A socio-historical perspective of Brexit
It was inevitable that Brexit should occur
Brexit may have shocked but it should not have surprised. The phenomenon cannot be understood without a socio-historical context. Hence the focus here while, in a second article next month, Indo-UK economic ramifications will be provided.
If Delhi instructed how Bengalis should prepare the head of rohu for auspicious occasions or Tamilians were told off on their tayeersadam, it would be tantamount to what Brussels has been doing to the British, in particular, and to the Europeans, in general, over decades. A Cypriot closed down his hill-top family restaurant that fed multitudes of tourists and locals since he could not comply with the diktats of eurocrats with little knowledge of local modes, yet comfortable in designing and implementing guidelines across Europe. Even the Romans knew better than to consolidate social habits across their empire; they lived in their own style while allowing denizens to live the way they wished, however gross they might have appeared to the Romans. Indeed, English colonials went a step further and practised separation.
There is no doubt that the English have felt left out of decision-making in Brussels. Having ruled the world until not so long ago, the strain of occupying third place after Germany and France in almost all matters and decisions was apparent. Deepak Lal’s emotionfilled article in Business Standard dated 27 June 2016, provided grist to this argument. Indeed, the lack of fairness descends even to ordinary life, for example, in the unfair ordering earned by Britain in the annual euro song contest in which Britain routinely ends up last or second last. Such low positioning seems unfair, having watched it for decades whenever chancing upon it, albeit more for its innovative stage sets and attire than for its musicality.
Intra-UK, it was not surprising that Scotland voted to stay in the EU —the opposite of England. England and Scotland merged only three centuries back (1707), before which there was constant war mainly reflecting differences between Catholicism and the newly established Church of England, epitomised by the 16th century hanging of Mary Queen of Scots by her cousin Elizabeth I, Queen of England, in 1587. One could arguably attribute the deep differences to Hadrian, the warriorphilosopher Roman emperor who, almost two millennia earlier, circa 122 AD, constructed Hadrian’s Wall across the narrowest stretch of Britain, thereby successfully keeping the barbarians – apologetically the Scots – out to jostle in the cold North. The English soon were happy enough to don togas and take in the salts in the natural baths of Bath and other habitats in this farthest western Roman colony (D Danziger and N Purcell, Hadrian’s Empire, Hodder, London, 2006).
Almost the majority of Scots – perhaps not the majority – see themselves as Scottish first. And, by their Brexit vote, they revealed that they view themselves as Europeans second and, as British in isolation,
PARTHASARATHI SHOME
third. This contrasts with the urbane Londoner where Scots are part and parcel of Canary Wharf, the financial district what with, even historically, it was the Scots – since their merger with the English – who led with financial sector innovation, growth and reform. Tellingly perhaps, the Large Business Service office for the banking sector of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is located in Edinburgh. That is only one area in which the Scots have led or contributed, others being science and technology, horticulture and pisciculture from Aberdeen and Dundee towards the south, leave alone the more recent contribution of the North Atlantic oil industry based entirely off the coast of Scotland, or their prominent appearance in top politics, the most recent examples being Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, prime minister and chancellor (finance minister), respectively, of the last Labour government. Thus, in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the thinking was different from London and led by confidence. Indeed, Scottish cities went along with their agrarian relatives in the Scottish plains, where barley for their famed whiskey abounds, while voting in English hills and dales contrasted starkly with English large cities.
Yet, given that the outcome of the Brexit referendum is bound to have implications, its process begs commentary. There is no point in blaming the departed prime minister; indeed he deserves accolades for exiting with head held high though he could be perceived as responsible for calling the bluff on Brexit and being landed with a bitter pill to swallow. More inexplicable is that such a decision was based on a simple majority among only those who voted – 70 per cent – so that actually less than 37 per cent of the entire population voted demonstrably in favour of Brexit and yet the UK has to leave Europe.
Further incomprehensible is that such an irreversible step occurred with Parliament playing no tatonnement role. It was just one-shot voting by the populace reminiscent of democracy in ancient Greece though, even there, voting rights were truncated through criteria. It thus remains incredulous to outsiders how Great Britain could have committed such a blunder. Could it have been the relative youth of the outgoing dispensation, pointing unmistakably to the value of experience, though this is not to say that leaders should only go out horizontally as occurs routinely in, let us say, the eastern democracies?
Finally, one should provide reason as to why Brexit could be a blunder for, after all, a 15-per cent currency depreciation should provide Britain space to catch up on exports, thereby raising GDP and correcting its trade imbalance with many economies including India. I shall provide economic reasons why Britain is theoretically in an ideal position to make up for lost time and catch up with emerging economies. However, having banished European workers from its shores and deflecting Asian professionals from joining the work force after receiving British degrees, the question to ask is if they themselves are now ready to get up, tighten their belts, and go to work. As I argued in this newspaper dated 17 May, 2016, under the prevailing system of subsidies that protect unwilling and non-workers, Brexit is likely to remain at best a Pyrrhic victory.