European nations, who were once sworn enemies, are now living in a world that the Indian subcontinent can only dream of. Sony Kapoor (Re-Define) says the history of the British exit from India as a reminder that the peace and prosperity the EU has delivered, including to the UK, cannot be taken for granted. He warns that while the calamity of ‘Brexit’ from the Indian subcontinent in 1947 affected only that region, the equally badly planned and divisive Brexit from the EU will inflict costs on almost all British citizens.
I was at the Nobel centre in Oslo on Europe day last week reading the citation of the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the EU the peace prize for 2012. Coming as it did at the height of the eurocrisis it was not an uncontroversial choice. I remember spending the day fielding BBC interview questions and lauding the choice, but few others in the UK did. Given the developments since, in Ukraine and with the Brexit vote in particular, there is even more reason to extol the merits of the decision. How so?
Let us start with a little thought experiment. Imagine if you woke up next week, and someone said India and Pakistan were about to go to war and your instinctive response to that was to laugh at them in their face because it was such a ludicrous idea. Would that not be a wonderful world to wake up to? That is exactly what has happened for France and Germany. Anyone suggesting they may go to war is met with hilarious laughter or an instant and total loss of credibility and rightly so.
The partition of India, in 1947, the most traumatic event in the history of the subcontinent, displaced more than fifteen million people, and killed more than a million. Both my parents, for example, were forced to flee leaving everything behind, and lost family members in the senseless violence that accompanied this inexplicable British decision to split British India into India, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Millions of Indian families, including mine, who had to start all over again as refugees, are still scarred by the trauma. But this is nothing compared to the trauma of the second world war, which ended in 1945, inflicted on Europe. Germany, Poland, France, Italy and the UK killed hundreds of thousands, even millions of each other’s citizens not to mention the holocaust visited upon the Jewish and Roma people.
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license
Yet, over seventy years after these most traumatic events in the history of the European continent and the Indian subcontinent, things look very different. I grew up in India in the shadow of fear that a war between India and Pakistan could break out at any time. The subcontinent is the place in the world where a nuclear conflagration is most likely. India and Pakistan hardly trade, don’t invest in each other’s economies, are on the opposite sides of most international issues and have constant low-level conflict and violence at the many disputed parts of the border. Getting visas to visit each other’s countries is an exercise in frustration, and the border teems with military presence.
Tit for tat raids, periodic suspensions of diplomatic ties and a general unfriendliness make theirs one of the most fraught relationships, fuelling an arms race that both countries can ill afford. Both spend a large multiple of their health budget on military expenditure, even as life expectancy lags more than a decade behind EU levels, and morbidity rates are unacceptably high. Meanwhile, Germany, Poland, France, Italy and the UK have lived through the longest conflict-free period of peace in the troubled and conflict-filled history of the European continent. Citizens roam freely in the borderless Schengen zone, with well over a million having moved to another EU country in 2017 alone, and intra-EU trade just set a new record. France and Germany sometimes have joint cabinet meetings and together have driven the engine of European integration, a far cry from the days of killing each other’s citizens. Few countries are more closely aligned and integrated as these once sworn enemies.
None of this was a foregone conclusion, and yet, thanks largely to the success of the European project, here we are living in a wonderful world that the Indian subcontinent can only dream of. Back in 1947 it seemed far more likely that peace would reign in the Indian subcontinent than in Europe, but the EU has transformed Europe. The Nobel Committee citation rightly reads “the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.” I would add prosperity that.
The EU, despite its many imperfections, remains history’s most successful peace and prosperity project, especially since the successful integration of most of the post-communist central and eastern European member states. As an experiment in how to pool sovereignty for a greater good in an increasingly globalized world, the EU offers a template for the rest of the world to follow. Having spent five difficult, oftentimes frustrating, years from 2009 to 2013 fighting the financial crisis and the eurocrisis from Brussels and Berlin only enhanced my admiration for what the EU has achieved. The fact that pooling sovereignty is hard only seeks to remind us of how far the EU has come against all odds. That is what the Nobel Committee sought to do at the height of a divisive eurocrisis.
But the European Union cannot be taken for granted and remains very much a work in progress. The re-emergence of illiberal tendencies in many EU countries, the new East/West fault-line, the unfinished business of economic reform and integration, the rising threat from Russia, Trump’s divisiveness, the Brexit shambles and the continuing shameful treatment of the Roma minority are just some of the problems the EU will need to confront head-on.
These are difficult matters no doubt, but they pale in comparison to the achievements of the EU thus far. Even for the entity that has managed to forge peace from war, these are very difficult, but not impossible challenges. A look at the Indian subcontinent is a useful reminder of the peace and prosperity the EU has delivered, including to the UK.
Brexit from the Indian subcontinent was poorly planned and divisive but the huge human and economic costs of poor British policy have been borne entirely by the citizens of the subcontinent. However, the equally badly planned and divisive Brexit from the EU being contemplated will inflict almost all costs on British citizens. Why not stay part of history’s most successful peace and prosperity project instead? Indians wanted us out, but Europeans want us to stay.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE.
Sony Kapoor is Managing Director of Re-Define, an international Think Tank and a Trustee of Friends of Europe, the pan-EU Think Tank. @SonyKapoor
The EU has been a good broker of peace and would continue to be so if things remained the same, but they have not. The EU now has more financial, social and political imbalances than at any other time in it’s history. Much of this stems from dogmatic EU policies and the drive for greater integration.
The Eurozone created cheap loans that were taken by poor economies that may never pay them back. Many of the EU’s poorer nations rely on continual handouts from the richer EU nations, mainly Germany. As a result many economists and financial experts predict the collapse of the EU monetary system, an event that will cause much economic hardship and play directly into the hands of the growing far right parties that now hold significant influence in several EU nations.
These parties have grown largely out of the EUs Freedom of Movement policy and poor handling of the African migration crisis. The EU ignores an ugly but often repeated lesson of history that migration plus recession equals Nationalism. In addition, Freedom of Movement has resulted in so many skilled staff leaving the poorer nations that some are now seeing a slowing of their economic growth due to skills shortages and population decline. If this continues economic growth will revers, more fodder for the far right. Some in the small Baltic states fear that the reduction in the native population shifts influence to their ethnic Russian populations, making them vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Brussels has demonstrated that it has little understanding of the real causes of conflict. It’s preferred solution to the Irish border problem is to include Northern Ireland within the customs union. This is a red rag to the Protestant bull as it diminishes their independence and identity. Putin warned the EU and NATO that if it continued to offer memberships to the ex-soviet block countries Russia would see this as a threat to it’s security and take action. The EU ignored this, offered membership to Ukraine which gave Putin the excuse to annexe Crimea and ferment insurrection along Ukraine’s Eastern border.
EU policies have led to growing Euroscepticism right across the EU. As a result the UK has chosen to leave. Once the UK is out other Nations disillusioned with the EU will find in the UK a readily available trading partner making Leave a much more practical option.
Brussels seems entirely unaware of this, it will continue with its divisive Freedom of Movement policies and plans further integration all of which will fuel greater division. The Guardian recently reported on a leaked document showing that the Germans are simulating the consequences of a breakup of the EU. They would not be doing that if it was not considered a possibility. The biggest threat to peace in Europe is the EU.
I disagree with everything you have said as you have clearly regurgitated it from the UK right-wing press.
My comments have not been ‘regurgitated from the right wing press’ they are founded on research I did before the referendum in order to decide which way to vote. I have bookmarked many online resources that include typically left-leaning newspapers such as the Guardian, do not include any tabloid sources such as the Express or the Daily Mail and also include links to reports from organisations such as the IMF and the EU themselves. If you want to see material for any of the points I have made then please let me know which point and I will put here the relevant links. Regarding the collapse of the Eurozone if you Google ‘Joseph Stiglitz euro collapse’ you will find some interesting reading. As Stiglitz helped design the Euro monetary system his opinions are worth noting.
When the EU’s supporters stop treating any criticism of the EU as right-wing xenophobia they will start to see that all is not well in the rosy EU garden.
“Brussels seems entirely unaware of this, it will continue with…” It is this type of comment that leads directly to your mentors, whether you’re aware of them or not. And of course, it’s that famous trope again – the blundering giant walking (forever, it seems) into his own demise. Besides, you are missing the point of the great article which explains the actual overeaching value of the EU project that far exceeds the sum of its not insignificant (the author clearly says so) shortcomings. They are fixable – by the believers in EU – but the lives squandered in the absence european harmony aren’t.
When you say ‘your mentors’ I am assuming that you have in mind promoters of right wing nationalism. This is the first time I have seen this method of dismissing somebody’s legitimate concerns and opinions. Usually we are just derided as bigots, racists, xenophobes and backward looking ignoramouses so full marks for introducing yet another prejudice.
I was one of those believers in the EU that thought change could br wrought from within, but when Cameron went to Brussels before the referendum to try and gain some concessions on migration, they sent him away with next to nothing. Their intransigence and inflexibility made me realise that the EU is ruled by dogma and idealism, two failings which make them blind to the consequences of their actions until heavy damage is inflicted. Cameron’s denied request is a clear example of this, if they had been more flexible on migration it is likely the UK would not be leaving.
Another example of their inflexibility can be seen in the damage done to the poorer EU nations. World Health Guidelines limit the number of medical staff rich nations take from poor nations to stop their health care services being depleted. The EU follows these guidelines for countries outside the EU but not for countries within the EU. The result is that the poorer EU nations now have health services which by our standards are close to collapse. Unless you have private health insurance in these countries the chance of seeing a doctor or getting a bed in a hospital becomes slimmer each year.
And following the doctors and nurses in their exodus to the rich countries are the skilled and qualified workers. The IMF forecasts that by 2030 GDP per person in several countries may be 3-4% lower than it would have been without emigration. Even one of the EU’s own reports has warned of the damage being done to poorer nations by Freedom of Movement.
But Freedom of Movement has been made one of the corner stones of EU integration. The dogma and idealisms of the EU and it’s supporters means they will not recognise any failings in Freedom of Movement until things start collapsing around them. All this plays nicely into the hands of the far right. The German Neo-Nazis will be celebration this year now that figures have been released showing that in Germany more children are born to families from overseas than natvie Germans.
All the above has been about migration, unfortunately this post is already too long to discuss the possible collapse of the Euro or the huge debt imbalances that exist between North and South member nations. What was once an impressive model of cross border cooperation is increasingly looking like a fragile house of cards.
No, I didn’t think for a second that the person behind your comment is a bigot or anything along those lines. Nor did i mean to belittle you by reference to ‘your mentors’. (Sorry if it came accross as such). But let’s face it, the argument you’re advancing (in good faith I should say), namely, that EU is on a Titanic journey to disaster is a classic Brexit narrative that as we now know won the referendum result. You seem affronted by EU’s temerity not to aceede to Cameron’s demands for concesions (on immigration), forgetting that Britain was already beneficiary of th emost enviable set of concesions extracted from Brussels at the time when EU was more of a soft touch than it was in 2016 and when its patience with its historically most difficult member was still below the critical point. But it was Brtain under Blair, as far as I remember, that pushed adamantly for EU expansion eastwards (the possible reasons for which range from the politically cynical – undermining the future of federalism in EU – to the economically advantageous – cheap labor for the rising British economy) and, again, Britain herself that decided not to impose restrictions on the influx of EE labour at the time when such a policy was not only admissible from the point of view of EU law but in fact adopted by many other EU countries that knew better than to mind only their business interests at the expense of all others. We shot ourselves in the foot and then went to Brussels to cry wolf and effectively threaten EU with leaving if they don’t pander to yet more of our demands based on that inexplicable sense of our own exceptionalism. It didn’t work. Not because EU is founded on a dogma – that’s what you call the British relationship with laissez-faire politics that caused the problem in the first place – but because appeasement, especially in the circumstances of blatant coercion, is the worst strategy for survival you can adopt in the world of realpolitik. And the survival of the EU, whether or not it is for you as well, is many people’s top priority. These people include myself because I, like the author of the above article, value peace and harmony in Europe above all else (I have experienced the prelude to the Yugoslav war and I know exactly what I’m talking about). Seeing its most recalcitrant member leave the club with the flounce must have seemed a price worth paying for the much bigger goal of saving the rest of the union by keeping its four pillars intact.
At this point you turned your back to EU. I did the opposite and embraced it, finally seeing it capable of showing some moxie and not just empty posturing and head in the sand gestures, like before.
I also disagree with you that FOM is the culprit for the distribution, negative or otherwise, of high skill labour across the EU. It merely facilitates the flow of labour that in absence of such mechanism would put massive strains on those job markets that are simply not developed enough to themselves facilitate home employment. One thing is wanting to keep doctors at home, you also need to give them jobs that pay adequate salary. Eastern Europe has always been good at churning out highly skilled and educated people but not so good at developing economies that can make use of them once they leave universities. Those in Eastern Europe who blame EU for seeing their talent dissapear abroad, citing the figures that you mention from IMF, are themselves skilful players of political games and the game most in vogue today happen to be punching the bag of EU on the pretext that it embodies all the evils of our world and none of the boons. It’s an easy game to learn and learned it well they did: the Le Pens, the Faragues and the Orbans (watch the latter one turn into a real virtuoso at this if Brussels decides to finally stand up to him).
Oh well, it seems there’s not much here that we can agree on. But since I believe your heart is in the right place, good luck to you anyway.
Simon, thank you for your lengthy and good natured reply. Unfortunately you are right in that there is not much we can agree on, such is politics!
I wasn’t affronted by EU’s refusal of Cameron’s demands, and would agree that the UK has been a difficult member of the EU, but it seemed obvious that immigration was the big issue in the referendum and by not giving some concessions they guaranteed the vote to leave. I think Senior European leaders were as shocked at the result as many UK citizens were. When the result was announced President Hollande said we are now living in dangerous times. A little more flexibility before the referendum and he wouldn’t have had to make that statement.
Regarding cheap EU labour, there are serious question marks now about how economically advantageous cheap labour from the EU really is. If you look at a chart of the UKs growth in GDP, despite adding millions of new hands to the workforce our rate of growth is no better than it was before. We are told that we have a low unemployment rate which is probably true, but if you look below the surface there are some disturbing realities. According to Labour Party figures we have 6 million people earning less than the legal minimum wage (c18% of the work force). We have 1 million working in zero hour contracts. 30,000 graduates are in unpaid internships and the number of people working part time has risen from 6 million to 9 million. Some recent research from Germany explains the problem: The German workforce has increased by five million over the past decade, but only one million work full-time. So while there are more employees than ever before, they are individually working less. Wage costs are low in Germany because, since 2000, it is more attractive for companies to employ additional workers rather than investing in full or even partial automation. Hence, the current employment boom is a consequence of an economy driven not by innovation and productivity, but by economic stagnation. Out of four reports on the costs (health, benefits, etc.) and profits of employing overseas labour, only one found a profit, the others calculating a slight loss. In other words, our addiction to overseas labour has provided little real benefit yet has divided the country.
The belief we have in the UK that we are doing the poorer countries a favour by taking under-employed people off their hands is totally wrong. I have added a link to a news article that describes what has happened to the Romanian health service as a result of Freedom of Movement. It is not hard to find others similar articles. The countries in the EU with the highest skills shortages are the poorer EU nations not the richest. A report by the World Bank warned that as the poorer nations have weaker education systems they are less able to replace the skilled staff they lose to the richer nations. Add to that that all those nations are facing fast declining birth rates, then if Freedom of Movement continues the shift of workers out of the poorer nations will put their economies are in serious danger of decline. All this plays directly into the hands of the far right.
I too would like to see the EU survive but not in its present form. It is creating too many imbalances, too many divisions and playing straight into the hands of the far right. Its guarantee of peace is increasingly fragile. I hope I am wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/romanian-health-service-crisis-doctors-uk
As Simon Magus has pointed out in this thread the British were the main advocates of rapid EU expansion to the East following the collapse of the Soviet Union, mainly I think to make the prospect of integration leading to a “United States of Europe” highly unlikely – not that this ever has been anything more than a pipe dream of some well-meaning idealists. While it was this expansion which made population movement a problem it has to be said that the progress of these former communist countries has been heartening, despite the difficulty of coping with the drain of talented people. The bitter lessons of history show that building of partnership between nations leading to sharing of sovereignty within limits which still permit cultural and societal individuality and loyalty at national level (and indeed regions within nations) is unquestionably beneficial. As Sony Kapur, who clearly is only too well aware of the intractable problems faced elsewhere in the world, says – “Germany, Poland, France, Italy and the UK have lived through the longest conflict-free period of peace in the troubled and conflict-filled history of the European continent….The EU, despite its many imperfections, remains history’s most successful peace and prosperity project.” It is easy as Mark Dressel demonstrates to list the reasons why it could all end in tears but surely it must be preferable to work with those who are determined to achieve its continued success. I think it is a tragedy that the UK is now engaged in extracting itself and the more tedious and at times ridiculous this procedure becomes the more tragic it is.
Apologies for misspelling your name, Mr Kapoor!
Sony, I like most parts of your article. Harsh truth to read as an Indian, but it is true.
But it is not fair at all or do any justice to compare sufferings of two distinct events. India fought for Britain and lost men. We have fought before that in Haifa and Gibraltar to name a few. WW1 and essentially our blood brothers Pakistan in 1947.
It isn’t nice thing to say (my opinion).
Obviously India needs help economically from advisors and talented economists, and not from nationalists in charge of the planning. Society is in shambles compared to the west because of caste discrimination and anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu attitude.
Settling peace with Pakistan will not happen anytime soon because Pakistan prefers to ignore their problems. They will not stand as one to fight poverty together with India. We have a very different level of politics going on here.