why the British masochists did what they did

The last post was, as always, too long. It did, however, elicit a friendly gesture of farewell and solidarity from an old (Dutch) friend who, very reasonably, commented that the Brits have been a bit obsessed by european technocrats.

He then went on to make the important point which I’m sure he’d allow me to reproduce here that- 

“the same bureaucrats have been able, the last decade or so, to develop a number of norms and rules that provide at least some constraints to the unfettered capitalist forces of the larger than life global companies. And some protection against the abuse of power in Poland or Hungary.

“At this point the EU is the only world player that at least tries to set some norms to protect the environment, restore equality, maintain product safety, provide some protection against the abuse of power by governments within and beyond the EU zone”. 

Readers will know that I am embarrassed by Brexit and Brexiteers. The British novelist Ian McEwan put it pithily recently when he called it “the most pointless, masochistic” event in British history.

But there is a reason why 52% of those who bothered to vote in the 2016 Referendum voted to leave – which cannot be dismissed as populism, hostility to immigrants or a right-wing press. As far back as 2011 I tried to articulate what it was about the “European project” which rubs Brits up the wrong way – and repeated the attempt a few months later

I want in the next few posts to explore my Dutch friend’s point of view but first let me try to summarise, in bullet-points, the argument of the article from the “reluctant Brexiteer” which was the focus of my last post –

- The European Union has been able to use geo-political muscle to negotiate benefits for both consumers and citizens

- trade issues are secondary to those of accountability and democracy

- the “european project” has always had a technocratic drive at its core. The “Monnet method of treaty creep” is a rather opaque way of expressing an important truth…

- the “nation-state” remains an important concept – despite the abuse federalists have thrown at it

- the Laeken Declaration of 2001 admitted that Europe’s peoples had come to see the EU as "a threat to their identity" and that there was no appetite for "a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life." It spoke of returning powers to the member states and restoring "democratic legitimacy" through a convention.

-  The “European Convention” headed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in fact continued the federalist thrust and, when treaty revision was rejected in 2005 by the French and Dutch, the Lisbon Treaty simply brought most of it back in

- the contempt this shows for the voter is the force which has released the populist backlash in so many European countries – not least the UK

Please note – this is simply my summary of the article as I understood its main points. 

But there is very little here I can disagree with – save, perhaps, the casual dismissal of the economic aspects of the argument. I have a feeling that many of those who argued this way will live to rue the day….

The only real point of dispute I have with the article is with the overly optimistic, if not nationalistic, note of its conclusion. The British direction of travel in the last 40 years does not warrant the complacent sentence about

“the same tolerant free-thinking UK, under the rule of law, that it has mostly been for 300 years” 

I'm afraid British tolerance and openness went out of the window decades ago!