The European project was long in the making, starting with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which involved France, Germany, England and others and formally came into being in 1951 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
Luminaries of the pan-European idea, such as Robert Schumann, on the French German side, envisaged that philosopher Emmanuel Kant’s dream of ‘perpetual peace’ would prevail in Europe. Europe had been struggling with itself since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended a 30-year war. For centuries thereafter, it could still not attain that elusive peace, which materialised only after the bloodbath and aftermath of World War II (WWII).
Europe was exhausted after WWII and much of the colonial rule of the French, the English and a small portion of Germany was fading as the colonised people of the world – from Asia, Africa and Latin America – sought to stage a fierce resistance and seek independence.
Europe found itself having to move from rivalry between countries to searching for ‘perpetual peace’. Perpetual peace on the continent was strengthened through the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (Nato), which accorded Europe the protective might of the US, which became the de facto power and inheritor of empire following the waning of British power.
The ECSC gave the pan-European idea boldness and increased impetus. The European project involved expansion to more States, open borders and the signing of the Maastrict Treaty, which laid the foundation for a single European Central Bank, monetary area and currency. European integration slowly began to take shape in the form of a true economic and political community.
Not all European Union (EU) members joined the common monetary area but the euro gained ascendency and, at one point, appeared to be displacing the US dollar. The strength of the euro was also a symbol of the strength of the pan-European model.
The dollar, though, remains the reserve currency of the world and will be more so after the UK’s exit from the EU, the so-called Brexit. Things were looking up for Europe – but today the picture is different.
Even before Brexit, a raft of challenges were beginning to impact on the monumental pan- European project: the crisis in Ukraine, the fear of Grexit (Greece’s exit from the EU), the lumbering European economies following the financial crisis, the avalanche of refugees into Europe following the wars in Syria and Iraq, and the persistence of terrorism, besides others. These crises also hardened the attitudes of sceptics and doubters.
While Brexit adds to the complications for the future wholeness of Europe, the referendum’s call to leave was undoubtedly influenced by the fear of immigration and nationalist tendencies, which are not solely a product of rightwing fears and prejudice.
Generally, the poor and the working class feel they were losers in London’s globalisation and integration into Europe and the world. Nationalists are not only rightwing but also leftwing poor and a class of intelligentsia critical of the London type of globalisation.
This is why to say that those who voted ‘Remain’ represent progressiveness is to simplify complexities and the different shades of views that could not be properly represented through a binary voting process in the referendum. Complex British relations with Europe cannot be fairly mediated through ‘ Yes’ or ‘No’ answers.
England has two rightwing groups in the Brexit debate: those who rallied behind the exit because of the traditional fear of immigrants and those of the elite who wanted London to remain the financial centre so that they continue to reap the benefits while the rest of England continues to hollow itself out, owing to financialisation and the decampment of job-intensive industries offshore.
Not all ‘Remain’ votes represent progressive forces, as the referendum’s format obscures the true political and ideological positions.
Meanwhile, Theresa May, the new Prime Minister, in her maiden speech at 10 Downing street, had to talk not to London but to the majority, who feel they have not really benefited from the London type of globalisation.
May herself is not from the ranks of the poor and neither is she known to be a champion of the poor. But she understands the national mood. London itself is out of touch because it is caught up in its own cosmopolitan bubble.
Brexit reflects as much anti-European sentiment as it is a vote against a specific type of globalisation dominated by bankers, tax avoiders, hedge fund investors and monetarists, whose inflation targeting measures favour debt-based consumption, stock market bubbles and housing speculation.

Brexit may or may not unravel Britain. It is too early to tell. The financial sector and the Bank of England are lobbying heavily to keep London as the financial hub. A lot depends on Germany’s appetite for English dogged ponderance once Prime Minister May invokes article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Since nobody has done this before, the negotiations are likely to take longer than two years. The complexities of the legalities are only dawning after the vote.
The European project remains uncertain in the midst of its multiple challenges. It is not immigration that threatens it but growing nationalist sentiments. The British ‘Leave’ vote came as a surprise to many, as Britain is seen as a pivotal State to the European project. And so the question remains: Can Europe survive without Britain?