By Rich Lowry
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Democracy is too important to be left to the people.
That is the global elite’s collective reaction to
Britain’s vote to exit the European Union, which is being portrayed as the work
of ill-informed xenophobes who never should have been entrusted with a decision
of such world-historical importance.
Judging by their dismissive tone, critics of Brexit
believe that the EU’s lack of basic democratic accountability is one of its
institutional advantages — the better to insulate consequential decisions from
backward and shortsighted voters.
The opiate of the Western political class is
cosmopolitanism, making it almost impossible for elites to understand the
Brexit vote on its own terms.
Britain gave us Magna Carta and such foundational
thinkers on the road to democratic rule as John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and John
Milton. It resisted centralizing monarchs in the turbulence of the 17th
century, and defeated continental threats to its sovereignty emanating from
Spain (King Philip II), France (Napoleon), and Germany (Hitler). Should it be
shocking that it said “no thanks” to continuing to subsume itself in a budding
European superstate?
Maintaining British sovereignty, broadly construed, was
the overwhelming rationale for Brexit. According to a survey by Lord Ashcroft
Polls, 49 percent of leave voters said the biggest reason for exiting the EU
was “that decisions about the U.K. should be taken in the U.K.” Another 33
percent said it was the best way to regain power over the U.K.’s borders, and
13 percent said they worried the U.K. couldn’t control how the EU “expanded its
membership or its powers.”
All the critics of Brexit see in the vote, though, is
hostility to immigrants. There is no doubt that immigration played a large
role. But a country controlling its own borders is a necessary element of
sovereignty. The foreign-born population of Britain has doubled in the past 20
years, with the government powerless to stop much of the influx. It,
self-evidently, should be the right of the British people to decide whether
they want less or more immigration.
A constant refrain of Brexit critics is that leaving the
EU was much too complex and important an issue to put to a referendum. But at
bottom the question was simple: Shall parliament remain the supreme lawmaking
body in Britain or not? This is a foundational decision that it makes sense to
put directly before the voters.
Princeton historian David Bell is a critic of government
by referenda, but has noted how referenda are appropriate when fundamental
constitutional questions are at stake: “They represent instances when sovereign
power, always ultimately held by the people, but mediated by constitutional
structures, temporarily reverts to the people directly, so that they can modify
or replace these structures.”
The British people voted to reject the EU superstructure
that had been hoisted on top of their traditional political institutions.
The vote roiled the markets, and another theme of Brexit
critics is that leave voters now regret their temper tantrum. But a poll for
the Sunday Mirror newspaper found
that 92 percent of leave voters were happy with the outcome of the referendum.
There may indeed be an economic cost to Brexit, but
politics isn’t reducible to a stock index — something that Americans, having
once made their own tumultuous exit from an offshore power, should reflexively
understand. “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how
you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be
secured,” Patrick Henry declared during a 1788 debate over ratifying the
Constitution, “for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”
In the Brexit vote, a free people insisted, despite the
risks, that they will govern themselves. That is an admirable thing, made even
more stirring by the fact that the great and good regard the move with such bemusement
and derision.
No comments:
Post a Comment