AMERICAN PERISCOPE. Brexit lessons

Several doomsday headlines have appeared in the recent past after the Brexit vote. They certainly make us ponder about the consequences of the British vote to exit the EU.

‘It’s the end of Europe’ cried one and ‘The crumbling of the First World’ said another. Is it presumptuous to think that one country exiting a 28-member group is going to bring them all down? Perhaps not, but it certainly poses a challenge to an idea of a united Europe.

The EU starting with six countries in 1951 and growing to 28 was itself a miracle. To think that countries that fought several bloody wars amongst themselves, and twice dragged the rest of the world into their problems could now talk and resolve their differences was the miracle. If you set aside a few like Switzerland and Norway who preferred to remain close and yet separate, there was always a waiting list of countries waiting to join.

The EU had also emerged as a beacon of hope for all the other regional groups in the world. Although very few have gone beyond trade agreements, the process of negotiation and referendums through which the EU came together showed the world that countries can come close without losing their identity.

The first case of exit by Britain is perhaps the start of a new trend within countries of the EU. Parties in France and the Netherlands have been raising the slogan and will now get even more shrill.

The vote also shows up the divisions that exist in all countries and the extent to which nations are prepared to tolerate a split. When Telugus cannot get along with each other and want to divide their State, is it fair to expect the British to stick with Europeans they don’t really like?

Another story headlined ‘The rise of nationalism’ argued that globalisation was over. Well, sort of. For many, globalisation was seen in purely economic terms, as the push of the MNCs and WTO lowering trade barriers and easing investment norms. The British did not have problems with this part of globalisation. It is immigration that got them worked up.

That part of globalisation argued that the world is one and let us share our troubles. Not many people want to hear that, preferring to hunker down. Even the newspapers that argue for lowering barriers and favouring trade agreements do not want anything to be done about climate change!

Certainly, a message that the EU needs to take away is that it should rule with a light hand. There is a point beyond which centralisation and harmonisation will only provoke an unsavoury reaction.

The other message that all politicians should think and reflect on is the need to bring down the political rhetoric by several notches. Trump seems the epitome of what can go wrong with free speech. Aspiring statesmen, in particular, need to know that there are self-imposed limits on rabble rousing.

Not a day goes by in India without a petty leader putting his foot in his mouth and there is no party leadership ready to teach them any better.

Let us not forget what happened to Joe Cox, the British MP, who was staunchly pro-EU and got shot by a man who is supposed to have hailed ‘Britain first’.

The writer teaches at the Jindal Global Business School, Delhi NCR, and at Suffolk University, Boston