begin quote from:
What Is 'Brexit'? A Look at the Debate and Its Wider Meaning
| New York Times | - |
Britain
will decide on Thursday whether to leave the European Union, and voters
are deeply split. Credit Hayoung Jeon/European Pressphoto Agency.
WASHINGTON — With a landmark vote approaching on Thursday on whether Britain will leave the European Union, two recent events highlighted the stakes and the unique Britishness of the “Brexit” debate.
Last Wednesday, in what Britons took to calling the Battle of the Thames,
both sides sent flag-waving flotillas down the river to advertise their
cause. The “Leave” campaign blasted the theme song from “The Great
Escape” from Westminster Bridge, and Bob Geldof, a prominent campaigner
in the “Remain” campaign, bellowed facts about fishing from boat-mounted
speakers.
The next day, a man with a history of mental illness and neo-Nazi ties fatally shot and stabbed
a member of Parliament, Jo Cox, who supported staying in the European
Union. Though his motive has not been determined, even the possibility
of a political motivation has shocked the country and drawn attention to
the increasingly heated national debate.
This
is much more than a vote on membership in a 28-nation bloc. It is about
national and social identity, Britain’s place in the world and the
future of the European project.
1. What is Brexit?
A
portmanteau of the words “Britain” and “exit,” it is the nickname for a
British exit of the European Union after the June 23 referendum asking
voters: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?”
The debate leading up to this week’s vote is playing out, however, as a broader choice over what national values to prioritize.
Pro-Brexit
advocates have framed leaving the European Union as necessary to
protect, or perhaps restore, the country’s identity: its culture,
independence and place in the world. This argument is often expressed by
opposition to immigration.
“Remain”
supporters typically argue that staying in the union is better for the
British economy and that concerns about migration and other issues are
not important enough to outweigh the economic consequences of leaving.
The
debate has also cut along the country’s famously deep class divides:
Voters with less money and education are more likely to support leaving
the union. Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge,
said this stems from a sense of abandonment among poor and working-class
Britons. The Brexit debate has become a vessel for anti-establishment
and anti-elite feelings directed at the leaders of mainstream British
political parties as much as at Europe.
Neither
side is defending the European Union as a meaningful or admirable
institution. In part, this speaks to particularly British views that the
rest of Europe is somehow alien.
This
also reflects a Euroskepticism, or opposition to the European Union,
rising across the bloc as the union veers from crisis to crisis. In this
way, the Brexit vote is a particularly noticeable manifestation of a
sense that European institutions have fallen short of their lofty
promises and have created burdens, such as absorbing migrants or bailing
out troubled economies, that many Europeans are tired of bearing.
2. What is the case for leaving?
A
lot is implied in one of the campaign’s slogans, “Take control.”
Britain’s loss of full authority over its economic policies and
regulations has so rankled many of the country’s citizens that it has
spawned an entire genre of urban legends over the years, called
“Euromyths.”
These
stories usually feature some aspect of classically British culture that
is supposedly under threat. One claimed that double-decker buses were
to be banned, while another suggested that fish and chips would have to
be written in Latin on menus. The subtext is barely subliminal at all:
Gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats are the enemy of Britishness, a threat
to Britain’s identity in all its deep-fried, double-decker glory.
“There
are two things at play here,” said Brian Klaas, a fellow in comparative
politics at the London School of Economics. “One is the cultural
nostalgia for Britain’s lost place in the world. This idea that Britain
used to matter, Britain used to be able to do things without having to
consult Brussels.”
Then
there is immigration. “There’s this feeling that we’re losing our
cultural identity and our national identity,” Mr. Klaas said, “at the
same time that there’s this influx of people who are willing to work for
low wages.”
A 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey found
that more than three-quarters of Britons want the country’s immigration
policies reduced, and about 56 percent said they should be reduced “a
lot.”
Though
Britain has accepted a small number of refugees relative to other
European countries, British tabloids have implied the country is being
overrun by an uncontrollable “swarm” or “tide” of foreigners. Labor
migration, particularly from Eastern Europe, has often been painted as
economically threatening.
Terrence G. Peterson, a fellow at Stanford University’s
Center for International Security and Cooperation, said there is “a
sense that Britain has lost something, that it has lost its
sovereignty.”
Continue reading the main story
“It can’t close its borders in the way that it wants,” he said. “It can’t have the economic policies it chooses.”
3. What is the case for staying?
What
is most striking about the “Remain” campaign is what it has not done:
countered the arguments for leaving. Rather than defending the European
Union or immigration as good for Britain, the campaign warns that
leaving would be disastrous for the British economy.
Most economists agree with that claim. Europe is Britain’s most important export market and its greatest source of foreign direct investment,
and union membership has been crucial to establishing London as a
global financial center. A British exit would jeopardize that status —
and the high-paying jobs that come with it.
The mere fact of the referendum has already affected the economy; the pound is at its lowest valuation in seven years.
But
it is telling that those who want to stay, including Prime Minister
David Cameron and the leadership of Britain’s two main political
parties, have not expressed much enthusiasm for the European Union
itself. Instead, their arguments are focused narrowly on British
self-interest. Their message is not that membership in the bloc is an
exciting opportunity so much as a basic economic necessity.
That
is a sign of how unpopular the union has become throughout Britain,
according Mr. Klaas, partly because of bad public relations. “If you get
funding from Europe for a road, you take credit,” he said. “But if you
can’t get funding, it’s Europe’s fault.”
4. Why are Britons so wary of Europe?
Spend
enough time in the United Kingdom, and you will hear people refer to
“the Continent.” Travel agency windows advertise flights and package
tours “to Europe,” as if it were someplace else.
As Mr. Peterson of Stanford put it, “Britain has always kept Europe at a distance, even when they were favorable to the E.U.”
Britain
initially refused to join the European Economic Community when it was
founded in 1957. It became a member in 1973, only to have a crisis of
confidence that led to a similar exit referendum two years later. (The
pro-Europe campaign won that round with 67 percent of the vote.)
A
strain of populist opposition to Europe remained in the decades that
followed. Britain has never joined other countries in using the euro as
currency, for example, or participated in the union’s Schengen Area
open-borders agreement.
5. O.K., so why now?
Recent challenges within the European Union have given Euroskepticism new urgency.
“There
wouldn’t be a referendum without the eurozone crisis, which made the
E.U. look badly organized and dysfunctional,” said Charles Grant, the
director of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based research
group. “The refugee crisis hasn’t helped either. It made the E.U. seem
out of control.”
Mr.
Peterson said the deeper issue is that the union remains an unfinished
project, which allowed these economic and migration crises to become so
severe.
The
European Union never developed centralized political institutions
strong enough to manage its diverse constituent countries. Individual
nations have little incentive to make sacrifices for the common good,
and European unity is weakest when it is needed most.
6. What will happen to Britain if it leaves?
Projections
differ significantly over the precise economic effect, but there is a
consensus that leaving would hurt Britain financially, at least in the
short term.
Without
access to the union’s open markets, Britain would probably lose trade
and investment. And while the influx of migrant workers has created
anxiety over British culture and identity, losing that labor force could
lead to lower productivity, slower economic growth and decreased job
opportunities, a study by Britain’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research found.
A
Brexit could also quickly spawn, err, a “Scexit.” Nicola Sturgeon, the
first minister of Scotland, has said that if Britain votes to leave the
European Union, she will hold a new referendum in which Scots could vote
to exit Britain — and then rejoin the union as an independent nation.
Scotland’s voters rejected such a measure
by nearly 10 points in 2014, but analysts say a Brexit could change
that because the Scots overwhelmingly support European Union membership.
If
Scotland were to leave, that could dramatically alter Britain’s
political character, as Scotland’s members of Parliament lean to the
left.
7. What are the wider ramifications?
Britain
makes up about a sixth of the European Union’s economy. A Brexit, Mr.
Klaas said, “would be akin to California and Florida being lopped off
the U.S. economy.”
That
destabilization could affect the United States’ economy: Last week, the
Federal Reserve in Washington cited the possibility of a Brexit as a
reason to not raise interest rates.
There
could be political consequences, as well. If Britain leaves the union,
that could give momentum to the nationalistic, anti-migrant message and
policies of populist, far-right parties that are already rising across
Europe.
The
implications for the European project itself are unclear, but that
uncertainty may be the greatest threat to the union, which has helped
bring Europe 70 years of peace and is already under growing strain.
It also undermines trust between member states, whose commitments seem less reliable every time one of them toys with leaving.
“Members of the eurozone will realize that things can come unstuck,” Mr. Grant said. “Entropy can happen.”
In
his view, Germany already has too much power in the bloc, and a British
exit would make that imbalance more pronounced. It would undermine the
European Union’s legitimacy and make it more difficult to respond to
internal crises, like the Greek economy or the migrant influx, and to
outside security threats, he said.
Mr. Klaas said, “A more unified Europe is a powerful counterbalance to people like Vladimir Putin.”
“Putin has stayed silent on this,” he said of the Russian leader. “But he’s probably silently cheering the pro-Brexit side.”
Continue reading the main story
No comments:
Post a Comment