As a Canadian, I am loathe to make any comment about the
affairs of a foreign country, even if that country’s head of state and mine are
one in the same.
The fact is, though, the current campaign regarding whether
or not Britain should – or should not – remain in the European Union has
already had such influence insinuated into it. There are those in EU member
states who have declared their opinion as to what Britons should do, and what
they may do if the answer is not to their liking.
More importantly, those in the Remain camp declare that “the
Commonwealth wants us to stay.” As a citizen of a Commonwealth nation, I do not
recall being asked my opinion on this matter. On the other hand, if people in
the UK have declared that the feelings and sentiments of Commonwealth kith and
kin are valid, then I no longer feel that I have any particular prohibition on stating
my views.
In 2006, I travelled to the UK and met with several people
in relation to my book “The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade.” I received a
very polite and sincere welcome, but also a warning. I was told that while the
idea sounded splendid, and that Canada, Australia and New Zealand should
certainly avail themselves of the opportunity, the EU meant that Britain could
only stand at the sidelines and give its well wishes. There was a sense at the
time that the move toward an ‘ever closer union’ was inevitable and that little
could be done to halt the inexorable march of time.
Two years later, while my wife and I sat in a hotel room in
the Caribbean, we tuned into CNN and the unfolding economic crisis – the precipitous
crashing of stock indices and the impromptu gathering of bankers and
politicians to show solidarity. Just like the proverbial receding tide at a
nudist beach, much came to be revealed. For eight years, we have been treated
to terms like ‘stimulus’, ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘liquidity’ on an all too
regular basis. That may have been the obvious result, but something else
happened.
Theories and plans that had been treated like articles of
faith began to be questioned. Like Sir Karl Popper’s theory of falsification,
people began to discover limitations to assumptions, where things began to
break down. That included the ‘European project.’
To this interested observer, the origins of ‘Brexit’ trace
back to the very beginning of the UK’s membership in the Common Market back in
the early 1970’s.
It was based on two assumptions and a bit of a finesse.
The two assumptions were that:
- Europe was in economic ascendency while the Commonwealth was in decline; and,
- Economic unity in Europe was necessary to ensure political solidarity against the threat of Communism
The finesse was not necessarily to deny that the planned end-game
of the EEC was a ‘United States of Europe’, but to suggest that Britain could
sign up for the economic access without taking on the political project.
Four decades later, the reality is as follows:
- The European Union’s long term growth prospects are moribund while Commonwealth nations are among the star economic performers; and,
- The end of Communism eliminated the ideological threat, and what military threat may or may not remain falls within the purview of NATO – not the EU
The finesse, as well, has shown itself to be ineffective.
Skeptical minds might question how Britain is not part of a nation-building
project when it must submit its national laws to a European Court, adopt laws
passed by a European Parliament, and elect legislators to said Parliament.
Suggestions that Britain is not heading toward inclusion as a province or state
of a larger federation is reminiscent of the Black Knight in ‘Monty Python and
the Holy Grail’ who, after having had his arms and legs lopped off, dismisses
the injuries as ‘but a scratch’ and insists that he’s still up for a fight.
You can say that you belong to a trade agreement, but that
trade agreement has a flag, an anthem, a Parliament, a President, a currency, courts
and a body of laws. If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then
one can only be drawn to a particular conclusion.
Free trade agreements exist around the world and in
different guises. In the past decade, Canada has signed more free trade
agreements than I can count on my fingers. That, incidentally, includes the
recently negotiated agreement with the EU. In none of these instances were we
told that we would no longer have a Prime Minister, or that we should stop
singing ‘O Canada’, or that Her Majesty would no longer appear on the front of
our 20 dollar banknotes.
Understand that Canada kept her sovereignty and political
independence when concluding the Canada-US agreement in 1988. Also bear in mind
that it was an agreement between a nation with half the UK population versus a
nation with ten times our population, who had amassed more economic and
political power than any other country or empire in the annals of human
history. Yes, 35 million Canadians managed to secure free trade access to the
world’s only superpower without having to change our flag or sing a different
song at sporting events. There is no NAFTA flag, no NAFTA Parliament full of
NAFTA MP’s – never has been and never will.
The experience of jurisdictions in North America and around
the world is that you can do trade without a political merger. The EU does
trade deals with non-member states all the time, so a post-Brexit UK should not
be any different.
And that is the central question – one of politics, not
economics.
To this outside observer, leaving means you don’t want
Britain to become a like a Canadian province or an American state to a larger
federation. Remaining means you are supportive of Britain becoming the jurisdictional
equivalent of Ontario or Alberta, Ohio or Massachusetts.
What this outside observer cannot tell you is what you
should do. That is fundamentally a decision for the British people. If you
believe that the world has evolved in such a way that the future of your
society is better served under a different construct that is a decision that you
can make. If you feel that the future of Britain – economically and politically
– is better served by maintaining political independence, then you have your
choice as well.
Canadians and Britons have gone through much over the
decades and generations, and the result of this vote will not alter that. It is
your choice, and those of us beyond your border wish you luck in this
monumental decision.
