Abdulai Mansaray: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 23 March 2025:
On Friday, at 11:00 PM, 31 January 2020, Britain officially left the European Union (EU). It was a divorce that was not contested by either party and was settled on a no fault claim basis. Although the bride Britain had some legal issues to settle including its post nuptial relationship with the EU, it was obvious that amid all the associated risks and warnings,
Boris Johnson’s bravado in “get Brexit done” sounded so optimistic to the optimist. While Nigel Farage and his enclave successfully convinced the majority of the British public that it was a sensible idea, little did they know that it will be Britain’s biggest demonstration of national self-harm decision.
Among the many fantastical reasons given by the pro brexiteers, the public was confidently “informed” that Britain will be better off out of the EU.
One of the most prominent arguments that featured in the pro –Brexit corner was that Britain sent £ 350 million each week to the EU.
Interestingly, the camp made sure that they campaigned on issues that were very emotion -laden to the British public. The Brexiteers campaigned that the £350 million weekly money could be better spent on the NHS. Who would not fall for such a laudable piece of jingoism? As if that was not enough, posters were used to invoke Dunkirk-like spirit with “We want our country back”.
The fisheries sector was specifically targeted and hoodwinked into believing that Brexit will lead to increased catch. The campaign was a closely run thing and one could see the dichotomy between these two. It was largely between the NHS and the economy. Many were convinced that Brexit would be bad for the economy but good for our darling NHS.
There is no doubt, that forces and interests outside of the UK were very centrally instrumental to see the break up of the EU. As one of the biggest trading and political blocks in the world, the USA had every interest in seeing the EU collapse.
As a trading and political opponent, even the umbilical cord of NATO was not enough to cement over the differences. For example, The US wanted a slice of the NHS pie, Britain’s family heirloom. It is obvious that the US oligarchs who comprise the bulk of the Tech/Silicon valley community don’t like the kind of control and regulation meted out by the EU.
With unregulated access and free hands in the US, these oligarchs were not used to political supervision from the EU. They are not used to regulations and control mechanisms. . It was therefore in their interests to see and hope that Britain leaves the EU. They might have banked on the hope that Britain’s divorce would lead to a domino effect.
Initial hopes of the cards falling in Spain and Germany were quickly dashed after Brexit-like noises were silenced by the majority of Europeans in their respective countries. They wanted to see how Britain would fare with its own Brexit. You know their verdict by now.
Britain had hoped that it would become the biggest trading partner of America, thanks to its “special relationship”.
What Britain didn’t bargain for was Donald Trump’s transactional relationship ethos, which is grounded squarely in the quid pro quo status.
Trump never gives anything for nothing. He believes in “what is in it for me?” Britain also hoped to capitalise on its motherboard relationship with its commonwealth partners, only to find out that common wealth was not common.
Five years on after Brexit, Britain has found itself as a political orphan and up the creek without a paddle. Britain’s position on the world stage was paradoxically back on show when Trump came back on the throne and threw multiple spanners in the works of the world order.
It is the third anniversary of the Ukraine –Russia war. Since Trump ascended the throne in his Second Coming, the American version and attitude towards the war has taken a 360 degree turn. In the meantime, we have been told that Ukraine started the war.
We were also told that Ukraine is the aggressor and toying with World War 3. In the meantime, intelligence and ammunition that were once free at Ukraine’s disposal have become a pay –as –you –go basis. The blank cheques have been halted and in their place, a quid pro quo for Ukraine’s minerals, its energy sector and many others have taken central stage for discussions.
Since Britain left the EU, the flaunted and taunted benefits in trade have not materialised. Theresa May visited African countries like Kenya and Nigeria, danced the Azonto and Zangalaywa to drum up trade but the Chinese were already citizens in those countries. Even trade with Australia and New Zealand does not appear to have had the desired effect, one upon which the whole Brexit dream rested on.
Travel has become more complicated and border crossings are an additional stress factor for tepid travellers. The trump card (pardon the pun) for Brexiteers was the immigration card and a key theme that always surfaces during elections and referenda.
Paradoxically, the UK’s position has never come into sharper focus since Brexit until Trump’s Second Coming. Thanks to the Ukraine-Russia war, Trump’s positon on the matter and by extension NATO has come under scrutiny.
Many European country leaders have been scratching their heads and wondering how long and how far America can be trusted with the Entente Cordiale. Notwithstanding the perennial charge of military underspending, Trump’s position and relationship with Putin has come under serious scrutiny and has prompted some prominent officials to conclude that Trump could be a Russian asset.
The EU appears to be losing the confidence in America, especially with Trump’s unilateral tariffs against former allies. Trump has been describing the American allies as mere rivals who are bent on exploiting America. He seems to be telling them that foreign policies are determined by foreign interests. And for the first time, Germany has unanimously voted to increase the military budget spending significantly.
Other European countries are adopting similar drives, suggestive of the increasing loss of confidence in America’s friendliness, especially in the face of Russia, the EU’s supposedly existential threat.
It is so ironical to see the Britain we were all used to in the past. Since the apparent impasse surrounding the Ukraine-Trump Russia, like a sleeping giant from its slumber, Britain’s Keir Stammer had crisscrossed the globe to ramp up support for Ukraine.
Keir Stammer has rallied the “Coalition of the Willing”, upped Britain’s supply of weapons and even had a recent photo op in one of Britain’s flagship submarines. At face value, it would seem like in direct contrast and challenge to America’s disinterest for the Ukraine corner.
Meanwhile Sir Kier Stammer is very dexterous on the political trapeze; drumming up support for Ukraine and by extension the EU on the one hand, while at the same time tiptoeing enough to avoid any suggestion of running against Donald Trump’s position in the matter. In the past few weeks, Keir has demonstrated that Britain is the mother of diplomacy. How long will that last, keeping the EU and Trump on side is anyone’s guess.
What does that tell us?
Britain reverted to its legendary role in world matters. Unfortunately, does Britain have the gravitas and Vavavroom to sway world opinion? With an unenviable position of neither here (EU) nor there (USA), is it time for Britain to de-Brexit, coil its tail and come back to the EU? Or should Britain remain the Political prodigal son who finds himself up the creek without a paddle? Did the US play Britain for a sucker into the Brexit hole?
Sir Alan Sugar, one of Britain’s most prominent and successful business men recently said that if he were to meet the Prime Minister of Britain, he would advise him to “go on his knees and beg to re-join the EU”. How many people would argue with that? Is it better to be a king in hell than to be a slave in heaven? Did Britain declare itself the political prodigal son of the West? Has Britain become the page boy of trans-Atlantic politics?
Don’t forget to turn the lights out when you leave the room.
Be the first to comment