British Nationalism, or Something Broader? Professor Michael Keating on the Politics of Brexit
Jacquie Sandler
October 26 2019
A bus in London, United Kingdom in December 2018 with a Brexit-related advertisement. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons, author David Holt
On October 3rd, The Centre for the Study of Democracy and Diversity at Queen’s hosted a lecture by Prof. Michael Keating of Aberdeen University. Prof Keating’s lecture, titled ‘Hunting the Snark’: The Politics of Brexit, provided a fascinating look at how the ambiguous divisions within the “Leave” side of the Brexit referendum have contributed to the rocky road Brexit has faced. As the UK seems to have reached a tentative deal, The Observer brings you a recap of this lecture that just might help to explain some of the bumps that deal faced along the way.
Prof. Keating defined Snark is “a beast that may or may not exist; it devours anyone who discovers it, and is therefore undiscoverable,'' he explains. He finds this to be a great metaphor for Brexit as a whole. Does a concrete, final implementation of Brexit truly exist? Can anyone directly tackle or contest Brexit without being ‘devoured’?
As Prof. Keating explained, the tensions between Britain and the rest of Europe that we witness today can be traced back to the European Project’s initial creation. Britain was not at all confident that the European Union’s visions of protection and integration would be successful. However, Britain changed its stance a few years into the EU’s implementation and hopped on the bandwagon. Despite Britain’s cooperation, differences in interests still created an ideological cleavage. The EU’s defining goal is advancing Europe as a whole, while Britain’s is to leverage the EU’s hegemony while remaining a separate entity. Or, as Prof. Keating put it. “When the meeting’s over, the UK gets back on the train right at 5:00”.
Prof. Keating posed a question that is central to pondering the underlying motives behind the UK’s desires for separation and independence: is this an example of identity politics? More specifically, to what extent is this an expression of national identity, or British nationalism? Can the referendum results simply be attributed to the notion of Britain disliking the rest of Europe? Keating stresses that this is not the case; he explains that a much more interesting phenomenon is at work here.
The motives behind Brexit can be explored by introducing a number of topics within the Brexit campaign and how citizens voted in relation to these issues. Firstly, the economy was a major highlight. As Prof. Keating explained, economic people who think the economy matters generally voted to remain. A second relevant theme is sovereignty; Prof. Keating specifically referenced the well-known Brexit slogan “Take Back Control”, which encapsulates the mentality of the British not wanting to be run by foreigners. Thirdly, immigration was quite relevant. Because immigration was a very prominent issue in Europe at the time of the referendum, a widespread concern about Europe’s open doors to those fleeing their home countries pushed many to vote to leave the EU.
What exactly did pro-leave voters vote for? Prof. Keating pointed out that there was no clear statement from Brexit’s campaign about what “leaving” means exactly; not one campaign has explicitly expressed a proposition. Keating identifies a wide range of perspectives that the mass of pro-leave voters came to adopt.
There is the Little England version of Brexit, which is essentially an anti-globalist, protectionist, anti-immigration vision of Britain. Those with this mentality reject the ideas of globalization, and only support government welfare that solely helps the people of Britain, thus excluding immigrants and foreigners.
Those who envision what Keating calls the Global Britain version of Brexit believe that Britain is in fact too protectionist, and push for a form of unilateral free trade with the absence of trade agreements and tariffs. This mentality believes in Britain’s capability to adopt the total free movement of goods, services, and people.
Supporters of what Keating deems the Empire 2.0 version of Brexit are quite nostalgic; they see Brexit as an opportunity to adopt the Anglosphere notion of a semi-revived British Commonwealth.
While these stances on what supporters of Brexit wish for the country’s future are all quite different from each other, they possess the underlying fundamental motive of Britain “taking back control”. What exactly would Britain be regaining control of? According to Prof. Keating they would be regaining control of things like money, laws, and borders.
Last Thursday, the UK and EU finalized and publicized a ‘Political Declaration” document with the intent of solidifying the future of their relationship. While the declaration confidently yet briefly boasts a friendly economic and trade partnership, we have learned from Prof. Keating that free trade is not the only relevant theme in the UK’s strive for independence; the document is extremely vague with other thematic topics such as immigration. This rather short, unclear and vague declaration of a mere 27 pages is evidently littered with gaping holes of ambiguity; therefore, time will tell how the divisions Prof. Keating highlighted will play out as this new agreement faces Parliament.
Professor Michael Keating is currently a professor of Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen. His research covers a range of political topics such as European politics, territorial politics and nationalism (University of Aberdeen n.d.). He is the director of the Centre on Constitutional Change, and is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Academy of Social Sciences (the University of Edinburgh n.d).