Rushing to the aid of beleaguered Cameron
statement issued last week seemed to think the heavens will fall on Sri Lanka if Britain pulls out. Harsha de Silva rolled out statistics to show that the Sri Lankan economy was not doing too badly after all but Sri Lanka would like to see more of our goods going to the EU. An export push would do a whole lot better. But UK quitting would prove a spanner in the works.
Ranil Wickremesinghe’s gloomy forecast in terms of the world economy and Harsha de Silva’s factual approach might all be true and one can be grateful for the update though I would not put my last £5 on the IMF’s mantra that has brought trouble to economies from Indonesia through Africa to Latin America.
Anyway none of this seemed relevant, not even the economic toll for Sri Lanka should Britain pull out. Those who come to London to sell their story and those who send them do not live in the UK. They do not have to undergo the hardships that the British people face with regard to schools for their children, medical care for themselves and their families, housing and raft of facilities that they feel are under severe strain and further threat because of EU regulations and increasing immigration from EU countries.
It is these people who have to decide what is best for them and the future generations. It is easy for those outside the country who do not have to suffer the consequences of laws and regulations proposed by un-elected EU bureaucrats in Brussels, to tell those who live here that UK should remain in the EU.
But ultimately the people of Sri Lankan origin will decide what is best for them and their families when they cast their votes on Thursday. However long the umbilical cord that ties them to Sri Lanka, however much it is pulled from Colombo, the choice is stark. Either way there is a risk factor. But the choice will be made on their perception of what is best for them.
No amount of exhortations from outside or from flying emissaries is going to change that unless there is evidence to prove that stated dangers will affect them personally.
However much some Commonwealth leaders try to back the Cameron campaign Commonwealth citizens and business leaders that live here or have links have other ideas.
In a recent letter to Cameron, they say: "As patriotic Britons of Commonwealth backgrounds, we saw the EU renegotiation as an opportunity to rediscover Britain's global vocation.
"As long as Britain's trade policy is controlled by the EU, we cannot sign bilateral free trade agreements with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand or for that matter any other non-EU state.
"Vested interests on the Continent sustain a relatively protectionist policy. We have to apply the EU's common external tariff to exports from Commonwealth countries - hurting consumers here as well as producers there.
"At the same time, our immigration policy forces us, in effect, to turn away qualified workers from the Commonwealth so as to free up unlimited space for migrants from the EU.
"The descendants of the men who volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars must stand aside in favour of people with no connection to the United Kingdom."
When Sri Lanka sticks its oar into this internal affair calling for UK to remain in the EU, it is forgetting an important issue - the effect on qualified workers from Commonwealth countries.
In short by promoting UK’s continued presence in the EU qualified Sri Lankans are most often denied the opportunity to better themselves. Is that what the yahapalanaya government is promoting or has it forgotten their own people?
Those who cite the IMF might also pay some attention to the IMF’s comments on Sri Lanka. Speaking at the outreach session of the G7 summit President Sirisena claimed that Sri Lanka cannot undertake major development projects for lack of finances. He urged western countries as well as bilateral and multilateral organizations to invest in Sri Lanka.
But a day before the chosen three made their pitch the IMF warned that Sri Lanka’s economic outlook is facing risks from the government’s inaction on key policy issues and a significant deterioration of the external environment.
The IMF’s mission chief for Sri Lanka Todd Schneider is reported as saying that “in terms of macroeconomic policies there is a lack of clarity where things are going.”
Would it not be far more profitable for the country if the three-member team stayed back and sorted things out back home? After all some of them were elected to do that, weren’t they?