Why has Brexit occurred?

Why Brexit? It is the question asked by many European citizens who see with stupor the fact that the United Kingdom has ceased to be part of the European Union. Why did the British vote so flatly in favor of Johnson ? Why has the EU had no reflexes to avoid it? Doesn't it matter to you that one of the countries that has been in it almost from the beginning leaves by opening a door that can be used by other Member States? None of these questions admit a simple answer. However, I will try to decipher some of the keys that may help us understand.

To put things at some point that serves as an introduction, we could remember the rhetorical question that Margaret Thatcher made in one of her first speeches as leader of the Conservative Party: "They have their ideology, why can't we have ours?" . Obviously, "they" were the Labor, the same ones who have just reaped an enormous electoral defeat. Perhaps Thatcher has been one of the few European conservative leaders who has had the courage to put his finger on the sore over one of the biggest problems facing the western right .

Aideologism is a characteristic that in the European political game can only be preached from the right. The left, by nature, is always ideological , while conservatives, even when they win the elections by absolute majority, are unable to deploy an ideological political program, and must comply with managing the economy. At least it has been that way until very recently, because nowadays things seem to start to change, just as Johnson's victory shows.

Even for some intellectual referents of the European right, such as the well - known journalist Jean-François Revel , the ideology of rights does not exist, because ideologies -according to him- are an evil that prevents man from analyzing political, economic and social issues without prejudices that they generate. For Revel, as for Fernández de la Mora (former Franco minister, author of the Twilight of Ideologies in 1971), all ideologies are harmful (they are by-products of human talent). Thus, for a good part of the intellectual referents and supporters of the right, one must flee from doctrinalism ( Rajoy dixit ) and devote himself only to serious and common sense things, such as managing the economy, managing public services efficiently and not complicating Life with philosophies.

However, ideologies are not mere constructs elaborated by certain philosophers or political activists. Ideology is a product of the human mind that is created from the genetics of each person and which influence the education, environment and personal and professional relationships that we have throughout life and that allow us to elaborate our own vital narrative. This is the itinerary that leads to people, upon reaching maturity, have a moral closer to the right or left. This has been shown by academic studies. Therefore, it is not true that the right is incompatible with ideology . The world is divided into two practically equal portions that correspond to that of people who have an ideological moral right and with those who have left.

And this, what does it have to do with Brexit? A lot. What Johnson has done is nothing more or less than undoing the mess that contributed to aggravating Cameron when, back in 2005, he managed to reach the leadership of the Tories . At that time, Tony Blair was in charge of the Government, who had come to power in 1997 through his well-known Third Way . This, devised by the sociologist Anthony Giddens , consisted of a revolution of Labor through the injection, within the leftist ideology, of fundamentals, principles and measures of a conservative nature, such as the defense of the family, the strengthening of marriage, the limits to the State, individual and non-social responsibility regarding crimes, the promotion of private initiative and fiscal rationalization.

At that time, the British conservatives were desperate: the Labor had been in power for almost 10 years and, in addition, they were robbing the Tories of an important part of their political foundations (as Cameron said, using Lackoff's metaphor, "in the room there is an elephant "). To try to counteract this effect, Cameron did not think of anything other than inventing the compassionate conservatism , which was exposed to the remaining members of his party in his well-known speech Fixing our broken society. This social conservatism was only the Third Way, but backwards: a political program for a future conservative government, truffled with values ​​and typical principles of the left. To this we had to add the influence that political correctness has on the right, which does not let it be itself, so some say it is "complexed."

Well, all this Johnson saw some time ago, realizing that the only way out of this mess was to appeal directly to the moral foundations of right-wing voters and, at the same time, trying to convince some voters on the left . What Johnson has done is nothing more than appeal to the social capital of the British nation, which many citizens of the United Kingdom began to perceive in danger because of their permanence in the European Union.

Indeed, the defense of the social capital of the nation is one of the ideological foundations of right-wing morals , surely the most important of all. It affects the morals of individuals and it is easy for them to connect with voters. This has been the basis of Johnson's success, having managed to reach the moral foundation of all British right-wing voters and, in addition, having given some reasons to many leftists to defend, along with the conservatives, the social capital of their nation. Notice the reader that when the right fulfills its ideological function there is no populism that is worth it (look at what Farage's party has been: 2% of the votes and no seats).

And why has the EU not had (or did not want to have) the reflexes to prevent the exit of the British? In my opinion, it has to do with prejudice and dogmatism. The European leaders, starting with Merkel , are installed in their own reverie. They have launched the locomotive and in no case look at what state are those who travel in the wagons. Utopian-bureaucratic maximalism seems to have taken over the only possible discourse: "The solution of Europe's problems is more Europe" , "Europe will be supportive or will not be" (the latter I heard from José Ignacio Torreblanca , convinced Europeanist). Even if it were true, the primary interest of any sensible driver should not be as soon as possible, but the safety and well-being of each and every passenger. If, for arriving sooner and further, passengers are dizzy and the wagons are hitting, to the point that on arrival at the end station they have derailed half, perhaps it is convenient to reduce the speed a bit and start worrying about the passage.

I agree with Rodrik that the rulers have not been sincere with their governed when explaining that, on the three sides of the triangle formed by democracy , globalization and the nation-state , it is not possible to maintain all three. China plays with two: globalization and nation-state, and the UK seems to have chosen democracy and nation-state. Quo vadis Europe? What course will each of the European countries take over the next few years?

If the EU wishes not to continue losing cars, I would recommend that you stop to think about whether it is possible to reconcile Europeanism and the conservation of the social capital of each of the nations that form it . This is one of the great challenges of the Old Continent, but it is possible, even more and, above all, of the European right.

Juanma Badenas is a professor of civil law at UJI and a member of the Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences of Belgium.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

• Europe
• United Kingdom
• European Union
• Mariano Rajoy
• David Cameron
• China
• Angela Merkel

Analysis Spain and the hidden opportunity in Brexit

GrandstandA bad economic policy

Letters to K. Contra half