Deeper Processes
There can be very few instances in history in which breaking what were intended to be long term treaties with close allies and trading partners works out well. International relations, just as relations between individuals, depend upon trust and reliability, loyalty and fidelity. In this modern age we may have lost touch with such old fashioned ideas. Nowadays it seems that a rational calculation of individual advantage is the preferred yardstick for making decisions and this goes for countries too. Consequently we suffer from a blindness in regard to more fundamental verities and instincts. However, beneath the surface of current affairs processes are at work that explain events in a more fundamental way than can be grasped by following parties or personalities.
Who Shall Survive?
I have great respect for the psychological ideas of Jacob Moreno. His most important book had the title “Who Shall Survive?” Moreno had lived in central Europe during the time of the rise on the one hand of existential philosophy and on the other of Nazi political movements. It is a big book, but to cut the long story very short the answer to his rhetorical question is: those who are best connected, which, in practice, means those who will be chosen as partners by others in a wide variety of scenarios. England and Wales, it seems, have decided that they do not want to be partners and do not want to be chosen, at least by their immediate neighbours. This is usually a recipe for all manner of misfortune, so why might it be happening on this occasion?
No Independence
However, it is not, in fact, the case that Brexit will leave Britain standing completely alone nor, for that matter, that it will yield the kind of independence that those who hanker for long lost days of British imperial glory like to imagine. It will, inevitably, mean that Britain will become, even more than is already the case, an appendage of the United States. The main spokesperson for the pro-Brexit campaign has, as a reward, become the British foreign minister. There is a kind of ironic justice in this since being British foreign minister is rapidly becoming a non-job. All that the person in that role can do is repeat what those in power in Washington want him to say. The post might as well be abolished. Why not just let the Americans do the talking for themselves and for their British dependency? Can one imagine Britain really taking an independent line?
The Legacy of WWII
Why has this happened, geopolitically speaking? I think it has to be that despite all the superficial rhetoric, there is a gradual pulling apart going on as between the EU and the US. A rift is emerging. In saying this I am not intending any disparagement of either party. It is a natural process resulting from the changing balance between the two. At the end of WWII the US was in a position of unrivalled strength and Europe was shattered. Russia also had a lot of repair work ahead. American aid helped European countries back onto their feet and at the same time brought them under the American wing. Russia, on the other hand, strove to pull itself up by its own efforts. Quite quickly the divide crystallised into the “cold war” as the “iron curtain” descended. We could say that there had been a kind of Rusexit - Russia separated itself from Europe, so as not to become dominated by the USA.
Tectonics
However, Europe, as the EU, is now prosperous. More so, in many ways, than the US. Average household income is higher in the US, but it needs to be because the US has only a fraction of the public services. On most of the general indicators of wellbeing (infant mortality, longevity, crime levels, social security, and so on) the average citizen of France, Germany or Italy is well ahead of their counterpart across the Atlantic and the gap is widening (In 1960 the US ranked 12th in the world in infant mortality, now it is about 30th). The Individualistic American system is also hugely wasteful. Thus the US spends more than twice as much as France per capita on health care, yet a recent international comparison ranked US health care 37th in the world and that of France 1st. It is these kinds of developments that have brought Trump to power, but what he can do about them remains to be seen. My point here, however, is that the conditions that existed in 1950 have changed out of all recognition, so that the political alignments, which remain broadly as they were, at least on the surface, are bound to come under increasing strain. These tectonic movements are bound to provoke earthquakes in the not distant future. This is not really a question of policies and political choices, it is more fundamental.
You Have to Jump One Way or the Other
The US retains the upper hand only by dint of spending a ruinous amount on armaments, paid for by ever increasing borrowing that, one imagines, is never going to be repaid, but which, nonetheless, incurs huge amounts of interest payments that are a drain on the US exchequer; a drain that works through to further exacerbate the Atlantic divide over health and wellbeing since that interest mostly goes to China, Japan and the EU. This is not a process that can go on indefinitely. One has the impression that candidate Trump had at last a vague grasp of these realities, but as president Trump he has substantially been tamed by those who cannot see any alternative but to carry on this game as long as possible. Nonetheless, the elastic connecting Europe and the USA is gradually stretching more and more. To change the metaphor, when one has one foot in each of two boats that are drifting apart, one eventually has to jump one way or the other. The cultural connection between the UK and the US has proved to be stronger than that between UK and EU and so the UK has jumped westward. Scotland voted differently because it has historically closer connections with the continent and Northern Ireland did so because of its connection with Eire. They do not want to be dragged westward, but are victims of a bigger process.
It seems to me that there is a sense in which Brexit is really Eurexit. It is not so much that Britain is becoming independent of Europe as that Europe is slowly becoming independent of America while Britain cannot do so.
Rationalisations are not Reasons
The British seem, generally speaking, to dwell in ignorance of all this. To most British people the question of EU membership is largely one of money and immigration. However, on these two criteria, Brexit is a mistake. No doubt some sort of trading agreement will be put together, but it is a negotiation between unequals and unless they make some very serious errors the EU side is almost bound to come out with the better half of the deal. The new pro-EU French president is determined to use this opportunity to wrest some of London’s business for Paris. Germany is in a stronger position still. As for immigration, Britain needs it. Living standards in UK are not rising in the way that they are in Germany. One of the main reasons is that Germany takes more immigrants. Liberal minded people may not like it but the fact is that immigrants tend to come in at the bottom and this pushes everybody else up. Some immigrants then rise rapidly. Only one of the ten richest people in Britain was actually born in the country. This also generates wealth. Immigrants bring energy, determination and skills. The established population may be grabbed by stories about “scroungers” but in general immigrants work harder. The rationale in terms of trying to reduce immigration and save the contribution to the EU budget thus look like rationalisations rather than reasons when taken in a historical context.
Russia
Meanwhile Russia has been gradually getting itself sorted out. This too is surely substantially a function of the changing balance elsewhere. While the US dominated Europe and much of the rest of the world, Russia - or the USSR as it was then - was essentially under siege. It held out for a long time but eventually there was a collapse which reached its nadir near the end of the 20th century with the fall of the iron curtain, the loss of its dependencies in East Europe, and near national bankruptcy. However, just as that was happening, European-US relations were reaching a tipping point and China was emerging as a significant force, an economy rivaling that of the US in size, an emergence that the US has been powerless to check largely because of the amount of American debt that China had quietlybut astutely accumulated. Since then things have moved rather differently. The increasingly prosperous EU needs Russian oil. Russia provides the fuel for much of European industry. This creates an ambivalent position for Europe. As US ally it is anti-Russian. However, the EU and Russia have complementary economies and mutual hostility is self-inflicted injury for both parties. As US dominance in Europe fades one may expect a tipping point to be reached, but in the meantime, although NATO endeavours to reimpose the siege, it is much more difficult to achieve as Russia repairs its fences with Turkey, Iran and China. Russia still has a way to go but it is definitely back on the scene, challenging US hegemony in the Middle East and elsewhere and able to do so because the Western alliance is, all the rhetoric notwithstanding, not as solid as it used to be.
Seeing Deeply
So my thesis is that we should not think of developments such as Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, that of Emmanuel Macron, or Russian action in Syria purely as a matter of freely chosen policies by independent nations. Bigger processes are at work as the post-war settlement is gradually coming apart. Brexit is a symptom of that. The surge of populism is an epiphenomenon that will hardly register in the history books. Politicians come and go, but larger, slower, inexorable shifts are happening. The adage that all compounded things are impermanent applies to goepolitics because the dynamic set up by any particular settlement always contained within it the seeds of that settlement's ultimate collapse. For as long as possible we resist the pressure and continue with business as usual, and then when the elastic suddenly snaps everybody expresses astonishment.
Replies
Yes, secondary (and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense) powers have to position themselves between the giants and, to an extent, play one off against the other or they lapse into either becoming vassals, which is the current risk for the UK, or becoming poor and politically insignificant. Australia will do best, one assumes, by continuing to sound enthusiastic about the USA while building up its trade with China and the EAEU.
[Footnote: EEU or EAEU is the Eurasian Economic Union, founded 2014, a common market or free trade area including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia,]
A very perceptive essay David that helps to understand some more of just what is going on. I very much value your ongoing commentaries and open discussions here. I would add Australia to the short list of potential Uk friends though our more extensive trade with the EEU might see that change. Our government has been openly admiring of Trump's presidency. It would be silly to imagine our PM Turnbull actually admires Trump, what is admired is the military power and here the government does not dare isolate themselves in any way from the US.