Though it has
been decades since most union jacks came down across Britain’s once-vast
empire, 14 disparate territories remain under London’s control. Though largely
unknown to most of the British public, the decisions they take can still have a
considerable impact on the 265,000 inhabitants of these surviving imperial
relics. Brexit is the major event threatening change.
Of course,
not every territory will be affected. With no permanent inhabitants, nothing
will change in the British Antarctic Territory and the South Georgia and
Sandwich Islands. Nor is Brexit the greatest problem some of the territories
face. Britain’s last Pacific colony, the tiny Pitcairn Islands, with just 42 inhabitants, faces an uphill
battle just to retain its existing population in the face of continued
emigration and the inability to attract newcomers. This difficult task has not
been assisted by an abuse scandal earlier this century that saw nearly a third
of the adult male population jailed for child sex offences.
One Brexit concern
is the potential loss of diplomatic allies to assist Britain in retaining several
territories whose sovereignty is disputed. As an EU member, Britain has enjoyed
Brussels’ diplomatic support in its longstanding feud with Argentina over the
Falklands. Theoretically once Britain is out of the bloc, there is no reason
for that diplomatic support to continue. Although, no matter what happens,
Argentina is in no state to capitalise on the opportunity.
The British
Indian Ocean Territory, carved out of Mauritius shortly before the latter
gained independence in 1968, is the source of another controversy. Mauritius
regards the separation of the BIOT from its territory as illegal. Some commentators
suggested that Brexit, by reducing the UK’s influence abroad, will make it more
difficult to hold the territory. This is in light of growing calls for the BIOT
to be returned to Mauritius and its former inhabitants to be allowed back, after
the British shamefully expelled them to make way for a US military base.
Britain recently lost a non-binding International Court of Justice case that
called for BIOT’s return to Mauritius and was humiliated at the UN General
Assembly on the subject. This defeat had little to do with Brexit, however. Ultimately,
though, as with the Falklands, it is difficult to see what major difference any
international pressure would make, especially with the large US base on Diego
Garcia going nowhere fast.
A more serious
dispute concerns Gibraltar, the only British overseas territory formally part
of the EU, and the only one to vote in the 2016 EU referendum. Spain has been
trying to regain the tiny but strategic peninsula ever since it ceded Gibraltar
in perpetuity to Britain in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. Gibraltarians,
however, are very proud of their British identity, and want nothing to do with
Spain. Sentiments were not helped when Spain closed the border entirely between
1969. It did not fully reopen until 1985. Diplomatic rows periodically have
erupted ever since.
The concern
is that after Britain leaves the EU that Spain can apply pressure to the
territory, especially since Spanish consent will be needed for any final EU-UK
settlement. So far Spain has declined to use Brexit as a tool to settle the
dispute, though it caused anger when draft EU regulations concerning
post-Brexit visa-free arrangements for UK citizens referred to Gibraltar as a
‘colony of the British Crown’. The draft withdrawal agreement would have provided
for some continuity for Gibraltarians, 96% of whom voted Remain in 2016. While
border checks already exist between Gibraltar and mainland Spain since
Gibraltar falls outside the EU’s customs area, these are quick enough to allow
workers to commute daily from one side to the other. The local economy relies
heavily on cross-border trade. A no-deal scenario would be thus far more
problematic than a managed exit, with the UK Government’s Operation
Yellowhammer document predicting up to four-hour delays to border crossings and
disruptions to essential supplies.
A related
concern is the possible economic impact of Brexit, especially for those
territories bordering the EU. Gibraltar is the most obvious example, but not
the only one. The island of Anguilla in the Caribbean—which somewhat uniquely
launched a successful rebellion in 1969 in order to stay British—is dependent
on the neighbouring Franco-Dutch island of Saint Martin for basic supplies. Because
it lacks a long enough runway of its own, Anguilla also relies on Saint
Martin’s airport to bring in tourists and much-needed tourism revenue with
them. Family ties also run deeply across the three neighbouring territories. Should
it be cut off from the Single Market, Anguillans worry that their access to
goods and essential services will be cut. While the British Government regards
such fears as unrealistic—many goods are in imported from the United States
rather than from Saint Martin—these reassurances have not been accepted by the
islanders.
Trade is also
a worry for several territories far away from any other European territory. Though
much closer to South America than to Europe, more than 90% of the Falkland
Islands’ fishing exports go to the European Union, as do more than three
quarters of its wool exports. Should tariffs be imposed on those industries,
the impact on the territory’s 3,000 inhabitants could be considerable. Britain
has not guaranteed that it would compensate the Falklands for any loss of
export revenue should easy market access to the EU be lost.
Other
territories are likely to be less severely affected, even in the unlikely event
of a hard Brexit. Several of these—like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda—are
major offshore financial services centres and as such have been condemned for
facilitating global tax avoidance. Tourism, especially from North America, also
plays a large role. Although it is impossible to forecast anything with
certainty, as much of their trade is with states outside the EU, it is doubtful
that Brexit will cause as much damage as it might to, say, the Falklands.
There is also
concern about the potential loss of European Union development aid. Several of
the territories, like Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands, have benefited
considerably from European Union assistance. This is especially pressing since
several of the Caribbean territories are still recovering from 2017’s
devastating Hurricane Irma. Beyond the Americas, the isolated South Atlantic
island of St Helena and the even more isolated Pitcairn Islands benefit
substantially from EU funds. In theory there is nothing to stop any future
British government guaranteeing the existing support. However, while Britain
has promised to match any existing funded programme, there is no guarantee of
what will happen once those programmes end. Because these territories have
minimal political influence in Britain itself, this is worrying.
While one
might expect Brexit-related disruption to fuel demands for independence, there
has been little evidence for this so far. In truth, many of the overseas
territories remain British for a reason. Some of the populations are very
small. The Falklands, with only 3,000 inhabitants, could not survive on its
own, even if Argentina should intervene. Volcano-devastated Montserrat, whose
capital is buried under a blanket of ash, is likewise too economically weak to
stand on its own.
While
theoretically an independent Gibraltar might be economically feasible, the
provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht make it impossible. If Britain wishes to
give up sovereignty, it must offer the territory to Spain first. Because Spain
never will accept an independent Gibraltar, the idea is therefore a
non-starter. The most likely candidate for independence is Bermuda, which voted
against the move in a 1995 referendum. Although there have been occasional murmurings,
and one of the major parties on the island officially backs independence,
Brexit does not seem to have influenced that particular debate.
With so much
drama going on in the mother country, it is easy to forget that hundreds of
thousands of people outside the British Isles are being affected in ways that even
most informed observers would not even consider. While there is no need to
cancel Brexit, there is a real need to plan for its impact beyond what will
happen to the United Kingdom itself, and to reassure all those who are caught
up in the Brexit process. Offering financial assistance to manage any
disruption, guaranteeing continued development aid, and considering the
territories’ needs in Brexit negotiations are all essential. Given the loyalty
these territories have shown over so many years, it is the very least that
Britain can do.
