The Next Wave of Globalization: The Brexit Conundrum
By Hamza Ali Shah
The world’s richest 26 people have more money than the 3,800,000,000 people who make up the world’s poorest half.
Those are damning statistics that illustrate the deplorable predicament of this world. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing at a relentless rate.
The current world order is in the process of consequential change. The financial and economic crisis of 2008-2010, followed by the euro crisis in 2010, has induced relatively weak economic recovery in numerous parts of the western world.
Accordingly, there has been a correlation between the collapse of the economy and the rise of populists and their anti-establishment sentiments, as they seek to destabilize the globe.
Resultantly, new security threats in the form of terrorism and acts of violence by non-state actors are shaking Europe and its neighbours; while instability, conflict and poor governance have turned over 65 million people into refugees. Meanwhile, major technological shifts are ongoing in the form of digitization, robotization, and artificial intelligence that have already begun to upset traditional patterns of economic and social interaction.
Hence, the dynamics of the international arena are fluctuating.
That is what Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his party need to scrutinize, and shift their attention away from Brexit, if they have any chance of winning the general election they so staunchly crave. Whether Britain exits from the bloc or remains aligned, radical global transformation is on the horizon.
Nonetheless, the increasing disdain for the institution that aims to promote peace, cohesion, integration, solidarity and seeks to combat discrimination, sheds light on the type of tendencies that are prevalent.
Regardless, the British people voted to leave the European Union on the 23rd of June 2016. Since then, the matter of Brexit has dominated domestic and global headlines. Still there is no transparency nor lucidity as to how Brexit will be executed, what type of deal will be included, and when Britain will be departing.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s central policy in the general election of 2017 was delivering Brexit, and she famously asserted ‘Brexit means Brexit!
Lip service was all that was.
What followed was 2 years of fruitless negotiations and eventually a withdrawal agreement outlining the dynamics of Britain’s retreat. The main factors in the agreement comprised of a transitional period, known as the implementation period, lasting until 2020, whereby the UK will need to abide by all EU rules, but will lose membership of its institutions.
Then there is an agreement regarding the financial settlement that the UK will need to pay to the EU to settle all of its obligations, an estimated figure of least £39bn that will be paid over a number of years.
What followed was the issue of citizens’ rights, stipulating UK citizens in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK, will retain their residency and social security rights after Brexit. Citizens who take up residency in another EU country during the transition period (including the UK of course) will be allowed to stay in that country after the transition.
Then finally the controversial Northern Ireland backstop. If no long-term trade deal has been agreed by the end of 2020 that avoids a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and if there is no extension to the transition period, then a backstop consisting of “a single customs territory between the (European) Union and the United Kingdom” will be triggered.
Yet when her hard fought deal was presented to the commons on the 15th of January, it was comprehensively defeated, with a majority of 230, in what was the biggest parliamentary loss in history.
Placing her interests before those of the country, rather than resigning, she challenged Corbyn to table a motion of no confidence, which she inevitably won, albeit by a small margin of 19.
This threw a spanner in the works of Corbyn’s plan, as his chief strategy is founded on pressing for a general election and forcing change in Downing Street.
Resultantly, there is increasing pressure on Corbyn to adopt a set Brexit strategy. His stance up until now has been one of constructive ambiguity in a bid to maintain support from both cohorts of voters.
However, Brexit is very divisive, and Corbyn’s Prime Ministerial dreams will likely be shattered if his policy continues to centre on Brexit. Indeed, if he supports remain, the sizeable portion of voters in the North and Midlands who voted Labour in the 2017 general election, will feel betrayed and could switch their allegiances to the Conservatives or UKIP.
If Corbyn backs leave, this will alienate those who are robust supporters of remaining, which a considerable number of Labour voters are.
Furthermore, should he champion a ‘stop Brexit’ policy, several polls accentuate such a move would cause up to a third of voters to consider voting elsewhere.
Likewise, the option that Corbyn is most pressed to follow, a peoples vote, could have far reaching ramifications. In fact, it is projected Corbyn could face up to a dozen resignations from the Labour frontbench if the party backs a second referendum as a way out of the Brexit crisis.
Simultaneously, a peoples vote would keep the Conservatives in power and would imply the public is content on them delivering a referendum appropriately. Given there are less than 70 days left until the official deadline for the UK to leave the EU, and still no clarity, that appears a momentous ask.
Ultimately, like the actual process, Corbyn is at a deadlock.
However, if Corbyn is determined to inflict and then win a general election, other issues besides Brexit can drive him to victory.
As aforementioned, wealth inequality on a global scale is exacerbating. The current global system is one whereby governments are increasingly underfunding public services, cutting benefits to those in desperate needs and privatising public service for their own wealth. More and more people are sleeping on the streets, facing in-work poverty and in profound debt.
Likewise, under-taxation of wealthy individuals and corporations coupled with accessible tax evasion has contributed to unjustifiable rates of economic disparity. Veritably, via the unrelenting policy of austerity imposed by the Conservatives from 2010, the plight is of that ilk in Britain, where Corbyn hopes to one-day lead.
Thus, there is an opportunity to provide an alternative voice and solutions to the disheartening state of affairs.
It is reinforcing such narratives that could pave the way for Corbyn to flourish. Promising an upheaval of a system that chews and spits out those lower down would be rhetoric that appeals to a sizeable section of society, irrespective of their views on the EU.
It was by virtue of such promises that Corbyn upset the odds and stripped May of her governing majority in the 2017 election, with the assistance of the grassroots group Momentum. The foundation has been set; it is now up to Corbyn to expand on it.
Correspondingly, Britain is just a manifestation of the global issue. A Corbyn led Britain would be a huge boost to the left of the political world, which has been overpowered by the nationalistic right, and would concurrently go a long way in challenging the global system that has proved a hindrance to those not of an elite stature.
