Feeling ambitious this morning (maybe it's the sun), so let's have a bash at "Brexit and the tide of political history":
1/
1/
Partly this comes off the back of where we are in Art.50, with the dawning realisation that the WA/PD bit of it is only one part of a much bigger thing
2/
2/
Partly, it's from just finishing "The Fear and The Freedom" by @KeithLoweAuthor, which talks about how WWII has had lasting and global impacts
3/
3/
Any way, while this is all going on, it occurs that we're seeing the clash of two basic models of political organisation
4/
4/
The first says that states are natural units of political organisation.
Their marriage of territory and community is mutually-reinforcing and beneficial, which is why they predominate
5/
Their marriage of territory and community is mutually-reinforcing and beneficial, which is why they predominate
5/
Essentially, they're much better purposed to provide effective and enduring governance, so they out-performed their competitors in the early modern period and they look set to continue as such into the future
6/
6/
The second model sees things as a long-term progression, from small to bigger political units.
We go from tribes, to cities, to states, and then to international and global governance
7/
We go from tribes, to cities, to states, and then to international and global governance
7/
This is made possible and desirable by developments in technology and civilisation, which also generate problems that require increasing levels of coordination: villages don't destroy the ozone layer, if you like
8/
8/
You can see how both models work, not least because both are in operation right now: we have more international/global governance than even before, but we also see nation-states very prominent in the mix
9/
9/
Brexit looks like a natural experiment in this.
Is it about exposing the limits to supranational governance, or exposing the limits of what states can do outside that movement?
10/
Is it about exposing the limits to supranational governance, or exposing the limits of what states can do outside that movement?
10/
Excitingly (for this thread), we won't know the answer for many years yet
But we can make a couple of comments right now
11/
But we can make a couple of comments right now
11/
Firstly, even if one of these models is 'right', then that doesn't mean we'll have a clear-cut outcome. Indeed, if either were clear-cut then this situation would never have occurred in the first place.
Instead, they are macro trends, with lots of scope for variation
12/
Instead, they are macro trends, with lots of scope for variation
12/
Nation-states have never been the sole model of political organisation, and supranational moves have been highly uneven in both scope and depth
13/
13/
So the second key point is that we retain agency: we're not simply to be swept along by that tide, to be deposited wherever it decides.
Instead, we have the power to make choices, to guide where we want to go
14/
Instead, we have the power to make choices, to guide where we want to go
14/
Of course, that'll require us to have those kinds of discussions and to take the necessary actions to try and achieve our objectives
And that's down to all of us to do
15/
And that's down to all of us to do
15/
A big part of that is going to be about working out what works for us, rather than what fits the bigger patterns of history
/end
/end
