The long view — why Brexit was inevitable
Note: this is a 13 August 2016 view of the world, before I posted on Medium
Update 1: George Monbiot excellent reprise of neoliberalism in the Guardian, 15 April 2019
Update 2: with new UK PM Truss deaming of neo-Thatcherism and Singapore-on-the-Thames — not! —knowing how we got here becomes critical... See also a good piece on possibly the end of the EU arc in The Telegraph, 5 Sep. 2022
Where did it all start?
Post World War II was an era of great change: To the west, America had greatly benefited from the war effort that relaunched their economy post-recession. To the east, the Soviet and Chinese blocks consolidated their hold and implemented centralised five year plans that appeared to work at first. To the south, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia were in the throes of decolonisation, a topic unto itself (update here). The post-WWII reconstruction effort in Europe brought the Marshall plan, the European Union’s predecessor emerged as a tool for peaceful cooperation, and while economic recovery was generally slow there was an aura of optimism: workforce and economic income ratio to population meant that taxes could float governments with comprehensive social programs such as housing, education, support for the disadvantaged and government pension. There was, in other words, a post-war desire for benign and inclusive political and social infrastructure.
In “An essay towards the present and future peace of Europe, by the establishment of a European diet, parliament or estates”, published in 1693, William Penn envisaged constitutional arrangements for a United States of Europe [source: Quaker Faith & Practice: Chapter 24 » 24.44]
Now if the sovereign princes of Europe, who represent that society or independent state of men that was previous to the obligations of society, would for the same reason that engaged men first into society, viz, love of peace and order, agree to meet by their stated deputies in a general diet, estates, or parliament, and there establish rules of justice for sovereign princes to observe one to another; and thus to meet yearly, or once in two or three years at farthest, or as they shall see cause, and to be styled, the Sovereign or Imperial Diet, Parliament or State of Europe; before which sovereign assembly should be brought all differences depending between one sovereign and another that cannot be made up by private embassies before the sessions begin: and that if any of the sovereignties that constitute these imperial states shall refuse to submit their claim or pretensions to them, or to abide and perform the judgement thereof, and seek their remedy by arms, or delay their compliance beyond the time prefixed in their resolutions, all the other sovereignties, united as one strength, shall compel the submission and performance of the sentence, with damages to the suffering party.
“Soft socialism”
Canada, France and UK in fact had forms of soft Socialism, under the guise of left-wing Capitalism as the ‘S word’ was dangerous in the Cold War era. Ottawa for example was laid out on a satellite city plan not unlike Moscow, and compared with neighbouring US that was a federation of states where counties with their sheriffs & courthouses were the atomic unit, Canada remained centralised with a hierarchy and chain of command from the capital through provinces and cities — the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was for example centralised unlike the elected sheriff’s authority in each US county. In France there were centralised social security and medical insurance as well as very strong unions that were powerful checks against business capitalist tendencies, and politics truly had a range of parties from Communist and Socialist through centrist and Conservative to Nationalists. England was the pinkest of them all, with British Gas and British Petroleum national oil companies mirroring Gasprom and Lukoil in Soviet Union, while British Rail consolidated all railways not unlike SNCF in France, and most telling of all the County Councils: they owned and apportioned housing to those who couldn’t afford it, not unlike Soviet housing schemes, although they were neither universal nor under central party control in Britain. These are just a few examples of socialist experiments post WWII.
Evolution
Cracks appeared in the varnish of post-WWII benign politics & society to the south and east: for example African, Middle-eastern and south Asian colonial regimes were slowly dismantled, and the human and economic costs of Soviet and Chinese Communism started to emerge. This set in motion a dual imbalance a) between have and have-not nations, and b) the traffic between them. People increasingly migrated to wealthier economies, whilst former colonies were seen as new markets as they developed their market economies. Even the Soviets sent academic, military and technical aid to soft-peddle Communism to such former colonies. Thus in addition to Europe’s post-WWII benign socio-economic climate, there emerged worldwide what appeared to be a more benign migration of people, goods and ideologies than ever before in history.
Also as the have-not nations developed, so did their sense of identity as they recovered their socio-religious roots that had been suppressed in the Colonial era. Many of these countries thus ended up evolving over half a century, what Europe had over half a millennium to develop! Regimes and societies were therefore unstable, and both local religious extremism and foreign economic if not political interventionism had little stabilising effect — they were indeed engineered at times to do just the opposite — that apparently benign situation sketched above quickly disappeared with, for example, the birth of the state of Israel or the death of the Soviet regime. That meant a sudden switch from a) gradual and fluid exchange of people from colonies to Europe, where Europeans went abroad for administration and colonials came to Europe for education and trade, to b) political or economic migration that was in part Europe-bound with no return. The following map illustrates which areas attracted immigration the most — specifically look at bloated Europe vs. skinny Africa and SE Asia.
(for further reading Metrocosm has an excellent series of cartograms by GDP, debt, population etc.)
Migration
Two phenomena then influenced that migration: First the western societies progress grew the middle class and promoted working class talent into middle class. That left a sort of working class vacuum, which migrants readily filled. That dichotomy varied enormously among European nations. England that had the longest and most developed colonial history integrated significant West Indian, African and South Asian populations. France and Germany had less success with colonies, so their migrants from neighbouring countries from southern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were much less successfully integrated. Second as later on globalisation moved working class jobs to south Asia and the service economies gradually grew as a result, partly by coincidence and partly as a consequence, more highly skilled and culturally similar workers migrated from eastern Europe than from south Asia. The Schengen Treaty opening border with the EU as the EU grew towards eastern and southern Europe, greatly facilitated what started as economic migration of similar cultures.
(note that Talent, as measured in each country, does not reflect education or provenance)
Transition
The Thatcher / Gorbachev / Reagan era was a pivot point: Both US and UK saw the ascendance of political conservatism & free market economies, following a series of liberal governments that in the US were demoralised by Viet-nam war, and globally were jolted by the spectacular rise of OPEC and its oil embargo. And the impending fall of Communism, started by Gorbachev loosening his iron grip behind the iron curtain, lead to an apparent victory of capitalism with no countervailing alternative.
Noam Chomsky once told me, when we discussed briefly via email the Second Intifada in 2000: “… the Civil Rights movement gave up in mid-1970s United States, because of the competition among so-called minorities for scarce resources”. In other words, the era of benign world view — viz. a young JFK who made civil service cool and volunteers offering help around the globe — came to an abrupt end amidst domestic turmoil. In Paris the May 1968 riots were a youthful uprising against the Establishment — students gained more confidence via, say, more jobs and better birth control — but it ended in a stalemate, with few concessions made and then a return to business as before.
Contrast that with a cameo less than two decades later: Maggie Thatcher handed over the deed in 1980 to the first house sold in the Right to Buy scheme in the UK, that turned council houses that secured affordable living to all before, now to private ownership for those who could afford it; the intention may have been noble, but is it not rather telling that same house sold in 2013 to a former Lithuanian student for twenty times its original value, that’s five times the increase in commodity values over the same period?! An entire belief system of social welfare, which kept said accommodation affordable, was being uprooted and turned over to private interests that benefited handsomely from it. The same went for de-nationalised natural resources (British Gas and British Petroleum) and transportation (British Rail), not to mention foreign ownership of car manufacturers… So there was a double-whammy: not only were extraction and manufacturing industries moving overseas to the Americas and South Asia, social programs were also no longer sustainable as the tax base eroded with, say, ageing Baby Boomers swelling the ranks of retirees vs. workers.
Yet “work never stops” and the displaced traditional industries didn’t necessarily offer manpower for the new service industries, as Europe changed from a resource to a service economy. First the Schengen Treaty countries then the opening of European borders in the growing European Union, opened the door to economic migrants servicing low-paying jobs such as in construction and hospitality, or fulfilling highly skilled jobs in IT and finance for example. This was followed by austerity economic & political regimes throughout Europe, which followed repeated financial crises in the new millennium. So, for example, following the erosion of manufacturing jobs the middle tier civil service of County Councils in the UK was severely curtailed, and put middle-aged people out of work with no realistic hope of new employment. Add to that the struggling medical and academic arenas that used to benefit from universal coverage, and you have a frittering social & political infrastructure.
A popular British cameo goes like: “Dad lost his manufacturing job, Mum lost her Council job, my siblings cannot afford to go to university and gramps have much less help in their old age”. This is so understated and so British, yet it has the makings of a perfect storm: Middle England is no longer sustained by the government and the social system, which they voted for and paid into over the past generations: Recent elections no longer saw party fidelity or unity (Conservatives), and coalitions were formed then undone at an unprecedented rate (LibDems), or leaders were voted in by party members but not supported by their Members of Parliament (Labour), while fringe parties rocket to prominence (UKIP) & others sink to irrelevance (Greens)!
Both the Scottish and the EU Referendums thus saw seismic shifts: whole-cloth switch from Labour lead from Westminster to Scottish National Party lead in Holyrood, or cross-party votes in the EU Referendum that split Conservative and Labour parties down the middle. Both fell however to the curse of democracy: razor sharp margins; a nominally victorious side at 51% with a 70% turnout is left with only a 35% of the votes… Just over a third hardly constitutes a mandate in people’s minds!
A perfect storm
In other words, there emerges a serious disconnect between the voters, their party representing them and the government running the country. Add to that an economic recession, and many workers have little to fall back on, especially when highly mobile families severely curtail traditional support structures from home, friends and neighbourhoods. The relevance of Unions is often questioned with the flight of jobs overseas, the disappearance of lifelong careers, the high volatility of jobs and the marketplace, and the greater desire for flexible work options: Is the relevance of political parties not at risk also, when that disconnect alienates workers already reeling from diminished forms of traditional support? No wonder the EU Referendum turned nasty!
People are desperate and they seek answers the powers-that-be are not providing. Such volatile situations are where the best-spoken demagogues emerge at the expense of reasonably thought-out party platforms. An example of that is Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, in the United States Primaries run-up to their November elections.
The banner-map atop this post shows Leave versus Remain votes in the UK — in a cartogram that restores a sense of proportion by sizing counties according to the number of votes — and an effort to restore some perspective on realities.
This quick geo-historic tour outlined a few salient points drawn from the abundant press of late and geo-history books listed a decade ago in my old website. A fragmented country in a changing world will find decisions difficult to make both individually and collectively. And as was written 2,500 years ago in Antigone by Sophocles: “Whom gods wish to destroy they first make mad”.
