It is paradoxical that the Brits are exiting such a formidable regional organisation at a time when imperatives of globalisation gravitate towards regionalism.

It cannot have been for nothing that the end of the cold war by 1990 saw membership of the European Union swell from around 10 to the now strong 28 countries. As a student of International Relations, this exit does not come as a surprise.

Joshua Goldenstine explained that, states interact in the international arena from a “selfish” stand-point. Diplomatic niceties, however, restrain usage of such blunt language as “selfish”. So we hide under polished adjectives like, “state-centrism”, which imports the meaning, “self Interest”.

Truth be told, Britain’s state-centric arguments revolve around two main concerns to their common Briton. These are immigrants, and jobs for the nationals. The extent to which the recent frequent terrorist attacks in Europe, negatively implicating immigrants, played a role in tipping the scales for exit, remains academic.

Closely related to this is the fact that the dismantling of the Soviet Union saw many Eastern European nationals migrate westwards, a good number ending up in Britain.

This constrained Britain’s welfare state where any jobless person has to be housed by the government and given “dole” money every Friday for subsistence. It also increased competition for the few jobs that the economy generated. Resentment for immigrants, therefore, has been going up. Hence the “leave” vote.

Nonetheless, it must be remembered that Britain has tended to pursue an “isolationist/opt out” foreign policy vis a vis the European Union membership.

On the Economic front, when Europe by and large adopted the euro as the currency of business, Britain opted to retain the pound sterling.

Regarding immigration, a number of EU members operate a one-stop-shop of the Shengen visa. This means if one EU member state gives you a visa, you can use the same to visit several other member states. Britain, however, held on to its UK visa.

It is arguable whether this exit will impact negatively Britain’s place on the global scene. The Kiswahili saying, penye hupo lako nalo halipo (in your absence, your opinion will not count) could hold true here.

Such will be the case when Europe makes decisions that have far reaching consequences. Such would be the case on trade matters for preferential terms.
Politically Britain will find herself isolated when it comes to lobbying the EU.

On the flip side however, Britain will need to intensify her diplomatic forte by concluding bilaterals by not only members of the EU but far afield. It is also noteworthy that Britain remains a strong member in NATO and more importantly, the United Nations, complete with veto power in the Security Council. It also remains a member of the G-groupings.

In East Africa, I dare state, nothing will change. All member states remain ardent players in the Commonwealth, a purely British outfit. On the other hand, EAC states are members of the Lome Convention, which brings African, Caribbean and Pacific countries together in what I call a “marriage of convenience” with the EU.

This exit, therefore, is what scholars of international relations term as, “continuity and change.” Simply put, nothing actually changes!

The exit was long coming. It was not a question of if, but when.

Prof David K Kikaya is a professor of International Relations, Pioneer International University, Nairobi.