One hundred years ago, Europe was dealing with the aftermath of the First World War. Germany was subjected to a crippling Treaty of Versailles and Hungary was about to lose three fifths of its territory. By comparison to the Middle East, however, they were let off relatively lightly. In the Arab parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, five new, independent states were created: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Jordan. Publicly, this was portrayed as a reward for Arab support to the Allied cause during the war. However, all of these nations were subjected to mandates of the newly created League of Nations, which turned these states into virtual colonies. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France and Palestine, Jordan and Iraq to the British Empire. This was the result of a secret war-time agreement between the two colonial powers, which shared out respective spheres of influence: the infamous Sykes-Picot Treaty. It laid down borders that have survived to the present day. Importantly, among the reasons for the mandates imposed by the two Allied powers, was that these nations weren’t ready yet to assume full sovereignty. They needed a period of tutelage first before becoming fully sovereign.
Now, a hundred years later, the British Empire has disappeared and the United Kingdom is in the throes of Brexit. Oddly enough, if there is one term that characterises the more ideological aspects of Brexit, it is sovereignty. Sovereignty is a tricky term. Basically, sovereignty means that a state is legally considered the equal of other states within an internationally accepted set of rules. All states should by and large adhere to those rules or else face the consequences. Taliban Afghanistan experienced what that meant when it harboured those behind the 9/11 attack. Brexiters at large, however, associate sovereignty with “taking back control”. Twitter is full of such noisy nationalists. The United Kingdom, or should I say England?, should to be able to have its own laws without any interference from treaties or foreigners. Sovereignty for them is really about regaining lost powers. England should be restored to its former glory and the rest of the world should step aside to allow it to do so. In the background, I sense a dose of Imperial phantom pain. Once again, Glorious England should to be able to impose its wishes on others as it has done in the past.
Until about a year ago, in spite of all the convoluted rhetoric, the British government adhered to a more sensible and realistic course. It basically accepted it had entered into a set of international agreements that went beyond the European treaties. The most intractable of these, of course, was the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement. Although Britain retained its sovereignty over Northern Ireland, in practice powers were quietly shared with the Republic of Ireland. This was because, although it took on the form of an international treaty, it was far more than that. As an agreement between people, it inherently touched upon the internal affairs of two communities. Its core premise, that the people of the island of Ireland should determine their own future, could only really work if the United Kingdom, or at least Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland were closely aligned in legislation. As long as Britain remained a member of the European Union, that posed no problem. With Brexit, even Britain’s rather fuzzy constitutional arrangements are being tested to their limits. The Tory government under Prime Minister Theresa May was aware of this conundrum, but negotiated a unsatisfactory Withdrawal Agreement in which realism prevailed. Then, on a popular wave of Brexit nationalism, the new Prime Minister Boris Johnson coasted to an impressive election victory. Earlier, he had negotiated some minor changes to the Withdrawal Agreement and subsequently signed it and had it ratified by Parliament. It was an agreement, Johnson assured, where Britain could have its cake and eat it.
Why then, is the British government suddenly trying to pass legislation that openly promises to violate what is simply an international treaty? British assertions that the Withdrawal Agreement will undermine the Good Friday Agreement will only convince the Brexit faithful and the one Northern Irish party that opposed the Good Friday Agreement in the first place. Importantly, the US political class isn’t buying it and this argument will probably quietly be dropped. A more interesting argument has been put forward by Britain’s chief negotiator in Brussels, David Frost: the EU isn’t treating the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation and should start to do so. Wait a minute! Isn’t sovereignty earned rather than conceded? What happened to those arguments from a century ago? Has Britain in its quest for former glory decided to behave as nation that considers itself under tutelage? Has Britain in its attempts to once again rule the waves decide to waive the rules? I hope not. Actually, I believe there is a more fundamental, underlying reason for the present course of the British government.
Fuzziness is the keyword here. Negotiations with the European Union have revealed an old culture clash between the tendency of British common law to restrict legislation to essentials (and leave many details to be worked out later through practice) and the propensity of the European Union’s continental law mentality to legislate down to the last detail. My take is that British Brexit politicians originally expected that the Withdrawal Agreement would leave enough room for fuzziness in the trade agreement that is now being negotiated with the EU. Rules could then be bent their way in the future. The problem here is that many British politicians, unlike their civil servants, do not read law texts. As trade talks progressed, Brexit politicians increasingly realised the wording of the Withdrawal Agreement was to closely knit for such fuzziness. Crucially, they came to see that the agreement left no room for wriggling about the de facto border down the Irish Sea. This hurt Brexit Britain’s sovereign sensitivities. Hence Mr. Frost’s rather embarrassing remark that the EU wasn’t treating the United Kingdom as a sovereign nation.
I wonder what Palmerston, Disraeli or Churchill would have thought of Brexit and prime-minister Johnson. One of the hallmarks of British Imperialism was its ruthless and practical realism. After the Second World War, the British Empire was technically bankrupt and soon fell apart. Post-war Prime Minister Churchill was practical enough to realise the future of Britain was best served by functioning as a bridge between the United States and nascent Europe. Grand theories and visions, such as blindly following the Will of the People, were best left to the French. For all its defaults, however, French theory is strictly rational and crystal clear. Brexit populism and its insistence upon the Will of the People is rather less so. In a world where powers are shifting, I wonder how far Britain will get with its sovereignty of fuzziness. I hope it will come to its senses and wish it well.