The final verdict on 23 June 2016 will be pronounced a long way in the future. But future generations may ponder several issues.
The fact that the referendum was ever called will be a cause of bafflement. Conservative leader David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum to placate anti-EU sections of his own party and to out-flank a perceived challenge from Ukip. Given his frequent mention of the risks of Brexit, the wisdom of calling the referendum in the first place remains puzzling.
Cameron, who did much to make the Tories electable and won a famous victory, has gone, leaving behind a divided Conservative party. The Labour Party, too, is. The episode has also left behind a divided country, which will prove difficult to unite or even hold together.
The referendum debate was unedifying; The tone was shrill, lacking civility. The participation of respected analysts, commentators and supposedly non-political public officials brought them no credit. Facts were water-boarded to support partisan positions. A future of economic damnation and a revival of Empire outside the EU are equally illusory.
The response at the result among those who voted to remain is most interesting. The wilful ignorance of the affluent, educated and cosmopolitan on how divided and polarised British society has become is striking. The voting patterns mirrored divisions along the lines of class, economic standing, education, age, residence and ethnicity.
The debate was always between economics and sovereignty (in the guise of immigration and border control). Exaggerated claims of economic losses, based on macro-economic models which have failed repeatedly over recent years, to engender fear were rejected. Some UK regions reliant on exports to the EU voted strongly to leave. For the disenfranchised, the fruits of growth, investment and international trade remain unattainable. Threats – perceived or real – to jobs, and uncertainty about nationality, are powerful forces. The inconvenience of the non-EU line at immigration or the ability to own a holiday retreat on the continent does not concern those who have never had those opportunities.
The failure of the economic arguments to sway the vote may spell the end of economic rationalism which began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
It may be that the vote against the EU was, in part, a protest vote against the long-term changes in economic structure of the UK economy, which has destroyed many working and middle class lives. Insofar as the decision represents a retreat to economic nationalism and closed borders, it may highlight the diminishing appeal of globalisation.
Increasing scepticism about experts and expert advice may also be one longer term effect. The views of the governor of the Bank of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury were disregarded equally.
In a pivotal moment in the campaign, challenged to name a single expert who thought that Brexit would economically benefit Britain, Justice Secretary Michael Gove’s defiant response was that: “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.” The reality is that experts no longer relate to ordinary people.
Policy orthodoxy, such as free trade, de-industrialisation and, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, austerity and unconventional monetary policy, have not benefitted large parts of the population. Ordinary people’s appetite for sacrifice in return for unquantified future benefits promised by experts has waned.
The gravitational pull of aspiration, central to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s brand of conservatism, has faded as trickle-down economics has betrayed many people.
The immediate effects of the Brexit vote on currencies and interest rates were significant, but it will take time to see whether there are major casualties as a result of the usual highly leveraged bets. The decision to downgrade the UK’s credit rating to a (still very strong) AA will have little effect. The UK’s ability to meet its obligations has not changed.
The real economy and political effects will take time to emerge and is highly dependent on events not yet known. History will have to decide whether the vote was simply a mutiny on HMS Britannia or an influential decision on the shape of the modern world, the structure of society and values which resonate and lead to change in other countries.
If the latter proves correct, then the event will prove truly significant.
The Leave campaign may have won the vote but there is confusion about reshaping the UK’s relationship with the EU. Maintaining continued special access to European markets would require accepting many policies rejected by a majority of those who voted. The prospects of meaningful reform within the EU also seem remote.
No comments:
Post a Comment