This, the final week of January, 2020, is a tremendous moment not only for the people of the UK, but also for the nations of the world. I write these words with all deference and respect for my friends and colleagues of goodwill who hold opposing opinions concerning the wisdom and consequences of what is about to happen. I mean no one ill.
Of course, that is very nearly the point of the matter.
Four days from now, at 11pm GMT on January 31, the United Kingdom will officially leave the European Union. Britons (and others) on all sides of the debate about the merits of the departure generally agree upon one thing: Brexit, decided via referendum in 2016 and having overcome many obstacles since that time, is a big deal.
I felt it fitting this afternoon to set down a few thoughts to mark the coming event. Although Latha and I have lived in the UK and even now make frequent travels there for study and work, we still fall into the category of outsiders.
As such, I temper my enthusiasm with humility: Brexit was a political decision for the British people. Others may opine and offer perspective from a distance, but we do respect those who have the greatest stake in the matter, the wonderful people of the United Kingdom.
It is hard, however, not to take great inspiration and satisfaction in what is about to occur, for it marks the hope that perhaps, politically, the future prospects for self-governance, that is, the accountability of governments to the will of the governed, are not entirely as dim as they had until recently appeared. The UK has bravely charted a new course for itself, and in so doing it has set an example for others. This is no small thing.
Of course, other nations do indeed have an interest in the thing. The free peoples of the world have always formed a check on the tyrants and, for this reason, it is always welcome news to members of one (at least for now) self-governing nation that the citizenry of another, and one of our strongest allies, has managed to step back from the brink, resisting the schemes of those who very nearly succeeded in holding them captive.
Yes, I feel that the UK leaving the European Union is a tremendously good thing for the people of that nation as also for the people of the world, and I have felt so without flinching since I first heard of the movement.
In order to understand why I embrace my pro-Brexit views with such confidence, let’s deal for a moment with what Brexit is “about.”
WHAT BREXIT IS ABOUT
Brexit is about self-governance. It really is as simple as that. The British people outside the elite centers have felt oppressed and abused, and alarmed at the decrease and/or disappearance of accountable governance that has come along with their ongoing membership in the EU.
All the other issues are peripheral or secondary to the self governance piece. Immigration problems? Trace it back to the lack of accountability of legislators and the subsequent imposed will of bureaucrats in Brussels. A snowballing maze of laws and one-size-fits-all regulations? Likewise. Lack of transparency with funds and frustration with being forced to shoulder the bailout of other nations who have been undisciplined and unwise in their fiscal policies? Ditto.
All people have a right to government that can be held directly to account by the governed for its legislative or executive actions.
And indeed, the trend of every government is toward tyranny.
Said Mr. Farage of the UK’s departure and his wishes for the future of the European Union: “I’m hoping this begins the end of this project. It’s a bad project. It isn’t just undemocratic; it’s anti-democratic. And it puts in that front row — it gives people power without accountability. People who cannot be held to account by the electorate. And that is an unacceptable structure.”
FARMERS AND CATTLE
In my experience observing and being politically engaged over the years, I have noted that most (though, thankfully, not all) people change when they become part of the political elite. Spend enough time in the halls of power, and you take on the mindset of those who inhabit such places. Elected office and the corresponding bureaucracy is a comfortable but artificial world whose denizens look out for each other, and most of all for themselves. An absence of the market forces that drive any private sector business to run efficiently to avert failure makes it possible for governments to live in perpetuity as though prudence does not matter. So long as it can be covered or attention deflected, or spread out, everything is fine.
Depending upon factors that are considered, five, or six of the ten (or nine of the twenty) wealthiest counties in the United States are located in the Washington, D.C. metro area. My own county of Loudoun is the wealthiest in the nation.
Think about this for a moment. How does such a thing happen?
It happens, in large measure, because big, centralized government does not primarily serve the people. Rather, it treats the people as livestock to be milked, enriching itself off the government franchise and with the tremendous benefit of its instrumentalities. The more centralized and expansive government becomes, the more pronounced this phenomenon.
The American founders were culturally and by citizenship British, and their philosophy of limited self-governance was carefully formed to contain many checks and balances designed to keep the power and authority in the hands of the governed. This is the meaning of self-governance. Elected officials are to be servants, not masters. They are not supposed to go into politics to become wealthy, they are supposed to go into politics to pay a debt to their fellow citizens and preserve the fabric of liberty for generations yet to come.
The relationship between London and the rest of the UK is in some important ways analogous to that between Washington, DC (and other elite urban centers on the coasts) to the rest of the United States. This extends beyond the mere fact of London being the seat of the national government, but the symptoms are not unconnected to this fact.
Why is it that entities such as the European Union, with their accompanying bureaucracies that are shielded by layers of separation from accountability to the governed, are the chosen vehicle for implementation of the policy preferences of the elites? The reason is that they are often policies that people don’t want or would not choose if they were placed on a ballot.
The uniform trajectory of the globalists is toward the (so-called) “social justice” agenda. This agenda is a subject for another time, but it rests upon many false assumptions that include a false definition of what is a “human right,” and also a false premise concerning what is “justice.” This view of the world presses toward socialist priorities on small and large scales. The contention is that the United States and the UK need to fall in line and be more like Europe. Socialism creates such wonderful outcomes, we are told.
The advocates of big, centralized government and of socialism, however, have either missed or willfully ignored the historical and present realities when it comes to the results of the long-term application of their preferred economic philosophies. Take a look at the following linked article and note two of its observations: 1) the richest area in all of Europe is London, while nine of the ten poorest areas (and zero of the other ten richest areas) in all of Europe are in the UK, and 2) the per capita GDP of most European countries would rank among the lowest one-third of states in the U.S.A., a nation that has traditionally protected private property, valued economic freedom, and rejected big government and socialism. Socialism is not good for people. This is why it typically has to be imposed or engineered (e.g. via propaganda or getting control of school curricula, etc.) by bureaucrats seeking their own personal enrichment.
Now, wealth is not the measure of all things, nor is it necessarily correlated with happiness or contentment. Some of the most joyful people in the world are extremely poor, and some of the most miserable people are extremely rich. However, a thief’s protestation to his victim that “many happy people are poor, so I am really doing you a favor,” misses the mark by a wide margin. Justice requires the protection of a person’s disposition of the fruit of their labors and other dealings.
Turning our attention now back to Brussels, the EU, and Brexit, it is instructive to see how the whole project has developed step-wise from its inception. The European Union was first sold (if you watched Nigel Farage’s historic final speech at the EU this week that was linked above) as a mere partnership for economic cooperation. This, however, was the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent, and the project grew into something tyrannical, something that by today has arrogated to itself large segments of the sovereignty that rightly belongs to its member states. Students of history saw this development coming from a long way off.
As Farage rightly noted in his speech, the battle over Brexit is part of a larger war, a war between globalism and what he calls populism, but what I prefer to call self-governance. The problem with the term “populism” is that it follows the trend of the day, and thus can encompass both good and bad things at different times or even concurrently. Capitalism can be popular today and socialism can be popular tomorrow, or vice versa.
The battle over Brexit, and the worldwide battle against globalism, however, is not one of mere passing popular sentiment. It is a battle for self-governance. In other words, it is a battle for justice and against tyranny.
I end my remarks here, with a hearty word of congratulations, and also of sincere thanks, to our dear friends across the water, whose circumstance today results from the brave choice to stand on the side of liberty and justice for all. As Americans, these principles resonate with us deeply and it makes us feel not quite as alone in the world when we see others fighting — and winning! — the same battles.
None of us know what tomorrow will bring. The future is in God’s hands. We do our best to love what is right and to do what is right, and when we do this, we begin to fulfill both of the greatest commandments.