Brexit: A Crisis for the Establishment?

The curious thing leading up to Britain’s decision to exit the EU was the distinct lack of real choice

The curious thing leading up to Britain’s decision to exit the EU was the distinct lack of real choice, despite the vastly opposing consequences of the two options on the ballot paper. One side told us to reject the established norms of globalisation, to take back control of our country, to stick two fingers up at Brussels, to turn our backs on immigration, and in doing so to protect our future. The other side told us to stick together, to embrace globalisation, to tolerate immigration, to try not to think about Brussels, and in doing so to protect our future.

But at the heart of the debate was two opposing views of British conservatism; decades of tensions within the Conservative Party finally erupting in polling stations and reverberating across the continent. It was a battle between the establishment and the anti-establishment, except it seems that the anti-establishment is just the establishment on steroids.

In this context, immigration became the accepted cause of all our problems. Lack of jobs: immigration. Weak economy: immigration. Pressure on public services: immigration. The answer to this, depending on your view, was to be found in the connection between the UK and the rest of Europe (or lack of it). At no point did either side attempt to challenge the illogic of this argument. If the UK’s problems simply boil down to an issue of population size, then we should be both worried about the future (when our population naturally rises with people who can’t be ‘shipped home’) and curious about our past (when poverty and inequality were no less rampant than they are today).

Britain is in unchartered territory, and quickly descending into political chaos. The challenge now is for the rest of us to pick up the pieces. There is only one way to achieve this: by challenging the economic orthodoxy which has failed so many people in the UK, by building a new and democratic Europe which works for all her citizens, and by rejecting the argument that immigration is a cause rather than a consequence of these issues. The hope, then, must be that a real anti-establishment rises from the ashes of Britain’s seismic decision.

Admittedly, it’s not looking good. The Labour party is in full revolt mode as it seeks to dispose a leader who was deemed unable to lead by his critics before he’d even spoken a word. The Conservative Party is dousing itself in a blood bath where even those on the same side aren’t, it turns out, on the same side. Our next Prime Minister is likely to be someone who has led the charge in anti-immigrant rhetoric over the past five years. Or perhaps, if we’re lucky, it will be a man who sent hundreds of thousands of teachers into revolt and whose main selling point (according to his wife) is that he can court the favour of Rupert Murdoch. Not very anti-establishment.

Rightly or wrongly, Britain has made a monumental decision and the global elite would do well to heed the lessons of discontent. But the real work hasn’t even begun. In decades to come we will surely be judged by how we respond to this decision, and by how successful we are in uniting Europe behind a new system which embraces all its citizens.

Categories
Opinion
Ben O'Hanlon

Ben has an MA in International Relations and Development studies from the University of East Anglia in the UK, where he explored power relations in the international garment industry. He has worked on a pioneering Security Sector Reform project in Lebanon, which has been successful in adopting a community model of policing as an alternative method of addressing the country's security challenges. He has also researched working conditions on banana and pineapple plantations in Ghana, and is a founding trustee of a charity which supports the advancement of better end of life care provision in the country. Based in London, Ben currently works for a human rights charity which challenges poverty and injustice by forming global partnerships and calling for systemic change.
3 Comments on this post.
  • Roger Hawcroft
    9 July 2016 at 1:29 pm
    Leave a Reply

    This is a curious and somewhat confused piece. The vote of the English to leave the European Union has two predominant causes. First, is the inequity and hardship caused by the neo-liberal economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher. This austerity economic model inevitably increases the gap between rich and poor but, as disastrously, manifests as a renewed class warfare but one in which the wealthy are the aggressors and motivated by greed, rather than as was the case, the working classes being the protagonists, motivated by a wish for equity and fair compensation for their work. The second factor, to some extent stems from or is exacerbated by the first and certainly encouraged by the right-wing dominated media. It is the xenophobic and misguided notion that immigrants are a cause of problems rather than a symptom of them and the similarly misguided notion that building walls or strengthening borders is a solution. In reality, such behaviour will only exacerbate problems and play into the hands of those who benefit from this situation and are at the heart of creating it.

  • Ben O'Hanlon
    Ben o’hanlon
    9 July 2016 at 1:50 pm
    Leave a Reply

    Hi Roger,
    Thanks for commenting. I fully agree with your analysis and it sounds like we’re making the same points. My argument was that the Leave campaign painted itself as anti-establishment, but is actually a different form of the establishment. Only by propelling the fallacy that immigration is the cause of our social ills was the Leave campaign able to present itself as an antidote to the status quo. But when we understand the real cause of our problems (the Thatcherite economic orthodoxy) then we see that there is no true solution on either side of the vote, because both represent the same economic system. As you say, immigration is a symptom of the same problem. It’s a tragedy that it has been able to be presented as anything else.

  • Ben O’Hanlon
    11 July 2016 at 10:50 pm
    Leave a Reply

    Hi Roger,
    Thanks for commenting. I fully agree with your analysis and it sounds like we’re making the same points. My argument was that the Leave campaign painted itself as anti-establishment, but is actually a different form of the establishment. Only by propelling the fallacy that immigration is the cause of our social ills was the Leave campaign able to present itself as an antidote to the status quo. But when we understand the real cause of our problems (the Thatcherite economic orthodoxy) then we see that there is no true solution on either side of the vote, because both represent the same economic system. As you say, immigration is a symptom of the same problem. It’s a tragedy that it has been able to be presented as anything else.

  • Leave a Reply

    *

    *

    RELATED BY

    • Not for their sake

      On the 6th Of April 2017, US President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered a targeted military strike on an airfield in Syria. The strike is said to...
    • Joint Democracy

      The Tunisian National Security Council, convoked by Tunisian president Béji Caid Essebsi in Carthage on 15th March 2017, talked about terrorism and national security, but also about joints. Indeed,...
    • What if we tackled poverty differently?

      What sort of a society would you like to live in if you knew nothing about where you would end up? Picture yourself in an aware state before your...
    • Can I be a feminist and still go to Iran?

      Two events of particular importance took place last week: the opening of the Women’s World Chess Championship and an official visit by Swedish EU Affairs and Trade Minister Ann...