Backgrounder: Britain’s global role
Will Britain carve out a new role as a global leader once it exits the EU? Or has it rendered itself isolated and vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world? Two experts offer their opinions
Itis interesting how in major debates or elections history gets dragged in. The talk of ‘making America great again’ or of ‘Christian Europe’ appeals both to a sense that something has gone wrong with our own societies and a hankering for a simpler world supposed to exist back in the past. That nostalgia is sentimental, frequently unrealistic, and usually based on bad or at least imperfect history and delusions about the present.
During the EU referendum, as a Canadian I listened with incredulity to talk in some pro-Brexit circles about Britain soaring into a position of global leadership once it had cast loose the shackles of EU membership. Or that the old empire, especially Australia, Canada and New Zealand – the Anglosphere – was waiting for British leadership again. In Canada we call that ‘Dreaming in Technicolor’.
In the continuing Brexit debate there are also appeals to a glorious past which see the British Isles floating serenely in a calm sea, safely detached from the troubled, dark continent to their east. That version conveniently omits wars between England, Scotland and Wales, and persistent unrest in Ireland over the centuries. It glosses over the many times when Britain felt threatened by a great power rising on the continent, from Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries and France in the 18th and early 19th, to Germany more recently, and Russia. And for centuries people, goods, ways of thinking, even fashions have flowed back and forth across the Channel – which we should remember has been as much a highway between Britain and what I would call the rest of Europe as it has been a barrier.
Of course there are ways in which the United Kingdom’s history is different from that of continental Europe – but does that mean it was detached from the European mainstream? Surely not when it came to trade, the spread and exchange of science and technology, or the movement of ideas.
Every European nation has unique features. Britain’s include its form of constitutional government and respect for law and property. And while empire played a large part in the history and character of the UK, you can say the same about the Netherlands, France, Portugal or Spain. It is absurd to claim that those countries didn’t look outwards, across the oceans, as well. As for the relationship with the United States being a special factor shaping British policy, all I can say is that it means a lot more to Britain than it does to the US.
In the Canada I knew as a child more than half a century ago, it is true that we – at least those of us who were English-speaking – did look to London as our metropolis and took pride in our British heritage. But that was then and the world has moved on. You didn’t give us a second thought when you joined what became the EU – and we have long since learned to look out for ourselves. Canada’s most important trading relationship by far is with the US but we are also working to expand trade with Asia. Our immigrants no longer come predominantly from Britain and the rest of Europe but from all over the world. Some in Britain may still be nostalgic for the good old days of the empire. We certainly are not.
As a Canadian, I listened with incredulity to talk of the old empire – especially Australia, Canada and New Zealand – waiting for British leadership again MARGARET MACMILLAN
Since the public voted to leave the European Union, many have argued for a positive vision of a renewed ‘global Britain’ – looking beyond Europe, focusing on the wider world, and dedicated to economic competitiveness. It would be an innovative and inventive country, a hub for global investment, integrated into the international system but also able to make its own decisions.
As a vision of the type of nation Britain might wish to become, it sounds seductive. Over the coming generation, this vision might even be realised. But to a considerable extent the aspiration of a ‘global Britain’ is rhetorical, implying that the EU is an increasingly redundant institution, which retards innovation and is ill-equipped to deal with the contemporary world. The concept also reassures those who might have voted Remain that the UK will remain open to business and migration post-Brexit.
There are cynical calculations underpinning this language. Even so, there is no question that, after centuries of being a leading global power, Britain’s instincts in foreign policy remain highly internationalist. The public consensus that Britain should remain internationally engaged has deep historical roots. It is essentially the default setting for British politics and society.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain was the architect of a world-system of free trade, generally accepted norms of behaviour, and liberal institutions. This was intended primarily to enrich Britain itself, but it also served as a basis for stability and represents the legal and political foundation upon which the contemporary, American-shaped, international order is based. It enabled Britain to corner markets across the world through both formal and informal imperialism. From banking to railways, telegraphs to textiles, metals to industry, successive British governments recognised the value of taking a global perspective.
Britain remains a hub of the global financial system. It retains high-value economic specialisms. It is one of the richest countries on Earth, with considerable cultural appeal. For all that, there is no doubt that we are entering a more dangerous world: the declining American interest in international affairs has coincided with the rise of new powers such as China and the blustering of old powers such as Russia. It would be a break with centuries of British history for the country not to be at the fore of addressing these challenges. It also seems probable that Britain will retain its traditional focus on its alliance with America; the volatility of Donald Trump is unlikely to alter the foreign policy preferences of Whitehall.
In 1962, Dean Acheson, the American secretary of state, declared that “Great Britain has lost an empire, and has not yet found a role”. This barb was painful at the time, but I am not sure that it still is. In 2016 the country voted to reclaim its political sovereignty while retaining its traditional focus on the wider world. Britain may have agonised over the EU, but plainly remains committed to playing a major international role. Acheson’s jibe has, perhaps, finally lost its force.
Britain remains a hub of the global financial system. It retains high-value economic specialisms. It is one of the richest countries on Earth ROBERT CROWCROFT