This is a really interesting article from GPF on the geopolitical dimension of Brexit. While I disagree with the conclusions (I believe that Brexit can be stopped), there is a helpful exploration and comparison of two distinct strategies for the UK: ‘Five Eyes’ vs ‘Balancing’.
The Balancing Strategy
Where the UK finds itself between the huge economic blocks that are the USA and the EU. The balancing strategy is about peripheral integration with Europe focused on trade, and Peripheral integration with the USA focused on security. The idea being to get as many advantages from each block, whilst minimising any drawbacks. Essentially, a compromise to have some cake and eat some cake.
While this balancing strategy worked after WW2, during the end of empire and through the cold war against the soviets, things seem to have come to a head. To use George Friedman’s words:
“…For Britain, the EU delivered a degree of prosperity at the loss of a degree of sovereignty…. This split Britain down the middle between those who had not experienced prosperity and resented the loss of any degree of sovereignty and those who had experienced prosperity and did not value sovereignty…”
The Five Eyes Strategy
This would be a natural evolution of the UK’s peripheral integration with the USA. Developing the relationships between the UK and its former colonies (the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada).
Again to use George Friedman’s words:
“…Britain’s military and intelligence relationships with its former settler colonies … were foundational to the American alliance system, with all five countries participating in the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing group and maintaining intimate military cooperation. Canada and Australia have significant trade agreements with the United States, and New Zealand is negotiating one…”
A comparison of strategies
Much as a strategy centred exclusively on the “five eyes” alliance is interesting, the practical reality is that we trade the most with those closest to us. It’s easier to sell something to a French person (same time zone, and a couple of hours door to door from London to Paris) than it is to an Australian (opposite side of the planet, and a day’s travel away).
Add to that, the USA seem to be having their own problems of late. With a resurgence of isolationism rather than internationalism, the USA are unlikely to allow the UK to trade on fair terms.
But we should also acknowledge that the balancing strategy hasn’t really been working to well recently either. We should not ignore the fact that some people have massively prospered from the UK’s membership of the European Union, while others have not.
To give a personal example, I lived and studied in Europe (I wrote my first thesis at the University of Lund in Sweden) and I believe it would be outrageous for the opportunities I experienced to be taken away from the generations after me. But then that’s hardly a compelling argument for someone who has no prospect of going to university, let alone studying abroad.
It is also worth noting that while the British empire is barely taught in UK schools, and we don’t like to admit it, a huge degree of the wealth enjoyed in the UK today is directly derived from industrialised slavery and the exploitation of others. During the empire, the system was skewed to exclusively favour white British men. While it’s very easy to say “we should go back to the empire days”, going back is simply not possible or desirable.
So what should be the strategy?
As usual, the answer is about balance. Developing relationships with the five eyes is sensible. As is improving our relationships with Europe.
To offer three specific points:
1 – Reform from inside the EU
While I believe Britain is stronger as a member of the EU, I do not claim the EU is perfect. It needs to be reformed and I believe that Britain is best placed to lead this reform.
Leaving the EU will cause economic pain, with little tangible benefits. Whereas utilising the UK’s “special relationship” with the USA and the other ‘Eyes’ offers an implicitly enhanced membership status of the EU.
2 – Honesty and Transparency
For too long have we allowed UK politicians to blame Europe when things go wrong and take the credit for EU successes.
Sometimes I hear people say they don’t like “EU laws being forced upon the UK”. Those people can never provide a single example of such a EU law, because the truth is that all UK Laws pass through the UK parliament. UK politicians need to take ownership of UK laws.
Transparency should be prioritised, with UK government resources spent telling UK citezens what is happening in Europe. Ultimately, a UK representatives voice is stronger in Europe, with the weight of the people behind them.
3 – Fairness in the UK
To focus inwards for a moment, internal divisions within UK can only be solved within the UK.
Those left out of European prosperity need to be given opportunities to thrive. People need a stake in the game, or they may well flip the board over and demand to play a new game.
Brexit was caused by dishonest politicians blaming the EU for inequality, rather than owning their own role in perpetuating the status quo.
We do not need a revolution but we do need to improve how we do politics. There are no simple answers, or quick fixes. Progress is, and will be, slow and hard.
However, the advantaged helping the disadvantaged is not a zero-sum game. Sharing opportunity does not bring down those already at the top – it helps us all to climb higher.