With debate raging over a possible Brexit, Billy Vaughan explores why Britain is destined to leave
Right now, Britain is locked in a series of unhappy marriages. It is in denial about its failing relationship with the EU, justifying scraping by “for the sake of economics”. This autopilot mode doesn’t just apply to the EU. Britain is also putting off the inevitable soul searching it must do in relation its own internal unions and attitudes, which are also in deep trouble. A major socio-political shift is on the horizon for Britain, but by letting it happen sooner rather than later, it may succeed in limiting the damage.
So far most of the debate about a possible “Brexit” has centred on economics. And, of course, this is sensible and expected. After all, the whole project was originally conceived as the EEC and as its name suggested, it was purely economic in scope. But as the decades have gone by it has steadily grown to become the political and cultural giant that it is today.
Is it fair then, to characterise the whole debate over the pros and cons of the EU as if it’s 1975? Because by focusing solely on cold hard economics, that is exactly what we are doing. We are forgetting that treaty after treaty has given more power to the EU in more and more diverse areas, including culture, politics, and social policy. The European Union has, over the years, developed a soul and an identity – sadly one that it will never share with Britain.
Unfortunately, outlining all the cultural factors that set Britain apart from Europe would fill this newspaper. But a brief mention of some important aspects would include the so-called “Island Mentality”. Some suggest that the geographical break between the two creates a split in national mind-sets. This is best summed up by the famous 1930s British newspaper headline, “Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off”. This helps to fuel an “us and them” attitude between Britain and the EU, as opposed to the “we together” mind-set of other member states.
The British media often tends to portray David Cameron as battling against the EU for concessions as opposed to working with it to change the outcome. It seems that the EU has taken the place of Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany as the new foe across the Channel.
To be completely truthful, most mentions of Britain in this piece could easily be replaced by England. Why? Because mistrust of the EU is very much an English phenomenon. Surveys have shown consistently that most of Wales, and practically all of Scotland are strongly pro-EU, whereas the top 10 most Eurosceptic areas are all in England.
The inclusion of Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland in this referendum is the only reason that the projected outcome is currently very tight-run. This complicates the issue, because the “Island Mindset” argument clearly does not hold up if the island itself is divided on the problem. The key to Britain’s fraught alliance with Europe lies elsewhere.
Another possible explanation is that Britain has had a very different experience of empire compared to other European nations. Unlike France and Germany, who unceremoniously dumped their empires, Britain carefully fostered a working relationship with many of the states it formerly owned. Today it is the biggest player in the Commonwealth, a successor to the empire which emphasises bonds based on shared cultures, experiences, and values: the very things that it does not share with the European Union.
The same desire for a close match beyond economic issues has also driven Britain’s “special relationship” with the US. Overall, it very much sees itself as more of a global actor than a European one. While most EU nations are content to focus on regional issues, Britain has much stronger global bonds that it must be mindful of when making major decisions.
Britain also has a very different political culture to Europe. It is more similar to the US model of confrontation and favouring stability over proportionality. The constituents of the EU often need to compromise extensively to stay in power, whereas in Britain, politicians are used to aiming for full control of the agenda. This difference in mind-set clearly translates to the negotiating table, with David Cameron more than willing to upset the EU consensus to obtain opt-out clauses for migrant benefits. The British public’s horror at the mere existence of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition speaks volumes about the vast gulf between the political expectations of the British and Europeans.
Outwardly, Britain is still keeping up the appearance of a solid, coherent world power, but domestic circumstances are making this increasingly difficult. Scotland, for instance, is proving to be a long-term thorn in the side of the Union. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, nearly three times more Scots would describe themselves as “Scottish” rather than “British”. Scottish politicians were quick to point out the hypocrisy in statements made by Brexit advocates, many of whom were the same politicians that had lectured Scots months before about the great benefits of remaining united. General pride in being “British” is also in decline. In the latest BSAS, 35 per cent stated that they were proud to be British, compared to 43 per cent in 2003. The over 65s are now the only group where “very proud” is in the majority.
Troubled times lie ahead for Britain. Unfortunately, most British politicians seem to think that the best solution is to reluctantly carry on as if nothing is wrong, and persevere with a Europe with which it shares little. The first step forward is to let the inevitable happen, no matter what the short-term consequences. Britain, it is time to break up with Europe. Buy a sports car and some hair dye, and celebrate your midlife crisis in style.
Advertisements