Who are the British in a modern context? If anyone was asked this question and gave an honest or an informed response, they would most likely have to say they don’t know.
One of the central themes made by the leave campaign has been that Britain has diminished. Blame for this has been placed squarely at the feet of the European Union and its institutions. They argue, that EU policy has eroded Britain’s ability to make effective decisions and put British interests first on a global stage. As they see it, if we leave, we will take back control and have a capacity to be a player on the world stage again.
This passionate and resonating argument advanced by the leave campaign ignores two important factors. Firstly, that the world has changed and countries that operate outside of regional blocs are at a disadvantage. Secondly, no one has presented a solution as to how they would keep the United Kingdom itself together and address the elephant in the room, devolution.
Let’s look at that first point. The leave campaign repeatedly invokes the idea that “Britain” can return to some kind of former glory or power on a world stage simply by having control over its domestic policy making. This would not in any way enhance or regain power in terms of foreign policy.
Vote Leave would immediately counter by saying that we are the world’s fifth largest economy and a key player inside NATO. A lot of investment and attributing factors to the size of the British economy are linked to its membership of the EU. Almost all independent experts agree the economy would shrink if the UK left the EU. The UK would realistically, have to become a specialised economy probably orientated toward financial services. This is probably quite desirable to those in the highest ranks of the leave side. But it is unlikely to work. The country is no Switzerland, especially with a population in excess of sixty million. Also, huge swathes of the electorate who already feel this model of economy is to their detriment would never vote for it. The UK does not even know what it’s economy should be in a post Brexit world in order to meets its objectives internationally and consolidate those objectives with its electorate.
The second point, NATO, exemplifies the UK’s identity crisis. Any suggestion that a European defence initiative might have a role to play in guaranteeing peace and security is quickly met with the hostile charge from leave campaigners that NATO, and more specifically the United States, is responsible for European security. Historically there is an element of truth to the idea that NATO was responsible for peace and security in Europe. During the cold war NATO served as an effective counterweight and deterrent to the Warsaw Pact countries.
Since the Cold War ended however, NATO itself has yet to redefine its purpose and what it does in the world. An argument could be made that its new role is to counter a resurgent Russian Federation. If that were true than it has not been terribly effective in recent years given Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and larger strategic victories for itself in Syria.
NATO’s largest contributor in terms of both blood and money is the United States of America. Over 70% of all NATO’s expenditure is from the United States. Britain’s reliance on NATO alone for its defence cooperation would be foolish in this context. American taxpayers are growing tired of paying the price to guarantee the defence of an entire continent who are seemingly unable and unwilling to do so themselves. Defence spending among European countries has been in steady decline and Britain has been no exception to this trend.
More important are the decisions regarding NATO and foreign relations with the UK that will be taken by a future President of the United States and his or her administration. In a worst case scenario for the UK, Donald Trump might become president and slash if not scrap funding for NATO. He has been very serious about this. He does not see countries like Russia as a threat to the US and cares little about Russian policy toward Europe. If Hillary Clinton wins this would still be a negative outcome for the UK’s defence and foreign policy outside of the EU. Clinton has been a supporter of NATO but is a firm proponent of a European defence framework that would alleviate the burden on the US. She has at best shown antipathy toward the UK’s territorial disputes such as the Falkland’s/Malvinas and Gibraltar. It is hard to see how and where the UK will define its position in global defence structures if it should leave the European Union.
The European Union will continue to integrate its defence structures and work to better coordinate foreign policy among member states. The UK, if it chooses to abandon this emerging framework, will be met with the reality that it has not defined for itself a place in the 21st century. The UK cannot rely on the USA forever; they have their own interests to advance. When it comes to territorial disputes such as the Falkland’s, it is hard to see how the UK would continue to stand up to the larger Latin American calls for talks over sovereignty of the islands, whilst having forfeited support from a backer as large as the European Union.
Britain has a personality disorder with far reaching consequences. It sees itself as an important player globally, but doesn’t know what it is it should be doing or how it should do it. It harks back to romanticized interpretations of what it achieved as an empire and suffers from the delusion that some similar level of authority and influence could be enjoyed again by not cooperating with its closest neighbours.
The biggest hurdle to Britain’s place in the world post Brexit is a little closer to home. It’s the process of devolution.
Over the past few decades the UK has sought to devolve power to regional and local authorities in order to address calls for more powers and independence from Westminster. Britain has never defined what “British” identity is or what it should be. A withdrawal from the EU would be popular in England but would be met with varying degrees of unpopularity in the other countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
If Scotland and Wales voted to remain in the EU but a disproportionate English vote saw them leave, this would ignite a constitutional crisis in the UK. It would be seen by many, as necessitating a second independence referendum in Scotland and would certainly increase calls for such a referendum in Wales.
Ireland is an even more volatile prospect. While it is true that the foundations of the peace process in Northern Ireland are largely bilateral arrangements between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the arrangements have certainly benefited from a single market which ensures the free movement of goods, capital and labour. Any reintroduction of border controls or just the idea of being separate entities reintroduced into daily life would most likely not bode well for the peace process as a whole.
One thing is clear, even if Britain votes to remain a member of the European union tomorrow, it’s identity crisis will persist. The UK public and policy makers are stuck with an idealist and romanticised version of history. They also suffer from a collective delusion that they can somehow return to this past simply by leaving the European Union. Britain and the British people will still have to define who they really are and learn to deal with the reality of their place in the world.
HANSARD 