Back in 1962, when Jamaica pulled out of the four-year-old, ten-member West Indian Federation (WIF) following a referendum, Prime Minister Eric Williams of Trinidad presciently quipped, “One from ten leaves nought”. He, of course, was in a critical position to transform his quip into reality. As the territory that would have to carry 75 per cent of the rump Federation’s budget, Trinidad’s withdrawal, which Williams engineered, did in fact lead to the complete collapse of the Federation.
But the year before the British had launched the WIF, six of the larger European countries had formed the European Economic Community (EEC) based on economic interests. Britain, Denmark and Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 which would accept other European countries in the following years that shared “common values” to become the European Union (EU).
The European demonstrator effect in forming an ever-enlarging unit to eventually encompass even the Eastern Europe Communist bloc was the inspiration to regional blocs across the globe, including our CARIFTA in 1968 and CARICOM in 1973. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty formalised the formation of the European Community to emphasise its goals to move beyond mere economic cooperation to a recognition of one “European People” that would be facilitated by the free movement of peoples across borders.
As a result of the latter policy, there were always deep reservations in Britain about the “union” as it was seen as diminishing their prized sovereignty and increasing migrants. Matters reached a boiling point as the number of Europeans moving into the UK exceeded three million by the beginning of the last decade. The sentiment against closer integration with the EU was there from the beginning within the Conservative Party and in fact was one of the reasons why the very successful PM Margaret Thatcher was removed as the head of her party and government in 1989.
Sentiments against “outsiders” had always been strong in the UK, going as far back to the supposedly “voluntary” coming together of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales under the rule of the dominant England. Over the centuries, these countries chafed at the bit, with the Catholic-majority Ireland violently gaining independence in 1992, leaving the rump Protestant-dominated Northern Ireland in the Union. The influx of West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis after WWII created the first wave of nativism from the 1960s onwards and as Eastern Europeans poured in after 1993, the move to exit the EU grew exponentially.
By 2016, the pro-EU Conservative PM David Cameron resigned after the referendum he proposed since 2013 on remaining in the EU was defeated. This was followed by two general elections and three Prime Ministers as the deeply-divided political elite of the Labour and Conservative Parties fought their internecine battles over what was now dubbed “Brexit”.
As the battle intensified, it became clear that the major issue that propelled the winning pro-Brexit voting bloc was to “get the foreigners out of Britain”. During the same period of this growing nativist movement, it should not be of any surprise to anyone that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted consistently to remain in the EU, since the dominance of the English was diluted in the larger bloc. The Scottish people also voted consistently to secede from the UK and now that as of December 31, 2020, Britain has finally completed its disjuncture from the EU, the Chief Minister of Scotland reiterated that their majority wishes to leave the Union must be respected.
While there are all sorts of lessons from Brexit, the one that is most pertinent to us in Guyana is that the “politics of identity” is now the dominant driver of politics even in the “developed” countries such as Britain and the US that have supposedly transcended this “tribal” phenomenon. Governments will have to focus on dealing with this reality rather than trying to prevent it and hoping it will disappear with “development”. It also raises the question of the viability of the Caribbean Community, patterned after the European Community.
