Recent polls indicate the U.K. is leaning closer toward exiting the European Union, and June 23, Britons may decide to do just that via national referendum. The odds seem to be against this. Britons overall have a long history of being supportive toward remaining part of the Union, but with the most recent Telegraph poll, indicating about 49 percent of Britons favor leaving, the U.K.’s status in Europe — and by extension, the world — appears tenuous.
This vote arrives in the midst of the worst migrant crisis since World War II, primarily due to Syrian and Afghan refugees entering Europe by the millions. It also follows a relatively slow economic recovery from the 2008 recession. British Prime Minister David Cameron, who proposed the referendum, has vowed to vote against exit from the EU, or Brexit, as it is called. A few prominent members of his Conservative Party, particularly London Mayor Boris Johnson, have conspicuously decided not to follow Cameron’s lead.
If proposing a referendum and immediately swearing to act against its aim appears contradictory on Cameron’s part, it is because Cameron is attempting to allow Britons to make sense of their greatest national contradiction: being part of Europe without being part of Europe. Cameron understands leaving would be a mistake, but members of his Conservative Party, who have played too far into their skepticism of the European project for unity — or Euroscepticism — publicly do not.
Proponents of Brexit claim EU regulations are hurting British businesses, trade agreements with the 28 member countries of the EU could be better negotiated individually and the judicial activism of European leaders has hindered British sovereignty. As Johnson has put it, voting yes means more money and more control for the British people. I do not wholeheartedly agree. As the New York Times editorial board argues, “If E.U. regulations were as onerous as British critics say, those rules would hurt all 28 member countries. Yet the economies of other members like Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have been more productive than Britain.”
As for trade agreements, EU leaders have indicated they intend on making the renegotiation process as painful as possible for Britain, should Brexit succeed. And as political scientist Ian Bremmer pointed out, the mounting problems in Europe cannot be addressed without first addressing Britain’s status in Europe, a process that would take a couple years to resolve. This complication would affect 60 percent of Britain’s trade, which enters Europe, and would temporarily separate them from the tariff-free European market — not to mention being permanently severed from the world’s largest economy, with a GDP of $18.5 trillion.
However, a Brexit may not even hurt too many British businesses because many may opt to leave the U.K. for the EU and avoid the problems of exit. Though, I imagine they could no longer be called “British” businesses. Nevertheless, talk of the Brexit is hurting the British pound, the source of British pride — or perhaps smugness — during the depreciation of the Euro and the risk of a Greek exit.
A Brexit would succeed in ending the free movement of migrants from Europe into Britain. Polish and Czech immigrants entering the U.K. and claiming welfare benefits has long been a source of anxiety for the British people. I contend that if recent domestic proposals from Cameron’s government assuage these fears, no immediate solution exists for the problems of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the influx of refugees.
Eurosceptics point out Britain was not involved in forming the EU, but they fail to mention Britain’s current absence of empire: Without the EU, Britain is a second-tier power. The proponents of Brexit, including a certain London mayor with eyes on the prime minister’s seat, must recognize leaving the EU amounts to the U.K. exiting from its place on the world stage.
Neel Bapatla is a UF English sophomore. His column appears on Fridays.
