Fears that the Brexit vote will lead to the collapse of the Western civilisation are over-stated. However, if the UK exits the EU, it will be the beginning of the collapse of Europe's contribution to a new paradigm of regional cooperation
On June 23, Britain will hold a referendum of enormous political significance when the people of that country will decide whether they want to stay within the European Union (EU) or not. The Brexit vote, as it is being called, has drawn the attention of not only politicians and opinion leaders in Britain and the rest of the EU, but also of the people across the world. The historic importance and implications of this referendum go far beyond the boundaries of Europe. It also has relevance to India and to other parts of the world.
Donald Tusk, former Prime Minister of Poland, and now the President of the European Council, has gone to the extent to state that if Britain leaves the EU, it can be the downfall of Western civilisation. Cynics will probably say that there is no such thing as Western civilisation. It may be recalled that when Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, his witty and biting response was, “Western civilisation would be a good idea.”
But the EU is symbolic of a new era in human thought, the interpretation of nationalism and the value of peace, which represents a sharp break from the past not only in Europe, but on the part of the West in general as we know it. Most importantly, the EU and its success as a political innovation has lessons for the rest of the world as well. Britain’s exit from the EU can weaken this union substantially and perhaps even lead to its demise.
A brief review of how the EU came into existence will have relevance in assessing the entirety of what Britain’s exit might foretell. The EU had a very limited and modest beginning with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, followed by the constitution of the European Economic Community in 1958 consisting of Belgium, France, west Germany, Italy, luxembourg and the Netherlands.
It is significant that these very nations and those that joined later to form various European communities had historically been at war for a long period of time. These nations and the promise of common benefits for all members evolved over the past few decades to culminate in the EU with the Maastricht Treaty, which came into being in 1993.
Far more than the economic and trade potential of the EU, it is the political significance that holds as a union of 28 nations, among which 22 nations belong to the Schengen area involving the abolition of passport and border controls at common territorial limits. The EU and the bureaucracy which runs the affairs of the Union from Brussels, the European Commission, has been criticised widely for its bureaucratic practices and its heavy-footed approach. The regulations it has imposed on all its member states have led to growing resentment, which is one of the factors behind the move in Britain to exit the EU.
But the EU has also provided its members with substantial benefits in the nature of healthy growth rates of each nation’s economy, a spread of opportunities in some of the most disadvantaged member states and help during periods of difficulty. On global issues as well, the EU has been able to take positions in support of global goals, which any country in isolation would have found difficult on several occasions.
One example of this is the EU’s stand on climate change, wherein it has been able to forge a difficult consensus despite diverse views and interests as between a major user of coal like Poland and a votary of green energy options like Germany.
As of now it is difficult to say with assurance which way the Brexit vote will go. There are strong forces lined up on both sides of the divide. Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, who fought hard to get some powers back from the bureaucracy of Brussels, will want Britain to stay in the EU. He has the support of 16 members of his Cabinet, but some in his Cabinet are risking their own future by supporting the exit. The Conservatives as a party are maintaining neutrality, but the labour Party, the Scottish National Party and the liberal Democrats are all in favour of staying in. Others in favour of Britain staying in the EU are US President Barack Obama and the Governments of other EU nations.
Some of those opposed to staying in the EU include former Mayor of london Boris Johnson, who once wrote an entire op-ed article against me on the subject of meat production and consumption which I had spoken against as a source of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In that verbose article he stated, “No, Rajendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), I am not going to have one meat-free day per week. No, I am not going to become a gradual vegetarian. In fact, the whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response.”
Perhaps, those opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU see an assertion of individuality or extreme nationalism, even against the economic and political interest of their nation, much like eating more meat in response to the logic of eating less.
Quite apart from Britain’s dilemma of Brexit or otherwise, for the world at large, the continuation and expansion of the EU is a development which not only provides a model of accommodation and peaceful co-existence among warring enemies of yesteryear but also an experience worthy of replication elsewhere. Will it be too speculative to believe that, for instance, in South Asia, if an agreement was to be reached for an integrated power grid, and this functioned well, it could lead to a strong union embracing cooperation and agreement in a number of areasIJ Can this provide greater effectiveness to a grouping like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and usher in a period of meaningful economic cooperation and good neighbourlinessIJ Such a concept will perhaps have relevance to latin America as well with its wide diversity in economic progress and governance capabilities. What about the 54 nations of AfricaIJ
Given that global trade volumes are at a standstill today, will regional unions, bound by freer trade systems and agreements be a preferable optionIJ But for all of this to open up as distinct possibilities, the success of EU as a historical experiment of monumental importance will be an essential prerequisite.
This will imply that Tusk’s fears about the collapse of Western civilisation will really be better expressed as the collapse of a bridge leading to peace with similar unions in other regions and the collapse of Europe’s contribution to a new paradigm of regional cooperation and the creation strong zones of peace in different parts of the world.
(The writer is former chairman, TERI)