Winston Churchill had come to personify the best of what the Brits have come to identify themselves with. Whether one likes Margaret Thatcher or not, she had some of the spine that Churchill had exemplified. I can't say the same from its leadership in recent decades.
With all that said, I have to say, the Britis have not been doing so well since maybe the 1980s. Brexit has become one of its latest that shows how far and how low Britain has fallen.
A little disclaimer is in order. I'm not necessarily for or against Brexit. I'm not a Brit afterall, and I don't vote in their elections or the referendum, so it's really its peoples who made their voices heard. The Brexit referendum ended in tight margin, but ultimately Brexiteers won the day and they decided to leave the EU union.
Much arguments have been made against Brexit, including how Britain cannot survive without close alignment with the much larger single EU markets on the continent, and that Britain is better off retaining an influential seat at the table when it comes to consequential decision-making in Brussels. There were descriptions of Amageddon and collapse of British economy and cautionary tales of messy chaos as a result of dropping out of Euro that supposedly would lead to mass exodus of financial institutions to quit UK and move their HQ to Europe.
A year and a half later, after the Brexit referendum was passed in March 2017, none of the Armageddon tales had come to pass.
So now, what's left to scare the Brits shitless, is the thorny issue of the border (or lack thereof) between Ireland (which chooses to remain with EU) and Northern Ireland (which will leave EU, as part of UK).
Anti-Brexit supporters are corporates (who want the flexibility to move capital and labor around with less regulations to worry about), younger crowds who are educated enough to take a job or travel anywhere. For all that I've heard and read, I don't hear much of what these crowds care much about UK, so long as they can continue to have their freedom to make money and convenience to move around. Anyone who stands in their way, will be labeled outdated, xenophobic, racist, and not fit for the 21st century.
What were the motivations of Brexit and who its supporters are? There are those who don't want Europeans to move to UK and be treated as the same (welfare, benefits, rights to work, among others). There are those who don't want to see the billions that Britain contribute to EU when the money can be reinvested locally. There are yet others who don't want to see decision-making on EU regulations happened in Brussels by some faceless and nameless "officials" that Britain has to abide by.
To be sure, what both sides describe are all too real. I have little doubts on numbers from economists that show Britain to have reaped more gains (tangible and intangible alike) by staying in EU. This has since become the rallying cry to shout down the Brexiteers as irrational, and xenophobic.
Britain has been on its march to closer alignment and integration with EU for more than 40 years now. Regulations and decision making have been changed so drastically in recent years. Why is it that things are only blowing up so many decades later? In a way, this is really just red-herring.
I see these to be main Brexit motivations:
- EU in the bygone era was more like integration of the equals in Western Europe. Although there are poorer cousins (hello, Greece), the economic gains from being able to use Euro (the single currency which, in truth, is largely underwritten by the powerful and growing economic engine in Germany and to some extent, Britain). Hence, there have not been much reports of abuses of the systems. There had not been mass exodus of poorer EU countries to the richer ones, as their economies had been benefactors of Euro. In short, they mostly stay put in their own home countries.
- With the expansion of EU to include much less developed (and much poorer) countries in Eastern Europe, that calculus no longer holds. Suddenly, citizens from newly integrated Eastern European countries are free to move to Western Europe, free to find jobs and even claim benefits. Better yet, it's all legal.
- With much less skills and the inherent language barriers, these transplants compete mostly with the low-/no-skilled workers in Western Europe, thus forcing wages to stay stagnant or go down. This is all while jobs are getting harder to come by since manufacturing sectors, among others, are migrating offshore for even lower-cost labor.
- Why Britain, specifically? Thanks to English being the universal language, and UK has one of the most dynamic economies in EU, it's only natural that these low-skilled labor will make UK as their destination.
(Although France is the second largest economy in EU, it's been in doldrums for years now. Much like Italy, France has been treading waters as far as memory serves. Macron can say all he wants, and with Angela Merkel on her way out, I can never quite see France being the leader of EU. In truth, I don't see the French, as a people, have the kind of spine and grit as the Brits in the Churchill era had.)
Could EU have done anything to avert this disaster from happening (given that the breakaway of UK from EU would set the precedent and blueprint on how a EU country can leave the union)? Perhaps not. EU would have to embrace Eastern Europe sooner or later (much as West Germany absorbing East Germany into a single country, thereby paying for the enormous costs for decades; then again, they were one and the same country before it was broken up, but not so, for the disparate EU member countries); otherwise, Russia would expand to re-absorb Eastern Europe back into its fold (thereby recreating a new USSR).
Could EU have done anything to avert this disaster from happening (given that the breakaway of UK from EU would set the precedent and blueprint on how a EU country can leave the union)? Perhaps not. EU would have to embrace Eastern Europe sooner or later (much as West Germany absorbing East Germany into a single country, thereby paying for the enormous costs for decades; then again, they were one and the same country before it was broken up, but not so, for the disparate EU member countries); otherwise, Russia would expand to re-absorb Eastern Europe back into its fold (thereby recreating a new USSR).
We know for a fact though, that these Eastern European countries have unique cultures and needs, and they don't necessarily play by the rules, if the rules don't fit into their own narratives. Case in point: They refuse to take in additional refugees or asylum seekers, albeit clear directives from Germany (Angela Merkel), in the refugee crisis. These countries are currently benefactors after joining EU. It's almost certain that when there comes a time that they are told to contribute to EU in other forms (eg. financially), they'll just say no again.
Could UK have done differently with its EU integration? Back in the days, Thatcher's views on this - and her subsequent anti-EU stance - was prescient. It's Groundhog Day when it comes to arguments against further integration, or to have a clean break from EU. It's as if nothing has changed much in the 40+ years since.
Ultimately the argument rests on this: Could UK survive on its own, having its own borders and control, negotiate its own trade agreements, decide on its own rules and regulations? Does sovereignty count for something - anything - in the face of economic benefits? Should a country just trade away its crown jewel because someone can pay a higher price for it? Are the Brits in this generation just a good-time charlie, or do they want to be master of their own universe?
Given the resiliency of its people, I'm quite certain that the Brits will survive Brexit and thrive. But that conclusion relies on the past history/behavior and how its past generations had survived wars and adversity with stride. I'm less certain on the current crop of Brits (much like their peers around the world) who prize leisure and comfort more than anything else. Indeed, it won't be business as usual after Brexit, and yes, there might be less business to be had, but is it really so bad when you can call your own shot? The churchills and thatchers, those with a spine, would have opted for Brexit, there can be no doubt. I'm thus quite peeved to see how Theresa May tries to do the same, and gets thrashed in the media, even though I'm not a fan of hers.
If a people cannot survive a day with a little belt-tightening, what chances does their country have in worse calamity? Have the Brits, as a people, become so weak in will and spine to stand up for themselves, for a change? I sure hope not, and I wish them well, anti-Brexiteers be damn.
If a people cannot survive a day with a little belt-tightening, what chances does their country have in worse calamity? Have the Brits, as a people, become so weak in will and spine to stand up for themselves, for a change? I sure hope not, and I wish them well, anti-Brexiteers be damn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are parallels, and comparisons, of Brexiteers with Trump supporters (for their affinity with nationalism). Much is said about their views being racist and xenophobic. To me, it's more economics than anything else.
I do believe that should the economic benefits of recovery since the Great Recession had been more evenly distributed, these lower strata of society would not have guarded their territory so jealously. Afterall, no one had any problems with immigrants (legal and illegal alike) during the go-go days of the 1990s under Bill Clinton. Why? Because the economy was good, and it wasn't hard to find a decent-paying job ("rising tide lifts all boats" was true to form back then), even for the low-/no-skilled labor. Those were the days before the full force of NAFTA (and the adverse social costs) was felt, manufacturing sectors had only just started migrating overseas (to China), and high-paying IT jobs had just started going offshore (to India). Thirty years on, all those events have come to its head, and we realize the manufacturing sector is no more, and even many well-paying jobs (like IT) are not coming back either.
The destructive path that we have seen since NAFTA, much like EU expansion for UK, is clear. And yet, politicians (Dems and GOP alike) and economists would have us believed that this is the ONLY path that we, as voters, can take. Voters are told there is no other way, that this path was taken, and we can't turn back. That's exactly the same song that EU leadership told the Brits. That's precisely what anti-Brexiteers told the public, that there is no other way, maybe because they were born under the EU flag and simply cannot imagine it any other way. And that breaking away from EU will be so painful, and cost of this divorce will be so high, that the Brits would back off. Honestly if the EU integration had been a marriage of convenience, this breakup and how EU strong-arm UK into submission certainly feel like spousal abuse.
The same argument to stay the course with NAFTA, among other trade agreements, had been propositioned, again and again, by GOP and Dems like (including Hillary Clinton). If the 2016 election was any guide, it shows that voters are finally waking up to the fact that they had been sold a bill of goods that is not what it's sold for. Not that Trump has any clue how to fix it or what other alternative path to change to, but at least it's a different path that we've been marching down for the past 30 years.
Is there any wonder why Trump won (even with his idiotic policy, total lack of moral and principles, and erratic behavior)? Is there any wonder why Brexit referendum passed?
This has little to do with xenophobia or racism, but rather, a repudiation of the ruling class (aka. the establishment from mainstream political parties) that they are either clueless, or that they do not have the interest of the mass in mind. In Europe, that "ruling class" takes the form of abstract bureaucracy in Brussels, whatever the hell that means to average UK voters. It's true that extreme right-wing parties and white supremacists have exploited such sentiments, but I'm certain that if main-stream parties have even acknowledged the public anger simmering beneath the surface sooner, these right-wing groups would not have been able to fester. It's only now, two years after her loss, that Hillary Clinton finally comes to terms with this. For her at least, it's too little, too late.
The same argument to stay the course with NAFTA, among other trade agreements, had been propositioned, again and again, by GOP and Dems like (including Hillary Clinton). If the 2016 election was any guide, it shows that voters are finally waking up to the fact that they had been sold a bill of goods that is not what it's sold for. Not that Trump has any clue how to fix it or what other alternative path to change to, but at least it's a different path that we've been marching down for the past 30 years.
Is there any wonder why Trump won (even with his idiotic policy, total lack of moral and principles, and erratic behavior)? Is there any wonder why Brexit referendum passed?
This has little to do with xenophobia or racism, but rather, a repudiation of the ruling class (aka. the establishment from mainstream political parties) that they are either clueless, or that they do not have the interest of the mass in mind. In Europe, that "ruling class" takes the form of abstract bureaucracy in Brussels, whatever the hell that means to average UK voters. It's true that extreme right-wing parties and white supremacists have exploited such sentiments, but I'm certain that if main-stream parties have even acknowledged the public anger simmering beneath the surface sooner, these right-wing groups would not have been able to fester. It's only now, two years after her loss, that Hillary Clinton finally comes to terms with this. For her at least, it's too little, too late.
Perhaps some would say this is social regression, with a clueless mass deciding to march down the cliff, all in the name of democracy. At the same time, there is no longer any wise men dispensing words of wisdom. It's true, an illiterate and ill-informed mass can kill democracy. Into this void, Russia steps in with its fake news campaign in western world.
Since the end of WWII, the coming down of Berlin Wall and the breakup of USSR, western-styled democracy and free-for-all capitalism have become the last man standing, as the only pillar of validated ideology, the forms of political system that everyone aspires to. The mass disillusionment of western voters has given rise to autocracy (hello, China), granting legitimacy to its form of government. Afterall, what is the main use of a government but to serve its people. If the Chinese government is able - and willing - to continuously improve the well-being and livelihood of its people, hundreds of millions of them, in return for their forfeiting some basic human rights, is that a fair enough deal? Judged from how many Chinese are singing praises of how well their country is doing economically, even in the face of Xi's attempt to be leader-for-life (akin to emperor), it's safe to say that many people are willing to make that faustian deal. Looking at it another way, the 1.3+ billion of people in China (well, most of them anyways) now prefer to have Xi as the wise man to lead them. They don't mind an emperor who would take care of them. They are, afterall, willing to be just ants, as the Chinese idiom so aptly describes the mass.
That said, I rather doubt the Chinese economy can continue its current pace of economic development forever, mostly funded by debt and leverage. (It's already been slowing down substantially since its heady days just a decade ago.) When one day, its mass can no longer equate its form of government with a decent economy, they'll revolt as well.
Bottomline is, if a government does not take care of its people, sooner or later, the people will wake up to that fact. Whether it's democracy, or autocracy, or some other form of government and ideology, the result will end up the same. Let's see if this day of reckoning will come first, or if some climate change calamity renders all of us irrelevant in the end.
Since the end of WWII, the coming down of Berlin Wall and the breakup of USSR, western-styled democracy and free-for-all capitalism have become the last man standing, as the only pillar of validated ideology, the forms of political system that everyone aspires to. The mass disillusionment of western voters has given rise to autocracy (hello, China), granting legitimacy to its form of government. Afterall, what is the main use of a government but to serve its people. If the Chinese government is able - and willing - to continuously improve the well-being and livelihood of its people, hundreds of millions of them, in return for their forfeiting some basic human rights, is that a fair enough deal? Judged from how many Chinese are singing praises of how well their country is doing economically, even in the face of Xi's attempt to be leader-for-life (akin to emperor), it's safe to say that many people are willing to make that faustian deal. Looking at it another way, the 1.3+ billion of people in China (well, most of them anyways) now prefer to have Xi as the wise man to lead them. They don't mind an emperor who would take care of them. They are, afterall, willing to be just ants, as the Chinese idiom so aptly describes the mass.
That said, I rather doubt the Chinese economy can continue its current pace of economic development forever, mostly funded by debt and leverage. (It's already been slowing down substantially since its heady days just a decade ago.) When one day, its mass can no longer equate its form of government with a decent economy, they'll revolt as well.
Bottomline is, if a government does not take care of its people, sooner or later, the people will wake up to that fact. Whether it's democracy, or autocracy, or some other form of government and ideology, the result will end up the same. Let's see if this day of reckoning will come first, or if some climate change calamity renders all of us irrelevant in the end.
