At long last, after three years of parliamentary deadlock, two prime ministers, two general elections, one European election, and three extensions to Article 50, Brexit Day finally happened on 31 January.
Though the time for rehearsing such arguments is formally past, on a matter of pure principle, Brexit should be supported by all those who value freedom, chiefly because on the current trajectory continued membership of the European Union (EU) will be submitting (though slowly) to a foreign power.
It bears repeating that the founding treaties of the EU — Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992) — state explicitly the aim of ‘ever closer union’. This takes place on economic, legislative, and eventually military levels to ‘break down barriers’ (which would have had to derive from sovereign powers) in the name of peace and co-operation.
A very possible outcome is the eventual dissolution of the sovereign nations in favour of a super-state united artificially by the ill-defined notion of a European identity — former Belgian Prime Minister and EU Parliament Brexit Co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt even wrote two books promoting the idea in no uncertain terms.
Second, Brexit removes a totally unnecessary layer of government, one which has a questionable mandate to ‘govern’ in the way it currently does.
At the 2019 election, voter turnout was only around 50.62% across member states. For the UK, this drops to only 37%, up from a paltry 35.6% in 2014. Furthermore, while a certain country may return a particular cross-section of political views to Strasbourg, there is no guarantee of (and indeed no control over) the political agendas of other member states. There are just too many variables, particularly as the EU expands further east.
To top it all off, the European Council, consisting of the heads of member states, and the European Commission, the executive of the EU, are effectively unelected: Ursula von der Leyen, the current EU Commission president, being essentially picked in conclave, and the parliament merely ratifying her and her commissioners uncontested.
This is not to say that there should be no engagement with Europe. That would be both an impossible and absurd position to take. Rather, it is that the current form which European co-operation is taking is advocated as the only possible solution.
This is also by no means to say that if the EU is removed from the equation there will be an absolute return of powers to Westminster. Indeed, there are many other global bodies making regulations which are subsequently put into domestic law, via the EU or otherwise. But it will give the UK more control where it matters. And with this comes greater responsibility and the need for greater attention to detail in parliament, something which has been notably slow in coming.
What happens now is a transition period until the end of the year, in which the UK must still adhere to EU law. During this time, Boris Johnson’s government will have to work out a new commercial relationship with the EU.
Whatever this economic settlement turns out to be, Brexit will have been of greater cultural significance, a symptom rather than a cause. Reactions to the outcome of the referendum have highlighted a stark divide between the metropolitan media-intellectual set and the rest of the country.
The EU views itself as a benevolent peace project, promoting woolly concepts of unity and inclusion — modish buzzwords of today’s corporate class. It is essentially a non-nation nation state progressive types can get behind without a sense of shame. Being a project of post-World War II, it is devoid of the kinds of inconvenient histories which sovereign nations have: no colonial brutality, no genocidal tendencies, no slavery.
This can be seen especially in the paradoxical attitude which hardcore Remainers hold. While simultaneously deriding the ‘little Englander’ mentality as something belonging to the uneducated, and scorning such displays as flying the flag of St George, they are just as happy to paint their own faces blue and yellow and drape themselves in EU flags and dance in Trafalgar Square.
This is effectively another manifestation of the eternal British preoccupation with class. The most visible benefits of EU membership, such as perceived freedom to work and study abroad, benefit mostly the middle and upper middle classes in the UK context. Very often, Leavers are presented as monolithically representing the lower classes who had been left behind, being typically less educated, and correspondingly unenlightened about ‘acceptable’ modern-day values.
Westminster was an object lesson of this mindset, being overwhelmingly pro-Remain. One has only to consider the actions of the Liberal Democrats, who campaigned to rescind the whole referendum and forget it ever happened, earning the mockery of being neither liberal nor democratic. Members on both sides of the house chose to frustrate the process at every turn, in parliament and in the courts, citing the electorate’s ignorance and gullibility.
Universities and the arts, too, are still strongly against it. The reactions from this sector were both apoplectic and apocalyptic, and often caught up in pre-existing political thought-patterns (see the Principal of Hertford College, Oxford’s piece in the Observer on 12 January entreating people to hold a candlelit vigil on Brexit Night in protest of a ‘Tory’ Brexit).
The number of celebrities who publicly voice support for Brexit can probably be counted on one hand.
Much of this is a question of money. The European Research Council of course directly funds many projects in the UK. Of the ten points made in favour of staying in the EU by the British Academy in a 2018 document, five have to do with resources. Arts funding is likewise supplemented through the Creative Europe programme, among others.
Much is again due to a perceived assault on the progressive world-view and an aversion to anything remotely resembling ‘exclusion’. In that same document, the remaining points are variously to do with such ideas as co-operative research, interdisciplinarity, and enhanced diversity (though one gets the impression it is more for the sake of being a different nationality than diversity of thought).
None of these particularly requires being part of a potential super-state to be realised.
Brexit is ultimately a good thing. While there is much detailed work to be done in concluding a successful trade deal – and who would not want to make a success of this endeavour? – perhaps the greater challenge will be not only to bridge the newly visible cultural divide, but also to revitalise the country in such a way that it is something its citizens can get behind.
As the hardcore Remainers become hardcore Rejoiners, it will require a co-ordinated effort and self-assured leadership. Boris Johnson clearly provides the latter. But will the opposition realise that it must work in Britain’s interest too?
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, become a Friend of the IRR if you aren’t already one by SMSing your name to 32823 or clicking here. Each SMS costs R1. Terms & Conditions Apply.