On Thursday, the citizens of the United Kingdom chose, by a
slim majority, to withdrawal from the European Union. Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to the
referendum due to mounting pressure from members within his own Conservative Party, who
chafed at the various rules imposed by the EU and viewed the costs of
membership (monetary and otherwise) as outweighing the benefits. Of particular salience was the desire to
regain control of the Great Britain’s borders, especially with regard to
economic migration.
Cameron supported Britain’s remaining in the EU. Yesterday he made the painful decision that
he could no longer lead the UK, given the newly established mandate. He agreed to step down as Prime Minister by
the fall. His concession speech was
remarkable for its grace and humility, at great contrast to the whining
petulance we often hear from U.S. politicians when their agenda does not
succeed.
And yet despite the fact that this vote occurred overseas
and under parliamentary processes, there are significant parallels to U.S.
politics.
First and foremost are the similarities between the arguments
made by the “Vote Leave” campaign and the strains of populism, nationalism, and
isolationism that the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns have both harnessed.
There is a vast distrust of
globalization from both sides of our political spectrum. Trump specifically has gained support from working class voters whose wages have stagnated over the last decade, whose job
prospects have diminished due to automation and global trade, and who feel that
the policy elites in their own party have ignored them for too long.
The “Vote Leave” campaign was noticeable in its rejection
of economic experts, who foretold of grave consequences for British and global
markets. [1] This mirrors a disturbing trend in American
discourse, as politicians and voters alike dismiss expert opinion, whether on climate change, foreign policy, or the safety of immunizations and
genetically modified food.
Second is the unreliability of polls. Prior to the vote, the polling data suggested
a win by the “Remain” camp. Yet the
numbers indicate that likely “Exit” voters were less likely to answer candidly
when asked face-to-face or via phone call than when they responded to anonymous
Internet surveys. A similar dynamic is
at work with potential Trump voters, calling into question the current lead
that Clinton holds in national polls.
Further, “Vote Leave” gained
victory despite a divided UK Conservative party. Democrats in the U.S. who assume that the
disarray in the Republican Party will automatically translate into electoral
defeat may be dismayed come November.
Finally, the Brexit vote once again demonstrates the perils
of direct democracy in the form of voter referendums.[2] By their very nature, such ballot questions
must distill complex policy considerations with into grossly simplified yes or
no questions. ("Should I Stay or Should
I Go?", to quote the Clash.)
The irony is that such a simply stated choice will
ultimately result in an extremely complex policy process. Withdrawal in and of itself will be a two-year
process. But beyond that, the UK must
now renegotiate the myriad policy agreements that were painstakingly worked out
over decades of integration into the EU.
Scotland, whose population overwhelmingly voted to remain in the UK,
will see its independence movement reenergized. Voters in Northern Ireland
demonstrated a similar preference and may very well seek to reopen the
discussion of reunification with the south.
Whether that would ultimately be a peaceful process remains to be
seen.
Robert Wright, in his powerful book “Non-Zero: The Logic of
Human Destiny”, writes that even as the world grows complex, we experience- at
the personal and national level- a drive toward greater cooperation and problem
solving that is inherent in the cultural evolution of the human species. Ultimately it was up to the voters of Great
Britain, and well within their rights, to determine the cost-benefit analysis
of staying within the EU. But it
certainly feels like a large step back from the forward progress of global
integration and cooperation that’s occurred over the last century, a process
that in the aggregate has been overwhelmingly positive. Time will tell if the “Brexit” vote will lead
to a greater global unraveling. I for
one certainly hope not.
Any and all opinions are solely my own and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense
No comments:
Post a Comment