EU Referendum: A Commonwealth perspective

Ever since PM David Cameron announced the EU in-out referendum date, both the Leave and Remain campaigners have been eagerly making their cases. The importance of this referendum is undoubtable. Britain’s future economic and political orientation hang in the balance.

The media, quite understandably, has been focusing on the perspectives of various British and European politicians over the past few weeks. They are, after all, the countries most intimately effected by the result. But what about the Commonwealth- the UK’s other international political conglomeration- what do its members think?

But what about the Commonwealth- the UK’s other international political conglomeration

While not seemingly important in a question about Europe, the Commonwealth has been brought into the picture by the Leave campaign. As they argue, the UK does not need the EU because it has the Commonwealth. It follows that without EU restrictions, the UK could create beneficial free trade deals with its Commonwealth allies.

This seems like a strong point. The 53 states in the Commonwealth contain some of the world’s largest economies. Implicit in this argument, however, is that the Commonwealth countries want Britain to leave the EU for these economic purposes. The Leave campaign has held this assumption with few questions asked. But do Commonwealth countries want Britain out of the EU? I cannot answer for every Commonwealth country, but I will give here the position of Canada.

It follows that without EU restrictions, the UK could create beneficial free trade deals with its Commonwealth allies

In my past 6 months in the UK, I have visited the Canadian High Commission in London several times. While there, I have had the opportunity to speak with various diplomats on the subject of the EU. The position they have advocated has been unequivocal: Canada wants Britain to stay in the EU.

Their reasoning is simple. Canada believes Britain benefits greatly from their EU membership. Without the EU, Canada sees Britain losing a lot of its economic and political importance. As a strong ally and economic partner of Britain, Canada has no interest in Britain suffering a post-Brexit decline. When Britain is strong, so is Canada.

The position they have advocated has been unequivocal: Canada wants Britain to stay in the EU

Brexit supporters would likely respond to this position with derision. They would likely suggest that Britain will not decline, and will actually become stronger, thus benefiting Canada. Alternatively they could suggest that while Canada may benefit from Britain’s EU membership, Britain does not. So why should Britain forfeit democracy for the gain of others?

The first suggestion is a matter of speculation. It is possible that Britain could benefit economically in a post-Brexit world, but it also may not. Since Canada already sees the situation as beneficial, it has no reason to seek a change to the status quo. The second suggestion is more relatable to Canada than one might imagine.

Canada already sees the situation as beneficial, it has no reason to seek a change to the status quo

At the crux of the Brexit argument is the belief that Britain is forfeiting its democracy by being a member of the EU. Canada is not part of the EU, or any similar supranational institution for that matter. Yet Canada can relate to Britain’s situation by nature of its domestic structure.

Canada has a federal political system. It has ten provinces and three territories that each have their own parliaments and legislatures. It also has a federal government that represents the entire nation. The constitution outlines the rights of the provinces and the federal government, giving the federal government the most authority. While often pacific, this federal arrangement leads to a fair share of acrimony.

At the crux of the Brexit argument is the belief that Britain is forfeiting its democracy

From 2006-2015 I lived in a Liberal Party Ontario, but a Conservative Party Canada. Time and time again the province tried to update the subway transportation system in Toronto but was denied funding by the federal government. The province has a constitutional right to legislate its own transportation law.

Yet, when short on cash, and the PM denies funding, there is nothing that can be done. Was this situation frustrating? Yes. Was it democratic? Yes. The lesson here is that democracy can be frustrating. Being blocked political progress is unfortunately a natural part of a working democracy.

The lesson here is that democracy can be frustrating

The parallels between Canada’s federal government and Britain’s relationship with the EU are far from perfect. They are very different systems. Yet the lessons of democracy hold. The EU can be very frustrating for Britain, but this does not make it undemocratic.

So what is the importance of Canada’s opinion? Firstly, while it seems like a European question, Britons must consider the global implications of the referendum. If Commonwealth countries like Canada want Britain to remain, Britain should consider carefully whether it could truly form better trade deals from without.

The EU can be very frustrating for Britain, but this does not make it undemocratic

Secondly, is the risk of leaving worth it for the sake of democracy? Britain has been frustrated in the EU and could gain greater democratic control on its own. But democracy is never perfect. Problems in the EU can be replicated outside of it.

The province of Quebec has twice sought to leave Canada due to the frustrations of a greater political body. Twice it has shrewdly chosen to stay. The choice is yours on June 23^rd.

Andrew Wiseman