By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
On January 31, the United Kingdom will leave the European
Union. For a short time that nation will enter a transition period in which its
laws and customs regulations align with the EU’s until a more permanent trading
arrangement can be negotiated, but after this week it will no longer be a
member state, it will not be part of the political project. Even as I write,
the last cohort of the United Kingdom’s ministers to the European Parliament —
most of them Brexiteers — are giving sassy farewell speeches.
Leaving the European Union is a momentous act precisely
because it breaks a political spell. For decades, a powerful intellectual
clique has insisted that the gradual erasure of borders and the enfeeblement of
national governments was the natural next course of human enlightenment. Often
it was implied that some iron law of history drives this trend. The moral
progress of mankind, or the exigency of markets, somehow demands it. A kind of
sour, smirking Whiggish mind came to believe that human hatreds could be
extinguished, that it would just require ditching national and local loyalties.
A mind possessed of powerful illusions and messianic dreams like this is
disenchanted only with a great struggle.
Since the vote in 2016, columnists have won awards for
portraying Brexit as an
act of suicidal self-harm by a patient who was suffering psychosis. That
these columnists switched between accusing the patient of being a parochial
Little Englander and an imperial nostalgist mattered not at all. Institutional
and constitutional brinkmanship aimed at stopping Brexit, by the speaker of the
House of Commons and the supreme court, were esteemed as brilliant in the
press.
A small number of elite supporters of remaining in the
European Union admitted frankly that they were becoming “Remaniacs” — people
who brooded constantly about the subject ever since the 2016 referendum that
Brexiteers won. A mythology began to grow up that the Brexit campaign was
helped by — you guessed it — the Russians.
In actual fact it was the haughtiness, sneering contempt,
and unwillingness to compromise from European integrationists that caused
Brexit. Angela Merkel offered David Cameron no compromises he could sell ahead
of the referendum, no token to show that the United Kingdom had as much sway as
a France or a Germany.
Alongside that myth grew another, that the Brexit
campaign was won on lies. In a recent column George Will referred to one of the
supposed untruths of the campaign: the famous Boris Johnson bus ad that said
the United Kingdom’s membership cost it 350 million pounds a week, money that
could otherwise go to the National Health Service. This, he strangely
suggested, is what inspires secessionists in Spain and other democratic publics
who don’t vote for classical liberals to swallow a “soup of fictions and
paranoia.”
While the amount of money that membership costs has been
disputed as both too small and too large since the campaign, the truth is that
Johnson’s government is massively increasing the budget for the NHS.
But I think it is worth remembering that in fact it was
the Remain campaign that served a “soup of fictions and paranoia.”
Let’s review some of it. In the 2016 campaign, the U.K.’s
chancellor said that a vote for Brexit — just the vote itself — would send the
United Kingdom’s economy reeling, that taxes would immediately have to be
raised, and that an emergency budget would have to be passed. None of that
happened. Predictions of imminent recession and economic contraction were
instead met with uncertainty-fed expansion, though on a slower pace than
expected.
We were told by former prime ministers Tony Blair and
John Major that the peace process of Northern Ireland was at risk from Brexit.
In fact, the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement fell into dysfunction
and disuse in 2017 owing to an environmental-credits scandal and disagreements
over an Irish-language act favored by Irish nationalists. And one of the first
acts of Johnson’s government was to help restore the power-sharing arrangements
of the Northern Irish executive.
The Union of Great Britain itself was under threat, we
were told. And in fact the Scottish Nationalist party came roaring back in
2019. However, it is unclear whether this bounce is due to a marked increase in
secessionist sentiment or reflects both the more general collapse of the Labour
party and the emergence of the SNP as Scotland’s party of the Left. And of course
the departure of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the EU means that
Scot secession is a much taller task. Do Spaniards want to encourage the
secession of Catalonia by rewarding Scotland for the breakup of the U.K.? How
does Belgium tell Scotland yes while telling Flanders no? And what currency
would Scotland use while it is waiting for accession? If you thought the Irish
border posed a problem for Brexit, what does the border of England mean for
Scotland?
David Cameron said that Brexit risked war. “Can we be so
sure that peace and stability on our Continent are assured beyond any shadow of
doubt?” he asked. “Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash as to
make that assumption,” he answered.
But that’s hardly the most extravagant prophecy. European
Council president Donald Tusk said the risks were much worse than war, “As a
historian” he said, “I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of
not only the EU but also Western political civilization in its entirety.” One
is tempted to answer that a civilization that can’t survive an alteration to a
40-odd-year political arrangement isn’t worth saving. But why grant the
premise?
This month the International Monetary Fund, normally a
staunch friend of the EU, released its economic forecasts, which put the U.K.’s
growth ahead of Germany’s and the euro zone’s. It doesn’t quite sound like
civilizational destruction to me.
Also, has anyone noticed that in fact the Brexit result
strengthened traditional parties and quieted the populist ones in the United
Kingdom? Perhaps there are lessons for other European countries. While everyone
was predicting certain doom and political unrest as punishment for the United
Kingdom, it is France that has been rocked by massive protests and afflicted
with a terribly unpopular and illiberal government.
It is usually a dirty rhetorical trick to say “The sky
didn’t fall” as a taunt to those who lose a political argument. After all,
human history is marked with regrettable decisions and the sky has never fallen
on the guilty. Brexit is not the beginning of a utopia. The United Kingdom,
like everywhere else, will suffer from recessions, political miscalculation,
and, yes, it is likely that war will be a terrible feature in the future as it
has been in all of human history.
But I think it’s worth remembering that the Remain
campaign was an endless barrage of lies, bullying, paranoiac demagogy, and
fraud. We should celebrate that it lost, and that a free, sovereign,
independent, and democratic government will continue to prove its case against
Remain.
No comments:
Post a Comment