Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/699546
14 RARELY has the European demo- cratic process seemed quite as messy as it is today, in the wake of last week's shock 'Brexit' referen- dum result. On paper, the situation appears simple enough. The UK was given the opportunity to make a straight choice: to either remain a member of the EU, where its immediate fu- ture (for better or worse) was more or less predictable; or to take a great leap in the dark, on the vague promise of a better life as a non- member state. There is nothing intrinsically unusual in that process. All 2004 enlargement countries also took a comparable decision by nation- wide referendum. And yet, this otherwise routine decision imme- diately plunged Britain itself into a crisis from which it may conceiv- ably not recover: not, at any rate, in the form of a 'United' Kingdom. The same threat of fragmenta- tion now looms over the rest of the EU, too, with several countries demanding similar referendums of their own. How does this square up with the European Union's credentials as a force for democracy in the world? How did we reach a stage whereby 'democracy', in its purest form, threatens to demolish the EU al- together? Prof. Roderick Pace is the direc- tor of the University of Malta's In- stitute of European Studies. What does he make of this conundrum? "There is turmoil, no doubt about that. The only British poli- tician/statesman left standing on her feet is Nicola Sturgeon. The rest have been knocked off their pedestals, so to speak…" This fact alone, he suggests, at- tests to the possibility that 'Leave' were taken by surprise by the suc- cess of their own campaign. "The theory about Boris Johnson is that he plunged into this on the expectation that Leave would not win… and that he would be poised to take his best friend's job – Da- vid Cameron was his best friend – but of course when he realised what a herculean task lay ahead, he backed out. Also because he was stabbed in the back by his col- league, Michael Gove…" Viewed from this angle, the situ- ation does appear decidedly messy. It gets worse when you factor in the apparent self-destruction of the Opposition. "On the other hand, there is the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Cor- byn, who refuses to step down. I think he should also shoulder that responsibility. He has already lost a vote of confidence by his par- liamentary group; but he should also go for having mishandled the whole campaign…" Again, however, this points to- wards other more far-reaching anomalies exposed by the result. Corbyn, an old-school Socialist and in many ways the antithesis of the 'Blairites' he replaced, sup- ported 'remain' on paper… yet the results indicate that the poor and the marginalised (i.e., the ones who would be expected to support Labour) voted against staying in. "It's a great anomaly. Sometimes I ask myself, was he [Corbyn] aware of the great social concerns that motivated many voters to vote the way they did? Is that why he took a low-key approach to cam- paigning? Perhaps he did not want to irritate the grassroots. He did at one point say that he was elected by constituents to do a certain job… and not to give comfort to the Prime Minister." Isn't there another contradiction, though? Why would someone like Corbyn, who champions the peo- ple from poorer and less privileged backgrounds, want to support EU membership, anyway? If you look at the EU for what it ultimately is – the largest trade bloc in the world – and the way it has put up trade barriers to block imports from de- veloping countries, the picture is not exactly very 'socialist'. In fact, it is the opposite: the EU operates along neo-liberal lines… "Yes, Europe is neo-liberal. But its internationalist objectives, the integration between states, its Eu- ropean values, human rights… the political objectives of the EU are all the old objectives of the Left. His- torically, the Left never favoured the nation state as such. Besides, what we overlook is that a lot of work has been done by the EU for the environment, for food safety, for consumer protection, for hu- man rights and workers' rights. It's not just a trading bloc…" Perhaps, but to judge by the gen- eral reaction to 'Brexit', one would think that the EU was some kind of Utopia from which one would be mad to escape. Isn't there also an ugly side to this Utopia? The EU's policies on agriculture, for instance, have contributed directly to keeping African countries in a permanent state of poverty: by denying them export markets that would bring about a material dif- ference to those countries. "The European Union has been defensive and protectionist in ag- riculture, when it shouldn't have been. Many African countries de- pend on exports of primary prod- ucts and agricultural goods. The more these are liberalised globally, the more income these countries will get. What they do with that income is, however, another ques- tion. Unless something is done about internal governance issues in these countries, the material difference you mention would be minimal. In political science today, there is a growing concern about 'ethical leadership' and 'kleptoc- racy': how thievery and corruption are undermining governments and their ability to lead development programmes. It's a very serious issue. We tend to only ever talk about one side of the equation: what can the developed world do to help them catch up? We don't ask what the developing countries can do to help themselves." All the same, Prof. Pace concedes that the EU system in its present form has not always lived up to its ideals of social justice. "We have basically accepted a model of unbridled capitalism, governed by market forces, tax cuts that often benefit the affluent, and a race for profits. We lower taxes to attract investment, there- by instantly rewarding the profit- makers who don't always (though there are exceptions) put anything back into the system. This creates entire brackets of people who are poor, because there is no real re- distributive model. "How is wealth distributed? Through social services, the NHS and education. With social ser- vices, there is a tendency to say: if we are too generous, people won't go out to work. It is true there is abuse; but surely there must be an administrative way of catch- ing the abuser, without punishing those who need the services most. When it comes to budgets, there is a constant drive to cut down government spending and balance the books while reducing revenue through corporate tax reductions. At a glance you might think this is fair; but then, without the neces- sary funds, how can a government operate its education services… so important in the creation of a knowledge-based economy, which is our main competitive advantage as a nation? And national health services everywhere are running at a loss. Here in Malta, too. We are running out of steam…" This takes us back to the Brexit referendum. One way to interpret the result is that the British people (and other populations in Europe seem to agree) simply never felt the benefits of EU membership. How can they be blamed for want- ing to pull out? "I tend to agree with the leading article in today's Economist, which says that many people voted in an- ger. The social condition of many people – the 'working poor': those without a job, or households with two or more jobs, and still can't make ends meet – was a determin- ing factor. Not everyone leads the lifestyle many people are used to and take for granted. Not everyone can afford to go on holiday once in a while; take their family out to eat, and so on. "Many people are struggling. Youth unemployment in Europe is high. Pensioners, as in Malta, are expected to get by on a risible monthly income. Can you imagine anyone living on less than 1,000 euros a month here? Even 1,000 is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pensioners get around half that. It is not the EU alone that must change but also our own countries must return to a model of a social market economy in the true mean- ing of word." But doesn't this only make the re- sult of the Brexit referendum that much harder to dismiss? What are we telling these huge brackets of people, by heaping scorn on their democratic decision to leave the EU? That they're lumped with a system that has impoverished them? That, even to those who voted to stay, there is no alterna- tive to a system that is manifestly socially unjust? If so, doesn't that make the EU a little like 'Hotel California'? "You can check out any time you like… but you can never leave?" "No; the result has to be respect- ed. The UK has checked out, and it will leave. That is why, from a certain angle, I agree that the UK should activate Article 50 without delay. They need to start nego- tiating to see how to disentangle themselves from the EU; and after that, they need to negotiate a new agreement. On the other hand, I also accept that the situation at the moment is a shambles, really. How can you have a serious interlocutor on the other side, if they haven't even elected a new prime minister yet… let alone settled all the other issues: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland?" Yet the EU seems hell-bent on Britain leaving as soon as possible. What does Prof. Pace make of this rush? Isn't that an open invitation to further chaos and uncertainty? "The reasons for this rush are twofold. Firstly, there are those who wish to punish the UK. I don't agree with them at all; I must un- derline this. Punishing the UK may yield its political dividends, in the Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 JULY 2016 After 43 years of marriage, one side has no right to use its strength to demolish the other, just because they have separated. Especially not if the intention is only to teach the next wife a lesson to 'stay put' DIVORCE 'You can check out When I see Nigel Farage on TV, I don't agree with his views… many of them make me laugh, to be honest… but in a democracy, those views have to be respected, whether you agree with them or not DEMOCRACY