Theresa May’s Brexit speech reeks of globalist overtones
Yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a speech explaining her efforts to ensure the fruition of a smooth and meaningful Brexit for the British people. Yet unfortunately this speech, titled “A Global Britain”, is exactly what I was expecting from a politician like May. While many of her words echoed what many of us want to see, some of her words and ideas reflected our worst nightmares. Indeed, just like all of us, May wants to see a more united Britain, a United Kingdom that actually does justice to its name. However, her speech also connoted various ideas that are at odds with the nationalists, conservatives, traditionalists, and other people of the right, who supported the historic decision to rescue the realm from the clutches of the European Union.
Yes, May’s speech contained traces of globalist ideas that many in the right, and indeed many Brexit supporters, would not find disagreeable. This first became clear when May said, “I want to see this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united, and more outward looking than ever before”. It’s the latter part of that sentence that signals the particularly globalist overtones we are bound to see characterise her future policies.
The British people did not vote for Brexit because they wanted to see a Britain “more outward looking than ever before”. On the contrary, the Brexit vote symbolised an effort to tone down an outward looking globalist atmosphere, and to revive an appreciation of its own culture and heritage rather than opening up to more external forces. This should be obvious, it’s something the Brexit camp was adamant to achieve. But why would May say this?
And then she dropped the bomb, “I want us to be a truly global Britain”. But this is exactly what the Brexit camp did not want to see. We don’t want a “global Britain”, and I thought we made that clear. I’m not saying Brexiteers want a Britain closed up to the world. We want to restore the kingdom to a powerful nation feared and respected by all. We want to restore its capital to the glorious hub it once was. But we don’t want to open it up to all outside forces and let them influence our ways, culture and lifestyle. We want to be welcoming, but we also want to be more selective.
Thankfully, May did make clear her intentions to allow the UK to become a “great global trading nation that is respected around the world”. She also elaborated upon the importance of decreasing the deficit in order to facilitate greater economic growth, along with reforms to aid in this process. But she again demonstrated her flawed impression of the Brexit decision by saying, “The result of the referendum was not a decision to turn inward and retreat from the world”. This was after emphasising her belief that it is important for the British and mainland Europeans to come together as a union of people, another point that does not sit well with the Brexit camp. She’s right in saying that it is not a decision to retreat from the world, but she forgets, or rather doesn’t understand, that it was a decision encouraging some inwardness.
This may sound regressive to many people, but as I said earlier, a culture that looks inward is not necessarily a culture that retreats from the world. I don’t support unnecessary protectionism, but an appropriate stance would be to allow all necessary free trade but avoid encouraging it. After all, free market capitalism encourages as little government intervention in the economy as possible, meaning government should not encourage free trade, but merely allow it.
“Britain’s history and culture is profoundly internationalist” was another quote that sent shockwaves among Brexiteers. May should not confuse Britain’s historic possession of the world’s largest empire with some modern day globalist notion that Britain’s culture is internationalist. There’s a difference between conquering the world to bring glory to one’s nation and opening up to the world without imposing some limits. Her statements are not only at odds with Brexiteers, but also at odds with history and reality itself. How can a country that has practiced Mercantalism in the past be marketed by May as one that possessed a history of internationalism? The British people supported Brexit because they wanted less internationalism. But if she has chosen to ignore this very integral aspect of the Brexit vote, then how can the British people trust her commitment for a hard Brexit?
Furthermore, this was followed by her use of Britain’s current “racial diversity” to endorse her view that Britain is an internationalist nation, further encouraging tension between her goals and the goals of a majority of British people. The Brexit camp was labelled as racist and xenophobic by the left for a reason: we do not want to see more racial diversity. How can the British people appreciate racial diversity when immigrants will make up half of London’s population in 15 years? The presence of legal migrants is always welcome, but encouraging racial diversity and multiculturalism is completely culturally Marxist itself. Racial diversity should not be celebrated, and immigration should be reduced, and that was what Brexit symbolised.
However, I will admit that May acknowledged the misalignment between Britain’s political history and culture in relation to the supranational nature of the EU. Britain’s lack of a written Constitution, parliamentary coalition-building, and other political factors characterising mainland European countries, was a major reason highlighting the incompatibility of the kingdom with the EU. She criticised the EU by stating, “It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility”, emphasising the inability of the UK to preserve its sovereignty and freedom by remaining within this supranational organisation. And she summarises this perfectly by stating “But the blunt truth as we know is that there was not enough flexibility on many important matters for a majority of British voters”.
Yet her speech also contained traces that would anger the “majority of British voters” she seeks to satisfy. The Brexit result was not meant to lead to a more “global Britain”. Brexit represented nationalism, and that is what the people require. If the United Kingdom is to retain its culture, values and heritage, along with its historic and traditional identity, then a more inward Britain is the solution. Not a country that implements unnecessary protectionism and complete indifference to the rest of the world, but a country that prioritises tradition, history, nativism and capitalism.
Globalism encourages people to learn from other countries, adopt different ways, and even depart from traditions if needed. This speech echoed this belief, which ignores the fact that people from different regions are different, and that traditions should be preserved in order for a country to remain strong. We don’t need to learn from other countries and change our ways. We need to preserve our ways. Changing our traditions on a whim by being influenced by other countries will only result in our country facing the same result as the Romans: collapse.
About The Author