By Charles C. W. Cooke
Friday, June 24, 2016
London, England
— So, what now?
The immediate answer is: Nothing. As the prime minister
made clear in his resignation speech this morning, it will be months before the
government triggers Article 50 and initiates withdrawal proceedings, and, even after it has done that, progress is
likely to be sedulous and slow. In time, there will be fireworks. But for now
there are markets to calm and voters to unite, and there is at least one
leadership election to stage. Triumphant as the Leave campaign may be feeling
this morning, last night was less akin to Agincourt and more akin to the second
meeting of the Great Council. Yes, the United Kingdom has declared its
independence; but the fighting has only just begun.
I have seen it suggested — or, perhaps, hoped — that the
powers-that-be will simply “ignore” the vote to leave. This is not going to
happen. In a strictly legal sense, Parliament is sovereign and can do as it
wishes. In consequence, this referendum was technically not binding.
Culturally, though, any indication that the government was trying to defy the
voters would trigger a catastrophic constitutional crisis. Speaking in front of
Downing Street this morning, David Cameron set the tone: “The British people,”
he confirmed, “have voted to leave the EU and their will must be respected.”
“The will of the British people,” Cameron added, “is an instruction that must
be delivered.” Sadly for him, the task of making that delivery will fall to his
successor.
As during the General Election of 2015, Pauline Kaelism
was on full display throughout the proceedings. Announcing the result last
night, most of the TV anchors and pundits looked genuinely shocked. How, they
seemed to ask, could the polls have been so wrong once again? After all, nobody
in a position of national influence seemed to know anybody who was voting Leave.
As in 2015, the simple answer was that the public lies to
pollsters. And who can blame it? I have spent quite a lot of time in the U.K.
over the last month, and I have been startled by the condescension, the
disdain, and the downright bullying that I have seen from advocates within the
Remain camp. That this morning I am seeing precisely the same attitudes on display
has left me wondering whether the British chattering classes are capable of
learning new tricks. More than 17 million
voters opted for Leave yesterday, and yet to take their opponents at face value
would be to conclude that this vast and diverse coalition of citizens was
little more than a revanchist, hate-filled, antediluvian rump. It is certainly
the case that the center-right opted overwhelmingly for exit. But it is notable
that the election was won not on the playing fields of Eton or in the leafy
gardens of England’s Home Counties, but in the industrial Northeast and the
blue-collar Midlands. Indeed, as the Mirror
and others have observed, Leave’s margin was provided not by a surfeit of
conservatives, but by working-class social democrats who traditionally vote
Labour but whose concerns are increasingly out of sync with the rest of their
party. (This, incidentally, is another reason that Parliament could not get
away with ignoring the result of the referendum: Because UKIP is nipping at
Labour’s heels throughout the country — and because there is strong anti-EU
sentiment among at least a third of Labour voters — the Labour party’s
leadership knows that to sign onto any coup would be to sign its own electoral
death warrant.)
In our present climate, it is customary for cosmopolitan
sorts to accuse anybody who dissents from the European project of being an
unreconstructed “nationalist.” Insofar as this describes the dissenters’ desire
to return power to their own parliament and to ensure that their vote matters
as much as it should, it is an accurate term. Outside of that, however, it is a
slur, and a damnable one at that. George Orwell contended that the difference
between patriotism and nationalism was that patriotism involved “devotion to a
particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the
best in the world but has no wish to force on other people,” while nationalism
“is inseparable from the desire for power.” By this definition at least,
Britain’s decision to extricate itself from the EU was patriotic, not
nationalistic. Indeed, if there is any group within the debate that seeks to
impose “a particular way of life . . . on other people,” it is the one that
wants ever-closer integration into Europe, and, eventually, a federal
super-state.
Another term that has been casually thrown around over
the past few hours is “isolationist.” But this, too, is misplaced. Now, as
ever, Britain remains committed to commerce and to free trade, and there is no
good reason that this should change simply because it is not privileging Europe
over the rest of the world. At present, the EU is engaged with about the same
amount of trade with the U.K. as with the United States. Unless the French or
the Germans wish to damage themselves and the world by throwing a strop, there
is no good reason that this should change. Nor, for that matter, should
Britain’s leaving the EU have much of an effect on either of the two
organizations that have kept Europe at peace for the last seven decades: those,
of course, being NATO and the United States military. Once the exit is
complete, there will be a dramatic change in how and where the United
Kingdom’s decisions are made. What
those decisions are, however, is up to the electorate. If Britain wishes to
trade with the world, it can. If it wishes to engage militarily, it can. If it
wishes to reconstruct some of the EU’s apparatus while retaining its
sovereignty, it can do that as well. Naturally, there will tradeoffs along the
way — clearly, it won’t all be sweetness and light — but there were problems
with the status quo, too. At least by taking full control of its affairs,
Britain will have the flexibility to experiment and to adapt.
Before all that, though, there is a serious hangover to
dispense with. And it’s going to get quite a bit worse before it gets better.
No comments:
Post a Comment