Is Brexit a Historical Inevitability?

2020/05/22

There is a view that interprets the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) in the context of anti-globalism. There is also a noticeable tone equating Prime Minister Johnson with President Trump. Below, I would like to consider this issue from a different perspective.

Currently, the COVID-19 situation is becoming serious in both the UK and the EU, and with Prime Minister Johnson falling ill, the situation remains unpredictable; however, the choice of the British people is unlikely to change. In fact, the main opposition Labour Party, which presented the possibility of "Remain" through a second referendum, suffered a crushing defeat in last year's general election.

The 2016 referendum that decided on Brexit was held by Conservative Prime Minister Cameron, who advocated for "Remain," but the decision to leave was made by a narrow margin of 52% to 48%. Conversely, after Conservative Prime Minister Heath decided to join the EU's predecessor, the "European Community (EC)," in 1972, the Labour Party—which held many opponents claiming a crisis of national sovereignty—regained power. Prime Minister Wilson then held a referendum in 1975, where "Remain" was decided by a large margin of 67% to 33%.

Between the two referendums, the majority opinion of the British people shifted significantly from "Remain" to "Leave." What exactly happened during these 41 years? I would like to point out two factors.

The first is the end of the Cold War, which began with the fall of the "Berlin Wall" (1989). The starting point of the EU was the "European Coal and Steel Community" (1952), which aimed for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. European countries, centered on Germany and France, served as a bulwark for communism and a bastion of liberal democracy in both military and economic terms, with the threat of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the background, while receiving US support through the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The UK, unable to fully discard the pride of the British Empire ("Splendid Isolation"), joined the EC late. This was likely not only for the economic benefits of a unified market but also with the intention of becoming a leader of liberal democracy and a market economy between the two superpowers of the US and the Soviet Union. However, in 1991, the socialist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed one after another. From that moment, the historical role of the EC/EU as a bastion of freedom alongside the US and Japan was also lost.

The second factor is "globalization," which began in the 1980s. The member states that expanded and developed into the EC and EU concluded the first Schengen Agreement (1985), realizing the free movement of people, goods, and money without borders, and through difficult diplomatic negotiations, realized the unified currency "Euro" (1999). European countries became a giant economic zone boasting a nominal GDP of 20 trillion dollars (approximately 25% of world GDP), competing with the US, Japan, Korea, and China, and became the driving force of globalization.

However, there was another problem with the globalization of the EU. The EU itself is a single giant customs union, and while it pursues the ideal of globalization through borderless free trade within the EU region, it is a highly exclusionary system of protection and regulation externally. Member states are not allowed to pursue their own national interests by concluding Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries outside the region, and if they participate in the Euro, they cannot take independent macroeconomic policies using exchange rates or long-term interest rates as indicators. Financial crises in places like Greece become linked to the economic crisis of Europe as a whole.

The UK did not join the Schengen Agreement or the Euro until the end, but the fundamental reason was that they significantly restricted the national sovereignty of the UK. The restriction of sovereignty is not limited to economic policy. EU law takes precedence over all domestic laws of member states. There is no doubt that the issue of accepting Syrian refugees, which increased sharply after 2015, influenced the argument for Brexit, but it is a mistake to directly link the argument for Brexit with xenophobia or narrow-minded nationalism.

Brexit does not mean a withdrawal from Europe, but rather that the UK has liberated itself from the strict restrictions on national sovereignty imposed by the EU on its member states, and has bet on the possibility of establishing open and equal free trade relations with all nations of the world. It is a revival of classical free tradeism, where all nation-states create a free trade system open to each other as basic units of free trade.

The EU, which led the globalization of the world during the Cold War, has finished its historical role due to further progress. The UK's obsession with sovereignty is not a regression to "Splendid Isolation." No matter how open a free market is, the fact that national interests and sovereignty ultimately prevail was proven by the fact that EU countries immediately decided to close their borders during the coronavirus issue. The Schengen Agreement was defeated by the virus.

Globalization, along with the IT revolution, is a destiny for humanity comparable to the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Narrow-minded nationalism that denies this is out of the question. As a framework for guaranteeing the peace and order of human society, the sovereign state system remains the only possible option. Regarding UK sovereignty, it is not simple due to the conflict with the Scottish Government, which advocates for remaining in the EU, but the UK's choice to return to the origins of the sovereign state and seek as much compatibility as possible with globalization is not someone else's problem.