'At the referendum of 2016, many Quakers felt the choice was obvious...' Photo: freeimage4life / flickr CC.
A Quaker case for Brexit
Clive Ashwin argues there are reasons for leaving the EU that are eminently compatible with Quaker values
At the referendum of 2016, many Quakers felt the choice was obvious and assumed that all Friends would vote to remain in the European Union. The group ‘Quakers for Europe’ was formed.
It came as a shock to many to discover this was not the case, and that an unknown number wished to leave the EU. I understand and respect the decision of those who voted to remain. My purpose here is not to criticise their choice, but simply to set out a case for leaving that is nevertheless consistent with Quaker values.
We should not abandon our moral and religious principles at the entrance to the voting booth, but the nexus between principles and political action is complex and far from self-evident. What I say might appear controversial. However, as Advices & queries 38 suggests: ‘Our responsibilities to God and our neighbour may involve us in taking unpopular stands.’ I shall concentrate upon three core Quaker values: truth, compassion and peace.
Truth
It has been widely assumed that the EU system of governance is not only democratic, but also a model of good democracy. Is this true? Democracy means the rule of the demos, or people. In most political cultures that claim to be democratic the people elect representatives who make their laws and implement their wishes. This differentiates democracy from systems where power is held by an autocratic agency, such as a hereditary monarchy, dictatorship, or rule by appointed party officials.
The central law-making body of the EU is the European Commission. The members of the Commission are not elected, but appointed by the governments of the member states. Its decisions are ratified by the European Council of heads of state and the European Parliament, but someone can become a member of the Commission without standing for election anywhere by anyone.
This creates the so-called ‘democratic deficit’, critically increasing the distance between those who govern and the governed. The EU has been reluctant to recognise this problem, or open the way to reform, and is perhaps best described not as a democracy but as a technocracy.
There is, of course, the European Parliament. However, this is nothing like our national parliament, and, I believe, functions as a debating chamber with little real power. Most readers would be able to name their MP at Westminster, as well as half a dozen others. How many could name their MEP, or list some of the issues that are currently being debated in the European Parliament?
The EU system of governance has proved attractive to career politicians. This is partly because someone who has been relatively unsuccessful in domestic politics can be awarded a position on a body such as the European Commission, together with social prestige, a generous salary and a pension.
The arguments during the referendum campaign were entered into energetically by both sides. If ‘Remain’ had won, I could have accepted that result with regret but equanimity. However, almost on the day following the referendum, a campaign was launched in the media, parliament and the courts with the intention of frustrating or overturning the result, and this continues unabated.
It was claimed that the referendum was merely consultative – an invitation to explore upon what terms we might choose to leave the EU and then to decide whether to leave or not. But the question was simply whether to remain or leave.
It has been suggested that the campaign to leave, or both campaigns, were based upon lies and deception. However, the principal issues, such as the creeping loss of sovereignty, were perfectly understood by the electorate. Even the oft-cited ‘£350 million a week for the NHS’ was, I think, in essence, true – although we might debate the precise size of the sum. As the third largest donor to the EU budget, leaving would release considerable sums that could, if we wished, be spent upon our public services, including the NHS.
Compassion
The EU has represented itself as uniquely compassionate to human need, with its policy of freedom of movement and its relaxed attitude to migration, almost as if it invented the principle.
But the UK is heir to a history of compassionate action that long predates the existence of the EU. Britain’s welcome to Jewish children in the 1930s was not the result of international obligations, but a spontaneous sympathy for the oppressed. This compassion is colour-blind and Britain also accepted thousands of Ugandan Asians ejected by Idi Amin in the 1970s. We have also invited persecuted migrant communities to join us, as we did with the Huguenots.
It has been suggested that the vote to leave the EU was partly motivated by racism. To me, this is a bizarre claim. The EU was founded to grant unique benefits and privileges to its member states, which are all predominantly Caucasian (albeit with small racial and cultural minorities). The rest of the world is, as it happens, of a different racial character – predominantly African, Asian or Semitic. It is still, at present, unlikely that any non-Caucasian state would be invited to join the EU club. The wish to leave is partly motivated by the desire to escape Eurocentric protectionism and once again trade freely with the multicultural and multiracial world beyond EU borders.
Peace
One of the driving forces behind the foundation of the EU’s predecessors was the desire to minimise the risk of another European war. It is claimed that it has given us the longest period of peace in Europe in history. This is only partly the case. I would argue that the century between the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 and the outbreak of the first world war in 1914 was a period of relative peace in Europe, with the exception of the short-lived Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – and this arose from a dynastic struggle between two imperial interests that no longer exist.
Perhaps one of the most common causes of war arises from an attempt by a small state to escape from the shackles of an oppressive political union. World war one was detonated by the desire of Serbia to free itself from the Austro-Hungarian empire. Recent years have shown the EU to be increasingly inflexible and authoritarian towards its member states. If a relatively large and powerful state such as the UK finds such enormous difficulty in leaving, what hope would there be for a small and land-locked one? The EU might simply besiege it with tariffs and trade embargoes.
The expansion of the EU into eastern Europe and the Baltic states has left Russia feeling increasingly exposed and threatened. The announcement of the intention to form a pan-European defence force has the potential to heighten tension with Russia and the Middle East, and increase the risk of future war.
Founded as a free-trade alliance of the peace-loving and the willing, the EU, in my opinion, is becoming an over-centralised political and military monster as coercive as the former Soviet Union, with tariffs replacing tanks as the weapon of choice. With our restored identity as a friendly but independent sovereign state, the UK is, I believe, better placed to serve as an effective counterweight to the growing political and military aspirations of the EU. That is why I voted to leave.
Comments
There is much in this article I would wish to comment on, but I was surprised by the statement - World war one was detonated by the desire of Serbia to free itself from the Austro-Hungarian empire.as I wasn’t aware that Serbia was part of the Australian-Hungarian empire.
By Fenwick on 17th January 2019 - 20:10
Clive makes a principled case against the European Union, illustrating with three Quaker emphases: truth, compassion and peace. When I voted for the Common Market in 1975 I did so on the basis that it would encourage trade beween 8 other countries;
I didn’t vote for a protectionist, capitalist, authoritarian, undemocratic organisation that the EU has become.Thanks Clive for you article a rational case for those of us who voted to leave.
By TWJ 123 on 17th January 2019 - 22:37
1. The Commission doesn’t make law, it drafts it.. It pursues the policies of the (coalition style)) Council of Ministers just like the British civil service. This makes its functions more far reaching then for a single state.but not undemocratic.
2. The Commission drafts new legislation in working parties of officials from member state chaired by a Commission staffer. It then goes to a Council working party,usually the same people (as I once was chaired by the current chair member state.
3. The Parliament has equal power to Commission and Council under the Lisbon Treaty. Even before that in1999 the Parliament secured the resignation of the entire (Santer) Commission on grounds of condoning corruption.
4. The Commissioners, like UK Permanent Secretaries are not subject to public election. The President however is selected by the Parliament. Trump, Orban, Putin, Mugabe, Maduro are samples of election.
Those are facts. I think the UK is a better buffer against extremism by being within the dialogue, and equally in membership we might be buffered against extremism here – I have in mind environmental and consumer protection sacrificed to get trade deals. And I don’t see current Ministers and the depleted civil service having competence to disentangle the present membership benefits like visa free travel, health cards… There is the plight of Eu citizens in limbo here and brits abroad.
Most importantly, though, the draining away of talent and businesses will deprive us of the taxable capacity needed to pull public services out of austerity.
By Richard Seebohm on 18th January 2019 - 13:39
I think the Austro-Hungarian Empire refers to Austria, which perhaps makes more geographical sense.
By Jedmonds on 18th January 2019 - 14:35
As a historical note you might be disappointed to find that there are many more nineteenth century European wars than you have suggested. Wikipedia list more than 60 for the period 1815-1915. Many were minor, but they do include some major ones such as the Franco-Austrian War of 1859 which included the Battle of Solferino, the bloodshed at which shocked Henri Dunant into founding the Red Cross; or the Second Schleswig War of 1864 which resulted in the near annihilation of the Danish Army, but which was itself only a precursor to the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
By D.Lockyer on 19th January 2019 - 23:40
Please login to add a comment
