Brexit, Eurocrats, Europeans and the Others

There is a spectre that has been haunting Europe since 1992, it is the on-going transition from the Westphalian State to the European State. Brexit is not about the United Kingdom alone, it’s about the much larger question about whether the State as Europeans know it should give up on national sovereignty. We could start […]

There is a spectre that has been haunting Europe since 1992, it is the on-going transition from the Westphalian State to the European State. Brexit is not about the United Kingdom alone, it’s about the much larger question about whether the State as Europeans know it should give up on national sovereignty. We could start the story in 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty was formulated to move Europe much further than economic integration by embarking on the path to political and monetary union. At that time, Eurosceptics all over the continent called for caution arguing they did not want to go that far, that quickly. It was at that point that fingers started pointing to Eurocrats, that set of bureaucrats committed to carrying the integration project to its logical end.
The way the Maastricht Treat was framed was to force through convergence criteria that all countries must follow. Of course the United Kingdom was not ready to go that far and opted out of monetary union. In June 1992, Denmark posed the first real challenge by voting out the Treaty in a referendum that had been designed as a must sign for all countries. Following the Danish revolt, the Edinburgh Agreement made a number of alterations to carry the Danes along. Luckily, the Parliament in the United Kingdom had powers to ratify the Treaty without going through a referendum. There was no way John Major’s Government could have got the British people to ratify the Treaty in a referendum.
Rather than slow down on the march towards complete integration, the Eurocrats, backed by elected executives took the decision to jump start complete integration in 2001 by proposing a new Treaty for a European Constitution in 2005. The new Treaty was rejected on 25 May by 54.67% of French voters and again on 1st June 2005 by 61.54% of Dutch voters who understood largely that the march was inevitable but movement was too fast. It was in that context that the more realistic Lisbon Treaty of 2007 tempered the European Constitution project.
For both the French and Dutch voters in 2005, what were most unacceptable were their governments telling them that there was not alternative to voting yes. The question then became why the question was yes or no if they were bound to answer yes. Rather than respond to the question posed, most voters simply asserted their right to say no, rightly affirming that in a democracy, voters have the right to say no. Those who study the history of referenda point out that in many cases, voters do not respond to the question posed on the ballot. They simply express their emotions concerning the political system or the government of the day.
In last weeks British Referendum, it was clear that the majority voted for Brexit because they were pissed off by being warned by the British and international establishment that they had no right to leave the EU, and if they dare leave, they would face dire consequences. It was only after voting to leave that there was a spike in Google questions on what is the EU and what are the implications of leaving. There was no doubt that in voting in the referendum, the British people were more focused on telling off the establishment than on answering the question posed. The fact of the matter is that the dummy sold to the British people was a complete fabrication. 47% of British trade was with the EU so whether or not they were in the EU, they would have to agree to their trade terms and there are 1.3 million British people living and working in EU countries so they could not drive out the Europeans they do not like from their country without serious repercussions to their own people.
The British have already invented a name for foolish Brits who voted irrationally – regrexiters and within 24 hours of “victory” those who mislead them confessed there was no 350 million pounds a week to save and pay into the national health service because most of the money stays in house and is used for the British anyway. They have also been told that it’s a lie that they can cut immigration because they cannot. By European standards, Britain has a low percentage of educated people the British masses decided to believe propaganda because it sounded better.
Of course the leader of the leave campaign, Boris Johnson was until recently pro-European and changed course simple to make a leadership bid. The British ruling class had of course blocked referendum on the issue for over forty years because they knew that they could not trust the people to do what they were told. In his stupidity, Prime Minister Cameron took the gamble to increase his chances of winning the last election. He failed and has thrown himself out of power.
Switzerland is similar to Great Britain in terms of aversion of its people to being sucked into “internationalism”. The Swiss leadership was smarter. They decided they would not join EU to keep their people happy. As a country that is in the very centre of Europe, they knew they could not live outside the rules of the European market so they signed up to all the rules including the Schengen Treaty on Free Movement, which they hate, and both sides are happy. They Swiss are not formal members of the EU while they remain fully integrated into the system.
Britain has two choices moving forward, eat their words and reverse the decision taken or stay out but sign all the conditionalities of the EU without the right of being on the decision making table.
The real story of exiting the union can be traced to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia when the then European powers – the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish, French, Swedish and Dutch Republics agreed to end the 30-year war by recognizing the sovereignty of each other. This principle of international law had become sacrosanct until new principles started knocking on its door. One was the effort of the EU and other similar structures to voluntarily transfer some of the Sate’s sovereignty to a collective organ. Other pressures, in particular the principle of responsibility to protect and the doctrine of war crimes and crimes against humanity have over the past decade opened the path of non-voluntary loss of full State sovereignty. The world is never going to return fully to the principles of Westphalia.
The issue moving forward therefore is devising the correct speed and direction to transfer of sovereignty that is not to dismissive of strong commitment to nationalism that has developed over the centuries. The struggle between nationalism and xenophobia on the one hand and supra-nationalism on the other will dictate international politics in the coming years. Poor Boris Johnson, he has won his pyrrhic victory at the cost of mass deceit and is unlikely to profit from it for long. Poor David Cameron, he has lost his gamble. Poor Brits who used to be proud members of the Empire where the sun never sets are now look at losing their own Scotland and Northern Ireland. 
The real issue on the table about not just Europe but the entire world is that for the first time since the end of the Second World War, a generation is born that is economically worse off than their parents. Meanwhile the number of billionaires is rapidly increasing while the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. As inequality grows, austerity, low salaries and joblessness is the fate of the majority, especially the youth. As misery grows, scapegoatism becomes the dominant refrain leading to the rise of xenophobia. These are the issues that we need answers to if supranationalism is to continue its march.