Prior to last year’s general election, former British prime minister David Cameron made a solemn vow that if he is returned to power he would hold a referendum asking the British people whether they want to cling on to EU membership or break away.
Suggesting such a referendum brought Cameron and his Conservative party back to power with an absolute majority – the last time that happened was way back in 1992. It is worth a reminder how that election result changed the political spectrum in the UK. The Liberal party practically ceased to exist while Labour lost some 50 seats from Scotland. I still recall the last televised debate prior to the election wherein Nicola Sturgeon asked then Labour leader Ed Miliband whether he would be prepared to enter into a coalition government with the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to oust the Conservatives from power. Miliband’s clear facial expressions saying no cost Labour dearly!
So Cameron came back to 10, Downing Street with a clear mandate to hold an EU In/Out referendum as promised. His attempt to renegotiate the UK’s accession agreement with the EU prior to holding the promised referendum was not rigorous enough to support his campaign to remain part of the EU. The 52 per cent majority that voted to leave had negative consequences both on a political and an economic level.
The notion of ‘going it alone’ is an impossibility even for the UK
Cameron had rightly to resign. Jeremy Corbyn, who succeeded Miliband, is facing an internal revolt to oust him given he did not campaign heavily to keep the UK within the EU. Moreover, it seems the UK itself is in for a meltdown. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was swift to declare that Scotland clearly voted to remain in, promising she will do whatever is possible to steer Scotland into the EU.
Also, Northern Ireland will fetch avenues for possible reunification with the Republic of Ireland to remain part of the EU.
All in all, this has pushed the UK into uncharted waters as the degree of uncertainty has increased considerably. There existed uncertainty during the months preceding the referendum but this political chaos has triggered off even more uncertainty. Economic prosperity comes along with political stability. This is a matter that affects positively or negatively one and all and, definitely, there is no one sweeping answer to satiate all the questions.
Yet, both as an academic and as professional accountant I wonder whether those who did vote to leave the EU stopped for a moment and attempted to find an answer to the question that remained unanswered when I was asked to vote in the 2003 referendum: what is the cost of staying out? There is no simple answer to that question albeit that we live in a globalised world characterised by the globalisation of economies, of cultures and, indeed, in my field, the globalisation of accounting. In this context, the notion of ‘going it alone’ is an impossibility even for the UK.
Having said that, there are issues that affect the daily lives of individual EU citizens and which need to be addressed by the existing EU institutions. As indicated by our Prime Minister, the UK referendum result can be interpreted as a wake-up call for the EU to address ‘bread and butter issues’ rather than petty technicalities.
Influencing the institutions to address the issues that matter would have been possible by staying in rather than pulling out. Cameron’s absence from the EU summit on June 29 was simply the first of many missed opportunities for the UK to bring forth any desired changes to make EU citizens’ lives better.
Ivan Paul Grixti is a lecturer in financial accounting at the University of Malta.