Prospering Mightily?
The late David Halberstam was a serious investigative reporter who was also able to apply the wider lens of a chronicler and analyst of slower-burning events and trends in the United States through most of the twentieth century. I came across this snippet in his account of the 1950s which is, accurately if unimaginatively, titled The Fifties.
Dwight Eisenhower (popularly shorthanded to “Ike”) was elected to the US Presidency in November 1952.
Hearing that Eisenhower was thinking of choosing him [John Foster Dulles] as secretary of state, the British passed a number of private messages to the President-elect, asking him not to. Ike later said he answered those notes by saying. “No, look, I know something about this man and he’s a little abrupt and some people think he’s intellectually arrogant and that sort of thing. It’s not true. He’s a very modest man and very reasonable and he wants to use logic and reason and good sense and not force….” The British remained unconvinced; with their own power shrinking, Dulles seemed to them the worst possible manifestation of the new American hegemony.”
Halberstam also recounts an incident from the then General Eisenhower’s period as supreme commander on the Western front in 1944 when he had to manage the British General, Bernard Montgomery, who had defeated Rommel at El Alamein and who thought he, not Eisenhower, should really be in overall charge in Western Europe.
At a moment when feelings in both countries [Britain and the US] were raw (reflected most notably in Eisenhower’s constant problems with General Montgomery, who was not only unbearably egocentric but also openly insulting), Ike always managed to control his temper. After one particularly egregious offense, Ike had put his hand on Monty’s knee and said, “Steady, Monty. You can’t speak to me like that. I’m your boss.”
Seven decades later, it is hard to imagine today’s British government attempting to suggest to an incoming US President who should or should not be in their cabinet. If they did, rather than engaging or explaining, as Eisenhower did about Dulles, I expect President-elect Biden would remind them, however gently and courteously, who is the “boss” in the so-called “special relationship”, because there is no room for doubt about that now.
On 9 November, Sir John Major, the former British Prime Minister, gave a lecture to the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court in London entitled to call members to the English Bar. The title of the lecture was “The State We’re In”. The lecture can be watched and a full transcript is available on the Middle Temple website: https://www.middletemple.org.uk/members/inn-initiatives-and-events/lectures/the-state-were-in. It is worth reading.
Sir John didn’t mince his words in his assessment of the contemporary world order:
The future of that State requires plain speaking if we are to be honest with our nation. And, of course, with ourselves. The great powers of our age are the United States, China and the European Union…
Complacency and nostalgia are the route to national decline. So I favour reality and optimism — but with the warning that false optimism is deceit by another name. We are no longer a great power. We will never be so again. In a world of nearly 8 billion people, well under 1% are British.
We are a top second-rank power but over the next half century — however well we perform — our small size and population makes it likely we will be passed by the growth of other, far larger, countries.
Sir John proceeded to direct sustained withering fire at Brexit which he described as “the core change in the New Britain being forged”. Not a change for the better in his opinion, but a massive mistake founded on delusion and deception, the consequences of which will only be adverse for Britain’s economic “health”, its standing in the world and the state of its union. That is not a bald assertion but a contention supported by detailed evidence cited in the speech.
Sir John concluded:
We can be “Global Britain” in more ways than trade. But, to be so, we must reject the narrow nationalism that some have imported into our politics. We must put aside the notion of “British exceptionalism”; it is a fantasy baked into the minds of those who do not know how the world has changed.
But — we can be exceptional. All this — and more — can be achieved. We like to think of ourselves as the land of hope and glory. “Hope” is essential — most especially during the darkest times. But I am ambivalent about the “glory”.
I will settle for a land that is united and prosperous; which rises above challenges — as it has done so often in the past; whose word is trusted both near and far; and whose people are seen to be decent, fair and compassionate to all.
Needless to say, the former Prime Minister’s speech did not go down well in Conservative circles.
One strand of criticism served to reinforce his point. It is captured in this tweet from the talk radio host and newspaper columnist, Julia Hartley Brewer.
The British are 1% of the world’s population. But 2 billion people speak our language while billions more live under our democratic legacy, benefit from antibiotics, phones, TVs, the internet & all our other inventions, and are protected by our military. But yeah, whatevs John.
We’ll unpick just some of the threads of that.
Scots were quick to point out that the inventors of the television, antibiotics (penicillin) and the telephone all hailed from north of the border and any accolades should be directed there rather than to Britain as a whole.
Others suggested that “democracy” comes some way behind colonisation and exploitation in the list of things comprising Britain’s “legacy” to the world.
And some queried the proprietory “our” attached to the English language, as if its genesis was preceded by silence and it was invented from nothing before being generously lavished on other places as a gift. In fact, “the Queen’s English” is the product of a complex chain of evolution from other older languages and today’s English speaking peoples are as much divided as united by their common language.
But the feature of Ms. Hartley-Brewer’s comment which amplifies Sir John’s argument most is that it is all about the past achievement, contribution and influence rather than present; recognising shades of former faded “glory” rather than solid foundations of “hope” for the future. It is a kind of greatness emeritus, the sentiment that underpins the high expectation and entitlement that ritually and routinely accompanies English soccer teams heading off to international tournaments (notably not Scottish or Welsh ones — and who on mainland Britain cares about Northern Ireland?).
Football is “our” game that we gave to the world and this “founding father” status gives England something between a “natural” superiority and entitlement to success. Another team may walk off with the cup, but the rest are really only playing for second place. The delusion habitually evaporates, leaving only the hangover of a national sulk, when teams from less important countries like Portugal, Croatia or Iceland have the temerity to beat them.
The notion that draws most derision from Sir John is the ideological fixation among its advocates that Brexit can, indeed will (if properly done), free Britain from shackles that have prevented it from reclaiming its natural place among the front rank of the world’s nations.
The Spectator is the world’s oldest weekly political periodical, a stable mate of The Daily Telegraph and equally Tory in its affiliation. Its editorial of 14 November was written against the immediate background of Joe Biden having been firmly established as US President-elect, unexpected resignations from Boris Johnson’s senior staff, the prospective end of the post-Brexit transition period on 31 December and the opacity over the destination of the negotiations with the EU about the future relationship from 1 January.
The editorial invoked Sir John’s speech in the context of separate messages to Boris Johnson and the EU.
First, to Mr. Johnson:
…leaving the EU is an existential issue for his premiership. Voters in the north of England have no great love for the Conservative party and many only voted for Johnson because he pledged to deliver a clean Brexit.
Mr. Johnson “had to make more compromises than he would have liked to reach a preliminary deal”. Part of that deal, the Northern Ireland Protocol is now “throwing up complications.”
This serves as a warning to the Prime Minister now: any lack of concentration, any vague wording in a subsequent deal — or a system in which disputes are judged by the EU’s own apparatus — will guarantee further trouble. To give in, for the sake of a short-term political fix, will ensure longer-term problems. The electorate gave Johnson a mandate to walk away if he cannot negotiate a decent deal. He will not be forgiven for botching things.
“Throwing up complications” indicates only the vaguest nod to the Internal Market Bill which would have given Britain domestic legal sanction to repudiate clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated and ratified by it only a few months ago. Happily, all issues relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol have since been resolved, in principle at least.
On to the EU via a glancing reference to the former Prime Minister’s speech:
Sir John Major was wrong this week to argue his country is dwindling in the eyes of the world. … British friendship is valued across the world — especially in America. It is sorely needed in France… And we should extend a hand of friendship to the EU as we agree a new deal — while insisting on a partnership in which each respects the sovereignty of the other.
A deal with Brussels would start a new phase of co-operation — urgently needed when all of Europe, both inside and outside the EU, faces a second wave of the pandemic. Who now has the stomach for the trade barriers or the border chaos of a no deal?
Summarising:
The Spectator is saying to Johnson: “Watch the small print, don’t let your guard down and be ready to walk if the deal is not a clean break.” Or, in more familiar terms; that well worn mantra: “No deal is better than a bad deal.”
And to the EU: “Be aware that Mr. Johnson can accept nothing less than a clean break. But, think of the bigger picture, the great and wonderful things we can do together. Be creative, expansive and strategic.”
As the psychiatrist said of Basil Fawlty, there is enough material in this editorial for an entire conference on the Brexiteer psychosis. We will touch only some aspects.
First, we have been around these houses so many times, but the magazine’s exhortation to the EU echoes lingering wistfulness for the vanishing Brexiteer “holy grail”. “We don’t want to be in the Single Market or Customs Union and we want to control immigration from the EU. Still, why can’t we maintain most day-to-day dealings and links that we liked about EU membership exactly as they were pre-Brexit even though we will be outside the EU rather than in it? After all, we are longstanding friends. Britain has been part of the EU for almost half a century. It will remain a modern, first world country applying only the highest but independent standards. Continuing mutual co-operation is therefore free of risk as well as being in both our interests.”
That ship never left the harbour — and, approaching Christmas, there will be at best the limpest handshake between Britain and the EU, if there is any at all.
Although, the most zealous Brexiteers might say that the EU is “being difficult” to punish Britain for leaving, the EU has been clear, consistent and, one would venture to say, reasonable in saying that if you leave the club and abandon all the burdens of membership, you cannot expect to retain all the benefits. The EU is as entitled to retain control over its own affairs and to protect, prioritise and promote what it considers its interest as Britain is to take back control of its affairs. Other places have sovereignty too, not just Britain.
Although the British might not hear themselves doing it, there is also an implicit insult to remaining EU member States in the British view that it has attained full sovereignty only by leaving the EU, as if remaining member States were somehow less sovereign — mere regions, provinces even, within an EU “empire”, or as some British commentators might put it: “vassal” states.
Second, Brexit is already done. Britain left the EU on 31 January and will be free of any lingering attachment to the EU’s apron strings, deal or no deal, from 31 December. What is in play now is the tidying up business of defining the future relationship between the club and its former member. Britain is free to make whatever choices it likes about that, but so too is the EU.
Third, it was Britain’s sole choice to exclude participation in the single market and customs union and to exclude services from the scope of any future relationship. As a result, commercial opportunities will be reduced. Those that remain will be more difficult to execute. There will be new layers of cost and administration in policing its touch points with the EU and in establishing Britain’s own local regulatory regime in all the areas previously within the competence of the EU. The divorce payments under the withdrawal agreement and the mushrooming costs of the post-Brexit compliance “regime” have long since wiped the Brexit bus clean of the alleged savings of £350 million weekly.
Fourth, in the near term at least, Britain will be more restricted in trading with third countries. It faces immediate exclusion from the EU global network of trade agreements. Britain has already replaced some (on no better terms) and will replace most others in time. But, it will be hard pressed to break new and better ground in its overseas trading links than the EU, partly because it just has less clout as it is just smaller but also because, having reduced its own access to the countries on its doorstep, it is a much needier supplicant in its dealings with countries further afield.
Fifth, ordinary citizens will experience loss and curtailment of freedoms by the ceding of the automatic right to live, work, study and travel freely within the EU.
So, whether it’s a deal or no deal, barriers to international trade and commerce with and beyond the EU will be higher, more complex and more restrictive. There will be sclerosis, clogging and delays at the “border” and, in the near term, probably chaos too. Ordinary, everyday aspects of life will certainly disimprove and there is no certainty of compensating improvements elsewhere. True, Britain will be more independent, but then forlorn and friendless North Korea is the most independent state in the world.
Whether it is the “thin” deal still being negotiated or no-deal, Britain has cornered itself into a choice between bad and worse, not bad and good. It has already bought into the certainty of considerable specifiable damage and harm to itself (and imposed casual collateral damage on other countries as well) in exchange only for the possibility of attaining some vague sunlit uplands over the attainment of which it has no control and no clear road map to guide it because it doesn’t have a clear picture of where or what this Arcadia is.
Real contemporary interests of the country and its people have been sold down the river in exchange for the handful of beans, a few glass beads or mess of pottage that is the lingering delusion that Britain is still a major world “power” in the remaking, still up to being boss.
