This is Democracy – Episode 70: Brexit: What is the Future of Democracy in Great Britain?

FEMALE 1: This…

MALE 1: …is democracy.

FEMALE 1: A podcast that explores the interracial, intergenerational, and intersectional unheard voices living in the world’s…

MALE 1: …most influential democracy.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy. This week, we’re talking about Brexit, the set of ongoing debates, seemingly never-ending debates in Great Britain over the last few years over whether Britain will, and how it will detach itself from a number of commitments it’s made to the European Union and in a larger sense, the future of Britain’s relationship with Europe. A set of relationships that go back a long way that had been fraught with controversy for many, many centuries as we’ll discuss today.

We have with us one of the foremost experts on the history of the British Empire, British society, and the relevance of that history for today, my friend, Professor Dane Kennedy from George Washington University. Dane is a leading expert, as I said, and the author of many books. Two of my favorite are his recent books, The Imperial History Wars: Debating the British Empire from 2018. Reading that book reminded me of many graduate school debates that we used to have about different historiography. A wonderful book, really wonderful book he wrote that I’ve used actually for many students called Decolonization: A Very Short Introduction. In addition to being a professor, Dane is also the director of the National History Center in Washington, DC. Dane, thanks for joining us.

Dane Kennedy: Pleasure to be here.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Before we turn to our discussion with Dane, we have, of course, Zachary series scene-setting poem. What’s the title of your poem this week, Zachary?

Zachary Suri: England 2019.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Well, let’s hear about England 2019.

Zachary Suri: England, home of the language with infinite declensions, trying to decline a future for the fields that are layered in antiquity and empire. The roads where TE Lawrence slammed his head into the country asphalt. Dickens, London, Byron’s Heaven and Hell, Christie’s Scotland Yard, McCartney, and Liverpool finding a liar, England, worldly cities, great empires, gargantuan legacies, and roads to Wigan Pier. If a man made a steam engine, a mathematical field, a religious sect, it happened here. But England is an enigma cracker of the Enigma Bricklayers land of King Lear. An empire is a strange thing to mention in a London field, a child of a world engrossed and rightfully so in dismantling imperialism tow by tow, woe by woe. It is 2019, a century since the First World War. Brexit rubbing off one’s lips from fish and chips, island of rich and ships forced to become Belgium. Watching the kid in Hyde Park kick the ball endlessly into the lake and climbing backwards through the Diana Fountain you can smell it in the air. The uncertainty, the way that is the ruler of untrue Western greatness, held afloat by the dreams of the Lebanese and Indian children in the park. How empire reversed the justice of it all, the bluntness, smelling it in the rain along a scaffolded Big Ben, staring down the Thames towards Europe and the English Channel. The bridge and the fog alone, but surrounded by clouds staring off into the distance, whole languages and people’s walking by. It feel strangely isolating not like the fictional benevolent lores and the Yorkshire Moors, but the way Westminster and the former concentrated power of the world looms over as I stare out towards Rotterdam.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: That’s wonderful imagery there, Zachary. What is your poem about?

Zachary Suri: My poem is really about what a strange moment this is for Britain, but really for England as it contemplates a new world where it’s no longer an empire or really as much of a world power and how it’s going to reconcile itself with Europe and the rest of the world.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Well, that seems like a perfect place to turn to Dane. As you’ve written about so well, Dane, Britain’s been in decline for a long time. Its Empire has been receding for decades and centuries, really. Why is that such a big issue for the British today?

Dane Kennedy: First of all, I think it’s important to be cautious when we use the word decline. In terms of the quality of life for the average British citizen, it actually has improved since the loss of Empire, and that’s something that we often lose sight of when we talk about the great states and their influence and their shape in the world. So I just wanted to offer that qualifier there before we get started. But certainly, there’s no question that there is a sense among many Britain that the greatness that Britain exhibited in its past, and that past can be identified in various ways by various figures, that that greatness has been diminished in that diminishment is in many respects connected to the fact that it has tied it’s fate, it’s future to the EU, to the European Union. At least that’s the view of many of those who we now call Brexiters who have won the war, I think, in terms of Britain’s future.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Why have they won the war? Because the Britain many Americans interact with is the Britain of London, which is so cosmopolitan and so connected to the world, right?

Dane Kennedy: Right. Yeah. This is one of the instances where various people have noted the parallels between the politics in the UK and the politics here in the United States, and I think you see that in terms of the growing disparities between the experiences of those in the US experience in the cosmopolitan coastal areas and in the center of the country. In the case of the United Kingdom, there is London, which is this extraordinary city that seems to suck up all of the energy, and wealth, and power of the United Kingdom, and then there are its mid-lands, the Northern territories, and of course, also the fact that there is ethnic distinctions that are also political distinction that also mark the tensions that operate here. Why did the leave referendum succeed is your question, I suppose?

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right. Why did it succeed and what should we expect from the consequence.

Dane Kennedy: Well, two different questions. First of all, why did it succeed? Well, it succeeded by a vote of 52 percent in favor to 48 percent against, so another point to keep is just how narrow a victory this was. But it succeeded for a variety of reasons. As in the election, people vote for or against something for a range of motivations. In this case, certainly one of them was the growing resentment to the increase of Eastern European immigrants and in Britain who had gained access to the country because it is a member of the European Union. So Poles and Bulgarians and various others who had begun to make their appearance in small towns and cities and for many people, this was a disorienting and alienating process. There was also a general objection to the European Union bureaucracy, which was seen by many people as a threat to British sovereignty and that ties in, in particular, I think, to one of the ways in which this vote pointed to start regional differences. I think that that resentment, that threat, it was seen to British sovereignty was particularly evident in England itself. Not in London, obviously, but in much of the rest of England where there was a growing, has been for a decade or more, growing sense of English nationalism traveled through England these days and it’s striking how often you’ll see the flag of St. George, which is a symbol of England, not of the United Kingdom, not the Union Jack. For many Englishmen, the argument made by Nigel Farage and others that Brexit could be Independence Day for England from the European Union was an attractive and appealing argument, and there were others. Certainly, the decay of the industrial heartland of Britain and a feeling among many of the people who had been left behind that the global elites were doing very well. In this new globalized economy, they had been left behind. There were false promises made that if Britain left the EU, they would get more money for the National Health Service, and there were a range of motives that operated in shaping the decisions of voters.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: But one thing that’s difficult for me to understand, at least Dane, is certainly the anti-immigrant sentiment, their resentment toward cosmopolitan elites who are doing so well. That makes sense, that resonates with the United States. But on the other hand, without these international connections, England as Zachary pointed out in his poem, becomes a very small country. How can proud English nationalists want that to happen?

Dane Kennedy: Well, that’s the paradox. Part of this was the argument made by many of those favoring Brexit that this wasn’t going to isolate Britain, that it wasn’t going to make it a small country in the world. I should say, by the way, and this is the counter argument the finance minister from Denmark noted after the Brexit vote. He said that there are two kinds of European nations. There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nation. A pretty pointed jab, yeah. But I think that that gets to the issue in some ways that many Britons, especially Englishmen felt that they are not a small nation, but that they had been diminished actually by membership in the European Union. That diminishment lay in terms of the growing economic and political influence of Germany which of course, they have fought two great wars again in which they still saw as, in some sense, an enemy. There was this sense that if they left the EU, Britain could return, in some way to the kind of greatness that it had had before it had joined the European Union, which is the issue that of course, especially intrigues me is that as a historian of Empire because even though it wasn’t an argument that was front and center in the Brexit campaign itself, it has, in its aftermath in the last three years, become much more evident in the arguments and debates that have been applied by those who favor leaving the European Union.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Sure. Zachary, you have a question?

Zachary Suri: Yeah. Historically, how has Britain and England specifically view itself in relation to Europe? I mean, being an island must really changed the geopolitical nature of it all.

Dane Kennedy: It does indeed. It’s a great question. Actually, I wanted to add, I like the distinction that you drew in your poem or the qualifications that you made between Britain and England.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Yes.

Dane Kennedy: I think it’s always important to keep that distinction in mind. That’s part of our story too which I’m sure we’ll get to the role of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the like. But the British have always had an ambivalent relationship toward the continent of Europe. It does lie in the fact that it is an island. For example, if we just simply consider Britain’s defense needs and posture until the rise of air power in the 20th century, the Navy was critical to British independence and power. It had no need for a large standing army which stood in stark contrast to the continental powers.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: The British prided themselves in the fact that they didn’t have a large army and that they didn’t have a draft. In fact, didn’t institute a draft until midway through the first World War. There is that, there’s also, it plays itself out in all peculiar ways. I remember when the decision was made to build the channel that would link Britain to the continent, the rail line underneath the English Channel, that there were opponents of that in Britain who made the argument, for example, that if we open up an underwater land bridge, that that would open the door for rabies to enter Britain. The British don’t have rabies, but they have it on the continent.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Oh my gosh.

Dane Kennedy: There’s a lot of anxiety. It has been reinforced by the many wars that Britain has fought against. First, against France in the 18th and early 19th century, then of course, against Germany in two major wars from 20th century. There are a lot of reasons why the British look askance at the continent and feel themselves not fully European.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Of course, as both you and Zachary pointed out, even within the British Isles, there’s in a sense, an internal empire including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. One of the curious elements of Brexit is that it calls into question the permanence of that relationship, right?

Dane Kennedy: It certainly does. It actually advances trends that have been in play, frankly, since the Empire came to an end. It’s striking that if you trace the origins of Scottish nationalism and Welsh nationalism, Scottish and Welsh national parties originated in the 1960s which is when the colonization reaches its culminating point in many ways. That was followed in the late 1990s by devolution that created separate Scottish and Welsh parliaments. A year later, we had the Good Friday Agreement that restored self rule to Northern Ireland. By the 21st century, by the 2000s, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland had all established themselves as quasi autonomous political entities, and had by the same token, created, I’d say, especially the Scotts, a much stronger sense of a distinct Scottish national identity. That, of course, led in 2014 to the Scottish independence referendum which failed but it came close. It’s in that context too that I think you have to understand the growth of English nationalism. In England, there hasn’t been an argument for a separate English Parliament, but I think one can see that this English nationalism is projecting some of those same views and concerns on to Europe in its argument for sovereignty. The argument for sovereignty is in fact the one that the Scotts and the others have made. This is a process that’s been long in the making and it is arisen in part because with the end of Empire, a sense of a common British identity simply didn’t carry as much weight and power as it had at a point when Britain ruled much of the world. Now, with Brexit, those tendencies are growing even stronger because I think at this point, we can say, when Britain leaves the EU, that the likelihood of the Scotts demanding another referendum at this time, that referendum succeeding are considerably heightened, and Northern Ireland has become an increasingly problematic issue as well. There are arguments made by Catholics in Northern Ireland and then Ireland itself that the Ireland should be joined back together.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Of course, in the Scottish case, just to play this out, the scenario would be one where the Scotts vote for independence and then become part of the EU as England is not part of the EU.

Dane Kennedy: That’s exactly right, yeah. Now, the question is whether in fact a government led by Boris Johnson will in fact allow the Scotts to hold another referendum. I mean, it’s not a given that that will be permitted, as I understand it. That could create its own conflicts and tensions.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Absolutely.

Dane Kennedy: But there’s just no question that Brexit has increased these dividing tendencies within what had been known as Great Britain.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Great. Zachary, you have another question?

Zachary Suri: Yes. Increasingly, England and Britain have seen themselves becoming increasingly dependent on the very immigrants and other outsiders that, in many ways, had been vilified by the campaigns for Brexit. How does England and specifically, English nationalists reconcile this?

Dane Kennedy: There are leading members of the Conservative Party who themselves are very much in favor of Brexit, who come from those ethnic backgrounds themselves. One of the things that one has seen is that over time, as those ethnic communities have at least, to some degree, become integrated, assimilated within Britain, there are some members of those communities who share the views of the Brexit tears themselves. There’s a larger issue here, however, and that again, I think goes back to the empire. That is the way in which despite the fact that there are these members of what we would describe as minority communities who share this view and are part of Brexit, there’s no question that the majority, I think, of those communities view this move with some anxiety. That’s rooted in a broader cultural wars that had been playing out over the past couple of decades, at least. What happened is with decolonization, you have this flood of immigrants of color from colonial and ex-colonial territories from South Asia, from Africa, from the Caribbean. Those communities for some time, were isolated in the inner cities. There were significant racial tensions, there were race riots that occurred in the ’70s and ’80s and at other times, and there was a racial backlash among white ethnic Britons that were manifested, for example, in notorious Rivers of Blood Speech by Enoch Powell late 1960s, the rise for the British Nationalist Party which was a Quasi Fascist Party in the 1980s, and by United Kingdom Independence Party in the late 2000s. There was this culture war that ensued between those who basically claimed a sense of national identity that was ethnically perhaps even racially based, and those both from these communities of color and other cosmopolitan elements within British society, who saw an opportunity to create a multicultural Britain. That struggle manifests itself in large measure over debates about the Imperial path.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: About the slave trade, about whether a statute to Cecil Rhodes should still stand at Oriel College in Oxford or be removed, over whether a prime minister should apologize for the Irish famine and the Amritsar massacre in India, whole slew of issues and it seems they occurred almost every month. I’ve been keeping track of this thing for years and years. That certainly sharpened I think, the intensity of resentment among many of those who became favorable to Brexit.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: It sounds, Dane so strikingly like the United States even though we didn’t have an empire in anywhere near the same scalar or form.

Dane Kennedy: Yes, it is. It’s very similar. What makes it particularly similar of course is the presence of these immigrant communities.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Yes.

Dane Kennedy: The way in which they have reshaped much of life especially in British cities.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: That was the optimistic pathway I wanted us to follow for the last few minutes. We always like to elucidate the historical foundation for contemporary issues, understand the difficulties and then use that history Dane to understand and think about positive pathways forward. Is the presence of these immigrant communities, which as you say have reshaped so many parts of Great Britain, is that actually the way out of this dilemma? Do those communities offer an alternative to what otherwise seems like a very head in the sand, a historical approach? Part of what you’re saying is that many British want the benefits of empire without having empire.

Dane Kennedy: Right. I’m not sure that those communities per se offer. I think maybe it can be reframed in a different way.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Sure.

Dane Kennedy: That is, I mean if we look at the argument of the Brexiteers themselves, not many of the voters whose decisions were reactive to immigrant communities and various other things but to the Brexiteers. I think it’s important to recognize that theirs was not and has not been and is still not a bury yourself in the sand attitude towards Britain’s future. Now, the question is how they can reshape Britain to meet their vision of what that future might be. You hear a lot of talk for example, of things like Singapore on the Thames, which is this argument that has been voiced by many of the Brexiteers people who now hold positions of real power in the government, that Britain can return to the days in some sense of it’s swashbuckling free trading past. Not necessarily a path that involves empire or colonies, although certainly that’s part of what’s evoked here. But returning to a world in which Britain isn’t constrained by the rules and restraints that operate within European Union.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: What’s striking in this argument is that they see a future for Britain in which it can become this global hub for movement of goods and finance.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: I see.

Dane Kennedy: That would in fact be quite cosmopolitan and in much the same way I suppose that Singapore is actually…

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: …very cosmopolitan. Now whether they can pull that off or not is another matter. There are other visions too by other Brexiteers about how they might move in the future, all of which are tied in one way or another to a pre-European Union Britain…

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: …that is linked in some ways to memories of empire.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: Whether that’s hopeful or not, depends on your point of view I suppose. I guess the thing I would say is that, my suspicion is that all of them understand that this is not going to lead to the restoration of a British Empire, that Britain simply doesn’t have the power, the military, the political power to insert itself in the way it did 100, 200 years ago. That in fact it needs to find a new way to make these connections across the globe. But these folks I think do genuinely believe that that’s possible and that it’s possible in a world where they’re not restrained by the rules and regulations for the European Union.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: That actually doesn’t sound so bad as you say it. I don’t know if it’s possible, but it doesn’t sound so bad. Zachary, you had one more question?

Zachary Suri: Yeah. How do we see a way forward out of this British reaction towards greater integration with Europe? How do we see way forward in a British politics that seems in many ways to be very stagnant?

Dane Kennedy: Yes. Great question. It’s the same question that we ask ourselves about the current political situation in America. It’s true, isn’t it?

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Yes.

Dane Kennedy: It’s become so terribly polarized, so divided that one searches for some way out. Just as it’s hard to see a way out in the American political crisis, I think it’s at present very hard to see a way out for Britain as well. I think that the two sides are in fact so deeply polarized and have such profoundly different views of Britain, what it means who is part of the British nation, and where it should stand in world affairs. That I don’t see a way of overcoming those differences at least at present.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Do those differences do they apply through generations? Do you see younger voters falling into them? Because one thing we’ve talked about on the podcast quite often is how different younger voters frame the issues from older voters at least in the United States.

Dane Kennedy: Yeah. Well, the election they just had marks a profound change in a lot of ways. Well, let me back up and say that certainly younger voters were more favorable toward remaining in the European Union, more attracted toward the cosmopolitan opportunities that it provided than older voters were. That’s one of the start distinction…

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Right.

Dane Kennedy: …that occurred with that — the referendum. What happened in the latest election however, is of course this extraordinary success that the Conservatives have had in what had been areas that were dominated by and had been dominated by the Labor Party for 60, 70 years. That too is a dramatic shift and change. What implications that will have, and whether it’s a onetime deal or whether it represents a broader change in the political environment is really hard to say I think at this point, but it is a shift that’s really significant and historically profound.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Yes.

Dane Kennedy: I know we’re looking for positive outcomes of this. My concern however is that what it in fact is doing is, if not intensifying the polarization within England itself, it’s intensifying the polarization between England and Scotland.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Well, I think what comes through loud and clear in your scholarship and in this wonderful discussion we’ve had today is how dynamic this process is. On the one hand we seem stuck in a debate between Brexit or remain between Europe or an independent Britain or Singapore on the Thames. On the other hand, a lot of things are changing before our eyes. Maybe that could be positive or negative, but I think it captures what’s at the core of the history of Britain in the last 3-4 centuries which is that this island nation that became a great empire has gone through quite a lot of change and is still going through quite a lot of change today and maybe that’s the most important lesson to take away.

Dane Kennedy: Yeah. I think that’s a good way of putting it absolutely.

Dr. Jeremi Suri: Dane, thank you so much for sharing your insights with us. Zachary, thank you for your poem. Thank you to all of our listeners for joining us on this episode of This is Democracy.

MALE 2: This podcast is produced by the Liberal Arts Development Studio in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harrison Lemke and you can find his music at harrisonlemke.com.

FEMALE 2: Subscribe and stay tuned for a new episode every Thursday, featuring new perspectives on democracy.