I’ve noticed a problem with the current debate in the UK – a
debate that has actually been ongoing for many years now, but will be coming to
a head in June – which is based on the issue of whether the country should
remain in the European Union.
The problem is that it is being viewed in isolation. No single issue – especially when they are
political – can be observed in a vacuum, because it always comes with two
fundamental burdens: context, and impact.
This is particularly pertinent in this debate, because the referendum on
the 23rd June as to whether or not these sceptred isles should leave
the European Union will be one of the most important decisions made by the
population in the last fifty years.
There are two major parts to the Leave campaign that I want
to address. The first is a current,
almost inconsequential aspect, but I want to go into it in some detail to
demonstrate the oddness of dismissing the remarks of such a powerful office. The President of
the United States of America, Barack Obama, decided to drop in on London and
deliver a quick speech about why the USA would want the UK to stay in the
EU. This was instantly decried by the
Leave campaign, who called him out on a few things:
- He used the word “queue”, implying that the speech was penned by one of Cameron’s lackeys rather than Obama’s;
- The President should not be getting involved in the debate, as he is not British, let alone European;
- Why should we pay any attention to this position, when voiced by a man and a country who would never themselves hand over sovereignty to a larger entity?
Let’s address each of these points (within the larger point)
one by one. First, yes, he used the word
“queue”. Of course, it’s entirely likely
that the speech was written by Number 10 and not the White House – but then
again, this is the general position of the United States anyway, so Obama still
consented to giving the speech, so this point is redundant either way. Plus, it’s entirely likely that Obama’s team
simply adapted their vernacular to suit their British audience… whatever, this
is a cheap shot and not really worth the time to dissect.
The President’s opinion, when giving speeches as part of his
office, generally takes on in that moment the elevated mantle of “policy”. This isn’t just Mr Obama spouting his
personal beliefs, but is an aspect of US foreign policy. Even the Leave campaign accepts that leaving
the European Union would cause initial risk in the markets and require us to
re-establish a number of trade deals – this is not in dispute. When one of those trade deals is with the
United States of America (potentially some of our most important deals are with
the US), they have a right to voice their opinion on the subject. This is not domestic policy, this is foreign policy, to which any country in
the world with which we have either diplomatic or economic ties can either
condemn or condone.
On the third point… they already did. People seem to have readily forgotten how the
United States of America was actually formed.
The original thirteen colonies technically established their
independence from the British Empire separately, and it wasn’t until after the
Revolutionary War that a union was formalised.
The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: a union
of states, who agreed to concede sovereignty over certain legislation with the
creation and later expansion of the federal government. Each state has its own senate; individual
legislation; independent control over their emergency services; and so on. The USA’s political makeup is essentially where
Churchill initially expected – hoped even – the EEC would finally venture. Look back through the history of the United States
and you see similar gripes against centralisation of authority as we’re
witnessing in Europe: consistently throughout the 19th and even into
the 20th Century, the romanticised, unruly Midwest saw the federal
government as the enemy against liberty. So sure, perhaps the United States of America as a single entity would
not concede their freedom to a larger union, but that’s probably because they’re
already part of a union. If North
America ever joined into a larger union, then I can imagine there would be one
central federal government, but the next tier would not be “Uesica”, Canada,
Mexico etc., and instead be the states and territories. Colorado, British Columbia and Durango
senators would all report directly to the brand new North American senate.
Returning to my opening statement observing points in a
vacuum, let’s not forget that the United States of America is currently in the
midst of primary voting: deciding which two candidates they will get to choose
from in the general election, and for the first time in a long time, the focus
of the primary debates has not been on foreign policy, but domestic: tackling
institutional racism; reining in Wall Street bankers, welfare and the minimum
wage, and so on. We’re only lucky in
some respects that Hillary Clinton is currently the Democratic (and
realistically therefore, the general) forerunner for the White House. At least she’s not as bothered about tackling
corruption, so we might be able to get a trade deal on the table relatively
quickly.
Back to the initial two points I want to look at, that’s
pretty much covered the criticism of Obama’s visit and speech. The second point is constitution. With the signing of treaties such as
Maastricht and Lisbon, it doesn’t really matter if we didn’t get a say (because
our sovereignty comes from the Queen via God, and not the people), what matters
is that our legal constitution, organic as it is, changed. We are tied to the European Union legally in
small but powerful ways – the fact that we are holding a referendum on the subject
demonstrates this bond.
Whilst I’m wary that such an exercise might quickly be
branded “fear-mongering”, “hyperbole” and “speculative”, I do want to quickly
have a look at what might happen when we apply this logic to the outcome in
which we leave the European Union.
Markets are inherently, by their very nature, based on risk and the
security of investment. It’s undeniable
that leaving the EU would cause disruption (as I’ve already mentioned, this is
not disputed by the Leave campaign), and would be reliant on how quickly we
could re-establish old trade links with European and Commonwealth countries to
help stabilise.
Now I want to take the opportunity to remind you, reader,
that Scotland had a vote on independence last year, and in my opinion, 45 to 55
was a close victory for retaining the
United Kingdom. What is not so close, is
the polling in Scotland regarding sentiment toward the EU; polls consistently
show that a majority of Scots would want to stay, and that is also the official
position of the Scottish government… er, a government controlled by the
Scottish National Party. Considering
Nicola Sturgeon has not ruled out a second referendum, I think leaving the EU
and fundamentally changing our constitution – combined with uncertainty in the
market place – would be enough for strong voices to call for a second referendum.
I recently visited my grandparents. They’re very typical of the older generation
in the UK: part-observant Church of England, Daily Mail readers, conservative
at their core… my grandfather served in the Royal Navy and my grandmother was a
teacher. Yet, despite what you might
imagine would be a natural inclination towards leaving the EU to reassert
British sovereignty, my grandmother asked how my older brother and I would be
voting – my younger brother had previously given his answer, and is based
largely on the overwhelming support of the British science community to stay in. We both also said we would vote to remain in
the EU. My grandmother then surprised by
saying that, well, that’s how they shall vote then, as participation in the
Union will affect us in greater ways – and for a greater period of time – than them. I couldn’t help but think how wonderfully
progressive her thinking was!
Backlash against Obama:
Scotland’s position on Europe:
British scientists on the EU:
