Brexit and the war of ideas
It is chilling to note that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passed through the commons with nothing more than a whisper. Where did all the hot air suddenly go? It seems to me that this brief period of calm is an illusion. The government, more specifically Dominic Cummings, is adept at fanning the flames when it wants to and then calming them down when people should look the other way. These conjuring tricks, so obviously perpetrated, seem to be doing very well in beguiling the unquestioning masses. My view is that the tricks we are seeing are part of a roughly worked plan. It derives from a government that seeks to win by changing ideas more than it does by having coherent policies. Brexit, in these terms, is the Trojan Horse. It may have arisen haphazardly from a rightwing loathing for the EU, however misplaced, but it has become the main vehicle for bringing in the ideas needed to coerce a rightwing victory of ideas. I make this point explicitly because it makes sense of what most pro-Europeans have found so difficult to understand. Why would a rightwing government seek to destroy an arrangement that is intended to support economic growth and wealth generation? The answer is obvious if you acknowledge that the Conservative Party now exists only to exist. To have power. But to have power it must convince enough of us that it is fighting on our behalf. In this light, Brexit becomes a chess piece to be deployed in the service of converting ideas.
So what is Brexit in reality? It would help to know. The real relationship between the UK and the EU principally concerns trade. Roughly 50% of our trade is with the EU. You can portray this any way you like but this underlying reality will not go away. So we are faced with two contradictory pathways. One is economic and the other is ideological. They are contradictory because whatever the government chooses to do, it will make us poorer. The government cannot therefore secure consent for itself by telling the truth. It must instead create an alternative reality where the main issue is not defined by economic prosperity. Before we see how it will do this, it is worth pausing on the question of Brexit to see what this government is up against in real terms.
For the best analysis, I recommend Chris Grey (this blog post is relevant here). He has consistently argued that Brexit negotiations have orbited around a set of unresolvable contradictions. They can be summed up as a see-saw. If one end represents success in achieving frictionless trade and the other represents success in achieving whatever version of sovereignty we are currently proposing, we can see how one cannot be had without damage to the other. We cannot succeed in extending our sovereignty and having frictionless trade. Sovereignty, in this case, we can take to mean our right to decide what regulatory framework we apply to the production of goods and services: things like manufacturing standards, workers' rights and environmental restrictions. Cutting these to the bone would give us a competitive edge over the EU. Understandably, the EU will negotiate hard against such proposals. For a rightwing government though, these are the preconditions for the so called "Singapore by the sea" scenario. A dream come true.
Putting aside how the Conservative Party will resolve the see-saw problem internally, where squabbling is sure to resurface, we will go back to the question of ideology. Remember, any deal will make us poorer. Having already wasted an estimated £130 billion on a project that clearly has no economic benefit, how will the government convince us it is really working on our behalf?
In essence, it will continue to do what it has already done. It will provoke division at crucial moments to stir up anger and reinforce prejudices. It will use slogans to frame arguments to arm its supporters who will then go out and convince others to be angry in defence of some perceived threat. The EU, Remainers, Supreme Court, Establishment, metropolitan elite, pessimists and immigrants are all candidates. Most importantly, the government will seek to double-down on the notion that the everyday person, the Workington man for example, who is decent, hardworking and patriotic, is being hung out to dry. The preparatory work has already been done. The idea that 17.4 million people are a uniform species confirms this. It has been well and truly bashed into our brains. Such has been the success of repeating the same slogan over and over again that we hardly question the fact that 17.4 million people are being presented as completely identical in their beliefs. That is a victory of ideas, what Gramsci called "hegemony".
Yet there are problems ahead. The reality of Brexit will throw up real challenges that will involve real choices with real consequences. In the past the government has gone for the crudest of approaches. It has called upon "the people", the 17.4 million, to rise up against the Establishment. It has lied and deceived to do this. Such is our history there are several quite dangerous levers on offer for it to pull. Some invoke notions of our glorious past, WW2 and the indomitable British spirit. For them to work though, there has to be a connection made. Throughout the bellicose end game of Brexit the conditions were perfect for pitching one side against the other. Leavers could connect with a betrayal narrative and feel they were fighting for England. Now that the air has gone out of the balloon it will be much harder to wind people up to the same level. It is very difficult to keep people at a state of red alert indefinitely.
I believe the government will be forced to continue its ideological battle though. It has little choice. The realities of Brexit mean it will have to manage bad news about the economy. Most likely, Remainers will be cast as villains who are too pessimistic or not patriotic enough. Other discourses will come into play, as they have with the Royal Family. From an ideological perspective the Harry and Meghan saga does more than just expose our preferences for this royal or that royal. It causes us to accept the grounds of the argument - that the monarchy is a normal part of the functioning of society. It implies an acceptance for authority. It provides clear guidelines on what ideas are off limits. The idea of being "woke", for example, is currently under attack. A Remainer might well be accused of being too "woke" if he, or she, happens to prefer Meghan more than the Queen. An identikit of the subversive, unpatriotic Remainer is then available for anyone too lazy to do any thinking. I expect no let up in these ideological battles. With each one there is the potential for the political agenda to move further to the right. The government will do all it can to provoke them.
Having said that, the government will not get its way on everything. In fact it may struggle. Without Brexit to steamroller through its policies, its policies will be seen for what they are: ill-conceived and reactive. Under Johnson there is no clear direction. The government may find the news agenda more difficult to control, especially without there being any clarity of purpose. The government has to make a choice. Will it pursue a hard Brexit or somehow soften its position to gain a more favourable economic return? The see-saw will not go away. It has to decide one way or the other.
The signs are that it is preparing to go for the hardest Brexit possible. It wants the UK to diverge from the EU in terms of regularity alignment. That means doing the maximum economic damage. Johnson has probably not thought through the implications of this other than to grasp the lessons of the election campaign, that simplistic appeals to nationalistic pride work very well. He will need them. The only way to build consent for such a damaging agenda is to present it in terms of our national identity. He will need our vitriolic press to wave the Union Jack like it never has before. Remainers will be the "doomsters and gloomsters" at the heart of any problems and disastrous policy making will be given a free pass. The price to be paid for such reckless ideological manoeuvring is an ever more divided society and the amplification of petty hatreds. It's not a formula for national unity. If this is the path, we can expect many battles to flare up and be fought out as enemies are constructed and battle lines drawn. I see the next few years as being potentially very dangerous indeed.
So what is Brexit in reality? It would help to know. The real relationship between the UK and the EU principally concerns trade. Roughly 50% of our trade is with the EU. You can portray this any way you like but this underlying reality will not go away. So we are faced with two contradictory pathways. One is economic and the other is ideological. They are contradictory because whatever the government chooses to do, it will make us poorer. The government cannot therefore secure consent for itself by telling the truth. It must instead create an alternative reality where the main issue is not defined by economic prosperity. Before we see how it will do this, it is worth pausing on the question of Brexit to see what this government is up against in real terms.
For the best analysis, I recommend Chris Grey (this blog post is relevant here). He has consistently argued that Brexit negotiations have orbited around a set of unresolvable contradictions. They can be summed up as a see-saw. If one end represents success in achieving frictionless trade and the other represents success in achieving whatever version of sovereignty we are currently proposing, we can see how one cannot be had without damage to the other. We cannot succeed in extending our sovereignty and having frictionless trade. Sovereignty, in this case, we can take to mean our right to decide what regulatory framework we apply to the production of goods and services: things like manufacturing standards, workers' rights and environmental restrictions. Cutting these to the bone would give us a competitive edge over the EU. Understandably, the EU will negotiate hard against such proposals. For a rightwing government though, these are the preconditions for the so called "Singapore by the sea" scenario. A dream come true.
Putting aside how the Conservative Party will resolve the see-saw problem internally, where squabbling is sure to resurface, we will go back to the question of ideology. Remember, any deal will make us poorer. Having already wasted an estimated £130 billion on a project that clearly has no economic benefit, how will the government convince us it is really working on our behalf?
In essence, it will continue to do what it has already done. It will provoke division at crucial moments to stir up anger and reinforce prejudices. It will use slogans to frame arguments to arm its supporters who will then go out and convince others to be angry in defence of some perceived threat. The EU, Remainers, Supreme Court, Establishment, metropolitan elite, pessimists and immigrants are all candidates. Most importantly, the government will seek to double-down on the notion that the everyday person, the Workington man for example, who is decent, hardworking and patriotic, is being hung out to dry. The preparatory work has already been done. The idea that 17.4 million people are a uniform species confirms this. It has been well and truly bashed into our brains. Such has been the success of repeating the same slogan over and over again that we hardly question the fact that 17.4 million people are being presented as completely identical in their beliefs. That is a victory of ideas, what Gramsci called "hegemony".
Yet there are problems ahead. The reality of Brexit will throw up real challenges that will involve real choices with real consequences. In the past the government has gone for the crudest of approaches. It has called upon "the people", the 17.4 million, to rise up against the Establishment. It has lied and deceived to do this. Such is our history there are several quite dangerous levers on offer for it to pull. Some invoke notions of our glorious past, WW2 and the indomitable British spirit. For them to work though, there has to be a connection made. Throughout the bellicose end game of Brexit the conditions were perfect for pitching one side against the other. Leavers could connect with a betrayal narrative and feel they were fighting for England. Now that the air has gone out of the balloon it will be much harder to wind people up to the same level. It is very difficult to keep people at a state of red alert indefinitely.
I believe the government will be forced to continue its ideological battle though. It has little choice. The realities of Brexit mean it will have to manage bad news about the economy. Most likely, Remainers will be cast as villains who are too pessimistic or not patriotic enough. Other discourses will come into play, as they have with the Royal Family. From an ideological perspective the Harry and Meghan saga does more than just expose our preferences for this royal or that royal. It causes us to accept the grounds of the argument - that the monarchy is a normal part of the functioning of society. It implies an acceptance for authority. It provides clear guidelines on what ideas are off limits. The idea of being "woke", for example, is currently under attack. A Remainer might well be accused of being too "woke" if he, or she, happens to prefer Meghan more than the Queen. An identikit of the subversive, unpatriotic Remainer is then available for anyone too lazy to do any thinking. I expect no let up in these ideological battles. With each one there is the potential for the political agenda to move further to the right. The government will do all it can to provoke them.
Having said that, the government will not get its way on everything. In fact it may struggle. Without Brexit to steamroller through its policies, its policies will be seen for what they are: ill-conceived and reactive. Under Johnson there is no clear direction. The government may find the news agenda more difficult to control, especially without there being any clarity of purpose. The government has to make a choice. Will it pursue a hard Brexit or somehow soften its position to gain a more favourable economic return? The see-saw will not go away. It has to decide one way or the other.
The signs are that it is preparing to go for the hardest Brexit possible. It wants the UK to diverge from the EU in terms of regularity alignment. That means doing the maximum economic damage. Johnson has probably not thought through the implications of this other than to grasp the lessons of the election campaign, that simplistic appeals to nationalistic pride work very well. He will need them. The only way to build consent for such a damaging agenda is to present it in terms of our national identity. He will need our vitriolic press to wave the Union Jack like it never has before. Remainers will be the "doomsters and gloomsters" at the heart of any problems and disastrous policy making will be given a free pass. The price to be paid for such reckless ideological manoeuvring is an ever more divided society and the amplification of petty hatreds. It's not a formula for national unity. If this is the path, we can expect many battles to flare up and be fought out as enemies are constructed and battle lines drawn. I see the next few years as being potentially very dangerous indeed.
Comments
Post a Comment