In an interview this week, President Obama raised concerns about the potential of an EU-exit for the UK. Tim Oliver argues that Obama was right to raise these concerns, as Brexit is not simply a matter for domestic UK politics. It would also affect many of the UK’s closest allies including the USA.
In a recent interview with Jon Sopel of BBC News, President Barack Obama spoke about a potential British exit from the EU.
I will say this, that having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union and is part of the cornerstone of institutions built after World War II that has made the world safer and more prosperous.
And we want to make sure that United Kingdom continues to have that influence. Because we believe that the values that we share are the right ones, not just for ourselves, but for Europe as a whole and the world as a whole.
Obama’s comments immediately drew the ire of Eurosceptics. Conservative MEP Dan Hannan tweeted ‘I accept that there may be some arguments for staying in the EU. Humouring Barack Obama is not one of them.’ Various UK Independence Party (UKIP) politicians and representatives weighed in. A party spokesman told the Express: ‘So Obama’s method is, ladle on the flattery, then try and get them to do something that suits him, rather than us. Not much of a friend.’ UKIP MEP Patrick Flynn tweeted: ‘Barack Obama unwise to pressurise Britain to stay in the EU for America’s convenience. We need to look to our own national interest first.’ Delve into the comments section of many articles on the topic and you find a barrage of often puerile abuse directed at Obama and the USA.
Obama has faced similar criticism in the past from some on the political right in the US. In June 2015 Obama stated that, ‘we are very much looking forward to the United Kingdom staying a part of the European Union’. Nile Gardiner, head of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Tea Party leaning Heritage Foundation think tank, accused Obama of leading ‘an extraordinary interference in Britain’s internal affairs by the United States government.’
There is a degree of hypocrisy here given some of those on the US political right who criticise Obama for saying such things think nothing of calling on him and the US to intervene militarily in foreign states. Nor do they hold back from calling for the US government to push the UK and other European allies to spend more on defence. In his BBC interview Obama was asked if the US had put pressure on the UK to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence. Obama admitted there had been an, ‘honest conversation’.
The general criticism made of Obama is that the matter of UK membership of the EU is none of the US’s business, or that of any other country or world leader. But a Brexit (like UK defence spending) is the US’s business. Voting to leave the EU would be a decision that could transform the UK, change the EU, reshape the transatlantic relationship and have clear economic, political and security implications for the US. These are not issues any President of the United States – Republican or Democrat – can stay silent on.
The USA is not the only state to voice concerns and make clear its position. The Irish Republic has repeatedly warned that the economic and security implications for it and Northern Ireland (where a Brexit could destabilise the peace process) mean that it strongly opposes a Brexit.
Other EU countries have not been so direct in public. Some are weary of the debate, seeing the issue as a distraction from the bigger problems facing the EU. Some worry that admitting they do not want to see Britain leave would strengthen UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s hand in his attempt to renegotiate Britain’s membership. But as a leak to the Guardian newspaper showed, even David Cameron does not want to see a Brexit.
Last year the German Council on Foreign Relations published a report (edited by myself and Almut Möller) reviewing how 26 countries from around Europe and the world view the possibility of a Brexit. The report was clear that other EU members, the USA, and UK allies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Norway are aware that a Brexit would change the EU, European geopolitics and transatlantic relations.
These countries worry a Brexit would not be good for them or the UK. But this is not simply about narrow national interests. Many worry about the collective damage to the relationships that bind many of these countries together.
A Brexit could change the EU. It would lose one of its largest, most outward looking and important member states. The EU today reflects a list of British successes, such as the Single Market or enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. A Brexit could shift the political balance in the EU, running the risk of making it less open, less interested in global issues, less Atlanticist, and perhaps weaken it in such a way that it begins to unravel.
For the US, the transatlantic relationship is not just about the US-UK ‘special relationship’. Europe and North America are the most integrated regions of the world in economics, politics and security. The US is not going to give up on the EU if Britain leaves. The US government wants the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to work, not a smaller free trade deal with just the UK. A Brexit would mean Britain risks becoming an awkward inbetweener, beholden more than ever before to the ebb and flow of the wider transatlantic relationship.
Then there is the UK itself. The possibility of Brexit leading to economic damage to the UK, of instability in Northern Ireland and the opening of the Pandora’s Box of Scottish independence means Britain’s allies and friends are understandably concerned about where a Brexit would take one of their closest allies.
It’s important to appreciate that other states will have a say over the future of the UK. If Britain votes to leave the EU then it cannot simply demand a new relationship with the EU of its own choosing. That new relationship will be one the other EU member states (and potentially their parliaments and voters) and the European Parliament will have to agree to. Ideas by some on the right of UK politics that the UK could join something like NAFTA as a substitute overlook how few in the USA take such an idea seriously, let alone opinion in Mexico or Canada.
Like many states, Britain is wrestling with the challenges and opportunities of economic, political and security interdependencies as a result of Europeanisation or globalisation. It is inevitable that a key part of the debate leading up to the EU referendum will be hearing the opinions of Britain’s closest allies and friends. Without it, Britain’s referendum debate will be oblivious to the extent to which Britain’s place in the world depends on the behaviour and outlook of others.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article originally appeared at our sister site, USAPP – American Politics and Policy. It gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Number 10 (Crown Copyright/Arron Hoare)
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1HOlSE7
_________________________________
Tim Oliver – LSE IDEAS
Tim Oliver is a Dahrendorf Postdoctoral Fellow on Europe-North American relations at LSE IDEAS and a Non-Resident Fellow at the SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations. He has also worked at RAND, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, LSE, UCL, the House of Lords and the European Parliament.
All these countries have no interest in the wellbeing of the UK or what is best for British citizens they are only interested in how “Their” relationship with the EU is promoted to best suit their own agenda. Alarmingly they don’t seem to understand the structure of the EU an institution where we are ignored, constantly sidelined & bypassed as Mr Putin aptly put it, a small country that no one listens to anymore. The UK is a small isolated member state of the EU with a voice diluted by 28 other equal member states voices that rarely align with that of the UK unless we have some asset that they need or need. We subsidise these same people to the tune of £10 billion a year net & suck in a trade deficit with them to the tune of £60+ billion a year. We do not represent the US, Canada, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand or anyone else for that matter in the EU they represent themselves if they think we can in anyway lobby effectively for them when we can’t even get ourselves out of supporting a monetary union that we aren’t even in then they are living in la la land.
“The UK is a small isolated member state of the EU with a voice diluted by 28 other equal member states voices that rarely align with that of the UK unless we have some asset that they need or need.”
Where is the evidence for this claim? This gets said constantly by Eurosceptics without anything to back it up. There are stacks of studies on who “wins” and “loses” in EU negotiations and there has never to my knowledge been a single credible study that follows this idea of UK marginalisation in EU decision-making. It seems to just be said because it sounds good – or in the hope that it might fool enough of the electorate to win the referendum.
He is right. These EU states only want what they can get out of the uk. Where is the eu in supporting the uk???? Gibraltar. Calais. Economic migrants. Protectionism. The UK is a huge net importer but they refuse to take our goods. The want to screw the city of London and hammer us constantly. The eu does NOT WORK FOR BRITAIN. If anyone can make a case for it lets hear it but so far NO ONE HAS. The eu is about French German Luxembourg Brussels control. The euro HAS BEEN a disater. DEMOCRACY is not respected. STOP THE BULL PEOPLE. If you can make the case lets hear it otherwise shut up about how the eu benefits Britain. IT DOES NOT OVERALL AND BY A NEGATIVE MARGIN.
Alex, with respect I asked for evidence, not blind assertions. The claim is that the UK is outvoted/bullied within the EU. There are very large numbers of proper studies on this topic and I’m not aware of a single one that proves that to be true – quite the opposite. Just ignoring all of the evidence and shouting in caps lock isn’t much of a response.
You’ve also made another series of claims without any evidence – e.g. what is the evidence to back up the notion that the EU “refuses to take our goods”? That’s precisely the point in the single market – that we can export all of our goods to any country within the EU free from tariffs and under a set of mutually agreed rules designed to eliminate trade barriers. They don’t “refuse to take our goods” precisely because of the EU and the only way they might ever “refuse to take our goods” is if we leave the EU – the very thing you seem to be advocating.
As for the idea that nobody has ever made a case for the EU that’s rather odd to put it mildly. There was a study by UCL recently that showed we gain a net benefit of around £20 billion from EU migrants. There was a study by the Centre for Economic Performance that showed leaving the EU would entail losses between 1.1% of GDP and 3.1% of GDP in the short-term, and up to 9.5% if you factor in lower productivity growth. These are two proper academic studies making a clear case for staying in the EU. What’s the counter-argument? Where is the evidence to back up what you’re saying?
Seldom have I read such a litany of threats: this article in essence says that Britain has no sovereignty but is merely a platform for the interests of other nations and of the corporates. And if it dares exercise that sovereignty it will be sanctioned and punished.
It really exposes the depraved nature of the EU: that is if any additional exposure is needed after the cynical and cruel destruction of Greece.
If this is representative of the thinking of the EU bureaucracy , then they should be advised:
Have a care: Britain is not Greece. And we love thee not.
What litany of threats? The author has argued other states would lose from a Brexit and are therefore worried by this. They’re worried because it would harm Europe, harm the transatlantic relationship and harm Britain. They’re not threatening the UK, they’re warning you that if you vote to leave they’ll do whatever they can to limit the damage you do to them and their relations. And I don’t think you understand what sovereignty is. You think sovereignty = we can do what the hell we like. No state, not even the USA, China or Russia, can take such an attitude in the modern world. Fine, throw your toys out of the pram by saying no to the EU, ‘we love thee not’ etc etc. Then you’ll find you still have to negotiate, compromise and follow the direction and decisions of others made in the corridors of Brussels, Washington, D.C., Berlin, Paris, Rome, The Hague, Warsaw…