Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > The 4 Big Takeaways of Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
________________________________________
The 4 Big Takeaways of Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
By Robert Kuttner [1] / Huffington Post [2]
June 27, 2016
What was the narrow British vote to leave the European Union really about?
In recent days, you have read commentaries with variations on the following
themes, ad nauseam. All of them contain pieces of the truth, but all miss
the basic point:
Irrational Racism. This vote was a mostly racist reaction on the part of
Brits who resented dark skinned foreigners in their midst, and mistakenly
blamed the EU.
Britain actually has more control over its borders than most EU members,
since London never signed the 1985 Schengen Agreement, which got rid of
border controls for travelers throughout most of the Union. Before entering
Britain, Europeans must still go through passport control, just like Syrians
or Americans.
Scapegoating the EU for Economic Frustrations. Britain actually has a better
deal than most EU nations. For starters, it retained its own currency, and
controls its own monetary and fiscal policy. But as a member of the EU,
Britain does get to send tariff-free exports to the continent and London
operates as a major European financial center. All of this now at risk.
The EU Had It Coming. Brussels is a remote, unaccountable bureaucracy,
imposing regulations beyond democratic control. The vote, rightly or
wrongly, was a yearning for lost national sovereignty.
Rejecting Liberal Internationalism. Britain has grown at a good clip since
joining the EU in 1973. Globalization is here to stay. The people who voted
for Brexit, are badly informed flat-earth types, failed to understand that
they were shooting themselves in the foot.
What's wrong with these commentaries? All fail to grasp that there is more
than one brand of liberalism internationalism. The kind represented by the
EU since the 1990s (and Thatcherism since the late 1970s) has been operated
largely by and for financial elites.
When the original institutions that later became the EU were created in the
1940s and 1950s, the international system was designed on the ashes of
depression and war to rebuild an economy of full employment and broad based
prosperity. The system worked remarkably well.
In the 1980s, as a backlash against the dislocations of the 1970s, Margaret
Thatcher came to power in Britain (and Ronald Reagan in the U.S.). Their
policies returned to a dog-eat-dog brand of capitalism that benefited elites
and hurt ordinary people. By the 1990s, when the European Economic Community
became a more tightly knit European Union, it too became an agent of
neo-liberalism.
Policies of deregulation ended in the financial collapse of 2008. The
austerity cure, enforced the gnomes of Brussels and Frankfurt and Berlin, is
in many ways worse than the disease.
Rising mass discontent has failed to dethrone the elites responsible for
these policies, but it has resulted in loss of faith in institutions. The
one percent won the policies but lost the people.
So, yes, the Brits who voted for Brexit got a lot of facts and details
wrong. And Britain will probably be worse off as a result. But they did
grasp that the larger economic system is serving elites and is not serving
them.
The tragedy is that we are further away from a reformed EU than ever. A
progressive EU, more in the spirit of 1944, is not on the menu. The exit of
Britain will give even more power to Angela Merkel's Germany, architect and
enforcer of austerity.
The rest of Europe will become more like Greece economically and more like
the British rightwing politically. There will be more far-right populist
movements for other nations to quit the EU. This has already begun in France
and the Netherlands, two of the founding nations of the European Community -
and ones that also benefit, on balance, from the EU.
What about race? Didn't race play a big role in this vote?
Is surely did - and not just a backlash against just recent influx of
refugees and economic migrants. Since the 1950s, when Britain rebranded its
empire as the Commonwealth, Britain has had a relatively liberal immigration
policy for its former colonies-one part carrot to promote allegiance, one
part guilty conscience.
In the 1960s, the rightwing Tory Enoch Powell was already campaigning
against immigrants and slogans appeared, "If you want a ni**er for a
neighbour, vote Labour."
By 2001, 15 years ago, Britain was already 8 percent nonwhite. As
traditional industry declined and living standards crashed, non-white
populations increased, creating resentments against both economic misfortune
and racial change.
But the history of rightwing populism is invariably a mix of economic
factors and nativist ones. In the 1960s, when Europe had full employment,
there was little backlash against foreign "guest-workers." Anti-Semitism was
never far below the surface in Europe, but it took the German economic
collapse of the 1920s and early 1930s to produce Hitler.
Rightwing revolts are always substantially irrational, as was the vote for
Brexit. But when downwardly mobile Brits grasp that the EU and the larger
model of neo-liberalism aren't exactly on their side, they are grasping a
truth.
What makes this vote so tragic is the absence of enlightened leadership,
either in Britain or on the continent, to propose something better. Prime
Minister David Cameron, who proposed the reckless gamble of a referendum as
a tactical feint to paper over an intra-party schism, may now be responsible
for the dissolution of two unions - not just the EU, but the U.K., as
Scotland secedes. He will be remembered as the worst British prime minister
ever, a near-tie with Neville Chamberlain. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
who said he opposed Brexit [3] but refused to actively campaign against it,
was not much better.
Britain's two major parties are now both in disarray. I can think of one
possible silver lining. The referendum was not legally binding, and Article
50 of the Lisbon Treaty - withdrawal - still needs to be voted by the House
of Commons. And a majority of British M.P.'s oppose Brexit.
Now that the implications of Brexit are clearer, including the likely
breakup of the United Kingdom itself, it's possible that the Commons could
refuse to approve Article 50 [4]. Rather, Britain could have an early
election, and maybe even a partisan realignment, with one party pledged to
keep Britain in the EU but to modernize the EU to better serve regular
Brits, and the other party standing for narrow nationalism. My bet is that
the modernizers would win.
Absent this sort of recasting of politics and political choices, we are in
for a grim era in which ultra nationalists and neo-fascists keep gaining
ground.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a visiting
professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is
Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. [5]
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [6]
[7]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/world/4-big-takeaways-brexit-media-and-pundits-misse
d
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-kuttner
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[3]
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-david-cameron-lost-brexit-eu-referendum-p
rime-minister-campaign-remain-boris-craig-oliver-jim-messina-obama/
[4]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-result-latest-david-la
mmy-mp-eu-referendum-result-parliament-twitter-statement-stop-this-a7102931.
html
[5]
http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/03079
59805
[6] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The 4 Big Takeaways of
Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
[7] http://www.alternet.org/
[8] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > The 4 Big Takeaways of Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
The 4 Big Takeaways of Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
By Robert Kuttner [1] / Huffington Post [2]
June 27, 2016
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+More
AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
What was the narrow British vote to leave the European Union really about?
In recent days, you have read commentaries with variations on the following
themes, ad nauseam. All of them contain pieces of the truth, but all miss
the basic point:
Irrational Racism. This vote was a mostly racist reaction on the part of
Brits who resented dark skinned foreigners in their midst, and mistakenly
blamed the EU.
Britain actually has more control over its borders than most EU members,
since London never signed the 1985 Schengen Agreement, which got rid of
border controls for travelers throughout most of the Union. Before entering
Britain, Europeans must still go through passport control, just like Syrians
or Americans.
Scapegoating the EU for Economic Frustrations. Britain actually has a better
deal than most EU nations. For starters, it retained its own currency, and
controls its own monetary and fiscal policy. But as a member of the EU,
Britain does get to send tariff-free exports to the continent and London
operates as a major European financial center. All of this now at risk.
The EU Had It Coming. Brussels is a remote, unaccountable bureaucracy,
imposing regulations beyond democratic control. The vote, rightly or
wrongly, was a yearning for lost national sovereignty.
Rejecting Liberal Internationalism. Britain has grown at a good clip since
joining the EU in 1973. Globalization is here to stay. The people who voted
for Brexit, are badly informed flat-earth types, failed to understand that
they were shooting themselves in the foot.
What's wrong with these commentaries? All fail to grasp that there is more
than one brand of liberalism internationalism. The kind represented by the
EU since the 1990s (and Thatcherism since the late 1970s) has been operated
largely by and for financial elites.
When the original institutions that later became the EU were created in the
1940s and 1950s, the international system was designed on the ashes of
depression and war to rebuild an economy of full employment and broad based
prosperity. The system worked remarkably well.
In the 1980s, as a backlash against the dislocations of the 1970s, Margaret
Thatcher came to power in Britain (and Ronald Reagan in the U.S.). Their
policies returned to a dog-eat-dog brand of capitalism that benefited elites
and hurt ordinary people. By the 1990s, when the European Economic Community
became a more tightly knit European Union, it too became an agent of
neo-liberalism.
Policies of deregulation ended in the financial collapse of 2008. The
austerity cure, enforced the gnomes of Brussels and Frankfurt and Berlin, is
in many ways worse than the disease.
Rising mass discontent has failed to dethrone the elites responsible for
these policies, but it has resulted in loss of faith in institutions. The
one percent won the policies but lost the people.
So, yes, the Brits who voted for Brexit got a lot of facts and details
wrong. And Britain will probably be worse off as a result. But they did
grasp that the larger economic system is serving elites and is not serving
them.
The tragedy is that we are further away from a reformed EU than ever. A
progressive EU, more in the spirit of 1944, is not on the menu. The exit of
Britain will give even more power to Angela Merkel's Germany, architect and
enforcer of austerity.
The rest of Europe will become more like Greece economically and more like
the British rightwing politically. There will be more far-right populist
movements for other nations to quit the EU. This has already begun in France
and the Netherlands, two of the founding nations of the European Community -
and ones that also benefit, on balance, from the EU.
What about race? Didn't race play a big role in this vote?
Is surely did - and not just a backlash against just recent influx of
refugees and economic migrants. Since the 1950s, when Britain rebranded its
empire as the Commonwealth, Britain has had a relatively liberal immigration
policy for its former colonies-one part carrot to promote allegiance, one
part guilty conscience.
In the 1960s, the rightwing Tory Enoch Powell was already campaigning
against immigrants and slogans appeared, "If you want a ni**er for a
neighbour, vote Labour."
By 2001, 15 years ago, Britain was already 8 percent nonwhite. As
traditional industry declined and living standards crashed, non-white
populations increased, creating resentments against both economic misfortune
and racial change.
But the history of rightwing populism is invariably a mix of economic
factors and nativist ones. In the 1960s, when Europe had full employment,
there was little backlash against foreign "guest-workers." Anti-Semitism was
never far below the surface in Europe, but it took the German economic
collapse of the 1920s and early 1930s to produce Hitler.
Rightwing revolts are always substantially irrational, as was the vote for
Brexit. But when downwardly mobile Brits grasp that the EU and the larger
model of neo-liberalism aren't exactly on their side, they are grasping a
truth.
What makes this vote so tragic is the absence of enlightened leadership,
either in Britain or on the continent, to propose something better. Prime
Minister David Cameron, who proposed the reckless gamble of a referendum as
a tactical feint to paper over an intra-party schism, may now be responsible
for the dissolution of two unions - not just the EU, but the U.K., as
Scotland secedes. He will be remembered as the worst British prime minister
ever, a near-tie with Neville Chamberlain. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,
who said he opposed Brexit [3] but refused to actively campaign against it,
was not much better.
Britain's two major parties are now both in disarray. I can think of one
possible silver lining. The referendum was not legally binding, and Article
50 of the Lisbon Treaty - withdrawal - still needs to be voted by the House
of Commons. And a majority of British M.P.'s oppose Brexit.
Now that the implications of Brexit are clearer, including the likely
breakup of the United Kingdom itself, it's possible that the Commons could
refuse to approve Article 50 [4]. Rather, Britain could have an early
election, and maybe even a partisan realignment, with one party pledged to
keep Britain in the EU but to modernize the EU to better serve regular
Brits, and the other party standing for narrow nationalism. My bet is that
the modernizers would win.
Absent this sort of recasting of politics and political choices, we are in
for a grim era in which ultra nationalists and neo-fascists keep gaining
ground.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a visiting
professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is
Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. [5]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [6]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[7]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/world/4-big-takeaways-brexit-media-and-pundits-misse
d
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-kuttner
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[3]
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-david-cameron-lost-brexit-eu-referendum-p
rime-minister-campaign-remain-boris-craig-oliver-jim-messina-obama/
[4]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-result-latest-david-la
mmy-mp-eu-referendum-result-parliament-twitter-statement-stop-this-a7102931.
html
[5]
http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/03079
59805
[6] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The 4 Big Takeaways of
Brexit That the Media and Pundits Missed
[7] http://www.alternet.org/
[8] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
