THE LURE OF GREATNESS: England’s Brexit and America’s Trump
By Anthony Barnett
From the writer and co-founder of openDemocracy, a forensic and sweeping polemic
Unbound Exclusives
About the book
The Lure of Greatness: the best book about Brexit so far
Fintan O'Toole on how the failure of Britain was deflected on to the EU from The Irish Times, first published 16 September 2017, Original piece here
The Brexit referendum vote last year was one of those events that is utterly shocking but not really surprising. There was a deep malaise in British politics, indeed in the whole idea of Britain itself. It was not articulated fully by any political party, but it was lurking there, waiting for its moment, a moment that David Cameron, in all his smugness and cynicism, duly provided. It is apt, therefore, that the best book about Brexit so far comes from one of the few political thinkers who has been writing and talking about that malaise for decades and who long feared that, if this “long drawn-out constitutional and political impasse” was not resolved in a progressive way, it would find a reactionary expression.
Anthony Barnett is a veteran campaigner for democratic reform in Britain. He was director of Charter 88, which proposed radical changes in the system of government to sweep away the powerful remnants of unaccountable privilege. He organised the Convention on Modern Liberty in 2009 with Henry Porter. He co-founded and edited the excellent openDemocracy website which flies the flag for transparency, reform and genuine popular power. If there are occasional tinges of “I told you so” in The Lure of Greatness, they are entirely justified. He did tell them so.
What he was telling them – which is to say the establishment he labels “the political and media caste” to emphasise the fluid movements of its members between journalism and PR and Westminster – were, in part, things that any sane observer could have said in any western democracy: that the disruptions of neoliberal globalisation and its rising inequalities would have profound political consequences. But he was also telling them something very specific to Britain: that English nationalism was on the rise and that it had to be given a political form in keeping with its best democratic and egalitarian traditions. Otherwise, it would become an enormously disruptive force.
Breaches of trust
This history gives Barnett a unique perspective now. He is (to adapt with all due irony the kind of Blairite language he despises) tough on Brexit but also tough on the causes of Brexit. He takes those who voted to leave the EU very seriously and treats their anger and frustration with genuine sympathy. He traces that anger back to the great breach of trust that was involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Interestingly, he points out that this breach of trust affected conservatives who supported the war as much as it did left-wing peaceniks: “many who came from the working classes that provide the bulk of the armed forces were less troubled by the illegality, provided the strategy worked.” But of course it didn’t work: British forces were defeated in Basra and also in Helmand in Afghanistan. The most potent symbol of Britishness – the ability to project military might around the world – was shown to be illusory.
More obviously, Barnett traces the other breaches of trust that created the disillusion with the existing political order: the blithe indifference to the victims of neoliberal globalisation, the replacement of public values with the fetishizing of market forces, the bailing out of a reckless and amoral financial industry. His critique encompasses the entire era of what he calls the CBCs – the Clintons, the Bushes, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. But his most original argument is that Brexit is primarily a response to England’s loss of faith in the once-glorious British project.
The drift away from Britishness is generally associated with the rise of nationalism in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales. But Barnett points out that census figures have shown a large majority of people in England choosing “English” as their sole national identity (38 million people did so in the 2011 census, 70 per cent of the English population). His argument is that, deprived of a national democracy, the English took out their anger on the EU, an institution relentlessly vilified by Rupert Murdoch’s empire and the rest of the Tory press. (He quotes the Evening Standard journalist Anthony Hilton: “I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. ‘That’s easy’, he replied. ‘When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’”)
Failure of Britain
The core of Barnett’s thesis is that the Brexit vote was a form of displacement, rage at the failure of Britain being deflected on to the EU: “English hostility to the European Union is based on a delusion of its influence, linked to a nihilistic sense of the futility of Westminster… being deprived of a credible, representative power that clearly belongs to you leads to anger with the most remote authority of all, which is blamed as the source of your powerlessness… Unable to exit Britain, the English did the next best thing and told the EU to ‘fuck off’…”
And it was the English, or rather the non-metropolitan English wot won it – Barnett points out that while Scotland, Northern Ireland and London voted remain and Wales narrowly supported leave, what he calls England-without-London voted leave by a whopping 11 per cent. Even more importantly, support for Brexit in this non-metropolitan England, contrary to so much glib analysis, was not confined to the “left behind”. It stretched from the comfortable Home Counties to the hard scrabble former mining valleys, encompassing both rich and poor. It was a genuine nationalist revolt. And, he argues, it has doomed the old tolerant and humane Britishness: “Britishness is now Brexitness.”
Barnett is scathing about Brexit itself and predicts that when the break-up of Britain has eventually played itself out in “the end of the empire state” and England has emerged as a reimagined democracy, it will rejoin the EU: “Eventually Brexit will collapse… Then Britain’s separate nations, England especially, can recover as themselves, to put their admirable qualities and pugnaciousness to good use in collaboration with their neighbours – for the road back to our European identity lies through England gaining its independence and therefore the confidence to share power without feeling shame.” If this seems an overly optimistic conclusion to a brilliantly caustic book, there is some comfort in the fact that Barnett has been right about so much before.
What do you mean by Britain? Is the focus predominantly on England with a few footnotes for other parts of the UK or is equal space given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Hi Graham, I'm planning to go to Wales, Northern Ireland and Dublin too, and Scotland, and they will be an integral part of my account. There will be an early chapter on England, as it was an English vote that drove Brexit, and the unique issue of English-British identity and voice will be an important part of the investigation and resolution.
Dear Anthony, This is only sort-of a question. Here goes: Disappointing as it has been to watch the decline in the quality of journalism over the last few years, both in print and on television, I am both amused and annoyed by the new habit of referring to some people (the Other,usually) , as “populists", lumping together people as different as those who support Corbyn, Sanders, LeFarge, or Trump, and themselves, ( the journalists/commentators) as “liberal internationalists”, unless they are openly Right Wing or Conservative. A populist is defined as “a person who holds or who is concerned with , the views of ordinary people.” Here ,here; that includes me, right here, right now, and ever since I learned what voting was.. Why not just say “some voters”, "some citizens “, or even *some people” ? No chance of them writing “some of us”, of course! It gets my goat because of its snobbish, excluding tone, even when the writer is acknowledging the irresponsible behaviour of the elite. Hope you plan to give some space to this in the book. Love meantime, Populist Beverly (Anderson)
Thanks Beverly, your are certainly popular with me! A key aspect of the technical meaning of 'populist' is using the notion of 'the people' as singular and having only one-voice. It's a device for authoritarianism and very different from being popular which includes a sense of the many and the plural. This is even implicit in the words. For something or someone to be popular implies there are others who are unpopular or have unpopular views. For someone to represent 'the people' or 'the popular' in the manner of a populist implies that those who are against are nothing - are outside the acceptable. I'm going to try and write something about this. thanks again xxAnthony
Dear Anthony, As for many people Brexit has awoken a lot of passions in me and this is a bit of an essay but there are a couple of questions in there! Ever since the rise of UKIP I have been thinking about the the question of troubled English identity and its relation to Britain's colonial past. What do you think about the following idea? The British empire became the largest in the world since the Romans and its people were, over many generations educated to believe that they were better than anyone else in the world. As the dominant culture within Britain, the English by and large came to believe this more than the Scots and the Welsh did, and it became embedded within their cultural identity even if it did not necessarily match people's own economic and class status in society. With the decline of empire and loss of worldwide power sections of English society have been left with an identity which no longer corresponds to reality in any way. This coupled with a loss of manufacturing brought about by Thatcher has left whole swathes of England with a kind of inferiority complex: We used to be great and look at us now sense of victimhood, which has been compounded by seeing immigrants come into their communities who are able to just get on with life in a more independent way. Looked at in this way it's easy to see how the EU has become a sort of Quixotic enemy imposing itself upon "free born Englishmen" telling them what to do when once it was the English telling the world what to do! If you accept the notion that English identity became (and still is for some) too intertwined with empire do you think it could be possible for English to undergo a rebirth? By this I mean that for me this situation is somewhat tragic given the levels of art, culture and science that England has produced of the ages. The Scots and the Welsh, it seems to me have a more benign form of nationalism based on the love and respect of ancestors rather than dominating others. Given its cultural richness, from Chaucer to modern music, could the English adopt a less aggressive form of nationalism rooted in art, culture and science rather than military conquest and domination?
Dear Rafe, Many apologies for the long delay in my reply. I agree with a lot of this, very many of the English are at a loss and feel this acutely given the loss of Empire. It is mixed up with Britishness, they still see themselves at 'Great British' so the fact that Scotland has a parliament and is getting 'uppity' rubs salt into the wound. There is a great deal of projection of discontent onto the EU. Can there be a rebirth? Yes, I will argue there can be. But it will mean becoming European... thanks and apologies again for the delay
It's not quite true that the Left has been silent. Blue Labour, which I broadly support, has expressed views. On Empire, I am sceptical of your view that the English are at a loss because of its absence. On the contrary, the English seem to be quite secure in their identity. On Europe I do not feel one whit less European due to Brexit. I am genuinely puzzled why anyone should feel otherwise. Europe is a civilisational, not a political, identity,
OK, well I will take on these points in the book. The left talks a lot to be sure, but are its many voices being heard - speaking in a way that is not heard is a form of being silent. The English are secure in their identity? Are they British? Being European, or anything else, is not just about feeling. Important though this is. Institutions are more important. Europe is also a political identity, how could it not be? Thanks for your questions, all very to the point.
Will your book allude to the persistent class divides pervading Englishness? To a society which perpetuates this by educating 7% of its students, selected by wealth, with, arguably, the best system in the world, whilst the other 93% are left struggling? To governance which talks about 'social mobility' while pursuing policies which impede it? To the propaganda of 'equal opportunity' when we have nearly the highest inequality in the developed world? To housing, where now a majority of the population are the tenants of a property-owning oligarchy which regards them only as an investment income stream? To the planning system which sees landowners walk away with 1000-fold increases in wealth as housing sites are designated? To the communities living with Assured Shorthold Tenancies and no security of a roof over their heads in 12-months' time? I believe these are all part of the failed society of Britain. Is the EU a scapegoat for the discontent and hopelessness arising from this failure? Will leaving the EU remedy matters? If not, what will? Sorry, rather a lot of questions!!
These are very good questions! There is something about the deep inequalities of English society that is now being questioned more widely. Whereas many were being brought into the country's wealth, they are now being actively excluded while the rich get even richer. Your example about the staggering fortune that can come from land-ownership highlights this. And the intensity of this inequity is recent. It is also unacceptable. Was Brexit a protest against it? Can it lead to a reversal? I'm going to ask this for sure, and attempt an answer.
Having joined in the collective sponsorship of this book partly on the grounds that this method of publishing would help to get it published urgently, and having now received my hardback copy and begun to read it, I wondered if there was still to be a special launch event and, if so, if there might be any provisional date of this?
Hi Graham, thank you! The book is officially published on 24 August and launch events are being discussed for September. You got your hardback copy early. If you sponsored the event with Suzanne Moore and Caroline Lucas you will certainly be invited. No provision dates yet!
Dear Antony Thanks for your helpful reply One other question - I want to send a copy of your book to a friend What is the mechanism for ordering further copies? I can't see this information - is the book available through bookshops now? Or?
Dear Graham, Thank you. That's very generous. The book will be published on 24 August in paperback at £8.99 and should be in the shops and available earlier, I see Amazon say they will have it on 10 August. The hardback is a special edition exclusively for subscribers. Hope this helps.
Is there a recording of your recent talks (London/Winchester) available anywhere on-line?
Hi James, KCL have posted my talk at Kings https://soundcloud.com/user-993186093/bonfire-of-britainkcbh There should be a video of the Winchester lecture shortly