By Iliyasu Gadu
Up until the late 1980s it was possible to travel to Britain from Nigeria without a visa. Under the protocols on Entry and residency requirements agreed by all Commonwealth countries, visa requirement was waived for a citizen of any commonwealth country to enter and reside in another.
It was in the days when the Commonwealth community of countries meant a lot to its member nations. Hundreds of Nigerian graduate students could apply and get admission and scholarships to Universities in some of the more affluent Commonwealth countries like Britain, Canada, Australia, India etc. There were many mutually beneficial development programmes cutting across economic and social spheres of life in all the countries of the Commonwealth. In some respects the Commonwealth was so successful a model of multilateral cooperation that attempts were made to copy it. Indeed some non- English speaking countries actually tried to lobby the organization to waive its provision of admitting only English speaking countries with historical ties to Britain, so they could join.
Suddenly and without any consideration for the interest of other Commonwealth members especially the non-white countries making up the body, Britain pushed for a drastic cutback and, in some cases, an end to some of those mutually beneficial provisions agreed to and hitherto applied by the body.
This sudden change by Britain was attributable to the strident and negative campaign waged by the Tory party against what some of its extremist members saw as unrestrained immigration into Britain swamping its values by immigrants from African and Asian regions of the Commonwealth. This campaign was led notably by a prominent member of the Tory party and an MP from Northern Ireland, Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbitt, another MP from the same party whose bruising, abrasive style of debate at the Parliament earned him the sobriquet, the Rottweiler of British politics.
The campaign against what was termed the black-brown invasion of Britain was not just to roll back the tide of immigration from African and Asian countries of the Commonwealth, but was also aimed at replacing them with white immigrants from the poorer regions of Europe who could be counted to do the menial jobs that African and Asian immigrants were doing in Britain. In other words the whole thing was not about the horde of immigrants and jobs that Africans and Asians were doing to keep Britain afloat, it was their colour. Britons would prefer a Pole, a Portuguese or a Baltic from Lithuania, Estonia or Latvia or even Romania who hardly speaks a word of English doing the odd labouring and plumbing job than a Jamaican or Bangladeshi. The difference here, being the colour.
So, Britain had its wish and with the stoppage of free movement into Britain targeted mainly at African and Asian Commonwealth citizens, the much feared invasion of Britain by black-brown hordes trickled to a tolerable level.
It was with a feeling of de ja vu that the same issue of immigration issue topped the main point of issues that decided Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union on June 23. Ironically, it was the East Europeans for whom Britons blocked out the African-Asian Commonwealth citizens that was the main grouse. Here again, it was the same argument. The complaint is that East Europeans coming from less developed economic climes were easily taking up jobs from Britons. But, the most ironic sentiment of all was that East Europeans were swamping the pristine British culture. And, the European Union headquartered in Brussels of which Britain was a prominent member seemed powerless to prevent this mainly Slavic horde from Eastern Europe. So, the East Europeans, like the African and Asians are not the perfect fit culturally and economically for Britain, after all?
An analysis of the vote showed that of the four home countries making up the United Kingdom, England and Wales voted to leave the EU while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Again, the irony which seemed to have escaped notice is that the Anglo-Saxon component of Britain which itself was of foreign origin which came from parts of present day Denmark, Northern Germany, France after the exit of the Romans in Britain, are the ones complaining about immigration. The aboriginal inhabitants of Britain (Scots and Irish) who are Celtic in origin and who were historically the victims of hordes of Anglo-Saxon immigration and subjugation, ironically voted to stay in Europe, meaning that they do not feel too badly about the presence of the East Europeans as the English do.
Although the Brexit is still a developing story whose full implications are ahead as the details of the exit are still being worked out, there are lessons to be learnt especially for a Nigeria that is trying to find its feet in political and economic development.
Lesson one is the sanctity and importance of sovereignty. The people of Britain, not minding the dire economic projections of experts, voted to determine their destiny. Although a very important European country, Britain has always emphasised its uniqueness and determination to pursue its destiny without interference from any supranational European organization. The two principal issues here are independence of both its currency the Sterling and the Parliament. As Nigeria tries to chart a new course of economic diversification and development, we will do well to realise that following the path of economics nationalism is not pig-headedness but realism forced by the need to survive in the uncertainties of global economics and politics as the British have shown.
Our future development economic should be determined by our own exertions welcoming useful advice. But in the main, it should be our decision what do with our future economic fortunes. As the negotiations to commence the exit of Britain from EU begin, we should follow it closely. Already indications are that Britain will cut a hard bargain to get every morsel of concession due it from EU from currency, access to markets, trade quotas and the vexed issue of immigration. By the same token, as we are being swamped to devalu e our currency and liberalise our market for foreign goods and services, we should also ask what is in it realistically for us by those compelling us to do same.
*Gadu writes from Lagos.