Recently BREXIT supporters have asked President Obama not to interfere in the debate. There is something missing in this demand as UK is part of a global world and it arise legitimate interests and concerns all over the world of top world leaders. The political, economic and financial impact that the eventuality of an exit creates within the EU it also impact American interests. It is for this reason that pretend to stop U.S. or other countries/ leaders in participating in the debate is just utopic.
Trying to prevent a wider debate in current global world, represents a big political mistake that come from the naïve idea that its “Europe´s business”. In reality is it just a national decision that however, there impact goes beyond a regional perspective. One of the reasons of this lack of awareness on interest and need of a global political debate comes from an anti-global agenda that search to disavow the impact that an exit represents in Britain´s economy.
Like in the sculpture “L´adieu” of Rodin, BREXIT represents a “good bye Europe” and “welcome disintegration”. Not just for Britain but also for the rest of European countries that will see in this fragmentation the weakness and unsafely of belonging to a structure that is not able to manage with an internal crisis. In addition, it is setting a precedent for other European countries that could see in a referendum the beginning of an anti-European, anti-global process that will bring prosperity and build a safer place to live.
BREXIT is not the panacea for prosperity or a way out on financial or migration national/global struggle, structural reforms need to be done inside UK.
Is it true, EU institutions -particularly financial- are taking biased decisions that is affecting its credibility and the real positive impact of their decisions, e.g. the “obsession about austerity” and the lack of a coherent path to real enter in a sustainable “mode”. Having as a result: stagnated economies.
However, and even knowing that the EU is going through an institutional crisis, it is a matter of responsibility for each country member to go through joint action efforts and search for solutions. The claim for a reformed Europe would be totally legitimated if the referendum wouldn´t taken place. Does will not happen. And without even attempt to negotiate a way out it put in risk all that have been achieved after more than 50 years of European community.
Reforms in the EU are a condition sine qua non for facing current crises, but not as an excuse for a BREXIT.
Historically Britain has opposed for an “even closer union” to the point to be considered the “British problem”. In 1973, when the European Economic Community becomes an Union there were the same argumentations around the what represents sovereignty at regional level.
Britain must fix their political internal differences and not transfer those differences to the rest of the European Union. Indeed, more than 40 years latter and Britain is still transferring internal oppositions to an external basis. Is a universal principle and common sense that once a country accepts the conditions of membership in any agreement or organization it should fulfill them especially when those conditions are remaining the same. Indeed, the changes that the Union has experimented along this years are related to financial policies and Britain is suffering the impact of those decisions in the same dimension that each country member and the global economy as a whole.
UK needs to settle their local problems with political responsibility without allocate responsibility to the EU. Is not fair to analyze local problems in a global context because of a wrong political focus. For instance, unemployment and poverty in UK is a local hurdle that needs to be overcome also from a regional focus and could not be attributed to Europe membership.
Then we have this “sovereignty feeling” transformed in an exacerbated nationalist speech that will not bring the answers to the negative impact that Britain is suffering from global crises as migration or finance.
It´s important to differentiate the defense of national sovereingty and become a secluded isolated retreat in a global world. To be under 100% freedom is just an illusion with sound negative impact mainly on trade and culture.
BREXIT seems a very unskillful move to face not just current vulnerabilities, but future crises. Is important that Britain understand that we do not live under national sovereignties per se but under global rules with respectively global impacts
Integration is definitely another factor for development that could be seen in a tangible way. Significant benefits in GDP growth along history are directly associated with EU membership. Just to give an example: the European Market accounts for 73% of Britain’s agro-food exports. It´s very important to measure economic consequences: 51,4% of British exports goes to the EU and only 6.6% of EU exports go to Britain. In tech areas 71% of UK companies want Britain to stay in the EU and 78% believe EU exit would leave UK with less influence. In relation with a free trade deal EU-US, US make it clear that will not make a bilateral agreement with UK alone. Is estimated that an exit would represent around 5% GDP losses for British economy. So, does anyone could really think that UK would survive without EU or just with bilateral agreements?
Wake up Britain! And say good morning! to a global world, accepting the conditions of belonging to a community with a grown up political attitude.
Under updated conditions but with the same principles and values than in the Treaties of Rome (free movement of goods, services and establishment and prohibition against discrimination on grounds of nationality) although with a different political focus than in those times according to the impact of several crises and under globalization standards.
Are there any negative aspects for being part of a Union? Sure, but there are counterbalanced by building resilience in a world threaten by constant crises in a joint geopolitical action that assure better and stronger positions. Establish clear rules that allow new counterbalancing relations among countries by accepting that the impact of migration-financial & war are global crises and are pushing for the implementation of reforms at an institutional level.