Fintan O'Toole, in his book, Heroic Failure: Brexit, the politics of pain, attributes much of the thinking behind Brexit to English nationalism and he produces some interesting statistics to back up his claim. The 1999 devolution settlement and the West Lothian question caused a lot of irritation and resentment among the English that somehow they were being denied their own parliament, and Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters only seemed to rub salt into the sound.
He writes that in 1999, 62% of English respondents in a survey were satisfied with the devolution status quo. By 2008 it was down to 51% and by 2012 to 24%. The following year it had fallen to 21%. Don't forget this also coincided with a big increase in immigration from Eastern Europe although O'Toole doesn't mention it, but clearly something was going wrong inside the union.
In another poll in 2011, 60% of people agreed with the statement that 'People in England have become more aware of English national identity'.
But this rising sense of English nationalism was apparently different to the Scots or Welsh variety because when asked which layer of government had most influence over their lives, just 8% and 7% respectively of the people in Scotland and Wales thought it was the EU. This is about normal throughout the EU apparently. However, in England it was a whopping 31%. Is this the Johnson factor and all the mythical EU regulations at work? I think it might be.
When asked what nationality they would have on their passport 40% chose English rather than British. This was also in 2011.
There was a strong correlation in 2016 between those strongly identifying as English rather than British with those voting to leave. Of those selecting the highest value for an English identity, on a 7 point scale, 70% voted leave. Conversely, of those who only weakly identified as English (2 on the 7 point scale) 80% voted remain. Telling figures I think.
The problem, as O'Toole sees it, is that the Brexit rebellion, if that is what it is, is not against anything real. It is against the imagined and grossly exaggerated power of the EU over our lives. It is therefore bound to fail when the electorate realise that Brexit offers no solution to anything and certainly not to what they want it to resolve.
The analogy he uses is Lassie bounding up and making semi-articulate sounds pointing to a scene of distress and the kids (a metaphor for the government) say, "I think he's trying to tell us something". They all then dash off in precisely the wrong direction.
The bizarre thing is that this rise in nationalism points eventually to a withdrawal from the union of England and Scotland and the island of Ireland becoming unified. Although not mentioned in O'Tooles's book, a poll by Lord Ashcroft in June 2018 (HERE) found a majority of leave voters would rather 'lose' NI than give up the 'benefits' [sic] of Brexit. Paradoxically, potentially, the greatest schism since the reformation is brought to us courtesy of the Conservative and Unionist party, who seem totally oblivious to the danger.
Brexit was a vote to secede but unable to secede from the United Kingdom we did the next best thing and voted to leave the EU, says O'Toole.
There are a lot of contradictions in Brexit but none more so than the great paradox in that the UK, itself a union, is breaking away from the EU, another union. The Brexiteers do not appear to have any great arguments against the principle of nations joining together in a close union.
Their objection is only to the European one where we aren't top dog.
We kick against paying money to other EU states but happily dole out billions to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I say happily but this isn't quite true is it? We like to have vassal states beholding to us. It makes us feel superior.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already allowed themselves to be subsumed into something larger and conceded sovereignty to some extent as smaller nations. France, Germany and Italy, the larger European nations have managed to join together without a great national outpouring about loss of sovereignty. They might complain about the euro and the ECB or other aspects of the EU, but not a loss of sovereignty.
We alone, and I specifically mean the English, seem quite unable to work in harmony with other countries. We have a burning need to be the leader when it must now be obvious to the entire world, the Conservative party cannot even lead itself.
Their objection is only to the European one where we aren't top dog.
We kick against paying money to other EU states but happily dole out billions to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I say happily but this isn't quite true is it? We like to have vassal states beholding to us. It makes us feel superior.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already allowed themselves to be subsumed into something larger and conceded sovereignty to some extent as smaller nations. France, Germany and Italy, the larger European nations have managed to join together without a great national outpouring about loss of sovereignty. They might complain about the euro and the ECB or other aspects of the EU, but not a loss of sovereignty.
We alone, and I specifically mean the English, seem quite unable to work in harmony with other countries. We have a burning need to be the leader when it must now be obvious to the entire world, the Conservative party cannot even lead itself.
