Minister David Cameron, who proposed the referendum in the first place, immediately declared he would step down in October after the Conservatives had chosen a new leader at the annual party conference. But the likelihood of Cameron surviving for another four months as prime minister seemed unlikely, and the Tories were already locked in a battle over the succession. For a while, Labour leader Jeremy Corbin continued to cling to his position, but he was a man hanging from a cliff with a crumbling edge, and it was a matter of time before he lost his grip and plunged into political obscurity.

There is no doubt that the Brits have shot themselves in the foot: the question now is how serious is the injury. The mood across the land is a bizarre mix of triumphalism and gloom. "Monday morning quarterbacking" on a wide scale has resulted in a petition for a second referendum, which is a non-starter. Counties and organizations that had benefitted for years from an EU lifeline of financial aid were pleading with Brussels for at least one final payment.

From the economic point of view, predicts Sebastian Mallaby, an economics specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, the "uncertainty is going to be prolonged and profound." Sterling was trashed (down more than 7 percent); markets plummeted around the globe. The dire warnings of economists in the run-up to the referendum were being borne out with a vengeance.

But immigration, not economics, was the driving force behind the exit vote ‐ a reaction to the flood of East Europeans, taking advantage of the EU's open border policy to seek a better life in the United Kingdom, and to the sudden flood of Syrians seeking refuge from their war-torn country. Even so, the vote was emotional rather than statistical. If violence is as American as apple pie, as the writer James Baldwin once said, suspicion of foreigners is as English as steak and kidney pudding. In the referendum, the ghosts of the fallen at Waterloo, the Somme, Dunkirk, stalked the land. Europe was merely where the sun-seeking English went for cheap vacations. Or as the writer and polemicist Malcolm Muggeridge once put it, "None but the Brava, deserve the Costa."

Brexit, of course, didn't happen in isolation. EU reaction to the British decision has hit Wagerian operatic proportions. For one thing, the vote calls to question Europe's aim of political and economic integration; for another it resonates with populist movements in other EU member states, with their mistrust of establishment politics and politicians, their lack of faith in the euro, and resentment of Brussels's increasing control over their affairs. Already, groups in the Netherlands, Sweden, and France have called for similar referendums on EU membership in their respective countries.

Like the break-up of any long marriage, divorce negotiations are likely to be lengthy and complicated, and could get bitter. And the aftermath could drag on dangerously even longer. The UK has to disengage from numerous laws imposed by the European Court of Justice. Also, one half of Britain's goods and services are traded in the single market, but it will now no longer be single to the British. New bilateral arrangements will have to be negotiated with all the 27 EU countries, their individual parliaments and the European parliament. Some governments may be cooperative, others will make it hard, in the hope of discouraging more Brexits.

The EU's first reaction was to climb onto its high horse. Cameron is talking about what amounts to a breathing space until October before formal notification of Britain's intention to depart. Top EU leaders demanded that Britain leave "as soon as possible however painful that process may be." But painful for whom? The UK is the European Union's second largest economy and largest military power, so its departure has serious implications for both European economic recovery and Europe's ability or determination to confront ISIS and Russian expansionism. A more measured approach seems to be emerging in Brussels, helped by Secretary of State John Kerry's hastily arranged European trip to calm the waters and remind the European Union of its core values and aspirations.

Internally, the EU needs a period of long and hard reflection on how it might have contributed to Brexit, and what should happen to prevent the rot from irreparably setting in. For all the populist calls for more referendums, it is early days yet to talk of a domino effect. As former British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair summed it up in the New York Times: "If the economic shocks continue, then the British experiment will serve as a warning. But if they abate, then populist movements in other countries will
gain momentum."

Meanwhile, more than one European with a sense of the past was probably now reflecting how Brexit's stunning coup had vindicated Charles de Gaulle's refusal for years to admit the United Kingdom into what was then the European Economic Community. De Gaulle was skeptical of Britain's commitment to an integrated Europe. He was convinced that the British would undermine the process, and he saw Britain as a Trojan Horse for U.S. intentions. As for the latter, Washington is already looking up the German translation of "special relationship," the cliché long used to describe U.S.-U.K. bilateral relations, as it looks to fill the void left by Britain's shrinking influence ‐ rendered more so by the possible departure of Scotland.
x1882
FREE Digital Edition
See and read Diplomatic Connections Magazine
View Archived Digital Editions