• About
  • Contact
  • Staff
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Classics

November 28, 2018|Brexit, Emmanuel Macron, European Union, Nationalism, Theresa May

Brexit Reveals the Persistence of Nationalism

by Theodore Dalrymple|8 Comments

British Prime Minister Theresa May, April 10, 2017 (Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com).

 

The political cross-currents of Brexit are now so many, so various and so swirling that the average person, and perhaps the above-average person, no longer knows what to think. He becomes dizzy when he tries to do so, and thus averts his mind from the whole question and gets on with his life as best he can.

The British government and the European Commission have come to some kind of agreement, but there are many obstacles to its implementation, both on the British side and the European. To take only one: the Spanish threat to try to stop the deal over the question of Gibraltar.

Spain claims sovereignty over this tiny territory though it has been British (by treaty) for 305 years and the overwhelming majority of its population wishes to remain British. But Spanish feeling remains high on the issue, and Spain was hoping to use Brexit as a means of levering more control over the territory (which has never been claimed as an integral part of the United Kingdom), and eventually cession of sovereignty.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, the Spanish threat to scupper the agreement because of it is revelatory of the tensions at the heart of the so-called European project—a project that can only be to build a super-state whose most likely eventual destiny is break-up, either violent or peaceful but nonetheless bitter, on the rocks of nationalism.

Spain is not prepared to put its national—or rather nationalist—interest aside in favour of whatever the other 26 countries might think is in the interest of the European Union as a whole. On the other hand, the Union might feel that it cannot afford to offend the nationalist sensibilities of one of its most important members, even if by assuaging them it harms the interests of the Union as a whole. Either way, nationalist feeling will have been revealed to be far stronger than pan-European feeling, which is, at most, a very pale ghost of the nationalist variety.

France is said to be unhappy over the question of fishing rights in British waters and will not accept what European negotiators in Brussels have agreed. In other words, it will not passively accept cession of its national sovereignty or interest to Union officialdom. Where does that leave “ever-closer union,” and what kind of unified European army as desired by President Macron could ever be established or ever deployed, if France is prepared to scupper an agreement as large as that between Britain and European Union over the matter of fish?

On the British side, of course, the waters are even murkier. Mrs. May might or might not be able to get her agreement through parliament. She found herself dependent on the support of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party to form a majority in Parliament after her miscalculation in having called a general election when she did not have to do so, but this party will not support the proposed agreement because it thinks it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and will lead eventually to a United Ireland.

Furthermore, there are many Conservative Members of Parliament who will not support her either, although it is still unsure how many they will be. Therefore, she will have to seek support from Labour, that is to say from opposition, Members of Parliament. Here, too, the matter is far from straightforward. Mrs. May has warned that the alternative to her agreement for Brexit is no Brexit at all, but many Labour Members of Parliament sit for working-class constituencies that voted solidly for Brexit. If they vote against Mrs. May, they may in effect be voting for no Brexit, thereby risking defeat at the next election. On the other hand, the Labour Party as a whole would like to bring down the government, provoking another general election which it believes that it would win. Were it to do so, of course, it would bring to power people who admire the Venezuelan model and believe in confiscation as the path to universal prosperity. They would make Brexit seem like a minor detail in the history of British difficulties. But those Labour Members of Parliament who voted to support Mrs. May would risk not being selected as Labour candidates in any future election. What seems likely is that the calculation of personal interest will far outweigh that of national interest in the minds of these Members of Parliament.

There are increasing calls in Britain for a second referendum, for what its proponents call A People’s Referendum—as if the previous referendum had somehow excluded the people. By the word people, they mean, of course, the people who agree with them: the others are not truly of the people, they are instead enemies of the people.

Unfortunately, it is not clear what the question to be asked in the second referendum would be. It might be, “Do you prefer Mrs. May’s agreement to no agreement at all?” But the question the proponents would really like to ask is, “Do you now want to remain within the European Union”?

It is not certain, though it is likely, that the remainers would win such a referendum. If they did not, the whole situation would be once more up in the air; but if they did, Britain would then join the lamentably long list of European countries in which the opinion of the population had been solicited and then ignored, either simpliciter or by means of calling another referendum to get the answer right according to the opinion of the bien pensant bureaucracy. If this were to happen, one of the main aims of the European “idea” or “project” would have been fulfilled: the abolition of politics in favour of technocratic administration by a supposedly wide and solicitous, but certainly self-appointed and self-perpetuating, class of bureaucrat. The legacy, of course, would be a deep and bitter division in the British population, and increased tension in other countries in which support for the European Union is far from rock solid. M. Macron, for example, admitted that if the referendum had been held in France, there would have been a larger majority than in Britain for leaving, though this has not dampened in the slightest his ardour for “deeper” union.

One possible solution now would be for Britain to rejoin the Union the better to leave it: that is to say, wait for it to blow itself apart until there is nothing to leave. On the other hand, the political determination to keep it together, whatever populations think, is considerable and should not be underestimated. M. Macron’s unified European army is not to defend Europe from outside invasion, but to repress the population should it ever revolt against the European Union elite.

Theodore Dalrymple

Theodore Dalrymple is a retired prison doctor and psychiatrist, contributing editor of the City Journal and Dietrich Weissman Fellow of the Manhattan Institute.

About the Author

The Right after Fusionism, Part 2: Whittaker Chambers and the Economic Temptation
Why Integralism Is an Ideology of Despair

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Harold Ramis, Unlikely Prophet of Trump February 15, 2019
  • Helping the Poor versus Reducing Inequality February 13, 2019
  • The Court Should Tear Down Everson, Not the Maryland Cross February 14, 2019
  • Born-Again Paganism: A Conversation with Steven Smith February 14, 2019
  • Judicial Statesmanship versus Judicial Fidelity February 15, 2019
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. Jeremy Shearmur says

    November 28, 2018 at 10:43 am

    A key problem with regard to ‘Brexit’, is that it was handled by way of a referendum. This has no sensible place within a system of Parliamentary democracy, other than possibly by way of the setting of the simplest of questions. Brexit is exceedingly complex, not least because of the degree of integration of a lot of British manufacturing industry with industry on the Continent of Europe, and the fact that British trading arrangements with third countries have for many years been negotiated by the EU. The outcome was that people in Britain were asked to vote on something the content of which was not clear, and for which no-one was accountable (in the way in which they would have been, if it was a policy that had been put up by a political party). Given what Mrs May took as being fundamental – control over immigration; minimization of the role of the European Court of Justice; the maintenance of economic integration with the EU (as in the case of automobile production operating on a just-in-time basis) and avoiding the re-introduction of a hard border in Ireland or the separation of Northern Ireland from Britain, what she has come up with is about as good as could be achieved, given the character of the EU. But no-one in their right mind would prefer it to EU membership (because the UK ends up tied closely to EU rules over which it will have no say, while it is likely to get treated badly in the subsequent negotiations about terms of trade). All this is not to say that the EU is good. But in the current circumstances, a second referendum – in which people are faced with the option of Mrs May’s agreement, crashing out without an agreement (which would be much worse), or retaining EU membership – would look about the only way to get out of a real mess. Britain would need to work with others in the EU to reform it from inside.

    Reply
    • gabe says

      November 28, 2018 at 7:07 pm

      Balderdash!

      At some point, the EU’s bullying of not just Britain but of all the “subject” nations of this preening, posturing of this impending new Empire, must stop or be forcibly stopped by the (once) independent nations comprising the EU.

      And if one doubts that Brussels is a tyrannical despot, here is:
      “Another clue is the E.U. crackdown on private ownership of guns. The E.U. even coerced Switzerland into changing its gun laws. The E.U. restricts Swiss access to the European market to get what it wants.”

      It is what empire builders always do – coerce, intimidate, denigrate and or deny dissident members from their beliefs / positions, etc.

      Let us hope the Brits still have the gumption to stand up to Brussels and that inexplicably stupid woman, Theresa May!

      Reply
      • gabe says

        November 29, 2018 at 12:32 pm

        And NOW there is this:
        https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/29/eu-army-plans-advance-germany-tells-france-give-un-security-council-seat-brussels/

        wherin Germany (de facto leader of the EU) TELLS France to give up its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to Brussels so that the EU may speak in one voice.
        Translation: We don’t want the UK, Italy, Spain or any Eastern European countries saying anything that goes against the wishes of Brussels.

        And some see this as proper and in the *common* interest.
        Funny, isn’t it, how the COMMON interest usually means that any and all dissenting viewpoints are to be dismissed or suppressed.

        Germany as the Leader of the new imperial state, re: the Fourth Reich – and all without firing an actual shot.

        Reply
  2. gabe says

    November 28, 2018 at 11:04 am

    “M. Macron’s unified European army is not to defend Europe from outside invasion, but to repress the population should it ever revolt against the European Union elite.”

    How true! Was thinking the very same thing while reading Yarom Hazony’s good read ” The Virtue of Nationalism”

    With the coming of the EU Army, the only thing that was lacking in the “Imperial State” which Brussels seeks to create would now be present – an Army to suppress any revolt of the “subject” nations.

    My Goodness! How horrid are the The Three M’s, Leaders” of Europe – Merkel, Macron and May. Spineless, without any core principles, these miscreant *Leaders* give conclusive evidence to Hazony’s assertions that “imperial States” cannot, by their very nature and construction, provide any unifying loyalty to the subject nations of the “subject[ed]” peoples whose attachment to their native lands / history and culture are denied and denigrated and otherwise suppressed. In short, one observes the underlying need for “tribal / national” allegiance for an effective political order.

    Unfortunately, there is no Iron Lady at the helm of Britain to defy the Spanish in their attempt to seize Gibraltar.

    Margaret Thatcher (and Golda Meir) where are you when most needed?

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. The socialist menace | Fans of Theodore Dalrymple says:
    November 28, 2018 at 6:05 pm

    […] would bring to power people who admire the Venezuelan model and believe in confiscation as the path to universal […]

    Reply
  2. The European Union is foundering | Fans of Theodore Dalrymple says:
    November 28, 2018 at 6:06 pm

    […] build a superstate whose most likely eventual destiny is break-up, either violent or peaceful but bitter, on the rocks of […]

    Reply
  3. The purpose of Macron’s unified European army | Fans of Theodore Dalrymple says:
    November 28, 2018 at 6:18 pm

    […] Macron’s unified European army is not to defend Europe from outside invasion, but to repress the population should it ever revolt against the EU […]

    Reply
  4. The opinion of the populace solicited and ignored | Fans of Theodore Dalrymple says:
    November 29, 2018 at 4:46 am

    […] main aims of the European ‘idea’ or ‘project’ would have been fulfilled: the abolition of politics in favour of technocratic administration by a supposedly wide and solicitous, but certainly […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

A Compelling and Compassionate Book about Epilepsy

by Theodore Dalrymple

Our knowledge of the human brain is limited, but neuroscientist Suzanne O’Sullivan’s observation of her patients yields astute insights.

Read More

Andrew Roberts Takes the Measure of the “Populist” Aristocrat, Churchill

by Joao Carlos Espada

Yes, there is something new to be learned about Winston Churchill, and it’s in the new 1,105-page biography by Andrew Roberts.

Read More

Liberty Classics

Bringing Natural Law to the Nations

by Samuel Gregg

If sovereign states ordered their domestic affairs in accordance with principles of natural law, the international sphere would benefit greatly.

Read More

Belloc’s Humane Defense of Personhood and Property

by James Matthew Wilson

Perhaps the memory of that metaphysical right to property informs our fears, and could lead to a restoration of human flourishing.

Read More

Podcasts

Born-Again Paganism: A Conversation with Steven Smith

A discussion with Steven D. Smith

Steven Smith talks with Richard Reinsch about his provocative thesis that a modern form of paganism is becoming public orthodoxy.

Read More

"Slouching Towards Mar-a-Lago:" A Conversation with Andrew Bacevich

A discussion with Andrew J. Bacevich

Andrew Bacevich discusses his new book Twilight of the American Century

Read More

Bureaucracy, Regulation, and the Unmanly Contempt for the Constitution

A discussion with John Marini

John Marini unmasks the century-long effort to undermine the Constitution’s distribution of power.

Read More

Beautiful Losers in American Politics: A Conversation with Nicole Mellow

A discussion with Nicole Mellow

Nicole Mellow on the beautiful losers in American politics who have redefined the country.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Government by Emergency: Are Two Generations of Crisis Enough?

    The oldest emergency proclamation dates to the Carter Administration, 40 years ago. Two generations of crisis are enough.
    by Greg Weiner

  • The President’s Emergency Declaration Is the Congressional Check on Presidential Power

    President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is the check on executive prerogative, not the exercise of it.
    by James R. Rogers

  • Completely Unjustified Occupational Licensing

    Occupational licensing is dangerous and we should almost always rely upon certification.
    by Mike Rappaport

  • Harold Ramis, Unlikely Prophet of Trump

    Nobody stopped to think these films were not just comedy, but also stories about a coming class conflict in America.
    by Titus Techera

  • Judicial Statesmanship versus Judicial Fidelity

    Since the boundaries of left and right are always changing, a court focused on retaining its political capital would have the constancy of a weather vane.
    by John O. McGinnis

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law & Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

© 2019 Liberty Fund, Inc.

This site uses local and third-party cookies to analyze traffic. If you want to know more, click here. By closing this banner or clicking any link in this page, you agree with this practice.Accept Read More
Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Close