Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments that the EU referendum was a historic mistake is how much political discourse and British society has been poisoned by it since. David Cameron called the referendum in order to resolve the poison that "Europe" had caused to the Conservative Party for the last thirty years. Instead, that poison spread like a cancer across the fabric of British society, dividing communities and segments of society in a "culture war" that continues to this day, with every sign that these divisions may be there for the long-term.
To the objective eye, Britain has been transformed into a nation at war with its own identity, with "Leavers" and "Remainers" marking the new ideological and cultural divide. On the one hand, Brexit is the issue that is the "elephant in the room" at social gatherings, that few people will dare raise in unfamiliar company, for the risk of causing open argument and hostility. On the other hand, this form of "self-censorship" of debate on the issue makes it a "fait accompli" where the most important event in Britain's post-war history becomes a closed issue, where talking about it only provokes talk of trying to reverse a democratic decision.
Brexit is the most contentious issue that Britain has faced since the Iraq War, which itself brought about the million-man march. The crossover of controversy of the two events is hard to miss: the "false prospectus" used to justify the war in Iraq is mirrored by the lies over the threat of Turkey joining the EU, the "Brexit bus" NHS pledge, and so on; the lack of planning over the Iraq war is matched by the lack of planning by the government over Brexit; the complacency that the coalition would be greeted in open arms in Iraq is matched by the complacency that post-Brexit Britain will somehow be a paradise. And all behind this is the same Libertarian agenda; the same agenda that Naomi Klein spoke long about in "The Shock Doctrine".
In this way, it can be argued that the "Neocons" in the Bush administration that led the call to war in Iraq (for the purpose of profiteering) are matched by those Libertarians in Britain and outside who see Brexit as the opportunity to make money from post-Brexit "disaster capitalism". These are the people who are advising the British government.
This is one reason why the negotiations have been going so badly. There are those with vested interests who need the negotiations to fail in order for their plan to come to fruition, by making sure that any proposal that the British government sends to Brussels is bound to be unacceptable. This way, they simply have to continue this farce until the time runs out, and then they can blame the EU for being "uncompromising". This was evident as long ago as during May's Florence speech, and it was even clear from her Lancaster House speech eighteen months ago, before she invoked article 50, that she saw Britain's course as separate from European institutions like the single market, ECJ and customs union. The course for Britain of the "Hard Brexit" of Libertarians' dreams has been the plan since almost the very beginning, as soon as May became Prime Minister. All the talk of compromise from Britain has simply been to keep the Euro-friendly MPs in the Conservative Party from rebelling, and it should now be clear to them they've been played for fools. The rebels' ultimate loyalty to their party was always the trump card that the "Brexiteers" had over any real concern for the country's future; the rebels' ultimate "weakness" was the hold that the Libertarian far-right in the party had over them, whose demands (also called the Brexit "Taliban") could never be reasoned with.
Going back to Iraq, we know now that the Iraq War was a humanitarian disaster for the country. Regardless of where you stand on the Saddam Hussein regime (which was unquestionably awful for many Iraqis), the real thing that matters is the opinion of Iraqis themselves. The opinions of those that are old enough to remember living as adults during Saddam's time vary of course, depending on who you talk to. Of the various groups in the country, arguably the Kurds have done the best out of post-invasion Iraq, but all those that have benefited have done so due to the anarchic and corrupt situation and/or loss of control from the centre.
"Anarchy" and "loss of central control" are two things that can also be found when the Libertarian lobby take control of a society. Those Iraqis that do have nostalgia for Saddam's time (Sunnis, mostly) talk of the stability, which is something that is easily taken for granted and only appreciated when it is lost. If the Libertarian agenda represents one thing, it is economic and social instability (also known as "creative destruction"); precisely what has happened to Iraq since the invasion.
The "creative destruction" analogy - transplanted from the Middle East to the Anglo-sphere - also holds true for post-Brexit Britain. And the comparison that is valid has already been made - about those behind the drive to the war in Iraq and those in the "Brexit Agenda" i.e. Libertarians. As mentioned at the start, Brexit has poisoned British society, in a way that may well be irreversible. The cultural fractures that have been created seem impossible to reconcile. Meanwhile, the status of the country itself is in flux, with things only becoming clearer next year, when Britain leaves the EU. When that happens, it is difficult to predict what the result will be. While the EU referendum brought to the surface the many injustices present in British society, it seems that the government in Edinburgh, after initially threatening another independence referendum after the Brexit vote, is keeping its powder dry for the moment. Sensibly, they want to wait until it is clear what path Britain will take before deciding its next step.
What Brexit makes clear is how fragile the bonds that hold British society together really are. Holyrood is waiting; it is hard to believe that they would not respond themselves if they see their future as tied to an "English corpse", destroying itself due to the machinations of a self-centred and amoral right-wing clique, its infrastructure gobbled up by "vulture capitalists".
In such a situation, optimism about Britain's immediate future is difficult to summon. There is no chance that the government will reverse course, partly because it is seen as politically-impossible, but more importantly, because the vested interests guiding the government are too powerful to resist. The "bandwagon" cannot be turned around. Like how the coalition's armies preparing for war in Iraq were impossible send back home without fighting, Theresa May cannot do a U-turn on Brexit, regardless of how bad it might be. The dye is cast.
The "apocalyptic" scenario would involve the break-up of the UK. As mentioned, Scotland would see no reason to remain tied to an "English corpse".
Culturally-speaking, this author has found some unerring parallels to British society and the former Yugoslavia. While no-one in their right mind would make direct comparisons with Britain's future and the break-up of Yugoslavia (!), more general cultural comparisons may be possible. Like how Serbia dominated Yugoslavia economically and culturally, so does England in the UK. Likewise, Serbia's own sense of identity is tied to its history and cultural dominance over its immediate neighbours (e.g. Croats, Bosnians and so on) is matched by England's innate sense of cultural superiority over the other nations of the UK. Brexit can also be ultimately seen as an expression of pathological English nationalism, especially when surveys show how many English people would prefer Brexit even at the expense of the integrity of the UK. Looking at Yugoslavia, it could be argued that it was Serbian resentment at devolving more powers to the constituent assembles of Federal Yugoslavia that created the tensions that led to the country's break-up. The same tensions have been evident, and gradually rising, in the UK for nearly twenty years.
The fact that Scotland's independence referendum preceded the EU referendum by two years cannot have been a coincidence in stoking English nationalist sentiment. All that was needed was the added factor of economic woes and financial inequality (also present in Federal Yugoslavia in the 1980s, it should be added), and - hey presto! - you have the perfect ingredients for an "English backlash". Given how it was England that voted by a comfortable margin for Brexit, while in either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was only a narrow vote to leave, or sizable votes to remain, this puts a clear "nationalist" complexion on events.
This is all the result of the poison of Brexit, stoked by a Libertarian agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment