#London : London summer attracts many Indians, but recent visitors can’t help being perplexed by the high-profile campaign for the referendum on Britain’s future in the European Union (EU).Britain elects 73 members of the European Parliament, but ask anyone who their ME Pi sand the answer will invariably be ash rug of the shoulder. Thanks to the referendum campaign, the EU’s history and details of the many levels at which Britain is enmeshed with the politico-economic union have been under constant public focus. The campaign has not only unleashed ‘dark forces’ — many see Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder an outcome of the ensuing toxicity — but has also divided the country right down middle, from institutions, to political parties, to families, to individuals in two minds on which way to vote.
For all the millions of pounds spent on leaflets and other campaign material filled with figures, facts and expert advice — interpreted selectively by the Remain and Leave sides — not many are convinced either way. Each figure or fact is promptly rubbished by the other side, adding to the public ennui and cynicism with the political establishment. The Americanisation of British politics, reflected in slick spin and calibrated marketing of leaders and parties during recent general elections, is also evident.
But one message that has come through amid the acrimonious din is that the referendum is important and goes to the heart of what Britain is and what it wants to be: A big fish in a big pond or, what peer Karan Bilimoria called in the House of Lords, ‘a tiddler in an ocean’. Britain already has a special place in the EU: It is not part of Schengen, it is out of the Eurozone, and enjoys other benefits of membership, such as free movement of goods, services, capital and workers.
Britian EU referendum
As a post-national project, the EU’s career since its formation in the early 1950s, as a counter to nationalism that ripped through the continent after World War II, has never been smooth. Uneasiness in Britain about the EU is as old as the project itself, but now there is growing resentment in the 27 other member-states with Brussels on its super-state-like status: From its harsh economic prescriptions in Greece and Portugal, to its policies on immigration, to the widespread perception that the EU is controlled by Germany, to the increasing primacy of its laws diminishing national sovereignty.
In the closing stages of the campaign, many voters remain confused, admitting to reason running a distant second toe motion in helping them decide which way to vote. After adopting a ‘Remain in EU’ position, the David Cameron government churned out a series of studies and projections loaded with Treasury figure son how Britain has benefited over the decades from its EU membership, and how every Briton would be worse off out of the EU. But the economic case has not convinced many.
One issue that has connected the most with the British public — no surprise — is immigration, not so much from the familiar quarters of India and non-EU countries, but ‘uncontrolled immigration’ from within the EU. After 10 East European countries joined the EU in 2004 and two more (Romania, Bulgaria) in 2007, migration from these countries to an economically better off Britain overwhelmed official projections, changing the face of towns and communities and putting more pressure on public services already grappling with major funding cuts.
The campaign has largely coalesced into two distinct issues: The Remain camp making the economic case, and the Leavers gaining much traction by exploiting the ever-potent issue of immigration, even if the latter’s promise to prefer India and the Commonwealth in a post-Brexit Britain sound unrealistic. The campaign has not only turned friends and political allies into foes, but also led to something of a civil war within the ruling Conservative Party. How it deals with the divisions caused remains to be seen, but there is already talk of a ‘revenge reshuffle’ (six ministers are in the Brexit camp) and Cameron being forced to resign if the vote is to leave the EU. Cameron is often reminded that he actually did not need to promise the referendum in 2013, but was forced into it to settle EU-related unrest in his party.
The referendum maybe watched with some bemusement or indifference in India, but its outcome has implications due to significant trade exposure in goods and services to both Britain and the EU. Brexit is seen by the Reserve Bank of India and others as one of the challenges in the short term, while corporate boardrooms have held back some investment and expansion plans until the vote (India is the third largest investor in Britain). The official position is that India would like Britain to stay in the EU, since over 800 Indian companies use London and Britain as a gateway to operate across Europe.
But the larger story of the referendum is this: If Britain is not to be European, what is it? Britain, after all, has historically been central to the idea of the West, which is not only a geographical conception, but is also constituted by the discourses of whiteness, empire, race, occident and the orient. A vote to leave will not only further challenge the strained EU project and the post-1945 liberal world order, but also the idea, idealism and ideology of the West. By Agencies,
Leave a Reply