The Brexit is done, and an agreement has been found on how the relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom should be organized in future. I still deplore that the UK left the EU but probably UK membership was insofar a mistake. A large part of the elite, and under their influence also of the British - at least English – society, did not want to open a new chapter of British history. Many of my Labour colleagues in the European Parliament were very interested in common social rules - they fought for more equality inside the EU and beyond. They were supporting an active development and environmental policy and urged the quick enlargement of the EU. On the other hand, they expressed - or often were asked by the party leadership at home to express - a sceptical view on “too much” Europe and were constantly voting against the already small EU budget. This was also the biggest and fiercest clash I had with my Labour colleagues when I was President of the S&D political group in the European Parliament.
It is obvious that the European Union is an unfinished and permanently developing project. It is not going to be a United States of Europe, even if this is aspired by many - but the nation building in Europe is still influencing our different political elites and the citizens at large. In most states of Europe there is an understanding that we need a new phase of political development and a need to confront the new challenges and to establish peace amongst European states and beyond. That some forces are promoting political and especially national nostalgia can be seen everywhere - but nowhere is it as strong as in the United Kingdom or specifically in England. It seems closely connected to the nostalgia of the British empire. Priya Satia, in her study ‘’ Time’s Monster - History, Conscience and Britain’s Empire”, sees Britain today still characterized by a “nostalgic romanticization and glamorization of the imperial past which remains alluring enough to feed the frenzy of Brexit in hopes that Britain might revive a more glorious relationship to the rest of the world.”
Britain was used to dominate many countries and colonize them. It also used to partition countries, when they found no way out of a stalemate - that was the case in Ireland, in the Middle East and in India by creating Pakistan. All this generated many still unsolved crises and many refugees. And today: “The Brexit movement, calling to partition Britain from Europe, is the culmination of a long struggle to accommodate the presence of immigrants of colour in post-war Britain, many of whom were refugees from India’s partition.” There were always British politicians and writers who were critical about the empire as such or of the specific cruelties undertaken by some officials. But the colonialization and it’s disastrous consequences on the colonized were not widely dealt with in British politics. The foundation of the Commonwealth created the impression, that there was a smooth transition from a “benevolent” empire to a new form of sharing common interests under a British guidance.
The widely respected Winston Churchill was concerning his attitude towards the colonized people often openly racist and derogatory. As interesting as Richard Knight has put it in his speech on Brexit at the IIP, the war against Hitler - for which we can be very grateful - was also in some way a war against Europe. When he invited the Europeans to unite themselves, he did not think about joining this United States of Europe. He was too much in love with the empire, even when it showed already clear signs of collapse. It is no coincidence that a prominent promoter of Brexit, the British Prime minister Boris Johnson wrote an uncritical biography of his predecessor in Downing Street.
Of course today there is no one so naive to think about re-establishing the old empire - Brexiteers have found another slogan: Global Britain is what they aspire. But as the Economist in its first edition in 2021 was stating: “Global Britain is a fine idea, but it requires hard choices and a reengagement with Europe.” And “the sooner the ex-EU member gets over its blindness over Europe, the better the prospects for Global Britain”. In cooperation with the EU Britain can exploit its advantages from being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, of NATO and having some strong global companies.
The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer expressed in a recent interview with the Swiss paper NZZ even his opinion as follows: „With Brexit and Trump, Britain and the US have said goodbye to the West”. Well, with President Biden, the US are returning to the West. Concerning the United Kingdom, we do not know where it will go. Anyway, Europe has it now easier to formulate its interests and the recent investment agreement with China is an example of that attitude. It is easier to represent its interests also vis-a-vis the United States without a United Kingdom who considers having a “special relationship” with the US. But the EU should try to elaborate a fruitful working relationship with the UK and should not withdraw offended from such a dialogue with the UK.
As I said before, also in continental Europe nostalgia is not absent, but the overwhelming part of the political elite is of the opinion that many issues can only be solved in close cooperation - it would also be important to act more decisively in implementing this conviction. Often the national political battles make politicians and media people forget their inner conviction. And such a behaviour is always dangerous because it strengthens the nationalists who want to gain influence by playing the national card. For the moment there is no exit on the table. Too much hardship has been seen during the Brexit negotiations and will be seen in the near future. For some leaders there is always an invitation to enhance internal divisions and to weaken the common institutions - even without a US President Trump there is no support from the other side of the Atlantic. Responsible politicians should use the post-Brexit time to build a new European sentiment, which is capable solving problems of the present and future. That should be the answer to the nostalgic Brexit dreamers.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.