Team-Time or Trail-Blaze? EUphoria or EUlogy?

Not here, not now

Many argue that certain social media platforms should stick rigorously to this theme or the other. Of course, one can’t help noticing that different platforms have different themes. Yet (illegal and defamatory considerations aside) I always feel that the attempt to control content is a failure to recognise the very nature of social media. The reason for their explosive success is the unconstrained-ness. If we want things to stick to a narrow theme, then we can stick to journals. There is a flip down-side in terms of reliability and auditability that comes with that, but to try and change it into something else is to miss the point of why it is there and why it is successful.

I mention it in this discussion’s context of Brexit, because it is one of those subjects that intrudes almost everywhere these days. If personally you don’t want to see it discussed on linked-in then all you have to do is stop reading now.  For my part I feel it is legitimately mentioned here - for it has far reaching ramifications in many, many, aspects of professional life. 

Questions are good. Two paths diverged in a wood.

Two things which have struck me recently, in the context of this debate are:

1.      It is not an outrageous question to ask, whether UK is better going it alone or in the EU. When we fail to ask such questions, we lose imagination and versatility. It is possible to respect the fact that the question is being asked, if not all the answers provided.

2.      It does ultimately boil down to an age-old dilemma, for which there is no trite answer, of whether we are better-off as part of a team, or we are better-off trail-blazing an individual path alone.  Both approaches have been known to work in different historical situations at a national scale, and most of us can probably share personal instances of where both have worked for us – so no bias one way or the other is intended in placing that question.

The attractiveness of a team is that it can pool resources, achieve more, exert more powerful influence, and have more resilience in crisis, than an individual, and the sense of “identity” is collective and different. The cost is that there is a loss of individual freedom, and a need to commit to things when we don’t always feel like it, for the benefit of the team. The attractiveness of an individual path is that distinctiveness and versatility are far more possible, uniqueness is less diluted, and there is greater freedom to do things differently to the crowd. The cost is that the resources available are less, and there is much greater vulnerability to crisis and disaster. 

Details. Big picture.

I’m going to ignore all the intricacies of arguments about Westminster process, referenda, Northern Irish backstops and all that. These are important, but the question I’m interested in here is what the best way is forward for the UK - and not in 1918, not in 1968, not in 2018, but in the forthcoming decades. For all the ongoing shenanigans I do think enough politicians and enough of the electorate in the UK are sufficiently competent to engineer the due process accordingly (and legally) when a direction is truly decided.  The problem I see is not one of process but of clearly posing the question in a way that honestly reflects reality. The answer won’t be forthcoming from the electorate in a way that politicians can legitimately action, until the question is posed correctly. Whether it takes ten months or ten years, the UK does have the political intelligence to engineer that path once it has an answer to that question - a genuine mandate.

Trophies

The thing about Europe is that it is a strong team. This is undeniable. It has powered through the last 50 years in a way that is difficult to ignore. Problems, issues? - of course; perfect? – of course not. Arrogant, quarrelsome, bureaucratic, vulnerable to latent corruption, overspend, and hypocrisy from an unelected elite? Yes, at times. This is humanity we are talking about whether an individual or a team. Yet there is a lot of good, and it is a strong team.  The amount of co-operation that takes place between many sovereign countries on business, trade deals, finance, employment, research, security, defence, education, health, energy, infrastructure development – this is an experiment unequalled in the history of the world. It is not a stupid aspiration to join for those that want to be part of it.   

The thing about the UK, is that it has a history of trail-blazing individuality. This is reflected both at national and citizen level. It doesn’t take a long walk down the main street of a major UK metropolitan area to recognise the depth of individuality that exists, and the genuine willingness of most of its citizens to accept this. It is one of the richnesses of the country, which manifests visibly in its art, music, and comedy amongst other things.  Not that other countries don’t have much of this too, but the UK is well, certainly different. The ancestral genetic variability and the physical nature of an island perhaps have had some role. It is not a stupid aspiration to try and preserve this. Can it be done in the context of being within the EU? A little bit of yes and a little bit of no, probably. 

Turning up to the match yes, but with supporters?

Physically and financially the UK has committed to the EU team since joining. That is fair to say. Other countries may dispute whether the level has been fair or appropriate, but that is a detailed argument for a different time. Financially, the country has been a net contributor, but the benefits that the EU delivers are always more than just financial ones. They relate to the security, co-operation and travel flexibility of individuals, businesses, and organisations that occurs within its borders across so many fields. That is worth a cost. How much cost is an exacting question, but it is worth a cost. What has been less evident is whether the UK ever fully committed “psychologically” to the team. 

The constant media tendency in the UK to couch things in adversarial terms of London vs. Brussels raises the question of whether UK ever truly saw itself as part of “the” team. Perhaps it was more of an observation that a powerful team was doing well next door and it could maybe have a piece of that action. The UK media is not alone in being fractious, but it is particularly vociferous and partisan in this regard. France and Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy, as some of the early and big economic players in the EU, all have their own idiosyncrasies and rivalries, but there is a real sense one gets there, that they do identify more clearly with a European team. The perceived dominance of whichever member is held to hold most sway at the time (i.e. read Germany now) is a perpetual issue everywhere, but for what team has that ever not been the case?

Heart and Head

Perhaps the two questions UK really needs to ask itself now are:

1.      Can it really commit, not just in a head sense, but in a heart sense too, to being part of a Europe team?

2.      Having been nominally part of the team for so long now, what are the real costs of not being part of it, and are they bearable?

The web of benefits that have been engineered throughout the EU over the decades since its instigation have taken a long, long, time to build. Even with the relatively late arrival of the UK, there have been decades of deeply entwined integration. That is why thinking that extraction and replacement could ever be quick and easy - is a hiding to nothing.  It would take decades to replace and rebuild the manifold processes that have been already installed. That is not to say it can’t be done, just to say that the size of the task cannot and should not be underestimated.  

Big isn’t always beautiful but it is bigger

The reality of the 21st century world is also that size matters. Increasingly the crises that countries face are global ones. Having the capacity to respond as part of a co-ordinated regional group has very real benefits.  This holds for invasion, epidemic, infrastructure collapse (e.g. cyberwar, financial meltdown, or commodity collapse) and natural disaster. This is especially true, when a multipolar suite of superpowers is emerging to challenge global norms– notably US, China, Russia, as well as Europe. The critical matters for active research in the 21st century are not ones that countries can easily bear alone. Energy technologies, environmental controls, infrastructure, financial protections, defence and disease research – these are often extremely costly affairs. Our youth typically “get” this more than older demographics because the future threatens them more tangibly, and because rightly, they learn about them at school. 

The reality is that it will be harder for UK to exist alone in a 21st century world, simply because of the maths – the availability of resources a nation has, and the flexibilities in their deployment, are less than that of a regional supergroup. Teams typically deal better with threats than individuals. Not always, if the group has its head in the sand, but usually. The EU has its problems, but I think it is alert to threat. 

It’s gonna hurt, so is it worth it?

Personally, I think it would be a more honest Brexit position at this juncture to say, look, the UK will be poorer financially, and less powerful globally if it leaves the EU, but it is a price worth paying to preserve individuality and versatility. That seems a far more reasonable assertion than to pretend somehow that UK can leave the European team and still do far better financially and in terms of influence. That just seems to jar with things that have become self-evident over the past couple of years.  As just one example, the EU has secured trade deals with Japan, that are simply off limits to the UK. The raft of trade deals that were promised have failed to materialise, and it is difficult to imagine any bilateral agreement being offered on better terms than an equivalent one to the EU. It could conceivably get a bit better once there is more certainty on UK's status, but most of us are now rightfully sceptical that this will open the touted floodgates to a trading frenzy.

I believe that with time the UK can make a go of things outside Europe if it decides that is what it wants to do – it is not without resource or imagination and has many valuable relationships around the world. Catastrophe is probably an unwarranted hyperbole. It can be done.  Yet to imagine that there is not going to be a real cost over the next few decades in terms of reduced GDP, business lost, unemployment issues, increased taxes, and the like, is fatuous. Negotiations with anyone will be tough, protracted, and our new found isolation would be evident for all to see - not the strongest of bargaining positions. UK can work to build something new and original, but this would take decades and it would cost a lot. It is going back to the drawing board at a time when the rest of the world is 3D-printing their design.

No going back to how it was.

Yet to stay in Europe now is not without issue either. The can of worms has been opened and won’t be easily forgotten. The question is whether UK can commit to being part of the Europe team, and not constantly imagine itself as a persecuted adversary. If it were able to do so it might find that Europe is far more willing to accommodate its concerns than it currently imagines. The habit of consistently resorting to adversarial language is damaging and while UK carries much respect within Europe - probably more than it realises - constant name-calling places strains on any relationship. I think the EU does genuinely want UK to stay but is now simply exasperated – it has reached that stage of saying, “well, we like you and want you to stay, but if that is what you really think about this relationship, maybe you had better go”. 

The fight club

If the UK is to remain within Europe, something about that adversarial attitude might need to change. There is a lot that needs to change in the EU too – the path for exit from the club does need to be more apparent, otherwise it’s not a club but a prison - but the UK’s ability to influence such change will be compromised unless it can genuinely see itself as part of the team. A very real part of that is not underestimating the weight it carries itself at the EU table. It seems to habitually do this, while (ironically) simultaneously overestimating what it can achieve on a world stage. A world stage that is very different to any that has existed previously. Such persuasion at the EU table is not easy and requires ongoing perseverance, and a belief such perseverance is worth it. Always, different team members will be happier to accommodate another’s concerns if they sense that member earnestly sees themselves as part of the team – at heart.

Neither side is squeaky clean here, and any ongoing participation in the EU that did materialise would have to recognise that there will always be strong personalities on all sides saying things that border on outrageous. We have witnessed it from Brussels, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that Brussels has not also witnessed it of London. There must be the discipline to recognise that the EU is more than a scraggly juxtaposition of annoyingly loud-mouthed politicians and bureaucrats, some elected, some not. They will always persist to challenge, in an institution that values free speech. Don’t let them scupper something that is much more than that. It is half a billion people with an awful lot in common, including a peace, that not too many decades ago was decidely absent.

Madness and the House of Fun

As a kiwi who’s lived half my life in the UK now, I think for the UK to leave the EU is madness really. It seems a failure to realise how much has been achieved in the EU adventure, and much of that precisely because of UK’s involvement. For all its faults the EU is an institution that commands respect and envy globally. Are there big structural flaws in the EU that need addressing – yes, and that will always be true in such a dynamic organisation - but who better to help address this than the UK? 

Yet to ask the question, should UK leave - as I stated originally, is not in itself wrong. In doing so however, the question needs to be posed accurately, and not couched in romantic historical notions of a country that if it ever existed as posited, is long gone.  

The juncture that the UK finds itself at is an important one, and the question must be posed accurately. Promises of immediate windfall prosperity on leaving the EU are just plain silly and defy observations to date. Some form of new economic versatility is possible eventually I suppose, with fair winds and progressive leadership - but it is never going to happen quickly, and progressive leadership is not guaranteed. There is too much entwined complexity to unwind, too much uncertainty, too many who have already indicated an intention to depart.

The big three

Rather three key questions facing UK are:

1.      Is increased individual freedom as a nation worth several decades of relative economic hardship and cost, as the replacement model is constructed? Not catastrophe, but sustained and real hard effort - for reduced economic reward? 

2.      Have UK’s sovereign state freedoms over past decades really been so compromised as to justify leaving?

3.      If deciding to stay, can the UK ever really commit - not just physically and financially - but psychologically as a nation, to the European team?

We can answer these ourselves as our own thought experiment. I do think they are fair questions though, and the first is an honest one that that has not yet been placed before the electorate. Even if the scale of such hardship is disputed, it can hardly be ignored as a risk. 

Leaving the EU is unwise unless the first and second are deemed true. Staying in the EU is pointless for everyone involved unless the last can be true. Better to be a bit poorer as an individual than stuck in a team you don’t feel part of or remotely aligned with. I think most of us have been there before. That said, the UK doesn’t have to stop being uniquely UK for the last to be possible. It would however need to desist, at high political levels at least, from describing the rest of the team as the adversary.

For all the agro, at least we care…

Passions run high and thank goodness people care that deeply. The opinions held on both sides are mostly held sincerely and not without their own logic. Yet we know more now than we did two years ago about the real costs of an EU departure. If it is to continue being considered as an option for the UK, that must be done with full admission of the costs of doing so, and not based on promises made - perhaps sincerely - but erroneously, some years past. 

Whatever happens I will continue to admire and respect the EU adventure - and were it to me, I would certainly want to continue being a part of it. Likewise, whatever happens, the individuality of the UK is truly a thing to behold, and the world is richer for it. Whether they continue together as I would hope, or separately, I can find room to be grateful for both.