British Prime Minister David Cameron arrives at a European Union leaders’ summit addressing the talks about the so-called Brexit and the migrant crisis in Brussels, Belgium, February 18, 2016. Credits: (REUTERS/Yves Herman – RTX27IHC)
Written by Kristian Oka Prasetyadi
Britons will have to make up their mind up in less the 24 hours (by the time this article is finished) before they cast their ballot at polling stations on Thursday, June 23, 2016. Democratically, they can turn their country into the most loathed one on the planet and cause world’s most successful integration project to fall apart. The other way round, they can retain the opportunity to continue being a key player in regional and international politics. I am not British. But if I were, I would definitely vote remain.
Who’s to Blame?
David Cameron deserves arguably a large share of the blame of the current political turmoil since its onset. 2015 marked the second term in office for Conservatives, partly thanks to Cameron’s political promise of a referendum over UK’s membership in the Union. This was due to the push from his Tory MPs who claimed that the UK has not had much say in the EU and that the Union were gaining more control over Britons’ daily lives.1 It should not be overlooked that the referendum is Cameron’s weapon to undermine the rise of far-right populist U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), the strongest advocate of a British exit from the European Union.
To me, Cameron’s manoeuvre is degrading the meaning of European integration merely for electoral purpose, whereas the EU has served the wider European interest to prevent wars and gain prosperity. It gives the platform for cooperation and common market, which helps the UK’s declining export to survive. By putting the referendum on agenda Cameron provoked the conflict of pro- and anti-EU to become much more manifest. The murder of English MP Jo Cox by a far-right hard-liner says it all. He could also cause a Scottish push for independence in order to remain in the 28-nations-bloc. The UK’s referendum also translates to less political confidence in the EU and risks a Eurosceptic Spring to take place.
Integration or Isolation
As posited by the iconic ex-London Mayor Boris Johnson, Britons can “take back control of this great country’s destiny”.2 But one should not fall in the illusion of modern-era control and sovereignty, which offers nothing but disillusionment. So far the Leave campaigners have argued that leaving the EU will only make them stronger and independent. Sovereignty is central to their argument in the case of security and economic affairs. There are many others but I would like to focus mainly on these two.
Since no threat other than terrorist attacks has struck Europe, the issue on security correlates with the migration issue. Leavers tend to combine this with xenophobia that puts migrants as threat to Britain, just like how they describe the country being overrun by Turks while releasing a poster that reads “Breaking Point” showing a long line of migrants in Slovenia. For them, it is impossible to control migration as long as the UK is part of the Union due to Schengen visa and Common Asylum Policy. This is clearly a scaremongering tactic of Leavers.
In 2015, the UK is one of the least-affected country by migration crisis. The asylum application amounted to only 60 for every 100,000 resident, while only 13,905 asylum was granted by British authority compared to that of Germany that reached 140,910.3 The Calais crisis should indeed not be forgotten. But the British authority has been able to coordinate with its French counterpart to keep migrants from crossing the English Channel. Leaving the EU will have severe consequence on this issue. If Brexit occurs, the UK will no longer share its territory with the mainland European countries. If the refugee crisis is to continue and affect the UK, the point of arrival will move to Dover, England, and have adverse impact on migration and asylum management. In the EU, the asylum policy is collectively made in Brussels. Therefore, outside the EU, policy uncertainty regarding asylum management is imminent.
If migration has anything to do with this, then the migrant workers is more important issue to note. The UK has received workers from other EU countries, mainly Eastern Europe such as Poland. This is claimed to become a burden for the social security programs of EU such as in-work and child benefits. Of course it is a completely different issue from the refugee crisis. Up to this point, one might think this is caused by the policy of free movement within the Union and leaving would give the way out of the problem.
Not so fast.
British nationals are also beneficiaries of free movement of people. There are approximately 800,000 Britons who are workers and their dependents in other EU countries.4 On the other hand, migrant workers in the UK are vital to the economy. In the City of London alone, 22% of the 360,000 employees, mainly working in high-requirement fields such as tech and financial services, are non-British.5 Moreover, 1,216 people are employed in the European Commission along with 73 MEPs. Once again, policy uncertainty regarding working permit is imminent should Brexit occur. The UK could adopt Norwegian model of membership in the European Economic Area (EEA) without joining the EU. But this would mean regression for the UK as it would not have any influence in the policy making without being a member of the Union. In addition, no one could guarantee that the UK would immediately strike any FTA or other agreements with the EU, at least in the shorter term, nor can anyone estimate how long Britain should live before any deal struck.
But why does the EU seem to be so important that Britain has to remain? Leavers argue that leaving the EU would free the UK from Common Commercial Policy which limited their freedom to have any trade relation with the rest of the world. By leaving, Britain will be more independent to strike trade deals with any countries they wish to. Statistics shows that there is a price to pay if Brexit occurs.
Half of the British total goods export is directed to the European Union. If this is combined with service export, the number will fall to yet sizeable 45%.6 This number contributes to 15% of the UK’s GDP, making the European Union its most important trading partner. The UK has also benefitted from EU membership by trading freely with 60 countries with which the EU has free trade agreements including Turkey, Switzerland, and South Africa.
Leaving the European Union means leaving all the trade agreements that have backed British economy up. Even in the 2 years of quitting process, the EU is busy with other trade negotiations. Therefore, immediate UK-EU trade deal may or may not be possible. In the pessimistic case, the UK has to deal with higher tariffs to continue trade with the EU, while trade deals with the rest of the world may not be rapidly struck. Membership in the EU would give the UK higher bargaining position. Just compare 500 million Europeans in the EU with 64 million British population. So it might take a long period before any trade deals struck. The UK would also miss implementation of EU-Vietnam FTA, CEPA with Indonesia, TTIP with the US, and EPA with Japan.
Once again, policy uncertainty is imminent. The UK would have to deregulate and might replace some regulations and directives taken in the EU level with the new ones. Trade barriers with the EU may follow, being an obstacle to free movement of goods and services as mentioned above. The UK can adopt Switzerland’s or Norway’s membership in the EFTA or EEA, but leaving would mean giving up the power to be involved in the policy-making.
In addition, the UK face Scotland push for independence should Brexit occurs. As Nicola Sturgeon, the head of Scottish government stated, the EU is the destination of 42% of Scotland export and the membership contributes for provision of 300,000 jobs. Scotland had a referendum in 2014. They may have another in times ahead if the UK leaves the EU.
The UK could face significant economic decline. Britain has closed its coal industries since 1980s, and the de-industrialization continues with the manufacturing which has been on its lowest point. One would not have to look any further than the Port Talbot steel industry crisis, which fortunately has been saved by a buyer.
Financial sector would also be hurt if Brexit occurs. London has been known as the centre of financial service that serves both European and non-European financial actors. Investments and banks are coming to London thanks to its strategic time zone, financial technology, and the language used, English, that makes transactions easy. As the member of the EU, the UK has passporting rights which enable British-based institutions to trade with the rest of the European Union without having a branch there. The financial service surplus of the UK amounted to £16.1 billion and contributed to 0.9% of its GDP. As mentioned above, the City of London also hosts thousands of foreigners that keep the financial industry running. Leaving the EU would mean giving up the passporting rights and might urge financial institutions to relocate to other European cities such as Frankfurt and Paris. The UK could adopt EEA membership to retain its status as financial centre of Europe. But at the same time, it would be giving up power to make decision. The UK has been fighting to protect the city from EU regulations such as bankers’ bonus cap. Giving up membership would make the UK powerless.
Freedom could cost the UK almost everything. This is why the sovereignty, control, and independence that the Leavers are glorifying are nothing more than nonsense. Admittedly, things could be controlled in the long run. But would Britain be able to shield itself from the short-term catastrophe caused by uncertainty? Just like which country would be the first to strike any deal with the UK, no one knows.
The end is near?
The fight and frenzy over Brexit has not received as much attention, at least in my milieu, as the US primary, but the two have one thing in common: The push for sovereignty, nationalism, and isolation which is a bunk from the get-go. Ironically, this idea reaches its momentum with the rise of far-right populist parties, namely UKIP which is a small yet vocal advocate of this nonsense. However, I would say this is normal in times of crises. According to Taggart (2004), populism can be resulted by extreme crises that struck a country.7 But, it is worth-noting that crisis is always temporary. The Greek financial crisis, even though still going on, seems to be more manageable than how it was at the onset. As Hyman Minsky stated, the economy would come back to equilibrium after crisis.
The migration crisis has been going on for around two years and the end is yet to be caught in sight. If we look back at the European history where great powers existed and persist until today, of course walking out and leave the opportunity to save the world is not European at all. The UK has a huge opportunity to play a global role in saving human beings. But these crises have been exploited by far-right parties and they have been, to a great extent, gaining success.
On the other hand, a Brexit could trigger a Eurosceptic Spring, a contagion effect throughout the bloc. The far-right parties are on the rise: Freiheitliche Partei Österreich (FPÖ) in Austria, Front National in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, Northern League in Italy, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) in the Netherlands, Swedish Democrats in Sweden, and so forth. These parties benefited from the persistence of the crisis and may well be gaining more votes just like how FPÖ did in the last Austrian election. More people can be trapped in the illusion of sovereignty that turns the European integration into a mere electoral campaign instrument, just as reckless as Cameron was.
If Brexit does occur, the UK could be the most isolated and hated country in the world. The UK has been privileged with its special rights and status in the Union along with its natural status as the second largest economy in the Union which has been able to, in a realist point of view, offset the domination of Germany and France. Leaving would shut the UK from regional and global role while imperilling the European Union. European integration is not perfect of course, but the EU has become a key player in the international politics that normatively considers its actions. It has been a success. If it weren’t one, the refugees would not have come in search of better life, peace, and prosperity. With this immense power, comes an immense responsibility. Coordinating 28 sovereign countries with different interest is of course not easy. But leaving will only add to national problems and even more crisis. Uncertainty is more imminent.
They may not be part of the mainland Europe, but Britons should be proud to be part of the European project. There is none like the EU anywhere in the world. Leaving the EU would lead to isolation and uncertainty for indefinite period of time. Britons should not be lured by the illusion of freedom and independence, which would leave them with nothing. Literally nothing. Staying will retain them the power and opportunity for a global role. Staying will save them from isolation. I am not British, but if I were, for the sake of Europe and the UK itself, I would definitely, absolutely, vote remain.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of Institute of International Studies Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Kristian Oka Prasetyadi is undergraduate student in Department of International Relations Universitas Gadjah Mada. He can be reached via kristian19oka@gmail.com.
End notes:
1 Wheeler, Brian, and Alex Hunt. The UK’s EU referendum: All you need to know. June 22, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887 (accessed June 22, 2016).
2 Dominiczak, Peter. Boris Johnson: Change the whole course of European history by backing Brexit. June 19, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/19/boris-johnson-change-the-whole-course-of-european-history-by-bac/ (accessed June 22, 2016).
3BBC. Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. March 4, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 (accessed June 22, 2016).
4Migration Watch UK. The British in Europe – and Vice Versa. March 23, 2016. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354 (accessed June 22, 2016).
5Jenkins, Patrick, and Harriet Agnew. What would Brexit mean for the City of London? February 23, 2016. https://next.ft.com/content/e90885d8-d3db-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54 (accessed June 22, 2016).
6Woodford Investment Management LLP. The economic impact of ‘Brexit’. February 2016. https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impact-brexit-report/ (accessed June 22, 2016).
7Taggart, Paul. “Populism and representative politics in contemporary Europe.” Journal of Political Ideologies (Routledge) 9, no. 3 (2004): 269-288.