Brexit: Less There Than Meets the Eye

In modern democracies, public discussion of the most momentous matters is bound to be reduced to what the political and media elites believe is the lowest common denominator. Everyone knows what his income is and who foreigners are, so it was almost inevitable that the debate in Britain over its possible departure from the European Union should be reduced to whether its economy would gain or suffer by a “Brexit” (British exit), and whether it would be better able to control its borders from an influx of immigrants if there were no interference from Brussels.

Whether so momentous a change should be decided by a single plebiscite in which it is possible, depending on turnout, that the wishes of less than 40 per cent of the adult population will carry the day, may be wondered; but it is not discussed. Most constitutions require that a proposed constitutional change earn at least half the votes plus one to be approved (and in the case of the United States, the threshold for approval is higher than that). This is for good reason. The deeply corrupt referendum on Scottish independence—which excluded the large number of Scots living in England and elsewhere, as if they had lost caste by leaving the homeland, even temporarily—assumed that a 300-year-old union could and should be broken if there was one more vote in favor of doing so than in favor of not doing so. There is no presumption in favor of the status quo.

Nor is there much discussion of what the result of the referendum will commit the government to do should the Brexit side win. Past EU referenda on such matters as treaties and constitutions, if the votes went against the wishes of the political elites, were simply ignored. Just because a man has been elected by a democratic procedure does not mean he is a democrat by sentiment or feels bound by the wishes of the people. And this, in the context, is appropriate enough. The founders of the European Union, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, believed in (at best) a very reduced role for the people in directing political affairs, the people supposedly being ill-equipped to understand them. This underlying assumption explains why European politicians seldom speak in plain terms about the European Project. They know the population would reject it and might agitate against it. And so the exact nature of the Project (the construction of a Yugoslavia on a vast scale) is delicately hidden from the view of the vulgar as if it were the Ark of the Covenant.

Consider, in other words, that even a popular vote for withdrawal will not necessarily result in withdrawal. The subsequent negotiations will be sufficiently drawn out for most everyone to forget the result of the referendum, in which they were not passionately interested in the first place. Few will care if, in the end, the vote is disregarded.

For myself, I believe the European Union to be, if not a disaster, an unnecessary monstrosity, though more of a brontosaurus than a tyrannosaurus. It is a peaceful vegetarian monster that munches its way through society rather than a carnivorous one that tears it apart with it vicious teeth. It feeds on regulation rather than on meat. Its lack of overt aggression makes it a difficult enemy to confront and defeat. By its incompetence and its promotion of ambitious mediocrity, it will make life less good than it might otherwise have been, but not intolerable—at least not until it breaks up in acrimony.

In theory, it would have been better for Britain never to have joined so sclerotic a union founded on essentially Colbertian[1] principles, doing so precisely at the moment when that model, which served well enough in the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War, had lost its dynamism. But I think it is important to understand that the problems Britain now faces lie much deeper than its membership in the European Union, and have little to do with it. In or out, therefore, the challenges will remain the same.

There are no EU regulations preventing us from educating our children properly, for example, yet we do not do so and have been failing to do so for years. It is not the European Union’s fault if we have to import labor so that even elementary jobs are done properly. It is not the EU’s fault that we have the highest crime rate in Europe. It is not the European Union’s fault that our infrastructure is the worst in Western Europe, or that our streets are the dirtiest and our youth the most drunken in Europe.

The European Union did not make our population one of the fattest in the world. It is not responsible for our failure to raise our productivity. The EU is not responsible for the evident incompetence of the British public administration, which is in my view quite incapable of managing immigration whether it is subsumed within the Brussels structure or not. It is not the European Union that enforces the low levels of research and development by British industry. It is not the European Union that imposed so much bureaucracy on my own profession, medicine, that doctors now find themselves doing paperwork (computerized) for as much time as they spend treating patients.

By the same token, it is not to the credit of the European Union that Britain now has almost full employment and a respectable rate of economic growth (though how durable these will prove to be remains to be seen).

In the end Brexit is almost a distraction from the real problems of British society. Its partisans argue that the European Union is destroying our traditions, but the British people have long shown a less than robust attachment to them, anyway. There was not so much as a sigh, let alone a protest, when the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, changed the constitution on a personal whim.

The notion of the free-born Englishman has long since been of no application. The average Briton wants to be a ward of the state and regrets only that the state is not generous enough. The threats to Britain come mostly from Britain, not from the European Union.

[1] Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683), Louis XIV’s finance minister and the father of economic dirigisme.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on April 06, 2016 at 14:35:51 pm

I would say the same thing with only slight difference:

"In modern democracies, which are all essentially populist (majoritarian), public discussion of the most momentous matters is bound to be reduced to what the political and media elites believe is the statistically average voter."

I think that's a little more accurate. The elites don't care what the small minority of LCD voters think. They care what the majority of voters believes because in populist government that's the only thing that counts.

But the rest of the essay is spot on.

I find it somewhat interesting that the Americans in 1776 threw off the rule of the Brits in large part because they were sick of the British version of popular government; the product of the Glorious Revolution. The new American Constitution attempted to correct the British mistake by reinstating the good parts of the older English constitution, keeping the new "House of Lords," the senate, and the new "Monarch," the president, as separate as possible from populist machinations and elitist control. The senate and to a lesser degree the president were to help form conscientious government by supplying some amount of negation to bad proposals for law coming from the house of representatives.

The American plan didn't work out of course. The ideals were correct but the mechanisms of conscientious government were flawed. Today we have a populist senate and president. So of course we are heading down the same general path of self destruction as the Brits.

The Madisonian elites of the original Constitution were meant to let the people lead via the house, and they were to provide a check (limits) on bad proposals. In contrast, the modern Wilsonian elites lead the people, under the assumption that the people are incapable of leading themselves. The Wilsonians buy off the statistically average voter, or at least pretend to, using the mechanisms of government using rents and other manipulations.

As Dalrymple implies, unchecked popular government is not especially rational or capable. It lacks the cognitive skills and special knowledge required to direct the detailed operation of a government. Therefore, it also lacks the ability to provide sufficient checks on itself to stop itself from from implementing bad law. It is a recipe for perpetual crisis. So of course, any populist government is going to have problems, which invites leadership from the Wilsonians. They never let a good crisis go to waste.

The problem for the psychologists in the audience is the problem of how to improve the gestalt of a general population. How does one convince the statistically average voter that their blessed system of government is, in its nature, self destructive when that voter believes whole-heartedly that their form of government is the best one possible? Or that they are helpless to implement reform?

read full comment
Image of Scott Amorian
Scott Amorian
on April 07, 2016 at 15:04:31 pm

Dear Theodore:

Are you talking about me (America, that is)? Cudda sworn you were! Hmmmmm!!!!!

Quite right you are, however. I recall from my last trip to Britain how LITTLE the locals knew of their own rather proud and robust traditions for liberty. I inquired as to transportation to Runnymede; no one seemed to know of its significance and some had no clue as to the Great Charter.

I must say that I found that rather disheartening.

We in the States, regrettably are not too far behind. As Scott says, that's what populism will do for you.

read full comment
Image of gabe
on April 08, 2016 at 07:36:28 am

I'm more with Roger Scruton on this, and though he may not put it in such strong terms I say we must leave the EU.

read full comment
Image of Kiljoy
on April 10, 2016 at 02:23:33 am

I'll add that with an alarming increase in raptors, I fear the conditions are ripe for tyrannosaurus rex.

read full comment
Image of Kiljoy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.


No10 Downing

One Nation or Bust!

The Conservative Party’s immense election victory means it must bind up the wounds the referendum and subsequent polarisation opened in the body politic.