By Benjamin Long
Long, an Englishman, is living and studying in New York City.
Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front party, Donald Trump.
Is that a list you want to be on? I don’t, and that’s among the reasons I do not support Great Britain’s exit from the European Union — which all of them do.
On June 23, Britain will hold a referendum on whether to stay in the European Union or leave it, fulfilling a promise that Prime Minister David Cameron made during his election campaign last year that the British public would “to have their say.” Polls have been close (a poll of polls published by The Financial Times on May 24 found 46% in favor of staying and 40% for leaving).
Putin, in particular, has much to gain from a British exit (which colloquially has come to be called Brexit). His dislike of the European Union and its influence is well-known, as is his goal ending German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s influence as “Queen of Europe.” With Britain out of the picture, the Kremlin is of the opinion that other countries would follow suit and Europe would become more destabilized.
President Barack Obama, on his most recent visit to England, supported Cameron’s view that Britain should remain in the EU. If Britain were to leave, Obama said, it would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the United States. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, went even further, stating that the consequences of Britain leaving Europe ranged from “pretty bad to very, very bad.” Donald Trump, predictably, disagreed.
So, what are the contested areas? Though politicians have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of trade deals and changes in legal systems, the general British public seems to be concerned only with a few particular matters.
And none more so than immigration.
I grew up in the small town of Boston, on England’s East Coast, where immigration has been growing and has been a divisive issue. Yet without immigration and the labor force it enables, the economies of Boston, the surrounding county of Lincolnshire and indeed most of Britain would be much weaker.
Although some locals may fear immigrants, without these workers Boston would be on its knees. More broadly, British residents seem to value the EU belief in “free movement” between countries, yet want tighter regulations at home.
Yes, immigration can raise complex issues, from cultural and language differences to security concerns. And surely some people are treading a fine line between making a prudent choice and a bigoted one.
Closely linked with immigration is the issue of job security. Those campaigning for Brexit believe it would lead to a significant boom in jobs. With Britain’s ties to EU regulations cut, they say, trade should increase and so should job opportunities. The opposing view is that large manufacturers would find Britain a less-appealing place to bring their business, opting for lower-cost EU countries instead.
Indeed, this is prevalent in the car industry, where entire towns rely on businesses coming their way, setting up shop and building assembly lines to soak up the unemployment. If Britain were unable to attract big names to its shores, it would regress as the industrial nation it once was. Also, if Britain were to leave the EU, British workers seeking employment in Europe would most likely have to apply for work permits. Such a process would no doubt apply to those coming from outside the nation looking for jobs in Britain as well, making employment harder to find for both parties.
And if Britain withdraws from the EU, its major trading partner, what rules will the EU put in place concerning Britain and its trade? Perhaps not relaxed ones, but rules that make trading harder.
Whether Britain is an EU. member or not, it will remain a nuclear power and an integral part of both Nato and the United Nations Security Council, where it holds a permanent seat. When and how it deploys its forces would be a matter for the British government and Nato. Other global matters such as the environment and security would be addressed with little input from Britain, as a result of the lack of clout the country would have in both Washington and Brussels.
And Britain would, of course, retain the pound as its currency; even as an EU member it has not participated in the euro. Leaving the EU would loosen the bonds Britain feels and frets over of a weakening euro, as well as the continuing debate over the stronger northern European economies underwriting the weaker southern ones.
Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the U.S., Russia, China, India, Japan and the European Union are likely to be the world’s dominant powers for decades to come. These countries are world superpowers because of their vast size and resources. European countries can’t boast such numbers individually, but as a collective unit they’re much stronger. Where Britain will stand alone is not clear.
How the importance of these issues and their complexity will weigh on British voters – and even whether they will lure votes to the polls – is uncertain. My fear is that the general public will see immigration as not the chief issue, but the only issue. And thus many may focus less on the many consequences of the UK leaving the EU.