What is left for the UK

Globalisation is a phenomenon much older than we think. Primitive divisions of labour go way back when we think of trade markets between villages since middle age. First, small villages, then cities and later on, countries have started to trade goods.

Later on, industrial revolution took place in England. New technologies and means of production were invented in order to improve production and its distribution, such as spinning jenny in 1764 and the introduction of Fordism to accelerate manufacturing and satisfy global markets. In this context, globalisation was being quickly developed and exponentially growing and nations saw the benefits of international trading and collaborating.

The first intergovernmental organisation was created in 1920 after the first World War. As a result of the Paris Peace Conference, the League of Nations was established to maintain world peace, increase collaboration between the member countries, promote democracy ( ex. Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Libya among others) and so address other issues, such as global health, protection of minorities etc. These issues were all mentioned in a Charter called the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1920. In 1935, the organisation was composed by 58 members.

After the II World War and the failure of the League, another way to promote intergovernmental cooperation was created. In a scenario of political instability and pre Cold War, the United Nations was born. According to theorist David Mitrany, one of the big defenders of the functionalist theory, the cooperation between states would benefit the international scenario in economic, social, functional and technical areas.

This theory is often applied to the example which I am going to focus now: The European Union. Cooperations started in 1950 with the European Coal and Steel Community, which in 1957 developed into the Treaty of Rome and the Common Market. This was an important mark in the history of the political- economic union formed today by 27 States in order to promote peace in Europe.

This supranational organisation has already addressed very important and decisive steps when it comes to inter-state collaboration and democracy. The European Citizenship, the common Foreign and Security Policy, the European Charter of Human Rights are basic examples that illustrate how far it has come. However, recently, there has been a lot of questioning about its effectiveness and its progress.

An institution that was supposed to promote values, such as security, democracy, international collaboration, cooperation, solidarity and peace to the European Continent woke up hopeless and incomplete today.

Although I do not share the belief that the EU is a perfect institution ( and I recognise its flaws ), I question the reasons why the Brexit succeeded and consider it a regression when it comes to international politics and democracy.

It makes me sad to see that, even after two world wars and numerous conflicts led by xenophobic and nationalist ideals, it seems that we are still on the same page. Figures such as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, German’s AFD party and, mostly, UKIP are gaining force in Europe and this is something to worry.

The new wave of immigrants unfortunately, played a key role in EU Referendum yesterday. Instead of following EU’s solidarity motto, 52% of the UK voted against this democratic principle. In a polarised society with no concrete solution to the refugees problem, UK voted to leave and to exclude those in need in future policies.

At this exact moment, Nigel Farage must be celebrating. He, as the leader of the UK Independence Party and a big defender of the Brexit, used as a main argument the better distribution of funds. According to him, alleged 350 millions of pounds ( actual 140 millions) that are weekly given to Brussels can be best distributed in areas such as Public Health (NHS).

This was one of Farage’s strongest arguments to defend a possible exit of the UK from the biggest player on the global trading scene next to the UK’s “ Independence". His party does not only oppose to high immigration rates, but also opposes Islamism in Britain and the calls for a ban of the burqa being worn in public. Yes, this is one of the most influential figures when it comes to the referendum’s outcome.

Surprisingly for a few though, just some moments ago when asked about the possible redistribution of funds to the NHS (National Health Service), UKIP’S Leader said that this proposal was misleading and that the funds are not necessarily going towards NHS. Therefore, this attitude by one of Brexit’s main defenders leads us to ask ourselves what does the Bexit really stand for. Is it really the economic improvements? Satirically, Tokyo’s Bourse, the first to close in Asia, dropped 7,92% after the Referendum’s results while London’s has suffered the biggest fall in 30 years (8%) according to CNN. Will this aftershock meet up to Brexit’s supporters expectations? Will this decision affect directly NHS and other public funded institutions ? Why independence now when the British Empire was responsible for colonisation of more than 20 countries? No one knows.

What we know by far is that the Referendum result has led to political and economic disasters in the recent 5 hours. Prime Minister Cameron has bravely resigned with tears in his eyes, leaving negotiations to his pro Brexit successor, Boris Johnson. The instability and desperation in British polarised society became even more evident now in the ironically sunny morning in London of June 24th.