Brexit, an arduous path to make Britain great again
BY
TAN CHYE HONG
June 23, the world
will be in complete stew about whether Britons will vote for Brexit. According
to Bloomberg’s news, those voting for “Yes” and “No” to Brexit come close to
around within few percentage point in favour to leave, and younger voters incline
than older voters to remain in the Bloc.
Many older Britons
are still nostalgic, beguiled by erstwhile glory when Britain built its empire.
Harkening back to the bygone days, buoyant with national pride left them into
believing that Britain will be great again if it goes solo. Is that true?
Well, at its
worst, Brexit does not spell the end of the day. However, times have changed,
the notion of what constitutes as a great nation also changed. Great nation
pooh-poohs about land-grabbed globally type of empire-building. Especially, the
West has not recovered from war-fatigue. Empire building is no longer an
enviable task. It is a shibboleth.
A great nation
will leverage its strength exerting influence in global affairs for the common
good of the world. Our world needs better managed in that all nations abide the
rules of law ubiquitously agreed upon and also international norms, peaceful
means of resolution of conflicts, better tackle climate change, eliminate
poverty etc. It is great because it wins many a heart to care of global good
over those bellicose brawns that run roughshod over others, many countries are
too inward focus that render paucity of global issues attenuated; such as the
migrant issue. It will not go away if Britain chooses to leave, the issue will
continue to pester Britain, and its intricacies are better managed by
interested parties together. Coupled with the US is receding its global
influence; for this, it is monumental if Britain can sagaciously play an
exemplary role as a global leader to fill that vacuum. Britain finds back its
lost lustre.
Being in the
network will largely amplify Britain’s influence in global affairs, size does
matter; you aim to have a tilt by getting your voice heard louder as a
prominent leader in the EU. Consider the number of EU members in the permanent
UN Security Council, in IMF, and other global institutions that play to
Britain’s favour. In other words, being in the bloc provides the platform that
exalts Britain to a higher level that chimes with great again ambition. It
would be blinkered if you vote for Brexit, you deprive your political leader a
chance using that platform to leverage on global affairs, and certainly your
lone voice is overshadowed by the hubbub surrounding and marginalised by other
global powers. You find discomfiting in an arduous path to project a towering
figure’s image.
Security is also a
major concern that you cannot ignore. The major threat is from the North. In a
recent American military report, in the past one year, Russia nuclear submarine
activities were frequent in North Atlantic. Although Brexit Britain will remain
in NATO, the entire security structure will be chipping away. Strategically, it
will be a different ballgame. Exit will only let Mr. Vladimir Putin sneer
surreptitiously. A broken Europe enhances Russia military leverage in the
rickety region. Now the crux of an effective defence is for the EU to establish
an impregnable cohesive front with NATO. After the cold war, many EU countries
rest on their laurels, run their defence budget on a shoestring. And now it is
dawn on them the real threat coming from Russia. Brexit will certainly
aggravate the security concern in the EU. The breakup will derail NATO’s plan,
as the two are now separate entities. EU has a written law to treat every
member’s security as their own that is the major concern Mr Vladimir Putin
ineluctably to take deep contemplation before any military deliberation, not
any Britain’s enviable military assets. How NATO works with EU in the rise of
the occasion in case of military confrontation has yet been tested. Brexit
makes it more tenuous.
On the economic
front, there are many papers predict pessimistic outcome for ensuing economic
growth after breakup. It is hard to reckon an accurate projection. But one thing
is for sure, despite the uncertainty, we can expect short-term adversity at
least. Especially badgering the banking sector, this is Britain’s major asset.
Brexit will change the trade relationship of British banks with its European
business partners. British banks have majority of their customers from EU, and
there is also about 51% trade of goods with EU business partners. The breakup
will not unwind everything right off the bet, but certainly Britain will be
taken as outsider subject to different yardsticks. In other words, Britons will
live in uncertainty for a period of time of painful adjustments.
A “nation migrant
reception attitude survey” caught my attention recently, lo and behold; Britain
ranks second in the world after China and ahead of Germany as the nation most
welcome migrants. I am not sure how truthful and representative is the survey.
It seems to me anti-immigration campaign forms a chorus for Brexiteers. I think
in the broader sense, before we enmesh in immigration issue, we need to recognise
there are two different characteristics of migrant issues involved, One is
under EU’s Schengen agreement that offer free movement of the people within the
EU that borderless is one of the four freedoms of the rules regarded as basic to EU membership. That rule is an idealism
somewhat that lately proved to have severe loopholes; such as in counter
terrorism and in refugees unfettered moving around the borderless bloc.
Euro-sceptics
raise concern about the loss of sovereignty due to free flow of migrants, last
year alone; migrants to
Britain hit second record high of 333,000. “The Economist” adopting a
forbearing attitude made such a calculation: “EU migrants living in Britain at
around 1.8m to 1.9m is roughly the same as that of Britons living in the rest
of EU. Many of the British are retirees and impose healthcare costs on their
hosts, whereas younger EU workers in Britain pay more taxes than they consume
in benefits.” But those advocates for exit have legitimate reason for opposing
free flow of workers too. For one, it is to blame the languishing world
economy, many unemployed Britons feel threatened by an influx of EU migrants,
those in the job worry about job security. Forget the law of one price; it is
propitious to take advantage of exchange differences to work in Britain to
receive Pounds than Euros in the Eurozone. There are impetuses for Southern and
Eastern Europeans move to the rich North for jobs. However, the stark economic
reality exhibits a diabolical job market growth. We are all living in
macro-constraints. Increasing job seeker supply without corresponding job
creation, only make competition intensity worse. There is more than what we
simply ascribe as xenophobia. So, there can be a slight twist of the rule that
still free flow of people, but job seeking is restricted to the host country’s
needs only.
The second type of
migrant is refugees; there is a grain of truth that refugee migrant issue is a
tussle between humanity principle and economic reality. The major concern is
assimilation to the host country’s cultures. The culture diversity between
refugee migrants and host countries cannot be more real at every turn laden
with political backlash; all hell broke loose, making veritable humanity look
all the worse that compelled Dr Angela Merkel quick reversal of her migrant
policy. The grave concern is no one can tell the scale of refugee migration. A
receptive approach also sends a wrong signal for those risk-taking migrants
that they are most welcome to Europe. Refugee migrants aggravate the nascent
economic recovery in Europe. So there must be a realistic solution that fits
into individual country’s circumstances. But the root causes are the political
conflicts in the Middle East and economic poverty in Northern Africa. So,
tackle problems out of pickle at the source is much efforts saving than futile
receptive approach.
Another
reason to vote for “in” is trade reason. EU, a close to homogeneous mature
market that breeds middle class willing to spend for British luxury goods and
services, both share proximately similar culture, value and belief. It is an
ideal market which proximity reduces non-value added transport costs especially
for transporting goods to countries farther afield. Relatively high wages and
living standard in some EU countries certainly lead us to conclude that trading
with EU partners can sustain high wages in Britain.
In
any rate, I am a strong sceptic about the following practice: In cost cutting
exercise, companies relentlessly first target at labour costs either through
furlough or lay off workers in droves to maintain or raise company’s earnings
in order to pander the market. I believe any business firm should have a social
objective. Competitiveness is not a race to cut wages to match those of the
Emerging markets. Why there are so many outcries by economists about wages
stagnant, unequal distribution of wealth, wage growth disparity. It is
mortified that Capitalism goes the wrong way. You just cannot reconcile
conflicting objectives of on the one hand to relentlessly cut wages to lower
costs and on the other expecting it also lifting living standard. A business
firm should maintain healthy workforce with social obligation to take care of
employees in good times and bad. Competitiveness in a sense is not to compare
British wages with those of emerging markets. It embraces product attributes,
quality as a whole. If that is not the case, why so many Chinese middle class
rush to buy European goods? So, it is borne out by evidence that don’t forsake
EU market which brings you the lifeline.
Living in a world
in EU which is fastidious about rules and regulation is difficult to bear for
some Britons, those self-proclaimed free market advocates dislike rule based
governance and fret about circumscription compromises Britain’s sovereignty,
for example, the European Court of Justice can overrule British courts. The
best option is not to opt-out but participate in decision process to make
change. Since Britain the second biggest contributor coughed up almost 10
billion pounds tax payer’s money in 2014 alone to EU’s coffer, it should have a
say about EU’s policy, even Britain not a Eurozone member. Many institutions
confer more rights to member with bigger contribution. IMF also adopts such
practice. It is only participation of decision process can change the
ineptitude of a Neanderthal institution.
The current
institution in Brussel is centralised, garners too much power, but govern a
bloc with huge historical differences and cultures that needs great tact and
flexibility. Intransigency bounds to botch. The ideal structure is a political
union where member states are elected to the council to lead, coordinate,
trade-off in order to reach consensus among member states, decide on policies
related to common interests. The structure is largely decentralised. To have a better chance to spur reform in
current EU, Britain should go the whole hog by participating in the decision
making process. If Britons opt to stay
out, everything in EU will still be in situ; you are still immeasurably encumbered
by those rules in future dealing with EU.
EU to Britain is
like centripetal; the smaller mass are ensnared to the larger mass by short
distance. I am not a physicist. It is felicitous to apply the same analogy in
the making for Taiwan which abutting its border to Mainland China. The new
president thought it can extricate economic dependency on Mainland China by
developing southward trading strategy mainly with South East Asia. The quick
answer to her strategy effectiveness is: she can’t get away with the
gravitational effect of the Mainland China’s centripetal force. Many Western
businesses are bedevilled with hate and love about doing business in China,
hate because a swaggering China wields its economics’ clout, infiltrates
business rules with noxious party politics and ideology to bulldoze blustering
practices by fair means or foul; a blasé attitude many foreign investors feel
unpalatable. Love because of its vast market that many don’t mind being
gravitated. There is no such scruple for Britain and EU. Both share common
value and belief, whether you are progressive or conservative. With compromise,
things certainly can be ironed out. Nothing is insuperable.
In the nick of
time, if you vote “yes” on a whim, your vote will be a dicey twist. Britain
will unmoor to EU, and the Scots ditch Britain. And the balance has gone the
other way, the “yes” votes cast a pall over the great again hope, and scupper.
Britain will be truly shrinking fast in size. It is indubitably in your
interest and the interest of the world to vote for “no” on the 23 of June to
Brexit to save the day.
