[Lee Jae-min] A long-awaited counter-example

Absolute panic is what it is. Four days after the British referendum, people are still struggling to piece together the puzzle that has poured out of London. What does this all mean?

To those wary of globalization, the EU has been a beacon of hope and a navigator for an unbroken path. To us outside Europe, the EU is the proof that globalization (together with ensuing integration and liberalization) is the right direction for the global community at large.

The outcome of the British referendum last Thursday raised a fundamental question regarding the validity of this underlying assumption. What is sad is the realization of how feeble the foundation is on which the tower of globalization stands. Shaking it was just two blows away: the global financial crisis of 2008 and the immigration influx of recent years.

Still, there are many out there who say that the British were not fully aware of the consequences of the decision to leave the EU. These belated lamentations are not persuasive because all the warnings were issued and repercussions catalogued for the U.K. voters before the referendum. So, it is not wise to brush aside the outcome as an uninformed decision by an emotional electorate.

What we hear from the media now is all these gloom and doom scenarios. The three main themes are: The world is now entering uncharted territory, the departure negotiation will be lengthy and complex, and countries are lining up for their own exits. Well, this is not (yet) a time for panic and doomsday scenarios. Given what we have gone through since 2001, will this new uncharted terrain be any more treacherous? The departure negotiation will be lengthy and complex, but have we seen any simple or easy negotiation between states for trade issues these days (consider FTA negotiations)? Likewise, it has been some time now that the issue of “exits” by some states has been along the horizon, together with new accessions. The spectacular evolution of the referendum does not necessarily mean that we should respond in kind.

Perhaps, this development offers a valuable opportunity to discuss the root dissatisfaction that many governments have in the era of globalization. The British decision illustrates agonizing governments torn between the two competing interests: active participation in globalization on the one hand, and retention of national sovereignty on the other.

If Britain leaves and administers its laws and policies finally freed from the EU “regulations” and “directives,” while shouldering new burdens and obligations as an out-of-bloc nation, then we can see for sure, over time, the benefits and costs of globalization, integration and liberalization. We will have Britain now and Britain then to compare. To other countries, this new endeavor of Britons will provide a counter-example to test the validity of the globalization rhetoric. Studying the implications of Brexit will prove or disprove whether the gulf between globalization and national sovereignty is indeed unbridgeable and even contradictory.

In the same vein, from the EU’s perspective this also offers a rare opportunity to re-calibrate the decision-making and implementation in the bloc. If well managed, this shock wave of 2016 will be a silver lining for stronger integration based on a more balanced system, a system that ensures economic benefits while preserving national identities.

So, there are certainly positive aspects of this Brexit development as well. A “business-as-usual” mode would be a more sensible reaction. It is not clear how the post-Brexit environment will shape up and what the separation arrangements will look like. After all, this will not be a signal for the demise of the current global economic regime. As the EU has been a reliable beacon and hallmark of the globalization effort since WWII, hopefully it will not fail us this time either. We all keep our fingers crossed.

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. -- Ed.