BREXIT, a lesson the world should learn

“BREXIT” a lesson that world should learn.

The verdict of the people of United Kingdom to exit the 43 years long membership of European Union sent a shock waves across Europe and even across the world.  The Government of David Cameron was taken by surprise.  He resigned from his post of Prime Ministership. The majority of the parliamentarians of United Kingdom were disappointed by the verdict.  Jeremy Corbin, leader of the Labour Party faced criticism and the MPs of the Labour Party expressed their lack of confidence in the leadership of Jeremy Corby.

 It is clear that the members of the British parliament were not in tune with the life struggle of the majority of the people.  It has been stated that the majority of the people who voted in favour of exit were middle class, working and rural population.  Some argued that the people who voted in favour of exit did not understand the wider issues and benefits of the EU.  This is a false argument.  At best this argument shows no respect for the wishes and votes of the people.  These are the very people who elect their representatives to the British parliament.   Whatever dreams that EU had presented to the people did not reflect the aspiration of the majority of the people of United Kingdom.  They did not befit from EU.  For sizable population of UK EU did not mean a thing.

The conservative Government of David Cameron did not show much commitment to social welfare character of the state.  Their commitment to neo liberal policies was far too strong.  This approach of the conservative government was well suited to the policies of the EU.  These policies have given rise to the hardships of the common people.  The common people found it difficult to live under increasing unemployment, inequality and poverty.   The conservative government had diminished the Welfare State, especially in the National Health Service.

“A documentary on BBC Panorama about people who voted to leave and their reasons cite that
Unemployment, poverty and inequality were the main reasons because of which the people voted to leave. Immigration was another important and common reason for the people to vote to leave. They argue, the volume of immigration into Britain is too much which puts a strain on public services like health and education. Children aren't getting admissions to schools and people are not getting appointments with doctors. Immigrants also tend to work for lesser pay hence undercutting British workers. British people aren't being given priority for housing/housing benefits compared to immigrants.

Some said they wanted "their community/country back". Again this has some connection with immigration. As the volume of immigrants is high, the concept of society seems to have vanished.

Some businesses have also expressed concern with the amount of red tape that exists if they want to be part of the common market. They hope that leaving EU will mean getting back some control of Britain for the common British people.”

According to some report UK had benefitted a lot after joining EU.  Its GDP has increased by 10%.  UK was on par with Germany and US in the rising GDP.  In return it had to spend very little amount for the cost to be part of EU.  If this is true then the only people who benefitted from being part of EU are the corporate houses, big business and upper class.  The benefits of the EU membership did not go down to the salaried and rural masses. 

Way back in 1980ies many common people in different parts of rural Europe were suffering under the neo liberal policies of EU. In 1983 I had gone to Holland.  During this visit we had an opportunity of attending several meetings of the collectives of farmers in northern part of Holland.  I was surprised to hear them complaining against EU.  They said they were badly affected by EU and the process of restructuring their economy, commonly known as structural adjustment.

If any of the member country of EU faced financial crisis and need to borrow form IMF or European Central bank the loans came with very stringent conditions called “Free Market Reforms”. These conditions included cut in the government spending on social welfare programmes, especially retirement pension and health insurance; cut in household spending; labour reforms, wage cuts and reduction in the rights of the workers; privatization of public assets.

The manner in which nations after nations carry out labour reforms to maximize profit, invite foreign investments indicates that neither the labour nor the labourers receive any consideration.  Capital will not exist without labour.  Labour and capital are two inseparable parts of capitalism as a social and economic system.

Brexit is a strong comment on globalization.  It proves what David M Smick had written some time ago, “Today the future of globalization is politically unpredictable, fundamentally because the base of financial capital ownership is so small.  Meanwhile, the wealth gap is widening.  As a result, globalization’s political base of support remains tenuous at best.  Here is one astonishing statistic that makes the point: Today 40% of Americans do not have adequate liquid saving to live at the poverty level for three months, according to New York University’s Edward N. Wolf.  For a family of four, living at that level for that amount of time would require $ 5,300 in saving.” (David M. Smick, The World is Curved)

European Parliament and the People:

When people are ruled by the national government directly elected by them this government is accountable to the people.  The people can throw away the government whose policies go against the wishes and welfare of the people in the following election.

When it comes to the apex government like European Parliament which involves many other countries this government does not look at the aspiration and problems of the people of an individual country.  EU and the people of a member countries are placed at a great distance.  EU parliament is not directly answerable or accountable to the people.  The decisions made by EU may not immediately reflect the wishes and desires of the people.  Nor do the protests and opposition by the people to the decision made by EU have any impact on the European Parliament.

However, the laws made by the EU parliament will directly affect the people of the member countries.   These people will not be able to oppose or even question EU parliament as it is remotely placed.   Remote the government is from the people there are more chances that this government will make policies that will be beneficial the ruling classes.  This government will be guided by the macro level issues which often represent the interests of the big business and corporate houses of these states.  The hardship of the people will not be in the consideration of such government.  The European Parliament may work for the health of the economy.  But the health of the economy is measured by the health of the owners of capital.  The social welfare, employment, health care, pension will not constitute indicators to measure the health of EU.

In this sense EU does not stand for the general interests of the people of the member countries.  EU is almost like an association of corporate houses and big businesses that imposes its will on the people of member countries.  In many cases the sovereignty of the member countries will be compromised by the ruling of the EU Parliament.  To give an example, the World Trade Organization’s rules will not allow the member countries’ laws to function.  The patent laws made by the sovereign nation will be not be acceptable if these go against the laws of WTO.   The member country will have to amend its laws to suite the laws made by the WTO.  In similar manner the member countries laws and policies will have to be suitably amended to make them qualify ‘to be members of EU.

In case of Greece it had become evident how the EU overruled the vote of the people of Greece.  61% of the people of Greece had voted against austerity measures imposed on the country by EU.

With all the so called cooperation between the member countries of EU they could not prevent or even predict economic crisis on 2007 – 2008.  EU was part and parcel of the causes for the crisis of 2007 – 08.  These crises affected most the advanced countries like US, the members of EU.  The big business, corporate houses and financial institution can be bailed out by the states.  But the common people continue to suffer from these crises even today.

EU is no redeemer of weaker members.  It gives its members access to the common market.  There is a freedom of movement of labour.  But it does not reach out its hand to save the drowning members.  At worst the drowning members are made to drown more.  If any member nation does not abide by the policies of EU this nation is brought on the board and chastised resulting in hardship for the citizens.

If the common people from a strong member of EU, like UK, experienced hardship and voted themselves out of EU then what would be case of smaller economies?

Many have expressed that Brexit is a disastrous development.  If one would agree with these sentiments, then he/she should examine why EU has not helped the common people to improve their lives.  After UK voted to come out there was anger among the EU parliamentarians.  Some of the members of the EU Parliament, particularly from France demanded that UK should quickly complete the exit procedure.  It was evident that some members had no respect for the will of the people of UK.  Greece was unable to extricate itself from the octopus like EU and had to succumb to its pressure.

Let me quote here what I had written in the Indian Currents 27 July – 02 August 2015.

Socialist approach to the International Relations -- CMEA:

There was an institution in place among the socialist countries (socialist block). The name of this institution was “CONFERENCE FOR MUTUAL ECONOMIC AID”.

Under SOVIET UNION the option of a socialist world market was developed which should function as an alternative to the capitalist world market, providing new and better rules for international relations, banning exploitation and uneven development. The socialist world market was primarily a network of bilateral relations based on barter.

CMEA emphasized on rapid industrialization, which would provide in each of the CMEA member countries a complete industrial base with the same priority industries being developed at a faster rate in each of them.  This autarkic development policy was made possible by Soviet deliveries of energy and raw material.  The Soviet Union, GDR and Czechoslovakian provided the less developed CMEA countries with machinery. (Hans van Zon, Crisis in the Socialist International Economy)  Even India has benefitted from the Soviet Union investment in public sector industries.  USSR offered this without repatriating any proceeds from these industries by way of profits.

EU is far from such a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid.  The future of EU lies in learning lessons from CMEA.