UK has no tangible reasons to exit EU – Part 1

The European Union (EU), a coalition of some Western European nations was set up to reduce the frequent wars between member states and to foster unity. It officially started with the Schuman Declaration in 1950, followed by the European Declaration in 1951 and the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. In the face of a ‘new world order’ in which the United States seeks a permanent ‘overbalanced power’ over the world political systems and the growing economic power of China; it is fast becoming an alignment of both security, political and economic interest which would enable the smaller European countries to be competitive against the bigger countries and the emerging regional power blocks.

These closer needs were made effective by ‘The 1993 Maastricht Treaty’ which allows for a ‘Single Market’ that sanctions the movement of goods, services, people and money among member states. It was followed by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999, which increases the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions and introduces a common foreign and security policy for members.

The British joined the European ‘alliance’ in order to enhance her enlightened self interest of providing for the security of its country and the welfare of its citizens. Historically, a major challenge to the welfare of the island nations is inadequate resources within the island alone to support the wellbeing of its peoples. The option of looking inward alone was not considered to be credible, hence the strategic choice of exploring the outside world for possible opportunities.

The first challenge to launching this policy was the needs to have a politically and economically viable platform on which to implement the vision. In order to meet this challenge, England, the largest nation on the islands embarked on a policy of pooling the resources of the disparate people under one administrative state authority. This policy resulted in balance of power struggles between the English and the other nations, namely: Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The first was easily subjugated, a stick and carrot won the second, but it was partially successful with the last.

A successful outcome of this policy resulted in the formation of Britain and later, the United Kingdom – a collection of nations on the islands, and England became the dominant nation. The viable platform created presented the English with the opportunity to explore and to even exploit the rest of the world. The British created a viable empire; the richest of its kind in the history of mankind; the most powerful maritime power and the most powerful in power relations to all other nations. The use of the phrases,“Rule Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never be slaves” was an expression of how powerful the empire was – it was so large that at least there was always one territory which received sun heat, hence the expression that “The sun never sets in Britain.”

Other established European powers set out to emulate her success. In particular, Germany, an emerging power was strategically placed to unbalance the European power equilibrium. The struggles for power and opportunities led to the first and second world wars, in which the alliances that Britain belongs to were victorious. However, the second war efforts weakened the economic and military powers of Britain and two new countries; America and the Soviet Union emerged as the two most powerful countries in a bipolar world order. Also, Germany and French, two of the main antagonists during the two world wars unexpectedly took a ‘realist’ approach on the fact of their geopolitics and entered into a political alliance, a confidence building measure to promote peace between them and a platform for containing the British and Anglo-Saxon influence.

At the end of the Second World War, Sir Peter Smithers was one of the three senior security operatives sent to the continent and Africa to advise how to manage the defeated powers in Europe and the colonies in Africa. What eventually became the EU was the platform set up to manage the defeated powers and Sir Smithers was its first secretary. But the German-French alliance turned it into a platform against the British.

To cope with the challenges of lost power and empire, Britain took advantage of its historic links with the USA, one of the newly emerged superpower and aligned its interest as a junior partner in what was tagged the ‘special relationship’. U.S’s understanding of the power relationship was adequately articulated when in 1962, Dean Acheson, the then U.S. Secretary of State observed that “Great Britain has lost an empire but not yet found a role.” This arrangement allows Britain to continue to ‘punch’ much more heavily than its actual weight in the international political arena.

To cope with the challenges created in Europe by the German and French alliance; in addition to using the ‘special relationship’ with the U.S. to increase relative power against them, Britain first attempted to ruin the coalition structure from the outside. When this did not work, it joined the coalition with the intention of destroying it from within. When it failed in this objective, it embarked on seeking joint and equal leadership of the EU system with Germany and French. Britain has not achieved this objective and it has used various tactics to pressure the leadership to accommodate its interest. Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative party, the current ruling party, Britain pressed for a reformed EU, it collected rebate on its contributions and secured a reduction in her subsequent contributions. And, in order to dilute the cohesion of the two leaders, Britain successfully promoted a policy of encouraging more and smaller European countries from ‘Eastern Europe’ to be admitted into EU. An unintended consequence of this policy is the freedom of migration of the new members to all member countries, which Britain now resents and gave as one of the reasons for its wish to leave the EU.

The current referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the union or to get out of it is tagged the ‘IN’ or ‘OUT’ referendum. It is part of the British tactic of pressuring the leadership of EU to accommodate its interest. However, what has changed is that some ‘English Nationalist’, or call them ‘the little Englishman’ is going to extreme by genuinely seeking an exit when it is normally a tactics for achieving more favourable conditions from EU leadership. Why would Britain want to be ‘cut adrift in the middle of the Atlantic’? Britain has no tangible economic or security advantages to gain from this option.

What are the possible implications for the EU, if the ‘stay in EU’ campaign wins the referendum? It is likely to spur the EU leadership to instigate more reformation of the system to address Britain’s concerns, including its interest in joint leadership. Other far reaching reforms may also take place. This would be a ‘win win’ situation for EU and other parties. But the war of attrition would continue if it did not lead to its acceptance.

If on the other hands, the ‘Out of Europe’ campaign wins the referendum what are the possible advantages and disadvantages for the UK and Europe?

• To be continued tomorrow

• Akinola (taiakinola@gmail.com) is a United Kingdom-based Foreign Policy and Security analyst. He is the current Chairman, BOT of Nigeria Diaspora Security Forum.