Asked to vote in or out, Britain has chosen to cast off its 43-year-old membership in the EU, leaving it to face a more complex question: What kind of nation will it be now?
Will Britain be the outward-looking, entrepreneurial, confident country that makes its independent way in the world, as the leaders of the “Leave” campaign said it could be?
Or will it retreat to become a “Little England” — nationalistic and a touch xenophobic, responding to the voters that drove it to quit the EU?
Even more important: Will it even hold together? With Scotland deeply pro-European, pressure will increase for another independence referendum that could bring an end to the UK.
Britain, a nation whose storied history has encompassed the birth of constitutional government, global empire, royal pageantry and a heroic defense against fascism, is entering unknown territory.
The questions about its new path could remain unresolved for years. On Friday morning, at least, Britain remained a member of the EU in full standing, just as it was 24 hours earlier.
However, the impact of this plebiscite is likely to be profound and long-lasting, well beyond the immediate tumult in the financial markets, and the questions about Britain’s future will be answered against the backdrop of potential political, legal and economic upheaval.
A Conservative Party-led British government with its first majority since 1992 has ripped itself apart on a global stage and is badly damaged. British Prime Minister David Cameron promptly announced that he would step aside once his party settled on a successor, setting up a potentially bare-knuckle leadership battle. An early general election is not out of the question.
Once Britain begins the formal process of withdrawing from the EU by exercising Article 50 of the treaty that governs membership in the bloc, a step Cameron said he would leave to the next prime minister, it sets off a two-year clock on negotiations. During this period, Britain — including millions of European citizens living in Britain and British citizens living in the EU — would be in limbo.
In addition, if the British Treasury, the Bank of England, the IMF and the Institute for Fiscal Studies are to be believed, the British economy is in for a severe shock.
The Treasury estimates that British GDP — representing the size of the economy — will fall by 3.5 percent, clobbering tax receipts, that half a million people will lose their jobs and that housing prices — and thus personal wealth of homeowners — will fall by 10 percent.
Those estimates were criticized by the “Leave” campaign, including senior members of government, as unfounded fearmongering. Now Britain is set to find out how accurate they are.
The vote was a severe shock to Britain’s political class from voters who are angry, confused and deeply distrustful of elites.
The Labour Party joined Cameron in campaigning to stay in Europe, as did nearly all the other parties represented in Parliament, with the exception of the Democratic Unionists and the UK Independence Party, which was founded on a platform of leaving the EU. However, despite that solid wall of establishment voices — or perhaps because of them — Britain voted for a fundamental change in direction.
“The British political class should pay attention,” London School of Economics professor Tony Travers said. “There is a lot of disaffection with both main parties.”
In 1955, the Conservatives and Labour won 97.5 percent of the vote, but in the past two elections, the two won only about 66 percent of the vote, he said.
“Into that vacuum something else has to move, but what?” Travers asked. “The political class has to wonder how to appeal to those who increasingly feel left out of the system, how to stop large numbers of voters’ feeling cut out of economic change and success.”
The Conservative Party is already split between traditional establishment figures such as Cameron and others who embraced the anti-elite, anti-immigration posture of the Leave campaign, most prominently the former mayor of London Boris Johnson and one of Cameron’s senior Cabinet members, Michael Gove.
Cameron also has more centrist views than many in his party’s grassroots, having pushed the Conservatives to back social issues such as same-sex marriage and adopt unifying themes such as “one-nation Conservatism.”
He is likely to be replaced by someone more to the right and more anti-European, such as British Home Secretary Theresa May, or Johnson, who also thinks of himself as a “one-nation Tory,” but in the mode of former British prime minister Winston Churchill, and has made no secret of his ambition.
The Labour Party must find a way to embrace those working-class voters who are clearly unhappy about the effects of globalization and immigration on their lives and found themselves swayed by the Leave campaign.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was somewhat halfhearted in his support for the “Remain” camp, reflecting his ambivalence about whether staying in Europe would be the right focus when it comes to helping working people.
The referendum has also displayed a major fissure between Britain’s metropolitan elite and the rest of the country, essentially pitting rich versus poor across the normal party divide.
“Two nations, in short, are staring at each other across a political chasm,” John Harris wrote in the left-leaning Guardian, which supported Remain, but James Bartholomew made the same point in the Spectator magazine, which supported Leave.
Those with a university degree supported Remain in large numbers, according to pre-referendum polls; those with little higher education supported Leave in equally large numbers. Major cities, multicultural and replete with immigrants, tended to support Remain, while the countryside and poorer areas along with eastern coast were strongly for Leave.
People over 45, and especially pensioners, strongly supported Leave, while younger Britons strongly supported Remain.
Those with cosmopolitan lives and money were afraid to lose it; those whose lives are bounded by England and are struggling with the pressures of globalization and immigration looked for a return to a calmer, more homogeneous past.
So the divisions are just as much cultural as economic, and they raise serious questions about Britain’s political coherence and unity, and about how long it might take to heal the wounds made or reopened in this noisy, often vicious campaign.
The referendum also sharply exacerbated tensions within the four countries of the UK and gave a boost to English nationalism, already on the rise since the Scottish independence referendum failed in 2014.
In addition to intensifying demands for another referendum on independence for Scotland, the outcome of the EU vote might also increase demands in England, which makes up 85 percent of the British population, for its own devolved Parliament to vote on laws concerning only England, just as parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do for their regions.
Amid the overwhelming confusion about the next few years, it will take more than a few reassuring words about a festival of democracy to begin to bring Britain back together.
As Harris wrote: “We are in a terrible mess and it is probably going to take decades to even begin to put things right.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry