WHEN Barack Obama flew into Britain to join the celebrations for the Queen’s 90th birthday, he was widely expected to advise the UK to stay in the European Union. But most people thought his advice would be couched in diplomatic terms to avoid giving the impression that he was meddling in Britain’s internal affairs. In the event, he let those campaigning for an exit — or Brexit as it is commonly know — have both barrels.

In an eloquent article in The Daily Telegraph, he argued passionately for Brits to reject the Brexiteers, listing the advantages of staying in the EU. He admitted that he was motivated by self-interest: Britain’s departure from the Union would have an impact on the global economy, including America’s. Also, the US counted on a strong UK, and the country would be weaker if it left the EU.

But the following day, at a press conference with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, Obama was even blunter about the negative impact of Brexit. The Leave campaign had argued that it would be possible to quickly negotiate new trade agreements with other countries and trading blocs — including the US — to replace those already signed by the EU on behalf of its members. However, Obama made it clear that the American priority is to finalise the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU, “a market of 500 million people. And if Britain decides to leave the EU … then perhaps further down the road, we would negotiate a separate deal with the UK, but it would have to take its place at the back of the queue…”

This knocked down one of the main pillars of the Leave campaign that had argued that an exit would be seamless, and that during the two-year interim period allowed for an orderly departure under EU rules, the UK would sign trade accords to replace those already in place. After Obama threw cold water on this rosy scenario, leading Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Michael Grove grumpily said that Obama’s words were irrelevant as he was a lame-duck president who only had a few months left in the White House.

Johnson, the ambitious mayor of London and the weekly columnist for The Daily Telegraph (which pays him around 250,000 pounds a year; editor, please note!), retorted by making the outlandish suggestion that Obama was anti-British because of his Kenyan heritage. While this slightly racist comment was extreme, virtually every Leave campaigner said Obama should not poke his nose into a purely British matter.

Nevertheless, President Obama is a very popular figure in the UK, and many thought Boris Johnson and his band of Brexiteers were being rude to a good friend of Britain. And there is little doubt that Obama’s words have resounded widely in a debate where both sides are throwing figures around, confusing the public even further.

For instance, the Treasury recently released a booklet that is being mailed to every household. This contains projections — based on incomprehensible algebraic formulae — that show that in case of a Brexit, the average household in the country would be worse off by 4,300 pounds by 2030. This caused considerable derision as critics pointed out that the Treasury was incapable of producing accurate forecasts for the next quarter, so how it could be taken seriously for the state of the economy 15 years from now?

While Obama’s visit and his advice about the EU has given the debate some star quality, the divisive dialogue has been going on since the date was first announced two months ago. With another two months to go till June 23, the debate will only grow more bitter. As it, the Conservative Party is deeply split on the issue with several senior cabinet members campaigning to leave. Cameron was particularly stung by Michael Gove’s crossing over to Brexit as he had been considered a loyalist. Earlier, Ian Duncan Smith, the pension and works secretary, had resigned over the spending cuts, adding to the government’s woes.

Now, Britain’s place in the EU as well as Cameron’s future as the Prime Minister, hinges largely on the Labour Party. After weeks of silence, its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has finally spoken out against Brexit. Although his personal views have been somewhat ambiguous, Corbyn recognises that if he had backed Brexit, he would have split Labour as the vast majority of members and supporters back remaining in the EU.

The bulk of those who back the Leave campaign do so because of the widely held perception that by surrendering Britain’s sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, British institutions have lost their authority and their relevance. Boris Johnson says that 60 per cent of the legislation passed by parliament actually emanates from Brussels. Thus, the UK is forced to take in any number EU citizens, with around three million now living in Britain.

Young people, on the other hand, have grown up in a country that has been a member of the EU since they were born, and are more at home in a diverse Britain than their parents. Similarly, professionals used to travelling across the continent on work and on holiday favour remaining in the EU. The big question is turn-out: those in favour of leaving are generally more passionate, and are expected to vote on June 23. Those in favour of staying, however, are more casual in their attachment to the EU, and might not turn out in large numbers.

Given the stakes, this is probably the most important vote anybody in the country is expected to cast in his or her lifetime. If the Stay campaign is correct in its foreboding, Brexit could mean large-scale unemployment, stagnation and a long-term recession. But with both sides exaggerating the impact of their respective positions, it is hard for ordinary Brits to decide how to vote.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2016