As the European Union and its members prepare for Brexit, it seems
timely to reflect on who nudged the voters in the United Kingdom to vote
by a slim majority in favor of exiting from the EU – and especially why
they did so.
It has always been known that Rupert Murdoch has very strong negative
views on Britain’s EU membership and has consistently used his media
power to influence public opinion.
We now know that the campaign had other deep-pocketed backers, too. The
American billionaire Robert Mercer, a close friend of Nigel Farage,
provided ample funds for the Brexit campaign.
With the help of “Cambridge Analytica,” Mercer had been instrumental in
providing Donald Trump (who wished to see Nigel Farage as Britain’s
Ambassador to Washington) with tools to fine-tune his campaign that go
well beyond traditional campaigning.
What is driving certain hedge fund, media and real estate tycoons — who
all see themselves as masters of the universe — to support Brexit is
pretty straightforward. They want to secure their very personal vision
of unvarnished capitalism.
No big surprise then that we have witnessed the Trump administration
boycotting a G-20 declaration on multilateral trade and stalling – if
not marching back — on climate change. Trump has announced that there is
more of the same to come.
It seems to me as if, so far at least, we have not even focused on the right lens or playing field.
Too many questions have been focused on the incongruities of the
campaign inside the UK, such as why David Cameron’s government did not
provide accurate and comprehensive information before the referendum.
The much more relevant set of questions concerns the wider lens of
continental Europe, rather than just the group of islands off its
shores:
Could it be that the whole Brexit issue was deliberately
orchestrated not so much with regard to Britain, but in order to weaken
Europe in the global arena?
If this is even remotely true, the British people should be seen as
being mere pawns (or, as Russian revolutionaries might have said, useful
idiots) in a power game that is way beyond their control.
Crass distortions by the Brexiteers, such as lying about certain facts
(like the 350 million pounds sent to Brussels every week) would then
represent the mere tip of a very much larger iceberg.
The attitude adopted by the May government — deriding the citizens of
other countries, brushing aside Scottish and Irish sentiments,
alienating Commonwealth countries, and attempting to dictate the
timetable to the European Union – can easily be interpreted as
supportive evidence.
If we look at the remaining 27 EU members post-Brexit, we can see that
in the future the protectionist members of the EU will have a blocking
minority.
Under the complicated EU voting regulations in the Council, the staunch
advocates of free trade will no longer be able to override protectionist
vetoing from France and Southern European member states.
There is as of yet no compelling evidence that Europe has become the
victim of an orchestrated campaign that aims at destroying it.
But it is reasonable to assume there are vested political and economic
interests around the world that would rather see Europe weakened than
strengthened.
Certainly, this would explain a few things. U.S. conservatives and the
billionaries that support them have long been irked by the existence of a
Western “side” power.
They see the EU and the – in comparison to the United States often
enlightened, if not progressive – interests it stands for as a real
thorn in the side of the imperial nation.
It stands to reason that, with the help of the often clandestinely
placed instruments at their disposal, they deliberately set forces in
motion whose goal it is to strike a fatal blow against Europe. These
forces may well have identified Brexit as an intelligent and feasible
way to achieve their goal.
By stoking up existing popular sentiment, they have succeeded in nudging
the British people towards actually voting for this option, while
pressuring or even blackmailing the government into acting as they wish
them to.
However, given the attitude adopted by the governments of all 27
remaining countries and, probably even more importantly, the steadily
growing pro-European popular spirit with new civil society action groups
starting up every week, this scenario now seems increasingly unlikely.
Messrs. Putin and Trump, with help from Mr. Erdogan and others, and
indeed Brexit itself, seem to have brought Europeans closer to one
another than they have been for a long time.
Determination to make it a success has grown rather than waned. The
Dutch have been the first to show that anti-European feelings will not
necessarily help win an election in a European member state. Chances
that Marine Le Pen will be the next President of France are slimmer now
than even a few months ago.
So, possibly, what we are seeing at the moment is a backlash. Of course,
dissatisfaction with the European Union has not just gone away,
although the Commission seems to be on its best behavior by cutting down
on the number of rules and regulations it had got accustomed to issue.
Of course, we still need to tackle fundamental reforms. And of course, people with very different ideas are still around.
But it looks as if a growing number of citizens know very well what the
real issues are and have woken up to the fact they have to do something
about it.
If any of this is true and proves to be sustainable, the United Kingdom
will end up a loser. Not only might the UK split up as such and might
the government be landed with more problems on their hands than they can
manage (with a price to be paid by the Tories in future elections).
England in the end could find herself in a position exactly opposite to
the one the Brexiteers said she would, and will not be better off for
it.
It may well be that some of the Brexiteers really do hope they can take
England into a glorious future of its very own in a global world, once
the ties with Europe have been severed. But judging from the reactions
to Brexit from all potential allies anywhere around the globe, this does
not seem at all likely.
Foreseeably, not one of the global players who used the British people
for their very own ends, will want to come to their rescue.
At the end of the day, England, by her insistence on being on her own,
might be exactly that, struggling to live up to the responsibilities
that come with a permament seat on the UN Security Council, a nuclear
power (albeit minor), and sovereignty over a very mixed bunch of
fourteen little territories, ranging from bits of Cyprus to the Falkland
Islands, all costly remainders of what was once the British Empire.
World history will move on, but Great Britain, once the largest global
empire ever assembled, will have reduced itself to an historical
footnote, instead of extending its potentially considerable leverage
through a Europe that has managed to reinvent itself.
Can the UK still come to its senses?
Can Britain still avert this fate? I believe it can. Over the next two
years, the government can still revise its policy and withdraw its
application to leave.
Or parliament can choose a new government. Or indeed the people can, by
voting in a new parliament. It is just possible that one of these
options might still be feasible. Let us hope somebody will draw one of
them. Britain would certainly be greater for it.
Special Report:: Brexit’s Real Purpose: Killing the EU?
