For a deep-rooted habit or an unconfessed regret, the European governments tend to turn a blind eye whenever their own citizens express discontent and ask the Union to change at its roots. It happened after the vote of May 25, 2014: the Juncker Commission is a non-reply to what the electorate demands. And it happened again after the Scottish independence referendum of 18 September 2014. The unionists narrowly won and immediately the government and the labour party considered the issue ‘resolved for a generation’: the divorce must not to take place, so, it will not take place. The autonomists got the promise of devolution, but Cameron’s vow is full of pitfalls. First of all: if the English, who are the majority in the UK, cannot influence the regional assemblies, so, also these will have to stop checking the laws approved by English representatives.
The secessionists gained 44,7% of the votes. It is not a small deed, and anyway the warning is strong and who governs in Europe knows it, even if he promptly forgets what he knows. Now, devolutions need to be done. Other countries will seek inspiration from Scotland, starting with Catalonia, where on 9 November a popular vote on separatism was held (however, the referendum is considered illegal by both Rajoy’s government and the socialist opposition). The Basques could follow the example. And we know of the recurring autonomist pressures in Italy.
Secessions don’t fall out of the sky. They are deep-seated resentments the crisis has exasperated, and labelling them as populist or, worse, folk extremisms, is not helpful. We are dealing with genuine social, not only identity-related separations. In Scotland, the majority of the ‘yes’-votes came from poor and desperate people. The financial chaos has rocked the European nations to their roots – old or recent, whatever they are – and has pointed out the inconsistency, the conceited inactivity and the powerlessness of national sovereignties that by now decide very little, because of their dependency on the international markets as to their economy, and on the United States as to their foreign policy.
English scholars stress this point: in the Guardian, Owen Jones talks about “broken societies” and forms of poverty which recall the Victorian era. After five years of crisis, the wealth of the most prosperous 1000 people has more than doubled, swallowing up 1/3 of the British national product. For the first time since the post-war period, the Red Cross distributes again food to the most needy. In 2014, hundreds of thousands of subjects in the UK are not able to feed themselves. Secession arises from there too, and it’s the reason why it affects the entire European Union, including Italy. The obscenity of inequality is increasing everywhere.
Especially the labour party is responsible for that, because it was Tony Blair’s ‘third way’ that enlarged inequalities and poverty. Its slogan in the Scottish referendum was: “Vote ‘no’, it’s not worth the risk”. It was a very strange statement for a left-wing party, because there aren’t social or institutional changes without risks. Establishing the welfare state, providing workers with rights was indeed a risk. Also the universal suffrage was – and is – a risk. It’s difficult, Jones ends, “to make a distinction Tories’ shamelessness”.
Nevertheless, the referendum can also show a possible way out, as it often occurs within social disruptions. It could become a not-surprising opportunity, if Cameron’s government negotiates seriously the promised devolution. We can fantasise about the post-referendum events, too. It cannot be ruled out that the UK, compelled by events, will discover – at home – the virtues of the federalism it has continued to contest for years, with great obstinacy and such lack of imagination and curiosity, to the European Union.
Maybe a great crisis or the shock of a military defeat is needed, in order for the brains to be mobilised and find less centralized and dishonest ways of living together within the old nation-states.
The German federalism, the most fine-tuned in Europe, had old traditions, but it was forcefully imposed by the victorious powers in order that the powerful hegemonic State of Prussia – a deadly Leviathan – could not arise anymore.
On The Observer of September 21st, 2014, Andrew Rawnsley regretted the incoherence of the English people, who fought for a federal constitution in the Bonn Republic, after the Second World War, and today are not able to give themselves a similar one, even if they sorely need it. Because the crisis is a kind of war and it’s not easy to keep the distinct parts of the Kingdom together: the dominant England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.
And yet, a new federal state should not be a discovery in British thought. The idea of a federal Europe, based on solidarity in risk-sharing and a redefinition of peace, had been essentially English since the 19th century. Precisely in Great Britain did Luigi Einaudi discover the invention of federalism: he learned it from the economist Lionel Robbins, from the Kantian pacifist Lord Lothian, from William Beveridge, known for the creation of the welfare state.
We saw the possible breakdown, averted at the last minute, of a multi-centenarian nation-state: the British one. Maybe the Union needs exactly this: the announced deaths of yesterday’s States. The Scottish referendum could teach the United Kingdom that it must not necessarily fight a war in order to give itself a multi-national constitution – written or not – and to feel itself a little closer to the destiny of the Continent.
Translated by Laura Roscio
This article was originally published in La Stampa, 4th October 2014