On Brexit

It is difficult to believe that one of the oldest democracies in the world is entirely unsure of what path to select. Is this confusion a part of British thinking on the European Union (EU)?  History offers us some insight into how the UK remained an unwilling member of the EU.  Interestingly, it was the Winston Churchill who had delivered a speech at the University of Zurich in 1946 pronounced that Europe can survive only if it stands united. In his words, " Under and within that world concept we must recreate the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe" (See Link https://rm.coe.int/16806981f3).  Churchill in many respects could be accepted as one of the early Euro-enthusiasts. One cannot discount that fact that in 1948 several integration enthusiasts met at Hague and this meeting was presided by Churchill.  Hague meeting of 1948 started the path for the establishment of the Council of Europe in 1949.  Despite these early efforts from the side of the UK, when the formal process of the European integration started, she opted out.  The UK, therefore, was not in the original six who created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951. The UK had not only kept herself out of the European integration process, but she was also the co-founder  European Free Trade Association (EFTA) that was established in 1960.  The EFTA was a parallel trade bloc, and it was to counter the European Economic Community (EEC).   After realising the limitations of EFTA, the UK expressed willingness to join the European integration process in 1963. The UK's application was stopped by Charles de Gaulle the President of France twice in 1963 and 1967.  Formally Charles always maintained that the UK was not ready to be the part of the European integration journey.  Finally, the UK after a couple of failed attempts joined the integration process in 1973. 

Within the next two years, the UK decided to test the acceptability of the membership through a referendum.  The British Labour Party historically remained sceptical about the EU. It was Labour PM Harold Wilson who had gone for the referendum in 1975, and the people of the UK endorsed the membership. 

Coming to the Brexit, the referendum was conducted in 2016, and this time it was the Conservative PM David Cameron. Similar to that of the 1975 referendum when it was promised by the Harold in the runup to his election, the 2016 referendum was the also part of the election manifesto of Cameron. For David,  it was a political compulsion to check the political rise of the far-right- the UK Independence Party (UKIP).  Vehemently opposed to the  EU, the UKIP campaigned extensively for rejecting the membership. For the UKIP immigration within the EU was a problematic part. The UKIP attacked the EU for taking money from the UK and in return sending immigrants.  While David Cameron wished to renegotiate some parts of the UK-EU relations, he was not initially for the full divorce. It was the UKIP and some of his party members who pressurised him enough on the issue.  Thus,  David Cameron ends up promising a referendum on the EU membership in the 2015 elections.  David Cameron successfully defended his PM post in the 2015 election, lost on the referendum and resigned.  Slightly more than 51 per cent of the voters favoured renouncing the membership of the EU.  Not to be mistaken that Brexit was on the demand of the political Right. 

Theresa May succeeded Cameron in 2016 and throughout this period she remained busy negotiating a deal for the exit.  Any student of the European integration process very well knows that the deal was never easy. European integration is both deep and wide.  So a member slowly integrates with the EU but once it reached a certain level, an exit is a herculean task, as reflected in the present scenario. PM May pressed the exit button by sending the letter evoking article 50 of the EU.  After invoking article 50, a member has the time of two years to exit. For the UK the two years is ending on 29th March 2019. To the utter dismay and surprise, the UK is yet to build a domestic consensus on the exit deal. The deal presented by May was twice rejected by the UK parliamentarians. For the first time, it was in January and in March it was again disapproved by MPs.  Now the effort by May to bring it to the House of Commons for the third time is stalled by the Speaker of the house who wanted to have substantial changes in the draft. 

So the UK is just ten days to exit the EU, but there is no deal. The UK wanted to have some more time for the exit, and there are mix responses. While France is not willing to give extra time to the UK, Germany and the President of the European Council Donald Tusk is little soft on the issue. While the main thrust of May is to have a deal before the exit, there are reports that her main political opponent Jeremy Corbyn is also camping in Brussels. 

Brexit can be viewed from two perspectives.  One that the UK remained always little out of the EU even after formally joining it.   The UK never associated with Sechghen and maintained her currency.  So when the problematic time came to the region after the recession, the UK just ran towards the gate. Secondly, it proved the vitality and relevance of the EU  as a robust regional integration project. When a bit aloof member is really struggling to get out, think about the fully integrated members.

Nevertheless, the EU will continue to face the challenge from the rise of right-wing populism who are opposed to the idea of pooling sovereignty.  While one can question the motive of the EU-sceptics, some grim issues require attention from the EU. Will try to discuss these in the next part on the EU.