President Obama arrives Thursday in London, where he may find himself at the center of a very British controversy. The U.S. president has become an unlikely player in Britain’s passionate “Brexit” debate–with his views even earning him the title “most anti-British American president there has ever been,” coined by a well-known politician.
For the uninitiated, “Brexit” is the catchy portmanteau used to refer to Britain’s potential exit from the European Union. After years of growing public dissent over the country’s E.U. membership, Britain is set to have a referendum this summer on whether to remain part of the E.U. If a majority of Brits vote to “leave” the E.U., Britain will exit the bloc.
Exactly what happens after that isn’t clear, but Obama evidently doesn’t want to see it happen.
Last year, he told the BBC that he supports Prime Minister David Cameron’s campaign for Britain to remain in the E.U., adding that the membership gave Washington greater confidence in the transatlantic alliance and helped make the world “safer and more prosperous.” During this week’s visit, Obama is widely expected to repeat his calls to vote against a Brexit.
Obama has faced a serious backlash from Brits who are part of the “leave” campaign. But why are they so mad? There seem to be three common arguments against Obama’s Brexit intervention:
1. Foreign leaders shouldn’t comment on another country’s domestic affairs.
In a letter signed by 100 members of Parliament, former Conservative cabinet minister Liam Fox argued that Obama should not interfere in the Brexit debate as it has “long been the established practice not to interfere in the domestic political affairs of our allies and we hope that this will continue.”
2. The United States would never agree to be a part of the E.U., they argue, so why should Britain?
The chief proponent of this argument is Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and a leading figure in Cameron’s Conservative Party. In March, Johnson accused the United States of “exorbitant hypocrisy,” saying it was in no position to preach because it defended its own sovereignty with “hysterical vigilance.” He doubled down on this statement recently, saying it was “bizarre” to be lectured by the Americans when they “won’t even sign up to the international convention on the law of the seas, let alone the International Criminal Court.”
Other prominent figures within the Conservative Party have supported this view: Former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith recently said that voting to leave the E.U. would make Britain “look a little more like the U.S.” Duncan Smith also suggested that if Washington liked the E.U. so much, perhaps it should join the bloc.
3. Obama hates the British.
It was Nigel Farage, the eccentric leader of the anti-E.U. U.K. Independence Party, who said that Obama is the “most anti-British American president there has ever been.” This is almost certainly untrue, but it taps into a wider belief that maybe Obama just doesn’t really like Britain that much.
This belief dates to at least 2009, when the British media criticized the new president for apparently sending a bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain (as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column recently explained, the reality of this situation was a lot more complicated). Adding fuel to the fire, Obama recently appeared to criticize Cameron, reigniting debate over the U.S. president’s apparently cold view of Britain and what that says about the future of the “special relationship” between the two countries.
The logic here seems to go that Obama’s hatred for Britain makes him want to keep the country in the E.U., where it will suffer forever more. Or, perhaps more mundanely, Obama could just be acting out of self-interest and be indifferent to what happens to Brits.
It’s pretty easy to chip some holes in these arguments, however.
For one thing, a Brexit vote isn’t just a domestic affair. It really does affect Americans, too. London has long served as a voice for Washington in Europe, sharing not only a language but also perhaps an ethos bred by the close ties between the countries. If a Brexit actually happens, the United States will lose its top E.U. ally–and perhaps have to find another one. Where this would leave London is unclear: The United States is not keen to pursue new bilateral free-trade agreements, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said recently, and instead favors multilateral free-trade platforms.
More broadly, the United States is concerned about the potential effects a Brexit could have on the world economy–the International Monetary Fund has warned that there would be “severe regional and global damage” if Britain leaves the E.U.
Second, it’s certainly true that the United States has shied away from a lot of international legislation. “All countries try to guard their sovereignty and maintain their freedom of action, but the United States is the world’s only superpower, so it has more go-it-alone power than any other country,” Michael Beckley, an assistant professor of political science at Tufts University, said in an email.
Finally, Obama’s supposed hatred of the Brits is a little hard to see in action. He doesn’t seem to have made any substantive changes to the special relationship in the seven years he has been in office, other than some not-so-thinly veiled criticism about Britain not pulling its weight on the world stage. Perhaps more important, polls have shown that he is widely respected and liked by Brits–in particular, the younger generations expected to turn out in droves for the Brexit vote.
Ultimately, that might be the real reason that Obama’s thoughts on Brexit are proving so controversial in Britain: They may well carry more weight than the opinions of Britain’s own leaders.
Editor: I have just finished reading Vernon Coleman's The Truth They Won't Tell You (And Don't Want You To Know) About The EU.
If he is right, every country in Europe should do their best to get out of the EU. He sees it as a Federal state forcing its opinion and will on its members, raping them of their sovereignty and cultural heritage, and taxing them to the hilt to support a bestial bureaucracy in Brussels. Reading his book, you feel you are witnessing the creation of the New World Order's governmental base. That government is reminiscent of the Antichrist government found in Bible prophecy.
Some Bible scholars believe Europe will be the base of the Antichrist's final government. Europeans seem to be passively agreeing to its mandates even though their economies end up brutalized and destroyed by the global corporations who gain free access to local economies through their friendship with the EU commissioners. Laws are made to hinder the small local businesses and support the large international corporate ones.
It continues to be a sad day for the poor man, the independent and free. If Coleman is right, Europe is headed for a new slavery similar to what has been formed in America, without the help of the American dollar to hold up the economy superficially. After reading the book, the only sensible vote would seem to be to get out now, while you still have the chance.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment