The Chicken Little
reaction to Brexit was fast and furious. The pound dropped to levels not seen since the
waning years of Beatlemania, investors lost trillions of dollars in the global
financial swoon, and credit agencies downgraded Britain's credit rating from
the highest to a credit rating shared by the likes of Abu Dhabi and
Kuwait. The agencies indicated the
credit rating could drop further. One
notch lower would put Britain in the company of Estonia, Taiwan and Chile.
The common
Brexit narrative is that the European Union is a scapegoat for the effects of
modernity facing Western societies. Globalization
offshores millions of jobs, societies are disaggregating by a growing income gulf
between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and the erasure of borders between
countries allows for undesirable immigrants.
The older, white, blue collar worker unable to adjust to modernity overwhelmingly
votes to leave the European Union as a way back to the past of a middle class
life style in a predominantly white culture.
The narrative is based on suppositions, unreliable statistics (there is
no exit polling), and, most importantly, without considering the historical
context of the relationship between Britain and Europe.
Historically,
Britain considers itself of Europe but not in Europe. Britain relishes its unique traditions and constancy
born of a history that spans a thousand years.
Thus its road trip to the European Union, spanning fifty years, is
filled with pot holes and detours. Underlying
the negotiations is the tension between the importance of maintaining
sovereignty and the pragmatics of the economic benefits of being part of a
European trading block. Throughout the
negotiations Britain insists on Sovereignty by retaining its own currency and
by not signing portions of the European Union dealing with the internal affairs
of Britain. From this perspective the “remain”
and “leave” vote represents different strategies in maintaining sovereignty. The “remain” vote reflects working from
within to maintain sovereignty while retaining economic benefits, and the “leave”
vote represents the untenability of a sovereign Britain within a European Union and the priority of Sovereignty over short run economic
benefits.
Personal
identity is elemental to being human and is necessary for psychological health. Psychologists consider individuals who lack
boundaries as psychologically unstable.
Not only tyrants and cult leaders, but also leaders of good will have
tried to erase personal identity without success. The Israeli Kibbutzim, established as
collectivist societies, disallowed private property ownership and raised
children collectively rather than in family settings. Family bonds and children’s attachment needs proved
too strong and the practice of children in group settings was the first to
go. Eventually homes and the contents
within were privatized, and the collectivist kibbutz died out.
Private
property rights is essential to liberty.
Democratic governments recognize this through unlawful search and seizure
clauses within their legal systems. So
too is the freedom and identity of sovereign nations based on property rights.
Secure boundaries establish sovereign identity and internal liberty. This is the fundamental issue which animated
the Brexit vote. And like other modern
ideas that go against the fundamentals of being human, the idea of a pan
European organization will fade with time.
No comments:
Post a Comment