UK exit an attempt to resist globalisation

As the dust settles on the Brexit referendum, commentators and policy makers are scrambling to analyse and make sense of the implications of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

There is little doubt that a perfect storm of intersecting global and local events hastened Britain’s exit.

Growing xenophobia and nationalism on the rise across Europe nudged by the refugee crisis triggered by long-running instability in the Middle East was the swing factor that determined the referendum outcome.

The Leave campaign proponents cleverly tapped into the fear and resentment directed at these new arrivals as well as thousands of immigrants from less affluent Eastern European countries.

The new arrivals are generally viewed as competitors for free health care, education, government welfare benefits, and jobs in Britain.

Euro-sceptics and opponents of globalisation point out that the EU model, which is underpinned by and hinged on liberal capitalism, has trampled on national sovereignty and increased inequity and inequality.

The government in London rooted for the status quo.

PERIPHERAL CUES RULED THE DAY

For the rural poor and the working class, the referendum was a godsend opportunity to make their anger felt and to teach the complacent government a lesson.

The merits and rational reasons for Britain to remain in the EU were irrelevant. 

In the end, an emotionally charged campaign for Britain’s exit from the EU carried the day.

The Brexit referendum debate was so emotionally charged that it drowned out any rational voices.

There simply was not any room for a considered and rational contest of ideas. I consider that a tragedy.

I see Brexit as an antithesis to the modern, globalised world where nation states are increasingly interconnected and reliant on one another socially, politically, and economically. 

In a globalised world, the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres are inextricably intertwined.

Physical sovereign nation state boundaries become blurred in favour of the free flow of ideas, technology, labour, and capital or investment.

This will inevitably result in uncertainty and challenges to existing structures because in its very nature, change makes governments, businesses, and people in general uncomfortable.

Change presents challenges but also new opportunities.

A country, in my opinion, cannot pick and choose the good from the bad in this package. 

Globalisation presents both challenges and opportunities and only better equipped, better prepared, nimble, and agile economies and businesses are able to adapt and respond to opportunities presented by the constantly changing world will reap the benefits.

When faced with challenges, the easy option for countries is to retreat and erect barriers to protect local jobs and businesses and hope that things will go back to the golden years of success.

Unfortunately, this is no longer feasible or practical.

The forces of globalisation will match on regardless and any country that tries to fight them and puts up barriers risks suffering long-term damage at the expense of short-term political reprieve. 

It is hopeless to hang on to protectionism.

Governments must remain sanguine and prepared to face global challenges through pragmatic policies, economic diversification, and structural  adjustments to better respond to and take advantage of the opportunities that the bold new world presents.

Equipping the population with skills and knowledge to effectively compete at the global stage, encouraging and promoting indigenous innovation, and investing in research and development in cutting-edge industries would be a good starting point for any country that hopes to gain an edge in the ever competitive global marketplace. Certainly not protectionism.

Mr Nyasani is a political and security analyst. [email protected].