The world watched stunned last Thursday night, and into the wee hours of Friday morning, as the results of the United Kingdom Referendum, on whether or not to leave the European Union (EU), were broadcast on various television stations. News reporters found it hard to disguise their disbelief and, in some cases, their emotions as they updated the public on the tally of the results. It was clear from early on in the count that the prospect of the United Kingdom (UK) remaining in the EU was under threat. Eventually, the result was clear: by a slim majority the citizens of the UK chose to leave the EU thereby turning the world into a tailspin. To put the icing on the cake, within hours of the inevitable result, Prime Minister Cameron announced his resignation.
What would propel people to choose this option after forty three years of membership in the EU? Many claim that they wanted to “make the UK great again”. They felt that the free movement of people, goods and services was not in the best interest of the UK’s economy and that non-nationals were a drain on the UK’s resources. Many of the arguments advanced for leaving the EU sound strikingly similar to the rantings of US Presidential candidate Donald Trump. It was therefore not surprising when Trump indicated his support for the leave vote after the announcement of the final results. If the rationale for the vote to leave the EU resembles in any way the Trump philosophy, then we have reason to be alarmed. It would mean that more than half of the UK population, and the millions of Trump supporters in the United States, are plagued with the vice of xenophobia – meaning that they are intolerant of, or hate, persons whose race, religion, gender or nationality is different to theirs. Typically, this leads to negative stereotyping or profiling of persons based on these characteristics. Whether this xenophobic mindset is the result of ingrained prejudice or skillful fear-mongering by revered political, business, religious other community leaders, we may never know, but we do know that it can be powerful enough to lead people to undo forty three years of effort that their forebears put into making the EU viable.
Can socio-economic unions like the EU, CARICOM and the OECS really work? I am skeptical, not because I do not believe in their noble ideals, but because of political ambitions and egos – and the re-emergence of nationalism over collaboration and, in some cases, over compassion. To draw a reference from the past, the West Indies Federation of 1958 collapsed after several of its main players – starting with Jamaica –withdrew. Thereupon, the then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr Eric Williams, declared: “one from ten leaves nought”. I take this to mean that the Federation could only have worked if all countries were on board. Sadly, this was not the case and the Federation grew weaker as member states exited. The same fear holds true for the EU. The UK’s exit from this union weakens the EU and has the potential to propel other countries to do the same.
When one considers that the EU has been a model union that others aspire to, it makes us wonder whether our regional institutions will meet the same fate. We must admit that our biggest barriers to building strong regional institutions are political posturing and a deep sense of nationalism. We are not yet prepared to let go of national identity to adopt a regional one. Somehow, we believe, and we may be right, that if we fully integrate into regional unions we will lose what makes us unique – and what we believe we are entitled to by being born in our respective countries. Even with limited resources, we prefer to “suck salt” on our own than to pool our resources. We therefore have a littered history of failed institutions. In Anguilla, we have the unfortunate experience of an unhappy, forced, union which resulted in our under-development. Hence our trepidation will be based on our past experience. However, given the size and resources of the Caribbean, there is a convincing argument that we can achieve more collectively. But, we have to put great effort into making our institutions work. Should we be discouraged by the UK decision? Certainly not! It has, however, provided the textbook example of what we ought to guard against.
We have yet to examine the repercussions of the UK’s decision on Anguilla, and the other Overseas Territories, but that will be the subject of another editorial in the coming months. In the meantime, we ought to use this opportunity to reassess our position in our own region.
