By John O'Sullivan
Saturday, April 06,
2019
Charles Moore today ends his weekly Telegraph column, which has become required reading for both
supporters and opponents of Brexit, with a gloomy forecast that the only way of
saving Brexit from its betrayal by a Tory prime minister and government is her
replacement by a new leader who then reforms the Tory party along lines that
would allow local Tory associations to deselect Remain MPs and replace them with Leavers. His final paragraph
reads:
It does not sound very likely, does
it? The only reason to think that it might happen is the prospect of the
alternative, which is annihilation.
Does “annihilation” sound a trifle over-dramatic? Well, I
suspect Moore intends that it should have a shock effect on his readers — a
metaphorical shaking of the shoulders to make them realize what’s at stake.
What is at stake is not the physical
annihilation of the Brits but the absorption of their self-governing democracy
into an undemocratic European empire called the European Union. And that
prospect justifies the gloomiest of forecasts.
Admittedly, Brexit (or rather, the deceitful betrayal of
Brexit by a Remainer government) is a many-sided catastrophe. My National Review colleagues, notably
Madeline Kearns (to whose plangent op-eds set to music I would happily listen
if she would sing them as beautifully as she sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” at
the NRI Ideas Summit last week), have discussed almost all of them with a
cousinly sympathy and regret. I hope myself to return next week with a full
symphonic treatment of the tragedy. But here let me focus on two aspects of the
Brexit story that won’t be transformed or rendered irrelevant by events in the
next few days and that illustrate a larger political evolution in Europe and beyond.
The first is that because a large minority of Tory MPs
have consistently opposed May’s No Brexit Deal, she this week opened talks with
Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn in the hope of winning enough Labour support to
get it through on the fourth attempt. As I write, the usual leaks suggest that
these talks have broken down. But that is far from certain. It looks a little
like a feint to soothe Tory activists so that they won’t give visiting MPs too
brutal a time over the weekend. And later statements leave open the possibility
that talks will resume on Monday.
Even so, most commentary has treated this initiative as a
political blunder by May because it elevates Corbyn and makes it far harder for
the Tories to denounce him as the man with a knife between his teeth, a Marxist
fanatic and terrorist sympathizer who threatens the modest livelihoods of
Middle Britain with his schemes to imitate Venezuela. That’s a significant case
of unilateral rhetorical disarmament by the Tories, and it’s all the more remarkable
because, unlike most such extreme political rhetoric, these accusations are
perfectly valid. This opening to the Left on and against Brexit, therefore,
shows the extraordinary lengths to which the Tory Remainers are prepared to go
to keep Britain either in the EU or controlled by it.
There may be a greater significance in this initiative,
moreover. Look at what is happening throughout Europe, where the dominance of
establishment parties of Left and Right committed to ever-closer
Euro-integration is threatened by the rise of “nationalist” or “populist”
parties. The most shining example is in the European Parliament itself, where
the center-left socialists and the center-right Christian Democrats have formed
a de facto coalition to ensure that all the power remains in their joint hands.
It’s common knowledge that if the European elections in May go well for the
“extremes” (i.e., all other parties), this duopoly will entrench its dominance
by admitting the Liberal bloc (which shares its enthusiasm for centralizing
power in Brussels) into its charmed circle.
And this new kind of oligopolistic politics is not
confined to EU institutions. Several national parliaments in Europe are now
dominated by “grand coalitions” formed not to handle a national emergency but as
a semi-permanent tactic to resist election results that have returned new
outsider parties with Euro-sceptic tendencies. The most extreme case is that of
Sweden, where the mainstream parties have forged an agreement that has kept the
failing Social Democrats in office in order to keep the Swedish Democrats
permanently out (despite their 25 per cent in the popular vote)/ But it’s the
same in Germany, Holland, France (electorally), Spain, and elsewhere. My John
Howard lecture in Australia two years ago was mainly about the beginnings of
this development. And I returned to the consequences of it recently in the
Australian magazine Quadrant here:
It creates a de facto Centre Party, composed of the mainstream parties of Left
and Right. These parties still compete electorally under their original names,
but they co-operate on almost all major issues in government afterwards. This
permanent coalition enjoys the support of the main cultural, media and business
elites. It expects to be in power forever — though it is starting to have
doubts.
Its second feature is that it is a
politics of inevitability. It believes in “More Europe” — the rock on which it
is founded — and it dismisses policies that conflict with this strategic aim.
But this “inevitabilism” infects its understanding of other major issues too —
everything from mass migration to the euro.
Third, it practises an electoral
strategy of exclusion. And why not? If all clever and responsible people
support the coalition, it is unthinkable that the rag-bag of populists,
nationalists, fanatics and “extremists” on the other side should ever come to
power.
And if that ever happens
accidentally, they must be restrained by rules and institutions operated by
liberal technocrats. Such tactics, however, exclude not only parties but also
the millions of voters who support them. It reduces the value of democracy and
protects the failing policies of the centrist technocracy.
It’s easy to see this kind of politics emerging in
Britain through May’s evisceration of Brexit. The mystery is why. The answer
can’t be that this new political structure has produced either political or
economic success. The EU has had a relatively low rate of growth for about 30
years compared to the U.S., Asia, and the non-EU countries in Europe. Its greatest
achievements are not establishing peace in Europe — that was done by the U.S.
and NATO — but establishing the euro without the fiscal institutions to make it
workable, to introduce the abolition of internal EU borders without firming up
the external borders to make Schengen workable, and to spend 40 percent of the
EU budget on an agricultural policy that intentionally keeps food prices high.
All of these disasters, incidentally, were the result of policies entirely
under the remit of the “centrist technocracy.” Not one was the product of
dangerous populist politics.
What then explains the determination of May, the Remainer
Tories, Blairite and moderate MPs, the media, most of Britain’s great cultural
institutions, and all in all “the establishment” to halt and reverse Brexit at
all costs and by any political means, however constitutionally dubious? What
can account for cabinet ministers and ambitious junior ministers blithely
kicking over the despatch box on which both the constitution and their own ambitions
rest?
That was the question I tried to answer recently in the Washington Examiner. The answer I gave
was that hard-line Remainers had switched consciously to a European political
identity over a British one. They saw themselves as the vanguard of a new European
patriotism that has yet to spread deeply into any one country, Britain least of
all, but which has taken root in their political and bureaucratic classes.
There might be many reasons for this transfer of allegiance, some trivial, some
deeply thought out, but the end result is that many Remainers, especially those
in high political positions, devote to Europe the emotions that most people
reserve for their native land. Orwell described this kind of political emotion
as “transferred nationalism,” to which he thought intellectuals were especially
susceptible. In his essay “Notes on Nationalism,” he delivered this significant
warning against it:
But for an intellectual,
transference has an important function which I have already mentioned shortly
in connection with Chesterton. It makes it possible for him to be much more nationalistic — more vulgar, more
silly, more malignant, more dishonest — than he could ever be on behalf of his
native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge.
But the Remainers in the British debate have an extremely
frustrating handicap. They cannot say what they feel and believe openly. Though
both Leavers and Remainers are actuated by their devotion to preserving either
British or European sovereignty, only the Leavers can state that loyalty
openly. Remainers can scarcely proclaim themselves hostile to British
independence; their earlier advocacy of “pooled sovereignty” was easily shown
to be a verbal self-contradiction; they have given up on proclaiming the
positive value of EU membership because the current state of Europe makes that
laughable; and the hostility and contempt towards Britain expressed by some
European leaders has not helped their cause at all.
So they have to take refuge in running down Britain as
weak, powerless, second-rate, etc., etc., etc.; in mocking Leavers as old,
ignorant, uneducated, xenophobic, racist, etc., etc., etc.; in deceptive
advertising of May’s deal as “the Brexit you voted for”; and in increasingly
desperate attempts to change the parliamentary and constitutional rules to
force through a Potemkin Brexit that fails to deceive anyone and enrages almost
everyone.
That’s where we stand at the end of another “historic”
week in British politics. If Charles Moore is gloomily correct, we are looking
at the likely triumph of a kind of politics that uses deceitful methods to
bring about the incorporation of the United Kingdom under the sovereignty of an
emerging imperial power.
I wish I could think of a name for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment