Brexit and the tragedy of Europe
Is the EU in danger of collapse following the UK’s decision to leave? Miguel Angel Lara Otaola writes that Brexit represents a key challenge for Europe’s post-war system of open markets, cooperation between nations, stability, and peace. He argues that both the UK and the rest of the EU will need to be constructive in their negotiations if they are to avoid aggravating tensions and divisions.
Winston Churchill’s statue, London. CC0 Public Domain
In 1946, Winston Churchill spoke in Zurich, Switzerland, about the tragedy of Europe. The signing of the treaty of Versailles after the First World War did little to prevent future conflicts amongst the countries of Europe. It was too harsh on the losers, taking away their political influence, territories and colonies, and making them pay extremely costly war reparations. It also included a ‘war-guilt’ clause that sought to make Germany solely responsible for the war, which was not the case.
This brought about economic crisis and unemployment and fuelled resentment and nationalism within Germany. Anti-democratic leaders vowing to change this situation and end the post-Versailles treaty order came to power. As a result, the Second World War followed and once again Europe was at war. Tyrants and dictators repressed opposition groups and parties, cancelled democratic freedoms of speech and assembly, and committed unparalleled crimes and genocide. After the conflict, millions lay dead, cities were ruined, homes were destroyed and what was left of an entire generation was in despair.
This could have been fertile ground for scapegoating and easy solutions, matching those promised in the 1930s. However, the mistakes committed after the First World War were avoided. The lesson of “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” had been learnt. The remedy, in the words of Churchill himself, was to re-create the European Family and provide it with a structure under which it could dwell in peace, in safety, and in freedom. A kind of United States of Europe.
With Brexit, this project is now at risk. The risk, however, does not come from the economic and financial consequences we have seen so far. It is not about the dramatic drop in the value of the pound to levels not seen since 1985, or the plunge in the European stock markets, or the talk of moving jobs to Europe by some London banks, the resignation of David Cameron or the divisions in the Labour Party. It is not even about the bureaucratic and legal nightmare that will ensue if Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is invoked, which involves figuring out how trade in goods and services, migration, and EU legislation will work with regards to the UK.This is what actually happened. After the war, a group of visionary people dedicated all their talent and energy to end the frequent conflicts in the continent. A project for peace, unity and prosperity was founded, starting with the establishment of the Council of Europe in 1949, the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, and the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. In parallel, the US launched the Marshall Plan to provide economic support to rebuild Europe. The aim was to prevent future conflicts through open markets, free trade, economic integration and the promotion of cooperation between European countries. In short, the goal was to ‘make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible’.
The risk does not come from what the Brexit referendum was formally about: the UK leaving the European Union. The risk comes from what it was actually about for some: anger and hate. The referendum unleashed an isolationist and anti-immigration mindset among some of the populace. The tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, an advocate of Syrian refugees and of the UK staying in the EU, by a madman reported to have yelled “Britain First” (the name of a far-right group) just a week before the referendum is a case in point. So is the racist graffiti at the Polish Cultural Centre in Hammersmith, London and the rise in racist incidents reported after the referendum. This has not been Britain’s “finest hour”.
The Vote Leave camp criticised the UK’s open door to Europe, asking to vote “Leave” in order to take back control of the country. This divisive campaign fuelled nationalism and has threatened the European project and its values. Extremist politicians are on the rise in Europe and some have called for referendums on their own countries leaving the EU. It is not a coincidence that amongst those celebrating Brexit are Marine Le Pen from the Front National in France, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party in Greece and Donald Trump in the United States, a man who has called for the banning of Muslims entering the US and the building of a border wall with Mexico (the United States’ second largest trading partner).
Brexit may be the first domino to fall, and the fear is that this could be the start of a trend against the post-war system of open markets, cooperation between nations, stability, and peace. Moreover, our divisions within Europe benefit the imperialistic and belligerent agendas of anti-democratic regimes such as Russia and China.
We cannot allow this. As a member of a family who has experienced the horrors of nationalism and intolerance, as a European and as a proud member of Western Civilisation I cannot stand by this. It is not about the economic consequences of Brexit. I am a firm believer in British ingenuity and I am certain the UK can weather the storm and still be a thriving economy and an attractive destination for investment and trade. It is about avoiding a new dark age. An age of division, isolation, and hatred.
We cannot ignore the legitimacy of the referendum. It was a free vote. However, there are several things the British people can do to reassure that their country is still outward-looking, committed to international cooperation, and a strong ally of Europe. Write to your MP and tell them to consider the consequences of Brexit and vote with their conscience when the time comes. Tell them to support a referendum on the withdrawal terms so that Britain does not abandon the EU completely. Encourage them to pursue a European and internationalist agenda.
Tell them to condemn, strongly and publicly, any racist expressions, threats or attacks occurring in their parliamentary constituency or indeed anywhere in the country. Wear a safety pin. Join the rallies to increase pressure on parliament and on the government, so that this historic and strategic bond is not completely broken.
At the same time, there is something that must be done by the leaders of the EU. During these confusing times, they should not treat the UK harshly for the outcome of the referendum. Trying to make an example of the UK can aggravate tensions and division and provoke more nationalist sentiments in the UK and across the whole of Europe.
Again, as Churchill said in Switzerland, “If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be an act of faith in the European family”. We need to leave behind post-Brexit nationalism and keep Britain Great.
—
This post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Democratic Audit blog, or of the LSE. It first appeared on EUROPP – European Politics and Policy.
—
Miguel Angel Lara Otaola is a Visiting Fellow at the Electoral Integrity Project at the Universities of Sydney and Harvard, and a Doctoral Researcher at the University of Sussex. He has worked for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Mexico’s National Electoral Institute (INE), amongst others. He has also participated as an electoral observer in several missions in Australia, the EU and Latin America.
Similar Posts
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Democratic Audit's core funding is provided by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Additional funding is provided by the London School of Economics.
Brexit and the tragedy of Europe https://t.co/yrYCe7eqIu
Brexit and the tragedy of Europe https://t.co/Qn8tBo5xRi
“We cannot ignore the legitimacy of the referendum. It was a free vote.”
Personally I do not assume that we should consider the referendum automatically legitimate.
We know that the Leave campaign’s main arguments were lies: that we would save £350m per week which would be given to the NHS, and that we could remain part of the single market without free movement of people. There are now several academic analyses of the journalistic coverage of the referendum campaigns which shows that the so-called “fourth estate” failed in its democratic role of highlighting the veracity (or lack) of campaign statements and holding campaigners to account.
IMO these call the legitimacy of the referendum into question, particularly when the result was so close.
But even more importantly, to classify this referendum as legitimate and thereby failing to hold lying politicians to account, is effectively legitimising the lies, and giving the message to politicians that they should feel free to lie again and again with impunity in future voting campaigns. This is a terrible (and terrifying) precedent to set.
Instead, let us start to question the legitimacy of the referendum, hold politicians to account for the truthfulness (or lack of it) in their campaigning, and start to bring some honesty and integrity back into UK politics.
I agree entirely with Paul. Would it be democratically legitimate if politicians invited the electorate to vote on whether to undertake a brain operation on a complete stranger? Surely not! Yet neither are the politicians or the electorate capable of understanding the ‘whole’ complexity of Brexit, only small, isolated parts where the interconnections and intangibles are conveniently ignored. There is nobody in the world right now who can grasp the immense complexity of pulling apart over 40 years of complex integration, which entails far more than just trade, and then planning an alternative! It is what us systems people call a ‘wicked problem’, where outcomes can never be reliably predicted. One thing is certain, there will be big, big delays, in recruiting and training specialist, understanding, planning, etc. – even before a possible trigger or Article 50. After all that, which will take at least a few years, we will be no further forward in understanding the consequences. Out of their depth political madness comes to mind.
I am not sure that complexity is a reason to consider the referendum illegitimate. After all, most votes are made without people – or even the prime campaigners – having a complete understanding of the issues. Indeed I would argue that the vast majority of decisions taken by government, individuals etc. around the world are made without a 100% understanding of the issues – and anyway often it is impossible to know all the smaller issues before you get to them.
Sometimes the issues are fundamental ones – for example freedom / liberty, democracy etc. that override the details. I am not saying that this referendum was decided like that – the winning margin was too narrow to be able to say that – but some votes are.
As for political madness – IMO it is taking a marginal referendum majority as being an absolute decision regardless of e.g. the outcomes of negotiation. Suppose, as a devil’s advocate worst-case example, that the EU took a hard line and said that we would only get WTO trade status, that we had to pay £100B to leave, that non-EU treaties meant we still had to have open borders, that other countries were not interested in making trade deals with us, that we were going to lose our UN Security Council seat, that Scotland and Wales were going to dissolve the Union if we left the EU, etc. etc. Would the politicians take us down a UK-suicide route and leave the EU anyway just because there was a non-binding referendum where a margin of 52% to 48% decided we should leave? NO – OF COURSE NOT. The referendum is NOT an absolute decision to leave – so why are the politicias treating it as if it were?
Paul, you have helped me deepen my understanding, thank you! I am an old designer and troubleshooter of very complex systems. I have never been interested in politics until Brexit so please excuse my political ignorance.
It perplexes and frightens me how rigid and undemocratic our systems of governance currently are. It concerns me also that we elect politicians for a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with their leadership and decision-making skills. So we are in effect reaping what we sow.
If I put myself into Theresa May’s head, it is obvious that she is in the centre of a vortex of angry people so she can’t tell it as it is without political consequences. I totally understand why she would be saying ‘Brexit means Brexit’ whilst coming out with contradictory statements re Scotland, NI and Gibraltar. By now she will have been advised that she is facing an insurmountable wall of complexity where triggering Article 50 would be political suicide. She will also be aware that public opinion will change as the economy nosedives. Come the autumn, she will also be hoping there are opportunities for collaboration for mutual advantage where the UK can remain in the EU whilst taking the wind out of the Brexit sails.
Surely, the fact that many politicians make decisions all over the world without understanding the complexities involved does not mean that this risk should be accepted within a democracy? Similarly, the fact that the electorate are increasingly being manipulated through fear, as Daniel Goleman put it, an ‘amygdala hijack’ is surely morally unacceptable? Both subvert democracy.
Above all else, we must strive for a clear, all-encompassing and unhindered view as a precondition of our collective decision-making. The problem as I see it is that virtually all our man-made systems are far too rigid and simply aren’t keeping up with reality. For example, we have a primitive adversarial political system at a time when we need people across the political spectrum to collaborate far more closely. Perhaps that is why people are turning to populism, we just don’t believe any more in these glorified lobby groups, the political parties.
The biggest problem we face is that we are not steering ourselves. Short-termism rules the roost and this is completely unsustainable for humanity. It is feasible that this is just nature’s way of regulating (culling) our species, through our cognitive biases, conditioning, and information overload. That doesn’t mean that we should just give up. We surely should endeavour to minimise unnecessary suffering by challenging the old, outdated way of doing things, which is, as a maverick, what I will continue to do!
I believe that the current dissent with mainstream politics has a single underlying cause – that people no longer see the politicians as working for them.
But many feel that they have to vote, so they vote by habit (i.e. I previously voted Tory, so in the absence of anyone I really believe in, I will vote Tory again) or by inheritance (my grandfather voted Tory, my dad voted Tory, so I will vote Tory).
Which is why, for example, Alison Hernadez (Tory) was voted as Devon & Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner regardless of the fact that she was being investigated by Devon & Cornwall Police for possible election fraud. How crazy is that? So, the locals blindly voted Tory and elected Ms Hernandez (who had little relevant experience, and being a hack is unlikely to argue with the government) whilst an Independent candidate who had masses of relevant experience (inc. having previously been Deputy Chief Constable) was ignored by the journalists (e.g. not invited to the TV debate).
Similarly our local MP, Hugo Swire, has quite literally said nothing – not a single solitary word – in parliament in support of his constituents for the past 2+ years – and gets knighted for being a great brown-noser.
I might even go so far to say that civil unrest is not that far away. There are studies that show that public discontent is greater than in previous riot periods, so this is not that far fetched. The referendum farce could easily be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Brexit and the tragedy of Europe https://t.co/TD8ySh9h6f https://t.co/8sS5Lchlgx