opinion

Britain after Brexit: Are Commonwealth Countries the Alternative?

Dr. Yassir M. Al Obaid

Today, human civilization is directed by the curve of accelerating and dynamic changes in all sciences, knowledge, methods of work and production, in an era whose data vary and takes new civilized dimensions in which previous concepts change and are characterized by overlap and flexibility from globalization to the information dimension in the fourth digital revolution.

 Civilization has become an economic struggle over resources, achievement, and options for agglomeration.

 The future of technology and liberal democracy triumphed during the collapse of the socialist system, in which globalization took the slogan (“subjecting the planet to economic coercion”).

There are those who bet and those who say that economic and political systems must be reconsidered for a curve that is more human and more technical and fulfills humanitarian standards, especially in two fields: equity and luxury.

This overlap, with the acceleration and explosion of knowledge that the world is experiencing today, makes the inhabitants of the planet think about the details of the cultural trends, their location, the future of business and countries, especially since countries and peoples, even advanced ones, live in a state of confusion and development and maintain their economic, social, cultural and political position.

Globalization has pushed countries towards clustering and economic cooperation to stand in the face of global trade openness and major companies who, and of which Britain has an estimated share, started allying and spreading their branches like spider legs all over the globe so that these multinational companies would control the greater part of global trade.

Prelude to Brexit

One of the foundations of history is that the era of industrialization in the nineteenth century began in Britain, and from there the doors of knowledge and technology were opened to Europe and America, and with the negative experiences that mankind extracted there from the results of Manchester’s capitalism came the cessation of production.

Britain was the pioneer of the welfare countries that bet on social equality, as well-being and development came in the interest of a large part of the population, and today Britain also appears as an example to be emulated when it comes to the challenges of globalization.

Britain’s reluctance or reservations to participate in most institutions and structures of the European Union did not start out of a vacuum, including those reservations over the European Monetary Union.

Those ideas were born by those who profit from financial globalization, especially the big companies, institutions and international banks; they are in a position to put pressure to implement the policy.

The European monetary system has been living under the political and economic level of the Europower, which conceals development dangers as the monetary union does not benefit all countries or all social groups of European countries, but only major industrial centers and capitals in Europe and some countries, the first of which is Britain.

 It is true that Britain remained a member of the European Union for some time, but it continued to refrain from signing the social pact until the arrival of Prime Minister Tony Blair, as social standards are defined by the member states of the Union and the previous government.

The work contract is interference in the internal affairs of the country, and the interference was great, as 22% of those who work full day reach more than 48 hours per week, while France does not exceed 7%.

Half of all British workers work more than 44 hours per week, and in Britain there is no limit to the working time for the week. In spite of all that, Britain remains a paradise for investors from all over the world, even from the United States of America and Japan, and a large field for the investment world race, as they all rush in to invest in it.

After Britain’s official exit from the European Union, it was obliged to search for new allies to exchange interests with, especially since Brexit advocates are relying heavily on the Commonwealth countries as they prepare an ambitious plan for trade and investment cooperation relations and for closer economic ties with them.

The term commonwealth was associated with the meaning of prosperity or common wealth, and it calls for direct and close cooperation between states or a state for the sake of common benefits for their peoples.

The main purpose of the expansion of the British Empire during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was the commercial interests represented in new markets for its exports of raw resources for its industries.

Developing Further

The idea of ​​relying on a system of exchange and commercial and developmental cooperation and for administrative development between these colonies and their protectorates arose.

Their systems were similar administratively, economically and politically; formed within a project of an economic cooperative system similar to a closed market between these countries to exchange and protect their membership products and meet their developmental needs by contributing investment administratively to the prosperity of each other and for cooperation in political and international arenas.

And through the regional and international changes that the world is experiencing today, we remember that Sudan had the advantage of the opportunities made available to it to hold a special position in the group of old British Commonwealth countries 1945-1954; a period long before the current modern Commonwealth status, back when it was known as the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The Old Commonwealth referred to the grouping that had met before 1945, and its membership did not exceed at that time the countries associated with the British crown such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the provinces of Ireland, Pakistan, and India. It was a period when Sudan was compared to other countries that later joined from the colonies.

The British have gone a long way in administrative, educational, and developmental progress and have all the ingredients to benefit from its new peers in building a solid future for itself with the ingredients that enable it in a short time to match great countries in development, economic and administrative terms through basic memberships.

Sudan’s access to the Commonwealth of Nations came in the form of a lot of privacy, established in Perth, Australia, in the 2011 CHOGM proposal and was adopted in December 2012 and was officially signed by Queen Elizabeth II in Marlborough House – London on Commonwealth Day on March 11, 2013.

Nowadays, with the liberalization of world trade and the opening of closed markets, the term has become more general and refers a political grouping, which is a voluntary union.

Into the Modern Age

The modern Commonwealth of Nations includes about a third of the countries of the world, and the combined population of these countries amounts to 2.4 billion people, who make up a quarter of the world’s population. The Commonwealth of Nations is represented by the 53 members.

This in itself represents the largest market for a single union or grouping around the world, and the United Kingdom and the member states can benefit from it in the field of science, knowledge, technology, and industry and market access for member states.

 It (the UK) can add laws, legislation and modern policies to stimulate trade exchange and localize some industries for member countries and benefit from the agricultural, climatic and mineral capabilities of the member state(s).

The Commonwealth would benefit the member states with huge resources such as those found in Sudan, which has the largest stock of rare earth minerals, strategic minerals and industrial minerals … The countries of the Union combined have advantages that are not found even in the European Union.

Back to top button