This referendum on Brexit is turning out to be so much more than a mere general election. In an election, voters choose between parties that share much the same fundamental policies, barring the tinkering at the edges, and the rhetoric. But this debate really is about Britain’s place in Europe - in the world really. And through the results it produces, it will say something about moves towards integration or the lack of them worldwide.
World leaders all the way from US President Barack Obama to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and not least the leaders of European countries, want Britain to remain in the European Union (EU). The International Monetary Fund, the OECD and leading financial institutions want the same; but it isn’t they who have the vote. The move to lead is being driven by huge chunk of the British population, who seem driven by the belief that Britain will be better off alone, as it stood historically, and as they believe it can stand again.After Brexit: Roadmap for a Leap in the Dark
That belief is driven both by argument and by emotion. The Leave campaign argues that Britain pays to the EU a net 350 million pounds a week, and that the money would be better spent by Britain on Britain. The argument is backed by statistical facts – Britain is among ten EU countries that pays more money into the EU than they get out of it.
The Remain camp argues, however, that much of the money gets ploughed back into Britain, and that beyond the cold figures, Britain gains rather than loses. They argue, too, that the British economy is now closely integrated into the EU economy, and that it is really too late to leave. The Remain campaign has strong backing from businesses across the country.
If the vote is to Remain, that vote would of course maintain status quo. But if it is to Leave, then still nothing will change immediately. There would be a two-year period to renegotiate contracts and arrangements; movement of people will not stop, nor would their stay wherever they are. Business and trade will flow as at present until new arrangements are in place to ensure a new smooth flow. This then does beg an overarching question: if new arrangements over years will restore status quo, why leave at all.What Britain's Exit From EU Could Mean For India
It’s the emotional twist to the debate that is to the fore, rather than the argumentative one. The argument offered is that Britain wants to ‘take back control of its borders’. But that option it still has – Britain is not a part of the Schengen visa agreement between several EU countries. And if the argument is that outside of the EU, Britain would be free to bring in more migrants from countries such as India, that Britain still could do, even as an EU member country.
Immigration is always an emotive issue in Britain; hardly another lends itself as easily to scare scenarios of the little island getting overwhelmed by outsiders. This emotion more than any argument seems to be firing the push to leave. It’s the historical island nation feel and, fired by that feel, a belief that Britain will prosper better if it ‘goes it alone’ than as a member of the EU. Majority of Indian-Origin Voters Against 'Brexit': Study
The belief is necessarily untested, and the Remain camp are warning of the ‘leap into the dark that the Leave camp wants. But that too is only an emotive counter-argument; by that logic all change must be resisted because it by definition seeks to usher in the unfamiliar.
A fight over Europe is familiar grounds in Britain. Even so, Britain is now divided as never before. The vote will bring a decision – whether it ends the divisions is far less likely. The vote should settle this round of these divisions, but there will inevitably be more to come, whatever the result. The English Channel runs through the minds of Britain.
Comments
0 comment