The brexit saga has now been going on for so long that, despite
the daily twists and turns, it is starting to feel as though nothing
ever changes. As one expert recently quipped, in the year 2192
the British prime minister might still make annual visits to Brussels
“to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers
where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many
tourists from all over the world.”
And yet something consequential actually did happen on Tuesday:
For the first time since the country opted to leave the European
Union in the summer of 2016, a withdrawal agreement won a
majority in the House of Commons. This is all the more remarkable
because the deal proposed by Boris Johnson is very similar to the
one Theresa May put forward earlier this year, only to see it go
down in ignoble defeat at the hands of some of the same members
of Parliament who now gave it their blessing.
The next weeks still hold a lot of uncertainty; from new elections to
a no-deal Brexit, all options theoretically remain on the table.
Nevertheless, it now looks likely that Johnson will take Britain
out of both the EU and the single market that stands at its core.
a no-deal Brexit, all options theoretically remain on the table.
Nevertheless, it now looks likely that Johnson will take Britain
out of both the EU and the single market that stands at its core.
How did he manage to do this after so many years treading water?
The brexit saga has now been going on for so long that, despite
the daily twists and turns, it is starting to feel as though nothing ever
changes. As one expert recently quipped, in the year 2192 the
British prime minister might still make annual visits to Brussels “to
ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers
where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many
tourists from all over the world.”
The brexit saga has now been going on for so long that, despite
the daily twists and turns, it is starting to feel as though nothing ever
changes. As one expert recently quipped, in the year 2192 the
British prime minister might still make annual visits to Brussels “to
ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers
where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many
tourists from all over the world.”
Pundits and politicians alike have mostly framed Brexit as a
matter of public policy. During the decades of Britain’s membership
in the European club, its political and economic system became
closely intertwined with that of the Continent. And while the outcome
of the 2016 referendum created a mandate for the country to leave
the EU, it left a raft of important questions unanswered about the
future nature of the country’s relationship with the Continent: On
what terms would the United Kingdom trade with the rest of Europe?
What rights would EU citizens in the U.K. enjoy? And what should
happen to Northern Ireland?
matter of public policy. During the decades of Britain’s membership
in the European club, its political and economic system became
closely intertwined with that of the Continent. And while the outcome
of the 2016 referendum created a mandate for the country to leave
the EU, it left a raft of important questions unanswered about the
future nature of the country’s relationship with the Continent: On
what terms would the United Kingdom trade with the rest of Europe?
What rights would EU citizens in the U.K. enjoy? And what should
happen to Northern Ireland?
For three agonizing years, May tried to find plausible answers to
these questions. But though she did make some progress in squaring
the circle, she failed to give either side of the debate a real reason
to support her. Those who wanted to preserve a close relationship
between Britain and the EU felt that May was harming the country’s economic future by proposing to leave the single market. Those who
wanted to make a clean break with Europe felt that Britain would
remain overly beholden to rules made in Brussels. Both had reason
to fear that May’s deal left the country less influential than it was as
a member of the EU, without giving it the freedom to chart its own
path that might come with a more radical break.
these questions. But though she did make some progress in squaring
the circle, she failed to give either side of the debate a real reason
to support her. Those who wanted to preserve a close relationship
between Britain and the EU felt that May was harming the country’s economic future by proposing to leave the single market. Those who
wanted to make a clean break with Europe felt that Britain would
remain overly beholden to rules made in Brussels. Both had reason
to fear that May’s deal left the country less influential than it was as
a member of the EU, without giving it the freedom to chart its own
path that might come with a more radical break.
The deal for which Johnson has now won a majority shares those shortcomings. It provides more details about how Northern Ireland
might continue to enjoy frictionless trade with the Republic of Ireland
without being cut off from the rest of the U.K. But it, too, raises the
prospect that Britain will, in the future, either have to follow Brussels’s
lead on key regulations or suffer from tariffs that would inflict serious damage to its economy. Seen from a public-policy perspective, it is
therefore utterly baffling why a decisive number of MPs—most of
them so-called hard Brexiteers—voted for it. The only plausible
explanation is that Brexit was never really about public policy in the
first place.
might continue to enjoy frictionless trade with the Republic of Ireland
without being cut off from the rest of the U.K. But it, too, raises the
prospect that Britain will, in the future, either have to follow Brussels’s
lead on key regulations or suffer from tariffs that would inflict serious damage to its economy. Seen from a public-policy perspective, it is
therefore utterly baffling why a decisive number of MPs—most of
them so-called hard Brexiteers—voted for it. The only plausible
explanation is that Brexit was never really about public policy in the
first place.
Britain’s fight about Brexit is best understood as a civil war over
the country’s culture.
the country’s culture.
Remainers believe that important parts of contemporary Britain
are in need of serious reform. But they also tend to be in tune
with the beliefs of the country’s cultural elite, and to think that
its core institutions are worth preserving. By and large, they
trust the BBC, think highly of the country’s universities, and
believe that Britain’s place in the world—as a medium-size
power exerting its influence through multilateral institutions
such as NATO and the United Nations—is appropriate.
are in need of serious reform. But they also tend to be in tune
with the beliefs of the country’s cultural elite, and to think that
its core institutions are worth preserving. By and large, they
trust the BBC, think highly of the country’s universities, and
believe that Britain’s place in the world—as a medium-size
power exerting its influence through multilateral institutions
such as NATO and the United Nations—is appropriate.
Leavers, by contrast, feel that these institutions have come to be
dominated by a left-liberal cultural establishment that looks down
on them and sells the country short. They accuse the BBC of having
a left-wing bias. They believe that universities serve to indoctrinate
their children. And though they are confident that their country could
manage on its own, they have grown convinced that most politicians
are too timid to help it regain its past grandeur.
dominated by a left-liberal cultural establishment that looks down
on them and sells the country short. They accuse the BBC of having
a left-wing bias. They believe that universities serve to indoctrinate
their children. And though they are confident that their country could
manage on its own, they have grown convinced that most politicians
are too timid to help it regain its past grandeur.
This explains why Brexiteers never trusted May. For May, who
voted for Remain, Brexit was always a technical challenge of
public policy that the cruel gods of politics had inexplicably
forced her to solve in return for her spot in the limelight. If only
she accomplished this devilishly difficult task, she believed,
she could go on to be a good old-fashioned prime minister.
voted for Remain, Brexit was always a technical challenge of
public policy that the cruel gods of politics had inexplicably
forced her to solve in return for her spot in the limelight. If only
she accomplished this devilishly difficult task, she believed,
she could go on to be a good old-fashioned prime minister.
Johnson, however, has always understood that Brexit is as much
a symbol as a cause. A lot of people voted for Brexit out of a
desire to show an establishment they had come to loath who
was really in charge; above and beyond negotiating an exit,
pleasing them would require the leader to prove that (s)he is
on the side of the angry people rather than on that of
technocratic elites.
a symbol as a cause. A lot of people voted for Brexit out of a
desire to show an establishment they had come to loath who
was really in charge; above and beyond negotiating an exit,
pleasing them would require the leader to prove that (s)he is
on the side of the angry people rather than on that of
technocratic elites.
Now, Johnson is very much a product of the British establishment
that has fallen out of favor. But like Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland
and Donald Trump in the United States, he has made a name for
himself in politics by assailing the pieties of left-liberal orthodoxy.
And while the deal he presented to Parliament was little more than
May’s hard-won package with copious lipstick smeared on top, the
rhetoric he has employed since taking office has been radically
different. By unabashedly leaning into populist language and loudly denouncing traditional institutions from Parliament to the Supreme
Court, he has shown that he sees Brexit as the beginning, rather
than the end, of Britain’s cultural revolution.
that has fallen out of favor. But like Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland
and Donald Trump in the United States, he has made a name for
himself in politics by assailing the pieties of left-liberal orthodoxy.
And while the deal he presented to Parliament was little more than
May’s hard-won package with copious lipstick smeared on top, the
rhetoric he has employed since taking office has been radically
different. By unabashedly leaning into populist language and loudly denouncing traditional institutions from Parliament to the Supreme
Court, he has shown that he sees Brexit as the beginning, rather
than the end, of Britain’s cultural revolution.
Johnson has remade himself—as well as the Conservatives, the
oldest political party in the world—in the image of populism.
oldest political party in the world—in the image of populism.
He depicts the country’s politics as being defined by a clash between
two basic forces: On the one hand is an out-of-touch elite that is so beholden to its left-liberal values that it would gladly override the will
of British voters. On the other hand are the pure people, who have
voted for Brexit in a heroic attempt to put a stop to the elite’s domina
-tion of the country. Johnson’s core promise is to help the pure people triumph over the corrupt elite.
two basic forces: On the one hand is an out-of-touch elite that is so beholden to its left-liberal values that it would gladly override the will
of British voters. On the other hand are the pure people, who have
voted for Brexit in a heroic attempt to put a stop to the elite’s domina
-tion of the country. Johnson’s core promise is to help the pure people triumph over the corrupt elite.
Ever since coming to office, Johnson has used this basic narrative to delegitimize any independent institution that clashes with him. Styling
the Conservatives as the “party of the people,” he has attacked the legitimacy of the courts, the media, and even Parliament itself. As he
said to loud laughs and a rousing round of applause at the Conserva
-tive Party Conference, “Voters have more say over [the British reality-television show] I’m a Celebrity than they do over this House of
Commons.”
the Conservatives as the “party of the people,” he has attacked the legitimacy of the courts, the media, and even Parliament itself. As he
said to loud laughs and a rousing round of applause at the Conserva
-tive Party Conference, “Voters have more say over [the British reality-television show] I’m a Celebrity than they do over this House of
Commons.”
It is this populist side that has allowed Johnson to keep the loyalty of
hard Brexiteers even as he has made more or less the same
concessions that led them to denounce May as a traitor. What they
want more than anything else is for Brexit to be a tool with which
they can smash the existing establishment; by dressing up his
relatively conciliatory stance toward Europe in the clothes of cultural revolution, Johnson has been able to assure them that the project of lambasting the elite will live on after they have signed off on his deal.
hard Brexiteers even as he has made more or less the same
concessions that led them to denounce May as a traitor. What they
want more than anything else is for Brexit to be a tool with which
they can smash the existing establishment; by dressing up his
relatively conciliatory stance toward Europe in the clothes of cultural revolution, Johnson has been able to assure them that the project of lambasting the elite will live on after they have signed off on his deal.
Once Brexit ceases to be the all-consuming topic of British politics,
Johnson is likely to take the same approach to different policy areas:
In tone, he will remain a strident populist. In substance, he is likely
to pursue comparatively moderate policies.
Johnson is likely to take the same approach to different policy areas:
In tone, he will remain a strident populist. In substance, he is likely
to pursue comparatively moderate policies.
A few key decisions he has made already point in that direction.
After years of restrained government spending, he has
substantially increased investment in a broad range of areas,
from policing to education. And though he has at times used
derogatory language about minority communities, he is taking
steps to welcome more high-skilled immigrants to Britain:
Reversing a rule set by his predecessor, for example, he is
granting two-year work visas to students who complete an
undergraduate degree in the country.
After years of restrained government spending, he has
substantially increased investment in a broad range of areas,
from policing to education. And though he has at times used
derogatory language about minority communities, he is taking
steps to welcome more high-skilled immigrants to Britain:
Reversing a rule set by his predecessor, for example, he is
granting two-year work visas to students who complete an
undergraduate degree in the country.
In a fragmented political system—and at a time when the Labour
Party is headed by the most unpopular opposition leader in living
memory—this recipe may just give Johnson a dominating position
for the next decade. His populist style is allowing him to squeeze
out the Brexit Party, consolidating support for himself on the right
of British politics; his comparatively moderate policies, as well as
his history as a popular mayor in highly diverse London, ensure
that he does not inspire the same fear and mistrust among ethnic
or religious minorities as far-right populists such as Trump often do.
Party is headed by the most unpopular opposition leader in living
memory—this recipe may just give Johnson a dominating position
for the next decade. His populist style is allowing him to squeeze
out the Brexit Party, consolidating support for himself on the right
of British politics; his comparatively moderate policies, as well as
his history as a popular mayor in highly diverse London, ensure
that he does not inspire the same fear and mistrust among ethnic
or religious minorities as far-right populists such as Trump often do.
Johnson may just be able to retain the support of the populist right
while making real inroads with the country’s diverse middle class.
If he plays his cards right, he will dominate British politics for much
longer than pundits expect—and inspire imitators well beyond the
shores of Brexit Britain.
while making real inroads with the country’s diverse middle class.
If he plays his cards right, he will dominate British politics for much
longer than pundits expect—and inspire imitators well beyond the
shores of Brexit Britain.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter
to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
YASCHA MOUNK is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, an associate
professor at Johns Hopkins University, a senior fellow at the German
Marshall Fund, and a senior adviser at Protect Democracy. He is the
author of The People vs. Democracy.
professor at Johns Hopkins University, a senior fellow at the German
Marshall Fund, and a senior adviser at Protect Democracy. He is the
author of The People vs. Democracy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-brexit-means-europe/600583/
