Introduction

The UK is in a critical juncture with regard to the process of negotiations to leave the European Union. Important discussions are taking place which will shape the future relation between Britain and the EU.  The outcomes of these discussions have an impact on all Overseas Countries and Territories held by the Netherlands, France and Denmark. On January 31, 2020, Brexit become a reality.

A series of lessons can be extracted from evaluations of the Brexit referendum results, which may help tackle the sources of discontent which motivated the Brexit vote, as well as the upcoming challenges derived from the actual process of separation from the EU.

Findings

There is considerable concern that Brexit is going to have an overall negative effect on the British and Caribbean economy. Some of the main causes of concern in the post Brexit scenario are, but not limited to:

• Exiting the single market may cause a disruption in the import and export flows due to the introduction of tariffs which are likely to very negatively affect industries.
• The decline in immigration, although one of the drivers of the Brexit vote, may aggravate the labor market skill shortage across the Caribbean.
• The loss of European funding and payments raises concerns at several levels, including funding to the Overseas Countries and Territories by the EU.
• Uncertainty does not only negatively affect the economy but also challenges the legitimacy of governance. The relative optimism that followed the referendum has given way to a situation of anxiety, with all its consequences.
• Most of the problems, real or perceived, underpinning the Leave vote, are structural and will not be solved by leaving the EU. Rational economic calculations have not weighed as much in the Brexit vote as discontent (distrust in politics, inequality, high cost of living, etc.) and emotions (xenophobia).
• Citizens were more aware of the problems associated with EU membership than of the benefits this arrangement has provided to the UK and to their communities. Here, communities are meant not only to be the local ones, but also the BOCT (“British Overseas Countries and Territories”).

Points to be elaborated:

In light of the above, are there governance failure similarities compared to the process Curaçao went through starting with the early ‘90s referendum leading up to and after October 10, 2010? Change in governance status should lead to a strengthening of the economic and social well-being of the people of the country.  Being a part of an economic union has proven to be of value to those in the EU and to those in the Caribbean union.  

Separating from such unions has proven to weaken the economies. Consequently, the pattern of separation at 2010, seems to follow the same pattern.

As part of efforts to restructure governments in an effort to promote good governance and effective public administration, devolution or decentralization has been implemented.  With more autonomy as the ultimate goal, these strategies have been increasingly adopted and applied in many countries.  However, whether it is countries withdrawing from economic unions like in the case with GB, or countries themselves giving more powers to their regions through devolution as did GB, and the Netherlands in the case of the former islands of the Netherlands Antilles for that matter (with 3 exceptions), it goes without saying that it must have as  an objective  the strengthening of the socio-economic well-being of the citizens.

That doesn’t happen automatically. Small island nations such as Curaçao must ask the question about what conditions promote this development. It is believed that if based on a vision (through a NDP), based on values, carefully planned, effectively implemented and appropriately managed, it can lead to significant improvement in the welfare of people, the cumulative effect of which can lead to enhanced human development.  

As a key to human development, governance must ensure through mechanisms that the voices and concerns of those feeling disadvantaged (through inequality as a result of lack of jobs, ineffective education or unfair income distribution) are provided the opportunity to have a say in helping guide its design, implementation and monitoring.

For development and governance to be fully responsive and representational, people and institutions must be empowered at every level and groups of society. It must empower these to ensure that the people participate in, and benefit from, their own governance institutions and development services. These institutions must bring policy formulation, service delivery and resource management within the purview of the people. These institutions should enable people, especially the weak (poor, marginalized, excluded or discriminated), to exercise their choices for their human development. The direct linkage between governance and development, concerns empowerment of local population to plan, implement, manage their development process taking into account their local needs and capacities.

In light of the withdrawal of Great Britain (GB) from the EU, a further disintegration of GB itself, but also of the EU, may occur. (GB is not the only member that has a history of discontent with the EU). Therefore, a ripple effect is very possible. This exit may have implications for the overall EU funding in general and for the funding of ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States) and OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories) development assistance in particular. In light of these possible developments and their possible implications, what policy actions might be worth considering to be more resilient?

While achieving an autonomous or semi-autonomous status seemed to be desirable for GB, it may prove to be unwise, as doing so will affect the access to larger trade routes, and freedom of movement in the EU, and access to development funds to name a few.

The new status of GB with Brexit and the implications for ACP and OCTs is now a reality.

Conclusion

It now appears in the example of GB’s withdrawal from the EU that a considerable part of the citizens of that nation, feel that those conditions were not met and, as a consequence, the citizens feel that GB will be worse off after January 31, 2020. And the question is, in the case of the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, that brought about the autonomous countries of Curaçao and St Maarten, and a special status of the BES (Bonaire, St. Eustatius (Statia), and Saba), whether those same conditions were met. Based on outcomes since 10.10.10, one would have difficulty in believing that has been the case.

As one of the autonomous overseas states that could be left in the European Union, now that the Brexit arrangement is decided.  Curaçao should be working closely with the other overseas states, regional organizations and the Netherlands to strengthen its economic and social resilience so that it can agilely navigate the possible disruption and negative effects.

The Think To DO Institute is an independent, apolitical think tank located in Curaçao, Dutch Caribbean.  The T2DI has as its purpose to help Curaçao become a more resilient society by producing research that is based in best practice, and which delivers practical solutions to the barriers that hold the community back from becoming more resilient.  Research evidence shows that Resilient Societies are created by attention to people, to organizations, to place, and to knowledge.  Resilient Societies design, redesign organizations, institutions and systems to better absorb disruption, operate under a wide variety of conditions, and sift more fluently from one circumstance to the next. For more information about the Think To DO Institute, visit the website:  www.thinktodoinstitute.com