Britain, EU Membership and World Peace

• 
  

World panorama with Cletus Akwaya, Ph.D, e-mail: cletusakwaya@yahoo.co.uk

Basking in the euphoria of a “successful re-negotiation” with the European in Brussels last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced June 23 for a crucial referendum that would determine the future of Britain in the European Union. Cameron’s action was consistent with his 2013 campaign promise to re-negotiate Britain’s continued membership of the EU in line with the wishes of the British people.

For the world community outside Europe, its difficult to appreciate Britain’s position. Why leave the EU at this point? The answer to this poser formed the crux of negotiations between Prime Minister Cameron and his colleagues from the 28-member continental body.

British people are worried with the increasing number of migrants into Europe from the crisis-torn countries of the world like Sudan, South Sudan, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Mali etc. Migrants from these and other countries have in recent years swollen the population of EU member countries with the concomitant pressures for jobs, accommodation, health care and educational facilities, public transportation and other social services and infrastructure. In the face of this, British people fear that the migrants flooding into Europe might erode the social benefits regime in the United Kingdom thereby compromising the welfare of the British citizens.

What this really means is that British attitude is fuelled by the anticipated rather than real consequences of the influx of migrants since Britain is yet not a major recipient of the migrants as its Germany and other EU countries.

Over the decades, Britain has never been enthusiastic about membership of the European body. In the 1960s when Britain opted to join the European Common Market as it was then called, French President, Charles de Gaulle opposed Britain’s membership of the body and any negotiation of special conditions for her proposed membership. It was until 1973, after the death of de Gaulle that Britain joined the European Community o her own terms.

Since joining the EU, Britain has operated her membership largely on her own terms. First, she refused to accept a common currency, Euro preferring to preserve the Pound Sterling as her national currency. Second Britain refused to join the Schengen agreement which provides for a common visa for all European citizens thus easing free movement of people within the members –countries. Even the vexed issue of migrants from Africa and Middle-East, whereas The EU has since settled on the payment of benefits to the migrants Britain has ruled out any payment of benefits to the migrants including those from EU countries until after several years of residency. In fact Britons loathe the migrants not just for the fear of job losses and erosion of their welfare schemes but also for the fear of introduction of alien cultures which the migrants might bring to the British society.

The European Union leaders desperate to keep Britain in their fold conceded to just everything Cameron asked for. Top on the list of concessions is that Britain won’t be part of a “European superstate” which the EU looks to create in the near future. Such “closer ties” are intended to have a common foreign policy for EU, common security and common currency in addition to the other integration structures like EU Parliament among others. The concessions also include the decision that Britain will not join the Euro and protect her national economy with “a full say over the rules of free trade and single market while remaining outside the euro.”

It is clear that the EU granted the concessions simply out of convenience as the exit of Britain (Brexit) would mean that EU would be without her second largest economy, next only to Germany. More importantly, Europe would be denied of her second member of the powerful United Nations Permanent Security Council where it has two members, the other being France.

In justification of the EU decision, President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said the agreement did not compromise “our fundamental values.”

“I deeply believe that the United Kingdom needs Europe and Europe needs the United Kingdom,” Tusk said. “To break the link now would be totally against our mutual interest. We have done all we could not to let that happen. But the final decision is in the hands of the British people” he stated in Brussels after the two-day talks that produced the agreement.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel like Tusk said the EU leaders showed by the concessions, they clearly wanted Britain to stay .

“We believe we have now given a package to David Cameron to elicit support in Britain for Britain remaining a member of the European Union,” she said.

On his part, U.S. President Barack Obama urged Britain to stay in the EU as he argued that the UK as a member of the EU “gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the trans-Atlantic union,” Obama said last year several months before last weeks agreement in Brussels.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel in a tweet said “We overcame our differences to reach a good agreement. (Its) now up to British people to decide.

In spite of these concessions, EU would still wait for the crucial moment in June before it would celebrate as British citizens would have to decide at a referendum. And that is where the headache really is. Although Cameron would be campaigning for Britain’s stay, he has opposition from his Conservative Party Leaders who prefer exit from EU. How he manages the intra-party division on the matter to secure a “yes” vote at the upcoming referendum will depend on how much assurances he gives the conservative British about their future and that of their children and perhaps their children’s children should Britain remain the EU.

Britain should have anticipated the very measures she is opposed to at the time of joining the EU even though it can be argued that nobody anticipated how successful the European Union would become in its integration effort.
Integration theorists have for long contended that membership of international organisations especially functionalist bodies like EU lead to erosion of sovereignty and this ought to have been clear to Britain from the start.

As the oldest political entity in Europe and with an obviously more advanced economy, Britain should move towards accommodating the concerns of fellow European nations rather than this attachment to old tradition. After all, the real reason of promoting free trade and free movement of people was a post-Second World War measure adopted by Europe to reduce tensions, forge unity and possibly avoid another devastating war. And in retrospect, the EU has succeeded in maintain peace in Europe. If this is the case, why would Britain ought out.

Other hand, while Britain prefers to maintain a rather loose relationship with the EU she appears desperate maintain a “special relationship” with the US. In recent history, Britain has stood with the US on virtually every crucial decision no matter how unpopular such decisions are if only she would maintain the friendship of the Americans.

Unfortunately, Britain is not emulating her ally in matters of managing immigration issues and other matters of common concern. For instance, while America has annually increased the quota of US visa lottery to welcome other citizens of the world, the UK is sending out even those who have lived in the UK for decades.

Only recently, the UK adopted a new immigration policy that would see over 29,000 Nigerians deported from the UK. Thousands of other nationals would also be sent out of the UK by virtue of the same policy. The big question is, how did these people enter the UK and stayed for years without the UK security system raising an eyebrow?
As a major international player in world affairs and given her special relationship with several countries under the auspices of the Commonwealth, Britain should be the catalyst for world peace by being part of the solution to the problems that affect humanity across boundaries. It is high time Britain played a more positive interventionist role in global affairs of which the migrants problem is a significant part.

The world community expects Britain to redouble her efforts in resolving the crises that caused these populations to leave their countries of origin to flood Europe in search of safe havens as illegal migrants.