IT WAS Groucho Marx who said: "I refuse to join any club that would accept me as a member." Joining forces, joining a club, combining resources or going it alone is a choice we face in so many aspects of our lives.
In 10 days’ time, the people of Britain will decide by referendum whether or not they support staying part of the EU. The outcome, on June 24, will be binary and will be determined by simple majority. Presuming a pretty full turnout (the debate has enjoyed a high profile, internationally and abroad), the outcome will be regarded as the will of the people.
A referendum is, however, not legally binding, and the legislative changes required to effect exit would be difficult to fight against. Latest polls favour Brexit 55-45, still a close race, but that’s where the mood seems to be heading. Very high-profile players, such as former London mayor Boris Johnson (leave) and Barack Obama (stay in) have entered the fray.
It is curious that Prime Minister David Cameron (stay) has taken the risk of a referendum — if he loses, it will be the beginning of the end of his political career. I’m not sure where Donald Trump stands on the issue, but then I’m not sure if he’d understand the question.
As a first principle, the debate is about whether such unions tend towards the highest common factor of their constituent parts or go to the lowest common denominator of their weakest links.
This time, many issues are being debated at many levels — economic, political and social. There are 28 member countries in the EU, 19 of which have one currency, the euro.
The last time EU membership was on the table, it was Greece, and the focus was on currency. The Greeks have been responsible for any number of firsts — coining the "Grexit" phrase was another one. The difference is that decision, that referendum if you like, was on the other side —– it was the rest deciding whether Greece should leave, rather than Greece deciding whether it wanted to go.
At issue then, in essence, was the incompatibility of having monetary union without uniform fiscal policy. The Greeks were, at best, irresponsible financially, but they are part of the EU and their currency is the euro. If they hadn’t been, if they’d stayed with the drachma, they may have been better able to devalue themselves out of trouble (although that escape route is limited). The consequence of their bad behaviour was, fortunately, limited to their relative size.
The UK has its own currency, so it’s not about that. There are some higher issues at play here. One of them is migration. Freedom of movement is a central element of design in the EU. The trouble with that is that once you’re in, you’re free to move about. Whether you stand for more lax or more stringent immigration rules doesn’t matter in the EU — it is the easiest point of initial access that defines the border. Last year, more than 150,000 immigrants came into Britain via the EU. Some UK citizens feel that is too many, or at least, they didn’t have the same reasons for inviting them in as Germany may have had, say. At some level, this puts into play a second principle — loss of sovereignty.
There’s a lot of international rugby being played today, and it’s as clear from the team compositions as it was in the World Cup (Japan was a classic example — I’m still miffed that they beat us) that country of origin occasionally has to stand aside for the economic imperatives that drive professional sport.
The need in some countries to import a young and cheap workforce has had a major effect on migrant policy, but the needs of all member countries are not the same. In the end, though, it is not only about what is right or wrong, but about your autonomy to make that decision.
Britain itself is a union of many dimensions, and the consequences, issues, borders and independence fires that have been smouldering in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be ignited once more.
Maybe the economic debate, at its foundation, is about nothing more complex than whether size counts. At the margin, I’m not sure it does. Would the UK not be able to cut the same deals with its trading partners if it were not part of the EU? Of course its purchasing power would be diminished, but with a GDP in the top 10 of the world and second only to Germany in the EU, I’m not sure who would miss who the most. I’m sure the UK would manage on its own (even if the US doesn’t think so).
There could be a lot of skilled people flows from the UK to the EU on the happening of Brexit, in areas like finance, where London has managed to maintain itself as the financial centre of Europe despite equally or even more powerful centres such as Paris and Frankfurt.
Getting things done is always inversely proportional to the complexity of the governing structures that dictate due process. The diverse vested interests throughout the EU don’t make for simple legislative change and progress. Diverse agendas are more difficult to accommodate in the formulation of cohesive policy — don’t we know that?
The purpose of economic blocs goes beyond the Brexit debate. Who, if not Europe, is going to keep the balance of economic power in check? If the EU disintegrates, are we back to a two-force contest between the US and China? I think China, "from the other side", if you will, of western capitalism, is only just beginning to flex its muscles as it continues to send its excess of people and capital into the resource-and innovation-rich countries of the world to bring its will to bear.
The rest of the world is increasingly being made aware of China’s aspirations and past contributions. China will, in time, claim that it saved the world during the 2008 financial crisis.
I come down on the side of independence; it’s in my nature. I thought Greece should be kicked out and I think Britain should leave. But it’s not only that.
I believe many aspects of marriage can be manifest without the requirement for an evergreen contract, which can result in an expensive, often destructive, divorce.
Trade agreements, for instance, don’t require the sovereignty of either party to be compromised to be effective and enduring. In today’s fast-changing economic power shifts, who wants to be wedded to yesterday’s deal?
Motivations to stay in or leave any place go either way with changing circumstances as today’s enablers often become tomorrow’s restrictors. We always have to weigh up the net benefit or cost of being in a group.
In an African economic bloc discussion, as things stand now, I’ve no doubts that we’d be a net contributor, not a net benefactor. Furthermore, I’ve no doubt that an "afro" currency would have got the ratings downgrade we’ve so narrowly escaped, for now.
I’m for going it alone.
• Barnes is South African Post Office CEO
David Cameron delivers a speech. Picture: REUTERS/LEON NEAL
IT WAS Groucho Marx who said: "I refuse to join any club that would accept me as a member." Joining forces, joining a club, combining resources or going it alone is a choice we face in so many aspects of our lives.
In 10 days’ time, the people of Britain will decide by referendum whether or not they support staying part of the EU. The outcome, on June 24, will be binary and will be determined by simple majority. Presuming a pretty full turnout (the debate has enjoyed a high profile, internationally and abroad), the outcome will be regarded as the will of the people.
A referendum is, however, not legally binding, and the legislative changes required to effect exit would be difficult to fight against. Latest polls favour Brexit 55-45, still a close race, but that’s where the mood seems to be heading. Very high-profile players, such as former London mayor Boris Johnson (leave) and Barack Obama (stay in) have entered the fray.
It is curious that Prime Minister David Cameron (stay) has taken the risk of a referendum — if he loses, it will be the beginning of the end of his political career. I’m not sure where Donald Trump stands on the issue, but then I’m not sure if he’d understand the question.
As a first principle, the debate is about whether such unions tend towards the highest common factor of their constituent parts or go to the lowest common denominator of their weakest links.
This time, many issues are being debated at many levels — economic, political and social. There are 28 member countries in the EU, 19 of which have one currency, the euro.
The last time EU membership was on the table, it was Greece, and the focus was on currency. The Greeks have been responsible for any number of firsts — coining the "Grexit" phrase was another one. The difference is that decision, that referendum if you like, was on the other side —– it was the rest deciding whether Greece should leave, rather than Greece deciding whether it wanted to go.
At issue then, in essence, was the incompatibility of having monetary union without uniform fiscal policy. The Greeks were, at best, irresponsible financially, but they are part of the EU and their currency is the euro. If they hadn’t been, if they’d stayed with the drachma, they may have been better able to devalue themselves out of trouble (although that escape route is limited). The consequence of their bad behaviour was, fortunately, limited to their relative size.
The UK has its own currency, so it’s not about that. There are some higher issues at play here. One of them is migration. Freedom of movement is a central element of design in the EU. The trouble with that is that once you’re in, you’re free to move about. Whether you stand for more lax or more stringent immigration rules doesn’t matter in the EU — it is the easiest point of initial access that defines the border. Last year, more than 150,000 immigrants came into Britain via the EU. Some UK citizens feel that is too many, or at least, they didn’t have the same reasons for inviting them in as Germany may have had, say. At some level, this puts into play a second principle — loss of sovereignty.
There’s a lot of international rugby being played today, and it’s as clear from the team compositions as it was in the World Cup (Japan was a classic example — I’m still miffed that they beat us) that country of origin occasionally has to stand aside for the economic imperatives that drive professional sport.
The need in some countries to import a young and cheap workforce has had a major effect on migrant policy, but the needs of all member countries are not the same. In the end, though, it is not only about what is right or wrong, but about your autonomy to make that decision.
Britain itself is a union of many dimensions, and the consequences, issues, borders and independence fires that have been smouldering in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be ignited once more.
Maybe the economic debate, at its foundation, is about nothing more complex than whether size counts. At the margin, I’m not sure it does. Would the UK not be able to cut the same deals with its trading partners if it were not part of the EU? Of course its purchasing power would be diminished, but with a GDP in the top 10 of the world and second only to Germany in the EU, I’m not sure who would miss who the most. I’m sure the UK would manage on its own (even if the US doesn’t think so).
There could be a lot of skilled people flows from the UK to the EU on the happening of Brexit, in areas like finance, where London has managed to maintain itself as the financial centre of Europe despite equally or even more powerful centres such as Paris and Frankfurt.
Getting things done is always inversely proportional to the complexity of the governing structures that dictate due process. The diverse vested interests throughout the EU don’t make for simple legislative change and progress. Diverse agendas are more difficult to accommodate in the formulation of cohesive policy — don’t we know that?
The purpose of economic blocs goes beyond the Brexit debate. Who, if not Europe, is going to keep the balance of economic power in check? If the EU disintegrates, are we back to a two-force contest between the US and China? I think China, "from the other side", if you will, of western capitalism, is only just beginning to flex its muscles as it continues to send its excess of people and capital into the resource-and innovation-rich countries of the world to bring its will to bear.
The rest of the world is increasingly being made aware of China’s aspirations and past contributions. China will, in time, claim that it saved the world during the 2008 financial crisis.
I come down on the side of independence; it’s in my nature. I thought Greece should be kicked out and I think Britain should leave. But it’s not only that.
I believe many aspects of marriage can be manifest without the requirement for an evergreen contract, which can result in an expensive, often destructive, divorce.
Trade agreements, for instance, don’t require the sovereignty of either party to be compromised to be effective and enduring. In today’s fast-changing economic power shifts, who wants to be wedded to yesterday’s deal?
Motivations to stay in or leave any place go either way with changing circumstances as today’s enablers often become tomorrow’s restrictors. We always have to weigh up the net benefit or cost of being in a group.
In an African economic bloc discussion, as things stand now, I’ve no doubts that we’d be a net contributor, not a net benefactor. Furthermore, I’ve no doubt that an "afro" currency would have got the ratings downgrade we’ve so narrowly escaped, for now.
I’m for going it alone.
• Barnes is South African Post Office CEO
