Understanding the Brexit vote

By Ambassador Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka

To understand the UK vote to exit the European Union (EU) after 41 years, the reader should recall a statement of President De Gaulle of France in 1967 when he vetoed Britain's first application to join the then European Community (EC).

De Gaulle justified his veto with a statement "That the British will never be Europeans and cannot wish Europe well unless it is on their terms". De Gaulle had reasons when he made that statement. This article will give a background to the UK politics which periodically, radically nationalistic and justifying De Gaulle's statement that Britain will never be European.

Brexit has sent shockwaves even to non-European countries. Sam Akaki in the New Vision of June 28 wrote at length on why Brexit is a rude wake up call to others. With highly jingoistic (chauvinistic) statements, Akaki concluded, "Instead of listening to British legitimate concerns, the EU leaders dismissed them.

What were the so-called legitimate British concerns? Brexit campaigners denounced the influx of migrants who included fellow Europeans such as the Poles. Brexit denounced the Bureaucrats in Brussels, for making 60% of their (UK's) rules and regulations. In other words, Brexit was claiming that the British no longer rule themselves. The degree of the alleged damage to the British economy because of the continued membership of the EU was drummed into the ears of the British nationalists and political populists.

British policy of jingoism and spending isolation

As a background to the Leave Vote, one must understand British history. Britain, like other nations is periodically seized with bouts of jingoism which is defined as extreme chauvinism or nationalism. Populist politicians will always find issues to appeal to the raw sentiments of the electorate. Britain of 2016 is in that situation. There is also another important aspect of British politics.

The enduring feeling that we are different, we do not need to be entangled in continental politics. During the latter part of the 19^th Century, such views gave rise to the policy of "splendid isolation. What I am saying is that anti Europeanism is not new because such tendencies of the so-called little Englandism, splendid isolation etc. meaning that Britain did not need Europe because it could hold out on its own. The best representative of such views was Viscount Goschem, who in 1896 said, "Our isolation is not an isolation of weakness or contempt. It is deliberately chosen, the freedom to act as one chooses in any circumstances that may arise.

World War II: 1939-1945

Such sentiments expressed by Viscount Goschem in the 19^th Century are still alive. The best contemporary example of what Viscount Goschem called the freedom to act as one chooses, was how Britain reacted to movements to unite Europe after the war. World War II was originally between Germany and Italy as the principals of the AXIS powers on the one hand and literally against the rest of Europe which was later joined by Russia and the US.

Britain and the British people gave the whole of their own after Hitler had overran France and one of their leaders, Charles De Gaulle had fled to exile as a resister. Britain under the leadership of Churchill (whose war songs of resistance we were taught and sang at Namilyango College because most of our teachers were British) was the indomitable leader of the allies, who defeated Germany.

The human and material sacrifices made by the British people were immense. Indeed, Britain was the leader of the allies, which included the US and Russia. If after leading a global coalition to defeat Hitler, why did Britain refuse to join the European Community, an organisation, whose objectives were to unite Europeans for peace and economic development? The answer to this question is in the following paragraphs.

British reaction to the formation of the European Union (EU)

The best contemporary example of a desire for splendid isolation to ensure what Viscount Goschem called "the freedom to act as one chooses, that is a political attitude of anti Europeanism, was how Britain reacted to the formation of the current European Union. After World War II, which had devastated Europe, leaving countless numbers including the British dead, a number of European Statesmen thought of means to bring the Europeans together. This aim was to neutralise nationalism and competition so as to avoid future wars, especially between France and Germany. The first step was the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECCSC) proposed by Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister. The long term vision of ECCSC was as articulated by Schuman in his own words, was "To make future wars among Europeans "not only unthinkable but also materially impossible". As the ECCSC grew, joined by Italy and West Germany, the Treaty of Rome to form the European Community (EC) was signed in 1957. Thus 1945-1957 was a period of forging unity among European powers by a series of treaties. For example, in 1963, President De Gaulle had signed The Elyse Treaty with West Germany, thereby forging the two nations as the strong leaders of the European Community. Britain's reactions were a clear sign that they did not like the EC and its vision.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

Having made such monumental human and material sacrifices to defeat Hitler, the obvious assumption was that Britain would be keen to join and reinforce the movements whose aim as Schuman said, "was to make future wars among Europeans unthinkable and materially un profitable". However, Britain refused to join. Instead it went on to spearhead the founding of EFTA, consisting of the small European nations as a counter balance to the EC.

They included Sweden, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Switzerland and even the little principality of Liechtenstein and later Iceland. In view of these developments, it is not an exaggeration to say that under the un official leadership of Britain, EFTA was founded as a big counter balance to what Britain had described as the politically driven European Community (EC).

The EFTA founders, especially Britain, believed that their organisation would prosper to rival the EC. But that was never to be because the economies of the EFTA members, especially Britain were in such bad shape, that Britain itself the champion of EFTA was in the 1960s described as the economic sick man of Europe. The European Community (EC) on the other hand had grown and was becoming a powerful economic and political force in the world. As a result of such economic and political growth, one member of EFTA after the other began to jump ship and applying to join the EC.

That included Britain because all the EFTA members had began to feel the impact of the growth of the EC economically and politically. Hence in 1967, Britain applied. But President De Gaulle vetoed the application, just as he did again in 1969 when Britain applied for the second time. Justifying his veto, De Gaulle said that, Britain will never be European and cannot wish Europe well unless it is on their terms. Those who followed the rhetoric of the Brexit campaign recently might ask themselves whether De Gaulle was not right when he said that Britain will never be European unless it is on their own terms.

When De Gaulle vetoed the British applications in 1963 and 1967, the anger in Britain was at fever pitch presumably because there was an assumed sense of entitlements, especially in view of the stupendous sacrifices Britain had suffered in defeating Hitler and liberating Europe. When EFTA, which may be described as a British project lost steam, pragmatists in Britain sought membership of the EC but membership had to wait until after President De Gaulle was out of power. In 1975, Britain became a member of the EC which later became the European Union. Today, the EU has a membership of 28 countries, making it one of the most important economic and political block in the world.

Did the Brexit campaign prove De Gaulle right?

In the opening paragraphs of this article, I argued that the causes of Brexit and the whole rhetoric of the recent Leave Vote are embedded in the British political DNA. Expressions such as perfidious albion, little Englandism, splendid isolation, have their representatives among British politicians today just as they did a century ago. When in the 1950s Britain refused to join the EC, there was no influx of immigrants to take jobs or to put pressure on the National Health Service, on the schools.

There were no so-called budgetary contributions to the EU budget as claimed by the Leave campaigners. Sentiments embedded in the phrase splendid isolations have never gone away because when prime minister Cameron in 2011 vetoed the EU plans to rescue the Euro,  he was cheered by the so-called Eurosceptics, who represent the traditional stance of "splendid isolation". Politics being politics, populist politicians will always play on people's sentiments, especially the weak and those who feel marginalised just as the Leave campaigners did.

The writer the former Minister of State for Finance, Former Minister of State for Luwero Triangle, former Ambassador of Uganda to the UN and UAE