There have been a clutch of recent articles that have explained very plainly just how low and how rapidly Britain's moral standing and status has descended in the eyes of the outside world, thanks to Brexit.
An article by Richard Godwin made a sobering historical comparison between how Britain's masters have become consumed with irrationality, and events in Japan after the Great Depression. An equally sobering (and relevant) historic comparison could be made with the seizure of power by the "Young Turks" in Ottoman Turkey in the years prior to the First World War; another example of where a small number of ideologues took control of the levers of state for their own self-destructive ends.
Seen in a more detached light, events in Westminster after the referendum could even be seen as a kind of "quiet coup" by hard-right fanatics in the Conservative Party, where Theresa May's actions have all been about appeasing the wishes of the right-wing, Euro-sceptic ideologues, who really run events behind the scenes. At the very least, all May's key decisions have coincided with their wishes, which can hardly be a coincidence.
At every key decision-point, May has sided with the hard-right in her party, leaving Britain now on the cusp of leaving the EU without a deal, exactly as many of them wished from the very start. What else could explain May's "red lines", and her determination to stick to them, even at the risk of leaving the EU with "no deal"?
It is telling that such a small group of people have been able to control the narrative, given the nature of the political system; it demonstrates the innate weakness in what was thought to be a unbreakable parliamentary system - that a small group of ideological extremists can easily infect the larger parliamentary body once they are on the "inside", sowing chaos and surreptitiously seizing control of events.
In a similar vein to Godwin above, Matthew d'Ancona castigates the Conservative Party for turning in on itself over Brexit, and regressing to ugly nativist rhetoric, barely-repressed racism and prejudice. In this manner, the Conservative Party has effectively become the "Imperialist Party": ruling the country like a fiefdom, and seeing itself as innately superior. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
More generally, Britain since Brexit has turned the mindset of some of its inhabitants into one close to sociopathy, happy to let the rest of society suffer just to make them feel better. Some are so blindly determined to get rid of immigrants that they are happy for the rest of Britain to be poorer as a result. To use a "Marvel Universe" reference, this is an almost "Thanos"-like level of mercilessness.
Turning back to Westminster, meanwhile, we see that the Conservative Party in parliament have simply descended into a second childhood: only being held together by shared self-delusion over a fantasy, as though there is literally no other life outside the Westminster "bubble".
It seems that Conservative MPs have now gone truly mad from "Cabin Fever", utterly detached from reality, seeming to believe that Brussels' pronouncements are nothing but figments of their imagination; that, or that their power as MPs is similar to that of "Thanos", in being able to manipulate space and time at will, and pretend that a signed legal document (the "Withdrawal Agreement") can become unsigned. There is no rational explanation for their actions.
Godwin's article mentioned at the top talked of how Japan after the Great Depression became taken over by irrational fanatics.
This author has talked before about this, and how UKIP was able to exploit the situation in Britain after 2010. There is also an argument that David Cameron, in an effort to distract from the government's "austerity" agenda, played to the lowest denominator by promising to lower immigration to the "tens of thousands". This cynical and dishonest political move simply pandered to fears of immigration, and this prejudice was further fueled by other policies such as the "Go Home" vans. There was also the agenda of the dominant right-wing press, which Cameron was ever-eager to play to, as a distraction from policies that were less popular.
These were the "populist" seeds that were allowed to grow, with little thought to the consequences.
In this way, Britain under Cameron pandered to the right-wing "fanatics" (both in his party and in the press), leaving the country open to manipulation. By the time he promised the EU referendum, the damage had long been done. After berating the EU for years in a craven act of political opportunism, it was hard to then argue that the EU was suddenly worth being involved in.
The result of the referendum was not certain either way, and it needed further clever manipulation to convince enough people to vote to leave. But the same strategy that Cameron had used before - playing on prejudice while making fantastical promises - was used by the "leavers" on him. It was a case of "head" versus "heart", and the heart won.
The referendum result was the first clear sign to the outside world that Britain - and England in particular - was no longer a rational country.
Since then, with Theresa May taking over the helm after Cameron, we have seen prejudice and irrationality become ever more widespread, within Westminster in particular.
David Cameron was guilty of pandering to prejudice; Theresa May at times seems to embody it. As a "dyed-in-the-wool" Conservative, like her husband, she embodies much of the petty prejudices and narrow-minded thinking that typifies provincial England.
As a devout supporter of the Conservative Party from a young age, it has now become clear that she will always put party before country, regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Again, May's supreme loyalty to party must be very deep-seated in order to explain her actions.
Her party loyalty is so deep it is now, quite evidently, irrational. For her pursuit of trying to mollify the hard-liners in the party (i.e. the "Brexiteers") to keep them on-board has led to her going back on the deal she had already signed with the EU.
The Withdrawal Agreement is a legal text, as the EU constantly reminds London. In other words, it has the same legal force as a treaty, if ratified. For this reason, its terms cannot be changed, in the same way that a contract cannot be changed after it has been agreed and signed. And Theresa May signed it. Therefore, it cannot be changed.
So, for Theresa May to say she now wants to change the agreement she had already signed simply tells the EU and everyone else in the outside world that Britain is an untrustworthy nation. In fact, it broadcasts this untrustworthy intent from the rooftops on loudspeakers. Theresa May is willing to damage her own reputation and the reputation of her country for the sake of her party. There can be little clearer sign that these are the actions of someone who has lost their sense of perspective, and their rationality.
That is not self-sacrifice, or "duty": it is irrationality.
There is then her blatant strategy of blaming the EU's "intransigence" if they refuse to change the already-agreed Withdrawal Agreement. Like the other irrational "Brexiteers" in her party, she sees it as the EU's duty to change the treaty to suit her; even though the treaty was already agreed to her terms: her "red lines"!
It's a wonder that the people in Brussels haven't already told her where to go, given that there is no reasoning with her, and there us nothing to keep her from repudiating the terms of the agreement again in the future, if enough in her party wish it. She now has form on this, so why would anyone choose to believe a word she says?
The signs are all there that the EU's patience with May's impossible demands has effectively come to an end. When you are talking to someone in hock to irrational thinking, there is nothing more to talk about.
This all explains how Britain has descended, its political class morally and intellectually bankrupt. All that is left is to await the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment