Introduction
Before you ask, the answer is no. No, this is not a piece of writing about teenagers across the nation; it’s about the country and the idea that we seem to be experiencing our teenage years. We’re reacting against external influence, striving for independence as a way to ‘find ourselves’ as a nation and improve ourselves to achieve and demonstrate what we are capable of. It sounds rather like the narrative of one’s teenage years. However, given this country’s long history, it’s an odd time to be having our ‘teenage years’, so to speak. Contrastingly, America’s ‘teenage years’ came with the War of Independence – a much more normal time in the scale of their history to be ‘finding oneself’. Thus, one has to assert that we’ve lost ourselves, lost our way, or at least we feel as if we have. I’ve always said if Britain was at university, it would be a History student because we are somewhat obsessed with the past. Of course, the past is always the basis for constructing national narratives. I may be accused of feeling this emphasis on the past more acutely in Britain because I’m British, I live in Britain, and I’m experiencing the national narratives of this country more directly than I will any other nation. However, I still feel that this country has a sense of pride in our history in a very acute manner, that almost leaves us living in the past. These ideas come in the form of always thinking about World War Two, how heroic and how steadfast we were in those years, how unlike other nations in Europe we were not invaded by the Nazis – we’ve not been invaded since 1066 – we fought them off, (with the help of the English Channel of course). Even during COVID measures, this country relied on this idea that we had to adopt the ‘spirit of the Blitz’. Perhaps that’s because we don’t feel we had much since then to make us ‘special’.
Since the war, we’ve decreased in international power and economically wavered considerably at points. I’m not saying that we haven’t got things to be proud of in this country since the war, but I get the sense that as a nation we feel we haven’t achieved as much as we could since the war, shown our true mettle. I think the narratives surrounding this are best explained by David Reynolds in his book ‘Island Stories’11 where he explains a narrative of decline being perceived and used in this country, that shapes our psychology, if you will, and leads us to take on certain actions. We’ve had these unique moments of immense power and influence for such a small island. Now, having come back to a level that’s a little more expected for our size, with more power going to countries such as America, we’ve become concerned that we’ve gone into decline. I perceive; we look to reassert ourselves, reassert our independence, and bring back ‘the glory days’. It’s not a narrative unique to Britain, it is a very persuasive idea often used in politics to inspire mass support. The 2016 Trump campaign for US President, for instance, causing him to be elected in 2017, had the slogan; ‘Make America Great Again’ epitomising this idea of unfulfilled potential for a country, based on past ‘greatness’. It was an idea also used by the Nazis to present Germany as having this great history that had been tarnished by the harsh treatment of the allies with the Treaty of Versailles. (I do apologise for that example as I recognise its an unpleasant experience to realise that your country has a political feature akin to the Nazi state, but nevertheless important to note). Indignation at the current state of affairs is created, adding to a drive for change, and allowing for a sense that the change will be effective, and is possible, because it was in the past. Hence, many nations experience that ‘teenage angst’, as a result, if these narratives are taken to a significant enough level. I just want to note that by referencing ‘teenage angst’ this is not to be derogatory to the country looking to assert themselves. Although there are negative elements to ‘teenage angst’ and wanting to assert independence, there are also positive elements about healthy development there too, despite the phrases’ more negative connotations. The aim here is not to make a judgment clear about a country’s actions but rather to be aware of them and the psychology behind them. Now, to return to Britain. My case for asserting that we, particularly as a nation, are experiencing ‘teenage years’ is that these narratives of regaining greatness are particularly strong at the moment. This is evident from the momentous action we undertake, such as Brexit, or the momentous actions we are considering undertaking, with certain politicians suggesting a Conservative Party backing the exiting of the ECHR. This is an issue which there is significant debate about, with many Public Law experts, such as former High Court Judge, Jonathan Sumption, making comment on the nature of the ECHR and its benefits or lack of. I’ll go on to engage with the debate in this piece of writing, as it’s a relevant issue to our time.
The Brexit Message
Let us consider the pro-Brexit narratives. In January 2022 the government issued a document called; ‘The Benefits of Brexit: How the UK is taking advantage of leaving the EU’ and on page 5, just after the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson’s, Foreword and the Introduction is the subheading ‘Our Achievements so far’, and immediately after that the words ‘Taking back control’. This is clearly a key narrative here, that return to independence. The fact that it says ‘Taking back control’ rather than simply ‘Taking control’ shows the characterisation of the argument surrounds a return to former glory days where we were independent and in control, and that such a condition was in culmination with our success, (as otherwise the condition would not be so very desirable). Hence, there is that idea of decline. I do want to address how some could argue that I am playing semantics with the assertion based on the existence of the word ‘back’ within the sentence, as surely it could just be referencing our state of control prior to joining the EU (European Union) rather than indicating some great narrative of decline. However, the narrative of decline is simply within the context of joining the EU; ‘when joining we came under control, lost control of our laws, waters, borders and this doesn’t work for Britain because we were stronger before, we don’t need to rely on being in such close allegiance with our European counterparts’. To highlight that removal of control as a product of EU membership, attributes a decline from the point of joining. The reason why this narrative is so prevalent is because of strong feeling of Britain’s former glory, and that has such sting because of the decline narrative and idea that we have lost our glory. That narrative is the late-20th century realisation and feeling of being overtaken by far larger countries; the likes of America, whom we follow behind, honing our ‘special relationship’, because we know that’s where the power lies. Given the power we had in the past we cannot seem to accept this position. That is not to say whether it is right or wrong, but we’ve been lead to it through historical circumstances. There is a message that inspired these thoughts, and it’s important to be aware of the messages that guide us, so we can consider whether they are helpful or not.
ECHR: Under Attack from Nationalism?
The current narrative is: concerns about external powers controlling our political system in a dictatorial manner. The most recent manifestation: the ECHR is the parent of the teenager, and Britain is the teenager grappling with the tension between independence and freedom from control, and some recognition that perhaps that control is ultimately good for us, protecting us. The catalyst for government discussion of exiting the ECHR was the blocking of the government’s Rwanda plan; declaring that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was a violation of human rights. Although, it is clear that the tensions around this issue go beyond that, and that they are more ideologically driven. Indeed, it was prior to the Rwanda ruling that tensions surrounding the ECHR arose with the new Bill of Rights Bill introduced in June 2022, (although it was dropped in June 2023). The Bill replaced the Human Rights Act of 1998, the latter making ECHR articles domestically enforceable. Although the Bill protected the same rights as before, it did so differently, and many argue, less effectively. What it changed from the Human Rights Act was the amount of adherence this country had to pay to the ECHR, with the ability to ignore ‘positive obligations’; things the government should do, rather than avoid doing. Hence, the Bill reduced the hold of the ECHR in this country. Of course, it is no longer enforced. However, the fact that it was put in place and now we are having a debate about leaving the Convention altogether demonstrates the ideological debate about the ECHR having too much influence over us, and it is one that is profoundly political. The narrative of how this country with such a powerful history is being controlled is related to the debate on the ECHR and was made particularly clear by Ben Habib, former Brexit Party MEP, in an interview with TalkTV. He argues his case for leaving the ECHR by referencing our parliamentary history in glorifying terms, stating that our system was one that ‘delivered human rights first and foremost, way ahead of all these other countries in Europe’. He then goes onto assert that we were ‘a force for bringing stability to Europe when they couldn’t control themselves’. This clearly evidences this idea of our history being indicative of a ‘special nation’ and one that is separate from other countries. It gives rise to an argument of a need to organise ourselves as we so successfully did in the past. Indeed, building from his evidence of past successes, Habib concludes that ‘the notion that we need to be controlled by a court, over which we have no influence […] is fundamentally flawed’. Hence, he clearly sets out the circulating view of our desire for independence on the basis of past success. These messages are what make up the political ideology of Nationalism.
The ECHR Debate
We’ve now ‘got Brexit done’; we have a new passion project, a new independence crusade that can fire up the tabloids with support or complete opposition; leaving the ECHR. Regarding the opposition, the points they focus on are that the ECHR is; a vital source of protecting human rights in Britain, (and elsewhere in Europe), and fundamentally leaving the Convention would be almost an assault on human rights. There are also arguments circulating about the technical difficulties of leaving the Convention, such as leaving being a violation of the Good Friday agreement, something Alexander Horne notes in his article ‘Why can’t we just leave the European Convention on Human Rights?’ 22Those looking to gain independence view the ECHR as an increasingly dictatorial institution that asserts authority over Britain, a country that is able to institute its own human rights. Jonathan Sumption references Article 8 of the Convention in his book, ‘Trials of the State’33, as an example of where the ECHR’s powers have increased to an arguably unreasonable level. He argues that what started as an Article to protect aspect of one’s private and personal life expanding to include many other specifics of what an individual is at liberty to do. Sumption asserts that this is mandating laws that have not been agreed to.
However, he recognises that the Convention has great benefits, including making sure ministers are bound to human rights laws and considerations. Sumption also points out what I think is the main contention at the core of this topic; whether certain rights, these ‘basic rights’ should be removed from politics and democratic discourse. It’s a fundamentally ideological question, and therefore it’s harder for us to gain some consensus on from debate. Moreover, it begs the question what are ‘basic rights’ that the state should cater for? Again, another ideological question that falls under political beliefs, generally with the left wing likely to have a broader definition of this. These core questions would have been a part of political makeup, and world views across the decades, whether concisely considered or not, so why is now that we decided to question them? While Reynolds recognises the narrative of decline in our politics spans several decades of late it seems acutely directed against Europe. Have our political views shifted since we joined the ECHR? Of course they have. When we joined the ECHR, in 1953, we did so in the light of recent strife across all of Europe. With the Nazi territory having spanned over several countries, we watched the prevailing government violate those human rights. That is a fundamental issue with having human rights measured within one country; if controlled by the government, who is the government? What happens if an extreme party comes into power, surely we wouldn’t want them in control of our human rights. If we have a body independent from the government yet still internal to the country, they are still more under the control of one government because policies would affect them and make them more susceptible to influence. However, when human rights are increasingly debated; what actually is a human right, is that not a decision we should make all together? Is it possible to have these basic rights removed from politics? Perhaps not, but the type of politics and political institutions we keep them away from we can choose and we must think very carefully about.
Conclusion
Ultimately, all countries will operate on a narrative, or several. Thoughts around the country being unique and deserving independence is a common them across many nations, and something that we’ve seen across history. It is the basis of Nationalism as an ideology, to a lesser extreme Patriotism, and the explanation to the importance nations place upon Sovereignty. We’ve seen events such as the 1848 revolutions across Europe, the rise of the Nazis and now Brexit demonstrate the effectiveness of this type of characterisation. Particularly at the moment we have this strain of thought coursing through the veins of our politics. It’s caused debates, with reactions from all sides of the political spectrum, in favour or against such ideas, but makes evidence that there is a strong level of support for it. It’s clear our current ‘national psychology’ is susceptible to these ideas. We should be aware, when engaging in our politics, we have this theme of what is ultimately Nationalism (I know it’s a term with negative connotations post-war, but whether at an extreme or not, we can recognise it to share those values). When considering why this is the case I put it down to the post-war feeling of needing a place in the world and dealing with a changed position on the international stage. These feelings have developed greatly now, rather than more immediately after the war, as initially the focus was on preserving the peace in Europe. Now Britain is settled into peacetime and we’ve distanced ourselves, with time, from the high of; ‘We won the war’. However, we’re starting to fidget. We’ve become uncomfortable with our circumstance and look to make our mark upon the world once again because we know we can’t hark back to our ‘glorious past’ and winning of the war forever.
References
- Reynolds D, ‘Island Stories: An Unconventional History of Britain’, (London, 2019), pp.11-55 ↩︎
- Horne A, (10th August 2023), ’Why can’t we just leave the European Convention on Human Rights?’, ‘The Spectator’ [online], Last accessed 31st August 2023, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-cant-we-just-leave-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/ ↩︎
- Sumption J, ‘Trials of the State’ (2019, London) pp. 23-42 ↩︎