The common denominator among nationalist parties, movements, and regimes, despite their geographical, religious, and linguistic differences, is that they are chauvinistic. They have a one-dimensional view of the world and possess such a narrow outlook that they are prepared to read and write history backwards by reinventing the past and distorting facts to fit their misleading narratives.
That came to mind as the tenth anniversary of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, Brexit, fell last Tuesday. Curiously, the anniversary passed with little attention, even from those who supported Brexit and led the Leave campaign during the 2016 referendum. Some may argue that the country's current political circumstances, marked by the resignation of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, left little room for commemorating the occasion. There is some merit to that argument. Britain is now preparing to welcome a new prime minister who did not vote in favor of leaving the European Union, yet who, like his predecessors, must abide by the will of the people, even if that will was shaped by a campaign built on misleading claims and outright falsehoods.
In the days leading up to the referendum, the leaders of the Leave campaign were generous with their promises. They pledged that Britain would free itself from the austerity that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, reverse the decline of well-paid manufacturing jobs, trade more freely and profitably in international markets, and send migrants from Central and Eastern Europe back to their home countries. At the heart of those promises was a pledge to restore Britain's imperial glory. Boris Johnson, who later became prime minister, spoke poetically of seeing "sunlit uplands" after Brexit. Remarkably, 52 percent of British votersf believed those lies.
The billions of pounds that Brexit supporters claimed would immediately flow back from Brussels into the British Treasury never materialized. Nor did the promised restoration of sovereignty or control over Britain's borders. Following the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement at the beginning of 2020, the country encountered a series of crises, most notably a severe labor shortage in the hospitality sector, where the majority of employees had come from EU countries. Fuel shortages also hit petrol stations because many of the truck drivers responsible for transporting fuel, also nationals of EU member states, had left the country, forcing the government to call on the military to provide personnel to drive fuel tankers.
Worse still, the number of migrants crossing the English Channel rose significantly, while Britain could no longer return many of those arriving on its shores because, by severing its institutional ties with Brussels, it was no longer a party to the Dublin Regulation, under which irregular migrants can be returned to the first European country they entered.
To make matters worse, Brexit gave a major boost to Britain's far-right movements, foremost among them Reform UK. The party quickly seized the opportunity before it, to the point that its leader, Nigel Farage, now effectively sets the political agenda, while his popularity in opinion polls has climbed to levels that threaten Britain's two main political parties. This became particularly evident during last May's local council elections.
The impact did not stop with Britain's far right. It also reached France, where Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally, welcomed the British people's decision to leave the European Union and urged the French public to follow Britain's example. She even coined the term "Frexit" to describe France's potential withdrawal from the European Union. That call, however, quickly lost momentum as Brexit's negative consequences became increasingly apparent in Britain, and the idea gradually faded into obscurity.
In short, Brexit was a textbook example of chauvinistic nationalism. It invented a glorious past, sold an illusion, and left ordinary citizens to foot the bill.
Brexit, on the other hand, was not painless for the European Union. It came as a painful and unexpected blow to Brussels. Britain's departure meant the loss of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a country with considerable military capabilities, an advanced economy, particularly in the high-tech sector, and home to Europe's largest financial center.
A decade later, a comparison between Britain's performance and that of the European Union shows, according to official figures and statistics, that the balance overwhelmingly favors the Brussels bloc. This has prompted many British politicians and commentators to acknowledge that Brexit was a mistake.
The greatest losses have been economic. Customs barriers have increased costs and delayed shipments because of the additional time required for administrative procedures. Official figures indicate that the British economy has lost between 4 and 6 percent of its gross domestic product, reducing the tax revenues flowing into the public treasury and, consequently, the funds available to finance public projects.
What is particularly striking is that parties and figures on the right and the far right continue to stubbornly deny Brexit's negative economic, military, and political consequences. Its leaders and ideologues continue to build castles on sand, while the number of their followers and supporters continues to grow.
