I must confess that I do on occasion listen to James O'Brien's LBC programme. Possibly for the same reason that I read the Guardian every morning. He represents the predominant worldview, a worldview with which I have no natural sympathy, and so it seems especially important that I study it. O'Brien is an effective and persuasive political commentator. He nearly always finds a way to catch his enemies out (though he also has the rather craven habit of asking his allies superficial or 'prompting' questions, the sort of questions where the interviewee smiles and replies, 'I'm so glad you asked me that question, James...')
One question he often asks Leave supporters is, which EU law would you like to be rid of? This has proved extremely effective, and it suggests a lack of sense and judgement of those calling in than they cannot quickly and easily dismiss it for the fallacy that it is. Rather, they indulge his question, either speaking in empty political slogans or by describing the most obscure and ridiculously trivial of EU regulations. They all remind me of the miserable man in one of Chesterton's essays who (seemingly unknowingly) repeats all the empty opinions he has read in the newspaper -- in a 'blaze of catchwords' -- as if they were their own deeply-held beliefs.
Neither the listeners calling in nor Mr O'Brien realise that the question is irrelevant. There are many United Kingdom laws I oppose, but that does not mean I want to end parliament. It takes the most unjust and intolerable of laws to make people oppose a governmental institution. Most of the time people tolerate bad law, blunders, even corruption, so long as the political machinery keeps working and some good, at least, is done -- and moreover some bad is avoided. Opposition to the EU is down to a lack of faith in the process. It does not matter much whether the laws are good or bad; a majority of people don't care for or about the system that produces them.
It matters how a thing is done. It matters whether a shop is noisy and ugly, even if it supplies all the goods one might need. It matters how your boss treats you, even if he pays you well. It matters where your house is located, even if it's the most splendid and comfortable of houses.
People voted for the European Union because of various prejudices (and here I use the term in a non-pejorative sense as literally a pre-judgement, almost an instinct), and they are trying to justify their decision postjudicially, as it were, by the economic and empirical standards that their opponents have imposed. You would have had a hard time asking a Roundhead soldier or a proud Saxon which specific law(s) he opposed. The differences are deeper, necessarily rooted in generalities. The Brexit vote was a proxy vote for many things, an opportunity for those with various grievances to dissent. It never was about specific EU laws or regulations. It was about home, affections, tribes, loyalty, political fidelity -- things which you either 'get' or you don't. If you forced me to live with someone else's family, I may get to live in a mansion, I may be ten times better off, I may have more freedom, but nonetheless I would much rather return to my own family. It would be hard, if not impossible, to give an empirical reason for this, but that doesn't make it any less true. The only people who would not rather return to their own family are those who have fallen out with their family, or whose family is broken and even unloveable. Perhaps this is how many people feel about Britain. I may even sympathise with them. But what I think is wrong with Britain is also wrong with the EU, probably more so. And besides, it's very hard to change a institution as enormous and as fundamentally misguided as the EU. Britain is smaller, has the great fortune to be an island, and has a political tradition worth building upon. We will not be 'great again', but we can be a modest, decent and ordered nation if we alter our course.
No comments:
Post a Comment