Fintan O'Toole has a lot to say about Brexit. One of the big assertions he makes is that Brexit represents "English Nationalism", i.e. it is an expression of the idea of England as a distinct political community. I believe this is at best over-simplistic and at worst wrong. Before I discuss why I wish to clarify my understanding of the Brexit impulse.
Firstly, my view has always been that Brexit has two dimensions; an elite dimension and a popular one. These two dimensions are distinct from each other and in some ways are even incompatible with each other.
Politically, the elite dimension emanates from an overlap of Eurosceptic and Thatcherite factions within the Tory party. Its support base is overwhelmingly concentrated in southern England, the home counties and to some extent the City of London and comprises those sections of the British society with an economic interest in deregulation and free markets.
This political tradition has been around since Britain joined the EU but really started to raise its profile in the 1990s around the time of the Maastricht treaty. It has often been referred to as the 'little Englander" tradition, though this is misleading because the economic liberty and freedom it desires is contingent on Britain exerting power and influence on a global level, centred around the concept of the Anglophonic world and building upon existing structures such as the Commonwealth. For this reason, the political tradition invokes a certain nostalgia and romanticism for the British Empire.
Meanwhile, the popular dimension to Brexit is something quite different. Its political base is not made up of well-do-do Tories but natural Labour supporters located mainly in the rust-belts of the West Midlands and the North of England. These are working class people who feel alienated and disaffected by the de-industrialisation brought about by deregulation and globalisation. These people are anti-immigration because they perceive it as directly causing a decrease in their living standards and working conditions. They have no interest in the global Britain promoted by the elite group and in fact will be hurt even more by such a project, as it will involve a repeat of Thatcherism-style economic shock therapy and economic austerity.
Where does this leave us with O'Toole's claims? In relation to the elite group, his claim that Brexit represents English Nationalism is simply wrong. This group are not English nationalists but British globalists. While they don't exactly want to revive the British empire itself, they certainly want to revive the idea of a Anglocentric world-order, economic if not military, with the British elite at the apex. They care not for the principal of national self-determination, and their objections to the EU stem not so much from its alleged hierarchical anti-democratic nature than from the fact that it is France and Germany, and not Britain, at the top of the food chain. In order words, elite Brexit is hegemonic in character.
Ulster unionists demonstrate this mentality perfectly. The Democratic Unionist Party are emphatically not English nationalists but very much are attracted to Brexit because it bolsters and doubles down on the ideology of British unionism. English political nationalism would be dangerous to the DUP because it contradicts the central idea that the whole of the UK constitutes one political unit.
How about the second group? Here, I would say the answer in inconclusive. It could be argued that this group is more nationalistic and isolationist than the first group. This is certainly the case economically where the appetite for de-regulation and institutionalised global piracy would be less. Politically, however, it is a mixed bag. While some might not shed a tear if Scotland broke away and formed another political entity, others would have a more reactionary unionist mindset that sees Scotland (and Ireland) as being naturally subordinate to England. When has British imperial nationalism not been a vehicle for England's interests? The fact that Scottish concerns are arrogantly dismissed is nothing new and is not of itself a sign that they we are dealing with a new phenomenon.
Overall, one cannot help but feel that Fintan has become wedded to a certain narrative and, not for the first time, has become entrapped in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment