Brexit: A remedy worse than the disease
Britain's exit from the European Union (EU) is a case of the remedy being worse than the disease.
If British complains against Brussels - several justified and shared by some other EU countries too - are weighed against the manifold tangible and intangible advantages that Britain derives from its EU membership, the "Leave" vote appears ill-advised.
What makes it even more Quixotic is that its roots lie in domestic politics, in the challenge posed to David Cameron's leadership by right wing Eurosceptics within his party.
Legacy
When, 43 years ago, Britain joined Europe and turned its back on the Commonwealth - its imperial legacy - it acknowledged that its future lay with the continent.
Notwithstanding its special relationship with the US, Britain realised that it could not pursue its national interests alone and had to join the European block to remain influential in global affairs.
It is baffling why today when the Western hegemony over world affairs is diminishing with the rise of new powers, and Europe itself is facing internal and external difficulties, Britain is confident about coping with emerging challenges by delinking itself from Europe.
In reality, despite its current malaise, Europe has become a bigger and more powerful entity since Britain joined it 43 years ago.
The EU now has 28 members, including countries from the former Soviet Bloc as well as those that were once part of the Soviet Union itself.
The political, economic and security frontiers of the EU have thus been vastly extended.
The initial goal of forming what has progressively become the EU was not only to establish permanent peace in Europe, but for Europe to affirm itself in the Cold War world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, besides meeting Japan's economic challenge that loomed large till the 1980s, replaced today by China's phenomenal rise.
That goal of ensuring a strong European voice in world affairs, of a conflict-free continent, of ensuring Europe's continuing prosperity in the face of globalisation pressures remains.
Added are entirely new threats and challenges emanating from religious extremism, international terrorism, climate change and environmental concerns.
Europe's periphery across the Mediterranean has been profoundly destabilised and European countries are now faced with a massive refugee crisis that has begun to roil domestic politics, with resurgence of intolerance and racism.
Contributions
With mounting tensions with Russia, the shadow of a renewed Cold War is falling on Europe, to which Britain has greatly contributed, carrying it to the absurd extent of claiming during the Brexit debate that a "Leave" vote would delight Vladimir Putin.
Why Britain would think it is better placed to confront these challenges and problems as a sovereign state untrammelled by the "Brussels bureaucracy" is difficult to comprehend.
 |
| Europe has become a bigger and more powerful entity since Britain joined it 43 years ago. |
This argument of "sovereignty" is ironical in the context of the prevailing western discourse to justify interventionist, regime change policies that notions of sovereignty are today outdated, that non-Western regimes use "sovereignty" as a cover to violate "universal values" and curb democratic and human freedoms within their boundaries.
Attempts even by democratic countries like India to underline the need to respect the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries have been viewed as attachment to outworn ideas.
The EU has been offering itself as a role model for countries to cohabit peacefully by ceding part of their sovereignty to a collective organisation.
Britain has not joined the euro, is not part of Schengen Area, its legal system based on common law preserves its unique character as does its parliamentary system, it still drives to the left and uses non-metric systems for weight and measures and so on.
Sovereignty
Faced with the immigration problem, Britain has invoked the principle of "sovereignty" to exit the EU, forgetting all the rhetoric about diversity, open societies, freedom of movement (used effectively against the Soviet Union), etc.
At a time of moves to create new economic blocks like the Trans-Pacific Partnership led by the US or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) led by the US and the EU, Britain is, surprisingly, walking out of the largest existing economic block.
If Britain was relying on its special relationship with the US to cushion its exit from the EU, President Obama has warned that it will be "in the back of the queue" for a bilateral trade agreement. The TTIP will of course get derailed by the British decision.
Whether the UK itself will implode with a fresh referendum in Scotland, which voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU, and growing pressures in Northern Ireland, points to the potentially grave consequences of the "Leave" vote.
Some believe that Brussels not being particularly friendly to India, we could do more business with Britain outside the EU.
This remains to be seen.
With the pound at its lowest in 31 years, the likely job losses and the terms of the EU divorce unclear, the "Leave" supporters may be sanguine about the future but outsiders may think differently.
Its international repercussions apart, Brexit is of little direct significance for India politically or economically.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)