Reflections: Brexit may leave UK in disarray

It was impossible not to think of the old “Fog over the Channel, Continent isolated” gag when British voters unravelled the decision taken in 1975 to join Europe. But levity must be tempered with sobriety. The referendum was the end of a dream. The European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 as it was seen as an ideal that could one day inspire the evolution of a global federation. That ideal now lies shattered thanks to Boris Johnson — “Boris the Buffoon” as someone called him on TV — the former London mayor and probably Britain’s next Prime Minister. Some comfort can, however, still be derived from disaster. The Chinese word for “crisis” consists of two ideograms standing for “danger” and “opportunity”. One could discern both in the early hours of Friday as the referendum result was announced.

The outcome brought home to watchers that not for nothing is Britain called the Mother of Democracy. Not many governments would entrust a major executive decision to the vicissitudes of the public will and then ensure it is expressed without hindrance. Nor would any other PM I can think of voluntarily step down when the popular decision went against him. David Cameron’s decision to quit ensures his place in history. Asked about the referendum outcome, Donald Trump, the US Republican presidential contender, who arrived in Britain Thursday, snapped that the British had “taken their country back”.

That, too, brought back old memories. The late Enoch Powell, the Conservative politician who became notorious in 1958 for his “rivers of blood” speech on Asian and African immigration, also said “an agreement with the European Economic Community (EU’s predecessor) was totally incompatible with normal parliamentary government”. Asked to explain, he said: “The nation has returned to haunt us.” The perceived threat then was not from Europe as from the Asian and African Commonwealth. Powell, who served in the Army in India during World War II when he learnt Urdu (he insisted on calling me “Mr Rai”), claimed that a constituent in his native Wolverhampton had expressed the fear that “in this country in 15 or 20 years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man”.

Public reservations on Afro-Asian immigration can’t be ignored. But Powell’s first prediction on the nation has now come true. However, the United Kingdom is not one nation but four. Thursday’s historic vote impacts all of them, both for the principles it invoked and the outcome that might transform the UK constitutionally. For let it not be forgotten that only voters in England and Wales voted to leave the EU. Not so in Scotland and Northern Ireland: 75 per cent Scots and 66 per cent of the Northern Irish wanted to remain in the EU. Murmurs are already heard that having so graciously submitted to the democratic verdict, Mr Cameron, or whoever succeeds him as PM at the Conservative Party conference in October, should not deny the benefits of democracy to the two other components of the UK.

Northern Ireland has a 300-mile land border with the Republic of Ireland, which remains an enthusiastic EU member. If free movement of manpower, goods and services across the border is to come to an end, the border must be sealed and guarded, which will strike all those men and women who regard the Emerald Isle as an indivisible Celtic homeland with horror. The alternative of Northern Ireland as an EU member would be possible only if it is independent of England. That is what Scotland wants. In fact, the referendum has given a fillip to the long-standing demand for Edinburgh to revert to its historic status as a sovereign capital city. That would mean another referendum.

It’s a sad day for Europe too. Membership of the EU is expected to feature in the Spanish, French and Italian elections. Incipient “leave” movements are discernible in several other established EU nations. Even if they don’t go as far as Britain, they are bound to seek to renegotiate their terms of membership as Mr Cameron tried to do in February. It was because his gains were seen as negligible that the PM called the referendum. He was not constitutionally obliged to do so. Having called it, he is not constitutionally bound to abide by the result. He is certainly not required to quit office over the result. It is to Mr Cameron’s great personal credit that he chose to take the high moral road on all these issues.

If the EU link goes, the relationship with the Commonwealth might surge into greater focus. Mr Johnson, who has marital ties with India, has spoken of improving ties with the country. Indo-British trade, now just over $14 billion, is shrinking. India has a very small trade surplus with the EU. The Tatas’ withdrawal means a major reduction of Indian investment. There are fewer Indian immigrants and students. There is scope for enhancement on many fronts although higher Indian migration is bound to raise race hackles. Nothing will happen for around two years as Mr Cameron won’t immediately start divorce proceedings under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. But all in all, despite his noble moral stand, he may ultimately be remembered for unintentionally causing race strife and for breaking up the United Kingdom. The most effective antidote would be for his successor to negotiate a new agreement with the EU that 17 million “Leave” voters find satisfactory.