| 
Britain was deeply divided, and the elites were oblivious       to that division. The critical question was: Did they have any interest       in the reality facing most Britons? 
 
Well-credentialed, well-spoken opponents of Brexit were       certain that those who voted to leave the EU were uneducated and       incapable of understanding the consequences of their vote. Brexit       opponents attempted to delegitimize the referendum’s outcome by       effectively delegitimizing the democratic process: They argued that just       over half of the British public was not qualified to have an opinion –       effectively saying that 52 percent of Britain’s voters should have left       such serious matters to their betters. 
 
The divide that has emerged in the post-Brexit world       threatens to reopen centuries-old uncertainties within the British Isles.       The European Union itself was not the source of this divide, but its       policies helped drive a deeper wedge. 
  
The Disparity of Free Trade 
Free trade is the main problem underpinning Brexit. EU       supporters in the United Kingdom prospered under British membership in       the bloc. But free trade did not benefit all Britons, and in denigrating       Brexit voters, the EU stalwarts failed to acknowledge this. Brexit’s core       supporters were in the industrial areas of the United Kingdom, where people       had lost jobs as British companies moved their factories to other       countries or as Britain could no longer compete in certain industries. 
 
Free trade posed two vital questions in Britain. First,       how long does it take to see the benefits of free trade? In the long run,       it might have advantages for all nations. But if you’re 50 years old and       have lost your job, you may not live long enough to reap the rewards. As       John Maynard Keynes put it, “In the long run we are all dead.” 
 
Second, who reaps the benefits of free trade? Although a       country’s gross domestic product may rise, the benefits are not evenly       distributed. Significant segments of society don’t share in the       prosperity and may even suffer deeply while others profit. This appears       to have been the reality behind the Brexit vote: Many gained from free       trade, and many lost ground. 
 
The latter lost not only economic ground. They also lost       the political ability to change the course of events. EU membership       created a rigidity in the political system; many rules imposed from       Brussels could not be turned down by  Westminster. Hence, Britain       lost a great deal of sovereignty. For those prospering under the EU, this       was a small price to pay. For those who saw no benefit, the loss of       political power rendered them helpless. 
  
Britain’s Divide 
This story has been told and told again. The contempt of       upper classes for the lower classes was epidemic in Britain until around       World War I; thereafter it gave way to a recognition of common       citizenship. But the current telling of the story leads to a more       important reality. However Brexit shakes out, Britain will remain divided       and politically unstable. The bitterness of “remain” voters is striking.       To them, this was not merely a policy debate but a question of who ruled       Britain. If the withdrawal from the EU hurts their interests, their anger       will become a fixed characteristic of the upper classes. 
 
If, on the other hand, Parliament votes to annul the       Brexit vote or calls another referendum, a different but substantial part       of the British population will become embittered. Either move would       signal that the purpose of the first referendum was to affirm the elites’       position on the EU, and that they will keep trying until they win. Pro-EU       advocates are certain they would win a second referendum, but nothing can       be certain when it comes to matters of public opinion. 
 
Brexit, therefore, is institutionalizing a vast social       divide, resurrecting the elites’ contempt for the poor and the poor’s       hatred of the rich. Even if another referendum saw one side win by a 70       percent to 30 percent margin, nearly a third of the population would       still be profoundly opposed to the outcome. That’s a large slice of the       population to leave steeped in anger and alienation. 
 
The British political system is in chaos. The       Conservatives historically spoke for one segment of society, Labour for       another. It’s no longer clear who is speaking for whom or whether their       voices even matter. 
  
Beyond Brexit 
Brexit, therefore, has redefined Britain’s internal       dynamic at a time when the question of the British Isles is reopening. In       Scotland, an extraordinary 45 percent of the population voted to leave       the United Kingdom in the 2014 independence referendum. That issue, like       Brexit, is not closed. More important, the ever-dangerous Irish question       has resurfaced. That question had been settled for a century, but Brexit       has posed threats to a tenuous peace. Although the border region has not       resorted to violence (save for a couple concerning incidents),       historically the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic       of Ireland, and both their relationships to Britain, has been explosive. 
 
So, as Britain passes through its most intense social       crisis in generations, the cohesion of the British Isles is once again in       question. It is not inconceivable that the Union Jack could become       obsolete, and that Britain’s geography could contract to a size not seen       for centuries. And if that happens, the dynamics of the Continent will       change. 
 
These are extreme and unlikely evolutions, but five years       ago the kind of class contempt and hatred that has emerged in post-Brexit       Britain would have been unthinkable. Perhaps the most important point is       that the EU issue was the trigger. As the reality of a swelling class       divide emerged in Britain, the EU made managing the situation much more       difficult. 
 
This situation is not unique to Britain. Class tension and       political incoherence have become commonplace on the Continent and in the       United States, as well as in Russia, where only 33 percent of people say they trust their       president. In some ways, I am reminded of the interwar period       of the 1920s and 1930s, when class tensions were profound. But even then,       political parties in most countries were stable and predictable. The       extension of the uncertainty to the political party system makes       Britain’s current situation all the more unsettling. | 
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario