This is not so much a review of the above book, but rather about my general thoughts on Brexit and how it relates to Ireland.
-
| It's clear that every country prefers to dwell on only the good things in its history, but it is fair to say that the particular English nationalism that is presently in control of the UK state, is truly exceptional in its desire to ignore so much of reality. It fixates on unrepresentative aspects in both its own history and that of its neighbours, while throwing in bits of conspiracy theorising about bendy bananas and the like to boot. This nationalism, in its very crudest versions, reduces history to the World War II years only, where England did indeed shine so well, but where by contrast, the continentals get all cast as either goose-stepping Nazis, or feeble cowards who surrendered because of a lack of grit. There are, however other years that have existed besides 1939 to 1945, and so a slightly more sophisticated version of this nationalism, will indeed have a better historical range, but yet will still have the same self-evasive cowardice when it comes to the many negative aspects that occurred in the course of English history. This simple history would be something like the diffusion to the world of the rule of law, liberal democracy, and international trade, as a perhaps unwarranted gift to all other nations. While these elements are good things, and England/Britain did have a lot of agency in their creation and dissemination, and this should be acknowledged, it would yet be untruthful to say that the whole history of this polity can be expressed in these terms. For obviously, there are many things in its history that contradict these principles, such as the lawless invasions and misappropriations of so many countries, a racial democracy for Anglo-Saxons for the majority of its history, and economic colonialism which, whether by mercantilism or unfair trade, reduced its imperial provinces and many non-European countries to merely raw materials suppliers. There are many other examples, of both positive and negative elements, which could be mentioned, but the cherry-picking issue regarding history has been sufficiently identified. In addition, this nationalism is committed to views about wider reality which are not empirically attested, most particularly about Europe. In this, the British press has not always been noted for the quality of its reporting and analysis, witnessed by its invention of the literary genre of 'imaginary regulations absurdism', with such items as the permitted curvature of bananas, and countless other canards. The general import is that the EU inevitably has a bizarre fetish for mindless bureaucracy and pointless regulations, largely because of its misbegotten character (as it is imagined) as a supranational organisation, the nature of which contradicts the supposed natural of order of things, this being totally free-standing and wholly sovereign nation-states. The idea, it seems, is that Britain, by essence, is the nation-state which most truly inhabits the Westphalian nation-state ideal and its ‘dynamic’ possibilities, and so it is the one that loses most by sharing sovereignty with other states. For those other European countries are shown to have an inferior national character by virtue of their willingness to continue with the EU project, and so to deny their independence, and therefore, as it is imagined, own true nature. By this stance, then, Britain as member of the EU, was metaphysically constrained and reduced, where now outside and unbound, it can surge forward to the future that a blind faith in ideology provides. Of course, the more empirically grounded view of things would be concerned with such facts as how around 50% of both its imports and exports comes from and goes to EU countries, and of how international trade generally is and will be conducted in terms of the standards and dynamics set by the three largest trade blocks that the UK won’t be part of (USA, the EU and China), and of how, therefore the UK as a relatively small country, will be dancing to the tune set by others for a long time to come. As such, it is clearly not worth much to have merely theoretical sovereignty in the sense of unenforceable rights, such as the UK has acquired for itself by Brexit. What obviously counts, rather, is the actual ability of a state to influence the world around it such that its interests are safeguarded, and if this is more effectively achieved by membership in a supranational union, then the purpose of sovereignty is clearly attained, even though the formal description of such a state would, to the clueless observer, suggest that its freedom is reduced. The prior history of Ireland is a case in point, in that the first few decades of independence, while having full formal political and economic sovereignty, consisted of decline and near collapse. For having formal independence and self-determination unfortunately did not take account of, and could not counteract, the economic and political realities which took no notice of the new constitutional order. Ireland did of course try to attain actual economic independence, by protectionism and autarky, but unfortunately this didn’t work. This was combined, it is fair to say, with an angular and obsessive nationalism which refused to acknowledge the existence of the Unionist people in northern Ireland as having some say over their future, and in general, of a refusal to allow Irishness be defined in a broader and more encompassing manner. In these ways, the history of Ireland for many decades after independence was in some ways an unhappy one. And so long as the EU didn’t exist, as an economic and political organisation in which we could for the first time participate as equals, the future for Ireland would not have been likely great. There are of course some parallels with Brexit Britain here, for the UK is gaining the window dressing of independence, but not alas enough of its substance. It will feel ideologically pure about itself, but unfortunately, any serious analysis shows that all it will actually gain is immense economic pain. This is, again, because it concentrates inordinately on the mere idea of sovereignty, but completely neglects the actual operation of it. And Brexit Britain refuses to attenuate itself in any way, even though its inflamed trajectory makes it more probable than not that the UK will break up. In these ways, this overwrought version of English nationalism, by its evasive reading of history, conspiracy theorising, and fanaticism, is the perverse force that will likely cause what will be the former countries of the UK to rejoin the EU, separately, at some not too distant date. |
I have limited knowledge of a lot of the detail of Irish and British history, where the 20th century in particular is concerned. But this seems to me to be a good piece of writing that highlights the way the Irish Republic floundered in the decades following its independence, and how Britain is currently experiencing the beginnings of a similar struggle.
ReplyDeleteThe author is right, in my opinion, to cite the darker aspects of British history, which as he states, tend to be overlooked when viewing the U.K.’s historical circumstances through the lens of nationalism. Indeed, before the U.S. became the world’s great superpower, the British empire was the earth’s most potent force, but due in large part to ravishing huge regions across parts of South Africa and later The Middle East, and destroying India. Yet, in terms of Britain’s positive influences throughout history, the author is, for me, also right to allude to matters such as the creation of The Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights, in the sense of such documents being nascent factors in bringing about “the [eventual] diffusion to the world of the rule of law, liberal democracy, and international trade.”
There is good humour also in the fact that Britain conducts 50% of its trade with other EU countries, having almost painted itself into a corner due to a sort of patriotic self-deception. Or a self-isolation in which it has cast itself adrift of the largest trading blocks and gained an empty supposed self-control at the cost of being included in mutually beneficial partnerships.