This psychodrama all boils downs to Brussels’ belief that the nation-state must submit to global oligarchy
JANET DALEY
12 December 2020 • 1:00pm
Janet Daley
By the time you read this, you may know whether we are leaving the EU without a trade deal. Or, then again, you may not. In fact, probably not. Trying to analyse the likelihood of this has become almost entirely a matter of semantics and psychological gaming.
Was Boris Johnson’s broadcast warning of an imminent no-deal, and the blanket briefing by Downing Street that this was – really, really – the last, probably futile, attempt to reach agreement, just another eye-balling feint? Or was it an attempt to prove that we were still trying to be reasonable before we took the leap that everybody had decided was now inevitable? And was the EU threat to give up and walk away, for life or just for this Christmas?
Who knows? We are in the realms of Kremlinology here. The EU actually does seem to believe that since words can mean whatever they choose them to mean, all that is required is enough ambiguity to save everybody’s face. Ursula von der Leyen’s statement last Friday was an almost perfect example of this. Having discovered to its surprise (seriously?) that the EU’s insistence that the UK comply with any future changes in regulation which the EU chooses to adopt, was considered by Britain to breach its sovereignty, she offered a clarification: the UK would not, in fact, “need to follow us every time” the EU alters its policies and standards. Then she added, “They would remain free – sovereign if you will – to decide what they want to do. We would simply set the conditions for access to our market.”
Presumably she thought she was being helpful. Well, she used the word “sovereign” didn’t she? Even if it was with only a half-hearted acknowledgement of its significance and even less of its true meaning. Because what she said did not alter the dynamic at all. What this amounted to was the same threat as before: you can choose to deviate from any future rules we lay down – but it will be at the price of losing access to our market. Isn’t this more or less where we started? Except that now it isn’t an existential threat – just blackmail. The only point of this very subtle alteration seemed to be to make it sound less like vindictive punishment, which could conceivably permit the UK to justify accepting it (which is to say put an acceptable gloss on it).
They obviously don’t get it. Do they understand what the word “sovereign” means? Note: it involves electing the people who make your laws. Did they think we were just spouting grandiose rhetoric which would evaporate under the pressure of mundane economic reality? It must be something like that – otherwise they could never have gone where they went. I remember writing many months ago that I could think of only three kinds of organisation which threatened people who wanted to leave: mafia families, secret societies and religious cults - and that the EU had elements of all three.
This last performance was the mafia bit but it reversed the usual formula: they made us an offer we couldn’t accept - but which we would eventually have to accede to if we wanted life as we knew it to go on. So not only would our infernal British presumption be given its mortifying comeuppance but anybody else in the outfit who was thinking of trying something similar would be scared witless. To have any hope of understanding what is going on, it is essential to remember the founding premise of the EU: the elected governments of member states must be relegated in their authority to the unelected institutions that govern the bloc.
This is not an unfortunate accident: it is fundamental. Nation states - or rather, their volatile, dangerously impressionable populations – cannot be trusted to behave in acceptable ways. Hitler was elected. Mussolini was facilitated into office by legitimate national procedures. Lesson: the peoples of Europe have disgraced themselves in the recent past. They may continue to participate in their own electoral processes but the benign oligarchy of Europe, held in place by structures designed by a wise establishment, will have over-arching power to keep them in check. The prosperity that results from such guaranteed peace and security will be distributed on the assumption of mutual consent.
That was the idea. It didn’t necessarily work out – even within the ranks of consenting members. But the core beliefs remain unreconstructed. One of the most important – and least examined – of these is that competition between nation states is inherently wicked. Cooperation is the key to everything. This is what drives suspicion of Brexiting Britain’s intentions. We might do something to undercut our EU neighbours by say, lowering taxes, cutting business costs, reducing expensive requirements for employment protection, or simply selling our little hearts out in the world market.
Yes indeed – that is what competition is. And it is at the heart of free market economics. It drives the genius of innovation, the courage of entrepreneurialism and it hugely benefits the consumer. It can even liberate the populations of developing countries as it has in much of Africa. But it is the “animal spirit” that is altogether too much like some of the wicked spirits that drove Europe’s twentieth century experience. Since it can encourage envy, unfairness and insecurity, it must be regarded as a potentially destructive force.
That is why it must be replaced by “solidarity” which no one – particularly not a renegade former EU member – can be allowed to endanger. There are awkward contradictions, of course, when the elected national leaders must suppress their own inclinations and even the interests of their own electorates, in order to maintain the group objectives. However much Angela Merkel may regret the intransigence of Emmanuel Macron over fishing, she will not officially dissent – however much this might cost the German car industry.
The ultimate tragedy may be that those very European states so determined not to repeat the tragic moral errors that led to the second World War could be about to commit the mistakes that led to the first one: a vainglorious, arrogant insistence that their own world mission cannot possibly be wrong.