What do you think?
Rate this book
This Sovereign Isle: Britain In and Out of Europe
THE TOP TEN SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER
Geography comes before history. Islands cannot have the same history as continental plains. The United Kingdom is a European country, but not the same kind of European country as Germany, Poland or Hungary. For most of the 150 centuries during which Britain has been inhabited it has been on the edge, culturally and literally, of mainland Europe.
In this succinct book, Tombs shows that the decision to leave the EU is historically explicable - though not made historically inevitable - by Britain's very different historical experience, especially in the twentieth century, and because of our more extensive and deeper ties outside Europe. He challenges the orthodox view that Brexit was due solely to British or English exceptionalism: in choosing to leave the EU, the British, he argues, were in many ways voting as typical Europeans.
Geography comes before history. Islands cannot have the same history as continental plains. The United Kingdom is a European country, but not the same kind of European country as Germany, Poland or Hungary. For most of the 150 centuries during which Britain has been inhabited it has been on the edge, culturally and literally, of mainland Europe.
In this succinct book, Tombs shows that the decision to leave the EU is historically explicable - though not made historically inevitable - by Britain's very different historical experience, especially in the twentieth century, and because of our more extensive and deeper ties outside Europe. He challenges the orthodox view that Brexit was due solely to British or English exceptionalism: in choosing to leave the EU, the British, he argues, were in many ways voting as typical Europeans.
Audiobook
First published January 28, 2021
36 people are currently reading
348 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
November 6, 2021
Ruling classes rule by fabricating artificial divisions within a society. In Turkey where I am from it took many shapes: Are you a secularist or an Islamist? Are you a liberal democrat or an authoritarian? Choose your side, begin following their newspapers, repeat some of the reductionist arguments of their organic intellectuals, and ta-da: You now belong to a group. A group that ignores or sidelines the global class contradictions and holds on to what is essentially another version of capitalist ideology.
I feel Brexit did the same thing for the British society. This issue divided the UK into Brexiteers and Remainers who were both led by bourgeois intellectuals and capitalist interests. There were socialists and progressives on either side but their voices remained marginal.
Tombs is a Brexiteer and makes a lot of convincing points. He points out all the problems within the EU establishment, how it created dependent countries that are being exploited mainly by Germany and France. He describes the way the Remainers distort, simplify and ridicule the Brexiteers. We all know very well the skill with which right-wing intellectuals could mobilize and abuse Marxist arguments when they suit their reactionary interests. Tombs is no exception.
But Tombs' short-term Marxism stops at the gates of Westminster: EU is bureaucratic, anti-democratic, anti-people, imperialistic. Ok. But what about the UK? Almost a land of freedom and equality where the good old democracy and popular will still survives. The wise popular classes rose up to fight off the self-serving alliance of pro-EU capitalists, corrupt politicians and mercenary academics. Brexit won, the British people won. So his story goes.
To me, the whole Brexit process was the sign of a growing contradiction within the western capitalism. The EU is no less anti-democratic, unequal, imperialistic than the UK. I know the likes of Robert Tombs or his Remainer equivalents from my experience of the Turkish politics. They like to seem very rational, calm and to sound like the voice of wisdom. But in the end they lead you to an intellectual prison of one-sided views, simplified slogans.
Anyone concerned in taking a progressive stance should refuse to easily fit in any of the two groups the bourgeois societies promote. Democrats vs. Republicans. Islamists vs. Seculars. Brexiteers vs. Remainers. Liberals vs. Authoritarians. To hell with both. They just take turns in exploiting and oppressing the working masses.
I feel Brexit did the same thing for the British society. This issue divided the UK into Brexiteers and Remainers who were both led by bourgeois intellectuals and capitalist interests. There were socialists and progressives on either side but their voices remained marginal.
Tombs is a Brexiteer and makes a lot of convincing points. He points out all the problems within the EU establishment, how it created dependent countries that are being exploited mainly by Germany and France. He describes the way the Remainers distort, simplify and ridicule the Brexiteers. We all know very well the skill with which right-wing intellectuals could mobilize and abuse Marxist arguments when they suit their reactionary interests. Tombs is no exception.
But Tombs' short-term Marxism stops at the gates of Westminster: EU is bureaucratic, anti-democratic, anti-people, imperialistic. Ok. But what about the UK? Almost a land of freedom and equality where the good old democracy and popular will still survives. The wise popular classes rose up to fight off the self-serving alliance of pro-EU capitalists, corrupt politicians and mercenary academics. Brexit won, the British people won. So his story goes.
To me, the whole Brexit process was the sign of a growing contradiction within the western capitalism. The EU is no less anti-democratic, unequal, imperialistic than the UK. I know the likes of Robert Tombs or his Remainer equivalents from my experience of the Turkish politics. They like to seem very rational, calm and to sound like the voice of wisdom. But in the end they lead you to an intellectual prison of one-sided views, simplified slogans.
Anyone concerned in taking a progressive stance should refuse to easily fit in any of the two groups the bourgeois societies promote. Democrats vs. Republicans. Islamists vs. Seculars. Brexiteers vs. Remainers. Liberals vs. Authoritarians. To hell with both. They just take turns in exploiting and oppressing the working masses.
October 19, 2021
Over the last few years I have been following and reading voices from the opposite side of the political spectrum to my own. This is both a deliberate challenge to myself , because I saw - like millions of others - how we are trapped in our own echo chambers. When things don't go the way we hoped politically we are shocked and outraged. I was was of millions who voted Remain in 2016, and was devastated by the result. I too applauded each time Brexit was frustrated by various means, I fell for the simplistic narrative that Brexit was won by a small group of disaster capitalists/elite who managed to hoodwink millions of 'xenophobes' , who were lied to. If only we had another vote, they might see the light! Cringe. Thankfully my opinions matured and I discovered other voices, for example a Left wing argument for Leave, which I had not been exposed to at the time, and even though the Guardian's two economists Larry Elliot and Grace Blakeley ( both Left economically, both pro Leave) voices such as theirs were unheard of in the liberal circles I knew at the time.
Tombs' book is not from the Left, but the writer does come form an interesting perspective. Professor Emeritus of French History at Cambridge university, a French wife...Not the typical template of Leave voter in the minds of many of the liberal left. This is what probably drew me to buying the book in the first place.
On the whole I found it challenged my assumptions, yet again, of the vote. The arguments laid out , or rather weaved though, the texts are put together well . One that stuck out was rebuff from the 'Remainer' criticism one hears banded about so often, that Brexit was an exercise in nostalgic Imperialism. Tombs points that actually if anything is nostalgic Imperialism, is the body of the European Union!
Much of the book, tho I have to say is a sort of briefing of the history of event, post-vote, that felt slightly like logging the drama of the last 4 years rather than an analysis of the the geographic influences of an island on its politics verses that of the continent - which I would have liked to have read more of. Tho the first chapter (if I remember right) is the most comprehensive of all the chapters.
'This Sovereign Isle' was written during the first waves of pandemic , when Britain was making news with highest death toll in Europe, and was in one the hardest and longest lockdowns. As we all remember shorty after in early summer of 2020 the social unrest sparked by BLM was also tearing thorough UK following the scenes in the US. During this, a few months after the official end of Britain's membership of the EU expired, somehow this very cool and calm book was penned. Though dare I say it feels a little rushed in some parts, in all 'This Sovereign Isle' is a discrete, quiet elegy to the vote, rather than a brash, triumphant polemic. Thankfully.
Tombs' book is not from the Left, but the writer does come form an interesting perspective. Professor Emeritus of French History at Cambridge university, a French wife...Not the typical template of Leave voter in the minds of many of the liberal left. This is what probably drew me to buying the book in the first place.
On the whole I found it challenged my assumptions, yet again, of the vote. The arguments laid out , or rather weaved though, the texts are put together well . One that stuck out was rebuff from the 'Remainer' criticism one hears banded about so often, that Brexit was an exercise in nostalgic Imperialism. Tombs points that actually if anything is nostalgic Imperialism, is the body of the European Union!
Much of the book, tho I have to say is a sort of briefing of the history of event, post-vote, that felt slightly like logging the drama of the last 4 years rather than an analysis of the the geographic influences of an island on its politics verses that of the continent - which I would have liked to have read more of. Tho the first chapter (if I remember right) is the most comprehensive of all the chapters.
'This Sovereign Isle' was written during the first waves of pandemic , when Britain was making news with highest death toll in Europe, and was in one the hardest and longest lockdowns. As we all remember shorty after in early summer of 2020 the social unrest sparked by BLM was also tearing thorough UK following the scenes in the US. During this, a few months after the official end of Britain's membership of the EU expired, somehow this very cool and calm book was penned. Though dare I say it feels a little rushed in some parts, in all 'This Sovereign Isle' is a discrete, quiet elegy to the vote, rather than a brash, triumphant polemic. Thankfully.
May 22, 2022
An succinct, calm and well constructed case for Brexit. Excellent.
January 27, 2022
Nicely judged, well argued, and (praise be in these shrill times) calm. Probably a four star read but an extra star for being no longer than necessary.
November 24, 2021
"… what Milan Kundera called political kitsch, something the EU has been brilliant at creating. The reality is a rather cynical system in which some social groups, some interests and some countries gain hugely, and others lose hugely." (pg. 156)
When I read Robert Tombs' peerless The English and Their History last year, I wrote in my review that there had been plenty that had happened since its publication in 2014, not least Brexit. I wrote, however, that such events didn't date the book but instead seemed an extension of it, suggesting Tombs' analysis was fundamentally sound. When Brexit came, I wrote, you get the sense it wasn't a surprise to him.
And certainly, that's the case in This Sovereign Isle, Tombs' self-described "appendix" to The English and Their History (pg. vii). Continuing his refutation of the cultural orthodoxy of 'declinism' – the elitist view that England is a poky little country that should be ashamed of its past and hitch on to whatever supranational movement will take it – Tombs patiently outlines Britain's history with Europe and its 'odd couple' role vis-à-vis European centralization. The book then goes into a blow-by-blow narrative of the Brexit years – the referendum, Chequers, the outrageously-named "People's Vote", proroguing Parliament, all of that – and ends with speculation on Covid and where Britain may go next.
It is a lucid and welcome addition to the tapestry of English history Tombs wove in his earlier book. Brexit made historical, economic and political sense, not least because Britain has never been as weak as its post-war ruling class believes it is. Tombs describes the end of Britain's membership of the EU as the "denouement of a forty-year illusion" (pg. 58), showing how Britain has and will continue to be a global nation. The English and Their History took as one of its dominant themes the peculiar development of English liberty, the 'Magna Carta tradition' that sees the fundamental decisions made by the people and which the rulers obey, which is in complete contrast to the historical European tradition of monarchs, emperors and 'enlightened' elites shaping their countries, to which the people are merely called on to endorse after the fact (pg. 70). In his narrative of the Brexit years, Tombs is particularly alarmed by the extra-legal shenanigans undertaken to try and reverse the vote. This began with insulting but harmless denigration of Leavers (the Remainers' "monotonous pessimism… an ungenerosity of spirit towards the majority of their fellow countrymen, whom they hardly seemed to know and to whom they willingly ascribed the worst of motives. People proud of their open-minded cosmopolitanism seemed unable to sympathize with their neighbours" (pg. 95)) and ended chaotically, with Remainer elements seizing the reins of the Parliamentary agenda with the connivance of duplicitous ministers and a disgraced Speaker. This led to the absurd situation of opposition MPs and Remainer Tories rejecting government law and administration yet also refusing a vote of no confidence and a general election, the better to delay Britain's exit from the EU (pp121-2).
It is perhaps well for Tombs to write without venom of this contemptible display, but in my view the actions of this Shameful Parliament will go down as one of the most unedifying episodes in modern British history. It was unpleasant to witness at the time, and Tombs' narrative peters out almost in distaste and exhaustion, which is much the same as it felt for all of us who watched it unfold day by day. To learn, as an Englishman, that your vote may not matter – may be outright refused and gleefully circumvented by kept men – was an unprecedented experience. People outside England – and many inside it who don't know their own history – won't be able to realize how dangerous things became in that moment. As Tombs writes, this was, ironically, far more damaging to the UK than any economic uncertainty related to leaving or remaining in the EU (pg. 121).
Tombs does well to take the venom out of these years and write with a distinct lack of sensationalism in his prose. He writes critically of the EU's many failings, but never polemically, and when he notes that "economic fear has become the tightest bond of the European Union" (pg. 79), it's not done with any ideological glee. He points out that many voters are dissatisfied across the EU; the only difference is that Britain, with its strong trading links outside Europe and its provident refusal to commit to the single currency, was able to leave, in a way that the more unfortunate are not. Even the most committed Remainer, 'ashamed' of their country, wouldn't swap places with a Greek.
Tombs also writes that Britain, throughout its history, has never felt inclined to ally itself with the continental hegemon of the time ("It was the only major European state that never became an ally or a willing satellite of either Napoleon or Hitler" (pg. 19)), but such statements are never tub-thumping. Tombs writes that the EU corpocracy has always been hard on the poorest of its subject peoples: across all European countries, "wherever and whenever people had been allowed to vote, the working classes and the less privileged – the excluded, the unemployed and simply the less well off – voted against the EU" (pg. 61). The British were not possessed of any great foresight, integrity or national exceptionalism when they voted to Leave; discontent across Europe in the EU is such that "the British, paradoxically, voted as typical Europeans" (pg. 67). And, despite the efforts of the Shameful Parliament, they were in a position to actually act on such a vote.
Tombs' book is not without its flaws – or, rather, its missed opportunities. He correctly notes that one of the reasons the British establishment pursued European membership back in the Sixties and Seventies was that, racked by scandal and by its own decline (rather than the country's), such a top-down shackle on bottom-up forces in the country could "regild the prestige of its elite" (pg. 31). Outsourcing sovereignty could keep the grubby hands of the proles away from the levers of power. Tombs, however, does not bite at this dangerous piece, despite the material in question legitimising a class-based analysis (the Remainer dismissal of 'thick' Leaver 'bigots' who "didn't know what they were voting for"; the afore-mentioned objection of the working-classes across Europe to EU policies; the EU treatment of Ireland, Italy and particularly Greece almost as failed 19th-century colonies). Tombs lets it lie, instead making slightly confusing statements like "the idea that a deep and pre-existing cultural divide had been revealed by the 2016 referendum is an exaggeration" (pg. 77) and "the Brexit controversy did not expose a previously unrecognized gulf between two nations: it opened one" (pg. 96). For an author who weaved discussion of class so adroitly into his narrative in The English and Their History, and without rancour or ideology, this was a disappointment in This Sovereign Isle.
There are other minor missed opportunities. Tombs is reluctant to opine on prospects of Scottish independence (despite the popular narrative being that Brexit will lead to the end of the Union) and gets a bit soft-headed when discussing Covid (pg. 127). This is understandable, for any trained historian will have a natural aversion to opining with any authority on current events. There's an old joke in historians' circles where a professor is asked by a student, "What was the importance of the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C.?" To which the professor thinks for a moment and then replies, "It's too soon to say." Given such a necessarily circumspect attitude among those trained in the subject, it's understandable that Tombs doesn't want to be drawn too closely on events that are still developing.
That said, seeing the Brexit years put into a historical context, and by one of our most astute historians, is an education. Tombs – a bilingual Leave voter married to a Frenchwoman, coming from a social and academic background which is strongly pro-Remain – is no polemicist, no John Bull, and no opportunist. This is a sober, methodical and agenda-free attempt to make sense of some of the most turbulent years in post-war British history. It is not only a useful appendix to his masterful tome The English and Their History, which everyone should read, but a useful monograph in its own right. Tombs patiently refutes some of our most complacent narratives, not least that of British decline, and shines light on some basic analyses that are uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, such as EU mismanagement of its poorer societies, or Germany's disquieting and destabilising economic surplus with its neighbours (pg. 51), some of which seem little more than 19th-century vassal states. Tombs concludes that the dominant theme of the story is "perennial mistrust of democracy" (pg. 157), whether that is EU treatment of its subject peoples, the top-down pursuit of European integration by the elites at the expense of the poor, or Remainer and Parliamentary attempts (almost successful) to reverse the 2016 referendum vote. The British, at least as far as the European Union is concerned, have put the worst of that mistrust behind them. Far from retreating into nostalgia and reactionism, they have reasserted their democratic values and stolen a march on history. The rest of the Europeans seem not to have even begun to realize they have another fight against authoritarianism on their hands.
When I read Robert Tombs' peerless The English and Their History last year, I wrote in my review that there had been plenty that had happened since its publication in 2014, not least Brexit. I wrote, however, that such events didn't date the book but instead seemed an extension of it, suggesting Tombs' analysis was fundamentally sound. When Brexit came, I wrote, you get the sense it wasn't a surprise to him.
And certainly, that's the case in This Sovereign Isle, Tombs' self-described "appendix" to The English and Their History (pg. vii). Continuing his refutation of the cultural orthodoxy of 'declinism' – the elitist view that England is a poky little country that should be ashamed of its past and hitch on to whatever supranational movement will take it – Tombs patiently outlines Britain's history with Europe and its 'odd couple' role vis-à-vis European centralization. The book then goes into a blow-by-blow narrative of the Brexit years – the referendum, Chequers, the outrageously-named "People's Vote", proroguing Parliament, all of that – and ends with speculation on Covid and where Britain may go next.
It is a lucid and welcome addition to the tapestry of English history Tombs wove in his earlier book. Brexit made historical, economic and political sense, not least because Britain has never been as weak as its post-war ruling class believes it is. Tombs describes the end of Britain's membership of the EU as the "denouement of a forty-year illusion" (pg. 58), showing how Britain has and will continue to be a global nation. The English and Their History took as one of its dominant themes the peculiar development of English liberty, the 'Magna Carta tradition' that sees the fundamental decisions made by the people and which the rulers obey, which is in complete contrast to the historical European tradition of monarchs, emperors and 'enlightened' elites shaping their countries, to which the people are merely called on to endorse after the fact (pg. 70). In his narrative of the Brexit years, Tombs is particularly alarmed by the extra-legal shenanigans undertaken to try and reverse the vote. This began with insulting but harmless denigration of Leavers (the Remainers' "monotonous pessimism… an ungenerosity of spirit towards the majority of their fellow countrymen, whom they hardly seemed to know and to whom they willingly ascribed the worst of motives. People proud of their open-minded cosmopolitanism seemed unable to sympathize with their neighbours" (pg. 95)) and ended chaotically, with Remainer elements seizing the reins of the Parliamentary agenda with the connivance of duplicitous ministers and a disgraced Speaker. This led to the absurd situation of opposition MPs and Remainer Tories rejecting government law and administration yet also refusing a vote of no confidence and a general election, the better to delay Britain's exit from the EU (pp121-2).
It is perhaps well for Tombs to write without venom of this contemptible display, but in my view the actions of this Shameful Parliament will go down as one of the most unedifying episodes in modern British history. It was unpleasant to witness at the time, and Tombs' narrative peters out almost in distaste and exhaustion, which is much the same as it felt for all of us who watched it unfold day by day. To learn, as an Englishman, that your vote may not matter – may be outright refused and gleefully circumvented by kept men – was an unprecedented experience. People outside England – and many inside it who don't know their own history – won't be able to realize how dangerous things became in that moment. As Tombs writes, this was, ironically, far more damaging to the UK than any economic uncertainty related to leaving or remaining in the EU (pg. 121).
Tombs does well to take the venom out of these years and write with a distinct lack of sensationalism in his prose. He writes critically of the EU's many failings, but never polemically, and when he notes that "economic fear has become the tightest bond of the European Union" (pg. 79), it's not done with any ideological glee. He points out that many voters are dissatisfied across the EU; the only difference is that Britain, with its strong trading links outside Europe and its provident refusal to commit to the single currency, was able to leave, in a way that the more unfortunate are not. Even the most committed Remainer, 'ashamed' of their country, wouldn't swap places with a Greek.
Tombs also writes that Britain, throughout its history, has never felt inclined to ally itself with the continental hegemon of the time ("It was the only major European state that never became an ally or a willing satellite of either Napoleon or Hitler" (pg. 19)), but such statements are never tub-thumping. Tombs writes that the EU corpocracy has always been hard on the poorest of its subject peoples: across all European countries, "wherever and whenever people had been allowed to vote, the working classes and the less privileged – the excluded, the unemployed and simply the less well off – voted against the EU" (pg. 61). The British were not possessed of any great foresight, integrity or national exceptionalism when they voted to Leave; discontent across Europe in the EU is such that "the British, paradoxically, voted as typical Europeans" (pg. 67). And, despite the efforts of the Shameful Parliament, they were in a position to actually act on such a vote.
Tombs' book is not without its flaws – or, rather, its missed opportunities. He correctly notes that one of the reasons the British establishment pursued European membership back in the Sixties and Seventies was that, racked by scandal and by its own decline (rather than the country's), such a top-down shackle on bottom-up forces in the country could "regild the prestige of its elite" (pg. 31). Outsourcing sovereignty could keep the grubby hands of the proles away from the levers of power. Tombs, however, does not bite at this dangerous piece, despite the material in question legitimising a class-based analysis (the Remainer dismissal of 'thick' Leaver 'bigots' who "didn't know what they were voting for"; the afore-mentioned objection of the working-classes across Europe to EU policies; the EU treatment of Ireland, Italy and particularly Greece almost as failed 19th-century colonies). Tombs lets it lie, instead making slightly confusing statements like "the idea that a deep and pre-existing cultural divide had been revealed by the 2016 referendum is an exaggeration" (pg. 77) and "the Brexit controversy did not expose a previously unrecognized gulf between two nations: it opened one" (pg. 96). For an author who weaved discussion of class so adroitly into his narrative in The English and Their History, and without rancour or ideology, this was a disappointment in This Sovereign Isle.
There are other minor missed opportunities. Tombs is reluctant to opine on prospects of Scottish independence (despite the popular narrative being that Brexit will lead to the end of the Union) and gets a bit soft-headed when discussing Covid (pg. 127). This is understandable, for any trained historian will have a natural aversion to opining with any authority on current events. There's an old joke in historians' circles where a professor is asked by a student, "What was the importance of the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C.?" To which the professor thinks for a moment and then replies, "It's too soon to say." Given such a necessarily circumspect attitude among those trained in the subject, it's understandable that Tombs doesn't want to be drawn too closely on events that are still developing.
That said, seeing the Brexit years put into a historical context, and by one of our most astute historians, is an education. Tombs – a bilingual Leave voter married to a Frenchwoman, coming from a social and academic background which is strongly pro-Remain – is no polemicist, no John Bull, and no opportunist. This is a sober, methodical and agenda-free attempt to make sense of some of the most turbulent years in post-war British history. It is not only a useful appendix to his masterful tome The English and Their History, which everyone should read, but a useful monograph in its own right. Tombs patiently refutes some of our most complacent narratives, not least that of British decline, and shines light on some basic analyses that are uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, such as EU mismanagement of its poorer societies, or Germany's disquieting and destabilising economic surplus with its neighbours (pg. 51), some of which seem little more than 19th-century vassal states. Tombs concludes that the dominant theme of the story is "perennial mistrust of democracy" (pg. 157), whether that is EU treatment of its subject peoples, the top-down pursuit of European integration by the elites at the expense of the poor, or Remainer and Parliamentary attempts (almost successful) to reverse the 2016 referendum vote. The British, at least as far as the European Union is concerned, have put the worst of that mistrust behind them. Far from retreating into nostalgia and reactionism, they have reasserted their democratic values and stolen a march on history. The rest of the Europeans seem not to have even begun to realize they have another fight against authoritarianism on their hands.
February 28, 2021
A Marmite book! "This Sovereign Isle" reads more like an extended address than a considered piece of historical analysis - which is unusual for this author. People who support Brexit will broadly agree with the book's main arguments about the claimed aberration of British membership of the EEC/EU; those who do not, will challenge these. The problems of British membership are accurately described, as are the deteriorating circumstances of the EU. It is, of course, far too soon to assess the impact and consequences, for the UK and the EU, of Brexit, so it would be interesting to revisit this book in a few years.
In the meantime, a challenging, informative and provocative book which is recommended, regardless of one's position on the substantive issue.
In the meantime, a challenging, informative and provocative book which is recommended, regardless of one's position on the substantive issue.
April 13, 2021
A quick look at "Britain in and out of Europe" that is at least as much devoted to a critical history (read: teardown) of the European project. For Brexit sympathizers across the channel, this will be a fun read.
However, there is a reason that historians like Tombs usually wait a few more years before writing a book like this. The effects of Brexit have barely begun to be felt. This book went to press as COVID had taken hold in the UK, but before the roll-out of vaccines. This type of development might have changed Tombs's book.
In summary, let journalists write the story of the recent past, and let historians pick up the pieces as the years pass by.
However, there is a reason that historians like Tombs usually wait a few more years before writing a book like this. The effects of Brexit have barely begun to be felt. This book went to press as COVID had taken hold in the UK, but before the roll-out of vaccines. This type of development might have changed Tombs's book.
In summary, let journalists write the story of the recent past, and let historians pick up the pieces as the years pass by.
June 8, 2024
Slightly biased of course, but a very interesting analysis. The author examines Brexit in a very broad historical context.
August 28, 2021
Post script, written during the Covid lockdown, to the author’s ‘The English and their History’, which I also loved. Succinct, highly readable, provocative and interesting.
February 2, 2025
It was partly traumatic to come back to the topic of Brexit after having been in Parliament during the Boris years. It was also difficult at the time to be able to try and level-headedly evaluate both positions given the enormous amount of information that was spewed out constantly from both sides of the debate; however this short book, written not long after the UK left the EU 'for real', provides a clear account of why the country had always been, due to our unique history and standing within Europe, the most likely of it's peers to leave the EU. This book can be read by those who have little knowledge of the history of Brexit, and can come away with a good summation of the thoughts of both Remainers and Leavers.
Brown's decision to forgo joining the Euro was fundamental to our ability to leave the EU (and helped in our ability to respond to the 08 Financial Crisis and Covid more nimbly than the Eurozone), which may put to rest any idea of other iterations of Brexit for other countries, given the effect this would have on citizen's savings should they have to switch out of the Euro (approximately a 10-15% reduction in people's savings should this take place), therefore politically untenable. Brexit has served as an inflection point to our direction as a country in this new multi-polar world: one towards ever worsening managed decline alongside the EU; or "reasserting democracy in the only form in which it flourishes or has ever flourished - within a nation state."
Passages that I found useful:
"Remain voters may, I suggest, be placed into four overlapping categories. First, Ideological Remainers. This small group (the aforementioned, 9 percent of Remain voters, about 1.4 million people) claim to be primarily motivated by an emotional commitment to the "European project" - 'the last of the Enlightenment grand narratives.' They support greater power being exercised by EU institutions, and some think of themselves primarily as 'Europeans'. For those sharing this sentiment (who seem from personal observation to include elderly as well as youthful idealists) the EU shares the same lineage as the League of Nations, the United Nations and even the Green movement. Whatever its shortcomings, they feel it somehow expresses 'peace on earth and goodwill to men'. It embodies European civilization in a traditional form - ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment - but shorn of its darker qualities. According to the philosopher John Gray, 'they think of themselves as embodiments of reason, facing down the ignorant passions of the unwashed rabble. But their rationalism is a vehicle for a dangerous myth, which the EU is a semi-sacred institution." They may regard British and English national identity as outdated or even dangerous, and sometimes hold vehemently negative views of Britain and England — a considerable portion of this group, simple arithmetic suggests, may well be Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationalists." Add to the mixture a strong dash of anti-Americanism and "post-colonial guilt". Such sentiments have a long pedigree, harking back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - in 1940 George Orwell mocked those who would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during "God Save the King" than of stealing from a poor box'."
"Did Remainers as a whole share any common assumptions? Did Leavers? For convinced Remainers, one is 'declinism': the belief that Britain is a much diminished and weak country, barely able to function economically or politically on its own. If for some this is a cause of alarm and regret, many Remainers appear to cling to it gleefully, presumably as a way of repudiating the nation state, or at least the British nation state. The corollary is a bien-pensant internationalism, whether as an ideal or merely as a convenience - ease of travel, and, for the better off, ownership of property in agreeable parts of the Continent. Such Europeanism (found in the richer parts of every EU country) can be costless: "not ... the acquisition of new obligations towards the less successful regions of Europe [but] the exit from former obligations towards the less successful regions of one's own nation!" The problems facing the EU seem to cast little shadow: whereas post-Brexit Britain is confidently declared to be in terminal decline, the EU is assumed to be marching towards fulfilment and the resolution of its problems. 'The fantasy that another Europe is on the horizon,' comments John Gray, 'allows them to evade the mortifying truth that the European project belongs in the past. Here, surely, is 'nostalgia' — the trait they ascribe to Leavers. "
"The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton prioritized culture, community and nation, 'a society held together by trust between strangers", the bedrock of tolerance, democracy and inclusivity. He regretted that many Remainers seemed animated by repudiation of home - the turning away from the inherited first person plural', and he argued that Britain always had been and remained part of true European culture. "' John Gray, also a philosopher, wrote mordant political commentaries, one of which identified the 'fellow-traveller' mentality attractive to intellectuals: "The ease with which fellow-travellers pass over the casualties of the regimes with which they identify is one of their defining traits... They are attracted by any large political experiment that seems to prefigure a new order of things." Richard Tuck, a left-wing historian of ideas, provided incisive analyses of the politics, as did the economist Graham Gudgin of the economics. Matthew Goodwin attempted to explain 'populism' rather than abusing voters. Chris Bickerton provided a critical inside analysis of the EU system, in which former nation states were reduced to dependent member states. Vernon Bogdanor, a leading constitutional expert, hoped that Brexit, a new beginning, might catalyse constitutional reform. Paul Collier, an economist who had voted Remain but accepted Leave, reflected on the growing importance of community and the need for an 'economics of belonging' through which post-Brexit policy must redress the inequalities created by the globalized metropolitan culture of individual rights and group privileges. Stephen Davies wrote a detailed political analysis, arguing that Brexit marked a fundamental realignment of political forces in Britain and Europe."
"Secessionism of the wealthy can be seen clearly in Catalonia, Flanders, northern Italy and London. Had the EU been economically successful, its peoples might perhaps have reconciled themselves to becoming denationalized Europeans under a technocracy with a systemic democratic deficit. After all, democracy is new and fragile in much of Europe, and is often tainted with failure and corruption. But the EU has not been successful, and it is now similarly tainted. Its defenders would perhaps argue that, without the EU, things would be worse - that we are 'better together'. Indeed, EU membership once buttressed democracy and the rule of law, as in Spain, Portugal and Greece, and in newly independent Eastern Europe. But now the biggest problems stem from the EU itself. It has created a political void between citizens and those who govern them: powers of decision have been removed from open electoral politics and placed in the shadowy realm of secret diplomacy. The EU has become a political black hole, sucking authority away from elected governments but being unable to wield that authority effectively. It faces a series of problems it cannot solve: migration, unemployment, the growing inequalities and dangers of the Eurozone system, and now the Ukraine crisis. Its response to the COVID pandemic, which seemed to many a make-or-break challenge, again underlined its divisions and limitations. Its ambition to play a superpower role falls embarrassingly, even dangerously, short. Russian aggression showed it as a follower, not a leader. Even people who accept many of these criticisms fall back as an ultimate argument on political gigantism: the EU is very big; and post-Brexit Britain is small. Versions of this argument are more than a century old."
"The idea of a united Europe as the embodiment and defender of a certain humane civilization, even as an 'empire', has attracted people for over 150 years - not so much a place as an idea. The ‘founding fathers' are seen by some as having engaged in ‘a heroic endeavour’ with its prime justification renunciation of chauvinism and war in favour of harmony, friendship and the defence of European exceptionalism. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy' is an inspiring prophecy: 'All men will be brothers .. ‘ The beguiling vision remains eternally just over the horizon. Brexit was felt by many in Europe and Britain to be a philistine act of destruction, like smashing a Greek statue or throwing acid over a Renaissance painting. But this Europe, as Tony Judt pointed out, was 'a Europe of the mind." As such, it enthused many intellectuals. But, despite huge and continuing efforts, it has not managed to become equally attractive as a Europe of realities, able to inspire the instinctive shared identity that any democratic system - or even an empire - requires to be successful. The only justification for being willing to cede authority to this faltering utopia would be if it did indeed have some overriding political and moral purpose as 'a Europe of citizens, peoples, democracy and destiny.' To be frank, to me this is what Milan Kundera called political kitsch, something the EU has been brilliant at creating. The reality is a rather cynical system in which some social groups, some interests, and some countries gain hugely, and others lose hugely."
"How might Brexit be remembered in Britain, as far as it is remembered at all? At least as an alteration in economic and political direction after nearly fifty years of hesitant commitment to European integration. At best, as the beginning of an effort to improve social cohesion, to shake up a tired system of government, and to reset an exhausted national strategy. At worst, as the acceleration of a long decline into relative poverty, global marginalization, and social and political dis-integration. This third possibility is the standard Remainer scenario, which some cling to with fierce passion. Which of these turns out to be true depends partly on the state of a suddenly unstable world, but, above all, on our collective decisions: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' Though it sparked a culture war, Brexit was essentially political. Most Leave voters of all classes were determined to have a government that would pay attention to them. Though often dismissed as populism, having governments that pay attention is the aim and constant effort of democracy. Not all Leavers want the same things, but they do want that, as traditional Labour voters showed in December 2019 by backing a Conservative government. Many people across Europe also want more political control. Yanis Varoufakis, long a prominent advocate of a democratized EU, now thinks that we did the right thing, if for the wrong reason. Those of us who supported Leave thought it was for the right reason: to reassert democracy in the only form in which it flourishes or has ever flourished - within a nation state. Many who voted Remain accept this view."
Brown's decision to forgo joining the Euro was fundamental to our ability to leave the EU (and helped in our ability to respond to the 08 Financial Crisis and Covid more nimbly than the Eurozone), which may put to rest any idea of other iterations of Brexit for other countries, given the effect this would have on citizen's savings should they have to switch out of the Euro (approximately a 10-15% reduction in people's savings should this take place), therefore politically untenable. Brexit has served as an inflection point to our direction as a country in this new multi-polar world: one towards ever worsening managed decline alongside the EU; or "reasserting democracy in the only form in which it flourishes or has ever flourished - within a nation state."
Passages that I found useful:
"Remain voters may, I suggest, be placed into four overlapping categories. First, Ideological Remainers. This small group (the aforementioned, 9 percent of Remain voters, about 1.4 million people) claim to be primarily motivated by an emotional commitment to the "European project" - 'the last of the Enlightenment grand narratives.' They support greater power being exercised by EU institutions, and some think of themselves primarily as 'Europeans'. For those sharing this sentiment (who seem from personal observation to include elderly as well as youthful idealists) the EU shares the same lineage as the League of Nations, the United Nations and even the Green movement. Whatever its shortcomings, they feel it somehow expresses 'peace on earth and goodwill to men'. It embodies European civilization in a traditional form - ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment - but shorn of its darker qualities. According to the philosopher John Gray, 'they think of themselves as embodiments of reason, facing down the ignorant passions of the unwashed rabble. But their rationalism is a vehicle for a dangerous myth, which the EU is a semi-sacred institution." They may regard British and English national identity as outdated or even dangerous, and sometimes hold vehemently negative views of Britain and England — a considerable portion of this group, simple arithmetic suggests, may well be Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationalists." Add to the mixture a strong dash of anti-Americanism and "post-colonial guilt". Such sentiments have a long pedigree, harking back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - in 1940 George Orwell mocked those who would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during "God Save the King" than of stealing from a poor box'."
"Did Remainers as a whole share any common assumptions? Did Leavers? For convinced Remainers, one is 'declinism': the belief that Britain is a much diminished and weak country, barely able to function economically or politically on its own. If for some this is a cause of alarm and regret, many Remainers appear to cling to it gleefully, presumably as a way of repudiating the nation state, or at least the British nation state. The corollary is a bien-pensant internationalism, whether as an ideal or merely as a convenience - ease of travel, and, for the better off, ownership of property in agreeable parts of the Continent. Such Europeanism (found in the richer parts of every EU country) can be costless: "not ... the acquisition of new obligations towards the less successful regions of Europe [but] the exit from former obligations towards the less successful regions of one's own nation!" The problems facing the EU seem to cast little shadow: whereas post-Brexit Britain is confidently declared to be in terminal decline, the EU is assumed to be marching towards fulfilment and the resolution of its problems. 'The fantasy that another Europe is on the horizon,' comments John Gray, 'allows them to evade the mortifying truth that the European project belongs in the past. Here, surely, is 'nostalgia' — the trait they ascribe to Leavers. "
"The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton prioritized culture, community and nation, 'a society held together by trust between strangers", the bedrock of tolerance, democracy and inclusivity. He regretted that many Remainers seemed animated by repudiation of home - the turning away from the inherited first person plural', and he argued that Britain always had been and remained part of true European culture. "' John Gray, also a philosopher, wrote mordant political commentaries, one of which identified the 'fellow-traveller' mentality attractive to intellectuals: "The ease with which fellow-travellers pass over the casualties of the regimes with which they identify is one of their defining traits... They are attracted by any large political experiment that seems to prefigure a new order of things." Richard Tuck, a left-wing historian of ideas, provided incisive analyses of the politics, as did the economist Graham Gudgin of the economics. Matthew Goodwin attempted to explain 'populism' rather than abusing voters. Chris Bickerton provided a critical inside analysis of the EU system, in which former nation states were reduced to dependent member states. Vernon Bogdanor, a leading constitutional expert, hoped that Brexit, a new beginning, might catalyse constitutional reform. Paul Collier, an economist who had voted Remain but accepted Leave, reflected on the growing importance of community and the need for an 'economics of belonging' through which post-Brexit policy must redress the inequalities created by the globalized metropolitan culture of individual rights and group privileges. Stephen Davies wrote a detailed political analysis, arguing that Brexit marked a fundamental realignment of political forces in Britain and Europe."
"Secessionism of the wealthy can be seen clearly in Catalonia, Flanders, northern Italy and London. Had the EU been economically successful, its peoples might perhaps have reconciled themselves to becoming denationalized Europeans under a technocracy with a systemic democratic deficit. After all, democracy is new and fragile in much of Europe, and is often tainted with failure and corruption. But the EU has not been successful, and it is now similarly tainted. Its defenders would perhaps argue that, without the EU, things would be worse - that we are 'better together'. Indeed, EU membership once buttressed democracy and the rule of law, as in Spain, Portugal and Greece, and in newly independent Eastern Europe. But now the biggest problems stem from the EU itself. It has created a political void between citizens and those who govern them: powers of decision have been removed from open electoral politics and placed in the shadowy realm of secret diplomacy. The EU has become a political black hole, sucking authority away from elected governments but being unable to wield that authority effectively. It faces a series of problems it cannot solve: migration, unemployment, the growing inequalities and dangers of the Eurozone system, and now the Ukraine crisis. Its response to the COVID pandemic, which seemed to many a make-or-break challenge, again underlined its divisions and limitations. Its ambition to play a superpower role falls embarrassingly, even dangerously, short. Russian aggression showed it as a follower, not a leader. Even people who accept many of these criticisms fall back as an ultimate argument on political gigantism: the EU is very big; and post-Brexit Britain is small. Versions of this argument are more than a century old."
"The idea of a united Europe as the embodiment and defender of a certain humane civilization, even as an 'empire', has attracted people for over 150 years - not so much a place as an idea. The ‘founding fathers' are seen by some as having engaged in ‘a heroic endeavour’ with its prime justification renunciation of chauvinism and war in favour of harmony, friendship and the defence of European exceptionalism. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy' is an inspiring prophecy: 'All men will be brothers .. ‘ The beguiling vision remains eternally just over the horizon. Brexit was felt by many in Europe and Britain to be a philistine act of destruction, like smashing a Greek statue or throwing acid over a Renaissance painting. But this Europe, as Tony Judt pointed out, was 'a Europe of the mind." As such, it enthused many intellectuals. But, despite huge and continuing efforts, it has not managed to become equally attractive as a Europe of realities, able to inspire the instinctive shared identity that any democratic system - or even an empire - requires to be successful. The only justification for being willing to cede authority to this faltering utopia would be if it did indeed have some overriding political and moral purpose as 'a Europe of citizens, peoples, democracy and destiny.' To be frank, to me this is what Milan Kundera called political kitsch, something the EU has been brilliant at creating. The reality is a rather cynical system in which some social groups, some interests, and some countries gain hugely, and others lose hugely."
"How might Brexit be remembered in Britain, as far as it is remembered at all? At least as an alteration in economic and political direction after nearly fifty years of hesitant commitment to European integration. At best, as the beginning of an effort to improve social cohesion, to shake up a tired system of government, and to reset an exhausted national strategy. At worst, as the acceleration of a long decline into relative poverty, global marginalization, and social and political dis-integration. This third possibility is the standard Remainer scenario, which some cling to with fierce passion. Which of these turns out to be true depends partly on the state of a suddenly unstable world, but, above all, on our collective decisions: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' Though it sparked a culture war, Brexit was essentially political. Most Leave voters of all classes were determined to have a government that would pay attention to them. Though often dismissed as populism, having governments that pay attention is the aim and constant effort of democracy. Not all Leavers want the same things, but they do want that, as traditional Labour voters showed in December 2019 by backing a Conservative government. Many people across Europe also want more political control. Yanis Varoufakis, long a prominent advocate of a democratized EU, now thinks that we did the right thing, if for the wrong reason. Those of us who supported Leave thought it was for the right reason: to reassert democracy in the only form in which it flourishes or has ever flourished - within a nation state. Many who voted Remain accept this view."
November 20, 2023
I had not been in the UK during the referendum and thus had not heard any of the pro-Leave arguments first-hand and the second-hand accounts in the press were mostly lies and exaggerations. I’ve lived in Bristol since 2017 and rarely encounter leave voters (Bristol voted 80% Remain). My family in Kent can recite the Leave slogans that get shouted out on Question Time but were never able to give any details as to why they voted the way they did. I was curious to know. When I finished Tomb’s monumental History of the English, this book popped up as a recommendation so I was curious to know if he could fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
What I learned...
The author spent a lot of time talking about the democracy deficit in EU institutions and, especially, in how the member states proceeded through the various steps towards Ever Closer Union - Rome, Maastrict, Lisbon etc.
Some of this just sounded like peevish resentment such as the burning ire against the Irish and Danish voting first no then yes on Maastrict because, while a Referendum is the very pinnacle of democracy, voting differently in a second referendum is grubby manipulation. Some of his complaints sounded petty las though someone had filled the forms in duplicate rather than triplicate as the treaty required.
Other parts of the criticism were more serious such as Blair's rescinded promise to put Lisbon to a vote. I interpreted this section as a slippery slope argument that, although our sovereignty has remained intact so far, it would just take one more collusion between those wiley Europeans and our feckless government to wash our ability to make our own laws down the drain of history. I’ll concede, sadly, that this is a real fear but, in my opinion, unlikely to come to pass. I think there is enough pushback from those of us, all across Europe, even in Germany and France, that are opposed to Ever Closer Union that the Federalists would never prevail.
Tombs never gives any real examples of the consequences of this loss of sovereignty but I suspect that making the right choice in the wrong office matters more to the author than it matters to me. In any case, I understand the argument better now even if I don't agree with it. Score half a point for the author.
I was pre-persuaded by the argument on immigration. I'm a full-on cosmopolitan and I love hearing the dozen or more languages outside my window every evening but I think this is the strongest argument in favour of Brexit and the author covers it in great detail. I expect that future historians will look back on Blair’s decision not to restrict immigration from Eastern Europe, the way that France and Germany did, will be seen as a bigger blunder than even the Iraq War. Blair’s government predicted something like 15,000 immigrants per year but the final score was closer to one million. Score one point to the author for making this argument so forcefully, though he neglected to mention Merkel’s invitation to admit a million refugees during the final days of the referendum campaign, neither did he mention Farage’s race-baiting posters or the promises of Turkish immigrants in the next, inevitable, wave of immigration.
There were a lot of complaints about fiscal dysfunction within the Eurozone and, especially, in the profligate southern European countries. However, since we were not in the Eurozone, I didn't quite understand why this would concern us very much.
I found his arguments on trade to be very hand-wavy as though he acknowledged that we would lose a massive amount of trade but Who Cares!? We only do 60% of our trade with our closest neighbours and, surely, countries on the other side will no doubt be happy to make up the shortfall. Likewise, who cares if a handful of rich kids can no longer study in Europe?
I was here for all the political machination between the referendum and the final, glorious day that Brexit happened and I was glued to the coverage of parliamentary debate during that time. Let's just say that I had a very different interpretation of the significance of Parliament's role during that time. Tombs seemed to be indignant that Parliament had any role at all and was appalled that the Supreme Court had an opinion on the constitution.
(note: I'm still editing this review and, in particular, I need to check and correct the numbers before I hit DONE. )
What I learned...
The author spent a lot of time talking about the democracy deficit in EU institutions and, especially, in how the member states proceeded through the various steps towards Ever Closer Union - Rome, Maastrict, Lisbon etc.
Some of this just sounded like peevish resentment such as the burning ire against the Irish and Danish voting first no then yes on Maastrict because, while a Referendum is the very pinnacle of democracy, voting differently in a second referendum is grubby manipulation. Some of his complaints sounded petty las though someone had filled the forms in duplicate rather than triplicate as the treaty required.
Other parts of the criticism were more serious such as Blair's rescinded promise to put Lisbon to a vote. I interpreted this section as a slippery slope argument that, although our sovereignty has remained intact so far, it would just take one more collusion between those wiley Europeans and our feckless government to wash our ability to make our own laws down the drain of history. I’ll concede, sadly, that this is a real fear but, in my opinion, unlikely to come to pass. I think there is enough pushback from those of us, all across Europe, even in Germany and France, that are opposed to Ever Closer Union that the Federalists would never prevail.
Tombs never gives any real examples of the consequences of this loss of sovereignty but I suspect that making the right choice in the wrong office matters more to the author than it matters to me. In any case, I understand the argument better now even if I don't agree with it. Score half a point for the author.
I was pre-persuaded by the argument on immigration. I'm a full-on cosmopolitan and I love hearing the dozen or more languages outside my window every evening but I think this is the strongest argument in favour of Brexit and the author covers it in great detail. I expect that future historians will look back on Blair’s decision not to restrict immigration from Eastern Europe, the way that France and Germany did, will be seen as a bigger blunder than even the Iraq War. Blair’s government predicted something like 15,000 immigrants per year but the final score was closer to one million. Score one point to the author for making this argument so forcefully, though he neglected to mention Merkel’s invitation to admit a million refugees during the final days of the referendum campaign, neither did he mention Farage’s race-baiting posters or the promises of Turkish immigrants in the next, inevitable, wave of immigration.
There were a lot of complaints about fiscal dysfunction within the Eurozone and, especially, in the profligate southern European countries. However, since we were not in the Eurozone, I didn't quite understand why this would concern us very much.
I found his arguments on trade to be very hand-wavy as though he acknowledged that we would lose a massive amount of trade but Who Cares!? We only do 60% of our trade with our closest neighbours and, surely, countries on the other side will no doubt be happy to make up the shortfall. Likewise, who cares if a handful of rich kids can no longer study in Europe?
I was here for all the political machination between the referendum and the final, glorious day that Brexit happened and I was glued to the coverage of parliamentary debate during that time. Let's just say that I had a very different interpretation of the significance of Parliament's role during that time. Tombs seemed to be indignant that Parliament had any role at all and was appalled that the Supreme Court had an opinion on the constitution.
(note: I'm still editing this review and, in particular, I need to check and correct the numbers before I hit DONE. )
July 24, 2021
To many, this is a dangerous little book. It makes a coherent case for Brexit. It runs against the thinking of The Establishment and offers a degree of hope that Britain could actually thrive outside of the EU. It also makes a couple of interesting claims that are worth more thought. Let's begin with those.
The first bold claim I found most interesting. The author states that it was the imposition of the CAP in the 1970s that led to a degree of cost push inflation. Prior to joining the EEC, Britain traded at the lower world prices for its food. After joining the EEC, Britain had to trade at the inflated CAP for basic foodstuffs. I guess that there is a case to be made for this, but its importance remains to be seen. The author also states that by becoming tied to the EEC approach to industrial policy, Britain lost a fair degree of competitive edge leading to a degree of stagnation. In this sense, the stagflation of the 1970s is laid at the door of Europe.
There may be something to the view that Europe held Britain back. In the period 2010-15, job creation in the UK was greater than the other EU27 combined. Whether leaving the EU will act as a stimulus to the British economy in the years ahead remains to be seen. The UK no longer has ready access to cheap European labour, which underpinned the success of the UK economy since 2004. How we adjust to this loss remains an open question. One that the author doesn't address.
The second bold claim concerns Ireland. According to the author, Ireland has been the traditional foil by which France can apply diplomatic pressure on Britain. The current issue around the status of Northern Ireland is best seen in this context. The author does make a good point here. Ireland now positions itself as a good European, but much of this is blarney. The Irish economy depends upon the British economy more than any other in Europe, when the Irish banking sector blew up in the global financial crisis it was London who bail it out, and the vast majority of Irish trade transits through the UK to continental Europe. However, that doesn't inform us about how to behave in the future. Much is made of the special relationship between Ireland and the United States, but it is the British who are enlisted to provide support to American adventurism in the Middle East and other parts of Asia. The author suggests that the question of the Irish border is a teething issue. That remains to be seen.
The book addresses the question of whether or not Britain needs to be at the heart of Europe. To be in the room when decisions are made. He correctly sees that Europe is developing a fortress economy behind tariffs and other non-trade barriers, such as the implementation of discriminatory standards. He also identifies the dual nature of the European economy in terms of productivity growth and wealth creation. This is leading to internal stresses within the EU, which does create the risk of the whole thing collapsing. And yet Europe muddles on. He discounts too greatly the political will within Europe to make the EU succeed, but he quite rightly asks why the UK should be part of that process.
The future, according to the author, is one in which Britain, no longer shackled to a Europe in decline, can forge a new place in the world. An offshore island that provides an alternative to continental Europe. One that can forge its own links with the more dynamic parts of the world. This may sound a bit optimistic because it is. However, he may be right. Let's hope so because that's the direction we are heading for, in any case.
The first bold claim I found most interesting. The author states that it was the imposition of the CAP in the 1970s that led to a degree of cost push inflation. Prior to joining the EEC, Britain traded at the lower world prices for its food. After joining the EEC, Britain had to trade at the inflated CAP for basic foodstuffs. I guess that there is a case to be made for this, but its importance remains to be seen. The author also states that by becoming tied to the EEC approach to industrial policy, Britain lost a fair degree of competitive edge leading to a degree of stagnation. In this sense, the stagflation of the 1970s is laid at the door of Europe.
There may be something to the view that Europe held Britain back. In the period 2010-15, job creation in the UK was greater than the other EU27 combined. Whether leaving the EU will act as a stimulus to the British economy in the years ahead remains to be seen. The UK no longer has ready access to cheap European labour, which underpinned the success of the UK economy since 2004. How we adjust to this loss remains an open question. One that the author doesn't address.
The second bold claim concerns Ireland. According to the author, Ireland has been the traditional foil by which France can apply diplomatic pressure on Britain. The current issue around the status of Northern Ireland is best seen in this context. The author does make a good point here. Ireland now positions itself as a good European, but much of this is blarney. The Irish economy depends upon the British economy more than any other in Europe, when the Irish banking sector blew up in the global financial crisis it was London who bail it out, and the vast majority of Irish trade transits through the UK to continental Europe. However, that doesn't inform us about how to behave in the future. Much is made of the special relationship between Ireland and the United States, but it is the British who are enlisted to provide support to American adventurism in the Middle East and other parts of Asia. The author suggests that the question of the Irish border is a teething issue. That remains to be seen.
The book addresses the question of whether or not Britain needs to be at the heart of Europe. To be in the room when decisions are made. He correctly sees that Europe is developing a fortress economy behind tariffs and other non-trade barriers, such as the implementation of discriminatory standards. He also identifies the dual nature of the European economy in terms of productivity growth and wealth creation. This is leading to internal stresses within the EU, which does create the risk of the whole thing collapsing. And yet Europe muddles on. He discounts too greatly the political will within Europe to make the EU succeed, but he quite rightly asks why the UK should be part of that process.
The future, according to the author, is one in which Britain, no longer shackled to a Europe in decline, can forge a new place in the world. An offshore island that provides an alternative to continental Europe. One that can forge its own links with the more dynamic parts of the world. This may sound a bit optimistic because it is. However, he may be right. Let's hope so because that's the direction we are heading for, in any case.
September 17, 2021
The small numbers who read the Guardian will no doubt disagree, but the argument over Brexit is now as much a part of history as the Free Trade debate that dominated life in the Nineteenth Century. As such, what Robert Tombs has done in This Sovereign Isle: Britain In And Out Of Europe is to write the first volume of the history of Britain and the EU. Many others will follow, but this will become the standard text. It is eminently accessible to the general reader as well as the student, so I predict that this volume will go through many editions in the years to come.
Although Tombs never falls into the trap of arguing that Brexit was inevitable, he does make the point that for the British, membership of the EU was always a transactional issue and not an emotional one. Thus, when the downside of membership began to tell, there was no emotional appeal that could be made by the other side to try and even the balance. The Remainers lacked an Abraham Lincoln who could deliver a Gettysburg Address because their side of the debate was just as transactional as that of the Brexiteers. Thus they were forced to rely on an increasingly hysterical version of the Project Fear that had helped win the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. The problem in 2016 was that people just didn’t believe the howls, which allowed Boris Johnson to mockingly ask which catastrophe would come first, the world war or the economic collapse.
To be fair, as Tombs argues, Brexit was certainly helped over the line by the fact that the UK had managed to stay out of the Euro. Had we joined that common currency, the UK would have been in a similar position to the Scotland of 2014 and it is quite likely that Remain would have won. As it was, the result was close enough to argue that Project Fear had a considerable effect on the final tallies.
On the other side of the English Channel, the euro certainly helps keep difficult countries in line as the EU demonstrated against the Greeks when it looked as if they were about to strike out for freedom. The mafia-type threat: "Nice economy you have here – be a shame if something happened to it," may very well be the one issue that keeps such countries voting the right way. Or to carry on voting until they get to the right way according to Brussels. That threat could not be used against the UK, and we owe a debt of gratitude to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro’s clutches.
Staying in Europe for a moment, Tombs makes the point that most of those countries were desperate to draw a line under their immediate pasts. The original six had the memories of defeat in the Second World War and political systems that had become illegitimate in the eyes of the populations. Later on, the post Cold War entrants wanted to forget all about their Soviet experiences and similarly had discredited systems that needed to be put out of their misery. The EU for all those countries was in large part a stab at legitimacy and an exercise in forgetting the recent past.
The UK by way of contrast emerged from the two World Wars on the victorious side with a legitimate political system intact. Thus roughly half the Brexiteers who were asked to give a single reason for their vote, answered that they wanted Britain to govern itself. They were able to say that because they had confidence in the British parliamentary system. It really was as simple as that.
The Remainers never seemed to understand that desire and so they discounted it as a factor. To them, the Brexiteers were a caricature that they had created in their own minds and then decided that it represented the reality of their opponents. We were uneducated, old and we hankered after the British Empire, when actually, as Tombs shows, we just wanted to govern ourselves.
Nevertheless, that mistake, which came about because Remainers tended to be concentrated in particular parts of the country where they did not come into day to day contact with Brexiteers, led them to overestimate their own numbers, and underestimate the need to get their vote out. As Sasha, Lady Swire, noted in her Diary Of An MP’s Wife when her daughter called her as the results came in and complained that “white van man” had stolen her future, the result might have been different had the darling girl got her friends out of bed and chivvied them along to the polling stations.
One area that the author really should have been expanded upon was the 2017-2019 period that I think history will call the Rogue Parliament. If there is any truth to the argument of British exceptionalism, then this period provides a plethora of evidence for it. Many countries would have unpacked the rifles long before the period ended, but the British bided their time, seethed with rage at the antics that went on and waited for an election when they could exact their revenge against the guilty men who were responsible for it all.
The constitutional position, as Tombs makes clear, is that when a government has lost the support of the Commons, it should be voted down by a motion of no-confidence. Once carried, the rascals are thrown out and a new set of rascals elected in their place.
That did not happen during that roguish time, as an unholy alliance of Neo-Jacobin MPs, a compliant Speaker who clearly sympathised with them, coupled with a judiciary that seemed willing to ride a coach and horses through established precedent all came together to try and force the government to act as they wished. The Fixed Term Parliament Act prevented the government from calling an election, and it looked for many long months as if the situation would continue to resemble the Seventeenth Century crisis that led to Civil War, only this time as Tombs says, with “tragedy repeated as farce.”
Yet it ended, sooner than many of us expected, when the opposition folded and an election was called. Boris Johnson was given an eighty seat majority on the promise to get Brexit done and the Neo-Jacobins were packed off to a lifetime of obscurity. Readers of the Guardian will continue to whine and the rest of us will just get on with our lives, having rid ourselves on an undemocratic layer of government based in Brussels, which is all we ever wanted to do.
An edited version of my review has appeared in The Brazen Head, a quarterly online literary and political journal. https://brazen-head.org
Although Tombs never falls into the trap of arguing that Brexit was inevitable, he does make the point that for the British, membership of the EU was always a transactional issue and not an emotional one. Thus, when the downside of membership began to tell, there was no emotional appeal that could be made by the other side to try and even the balance. The Remainers lacked an Abraham Lincoln who could deliver a Gettysburg Address because their side of the debate was just as transactional as that of the Brexiteers. Thus they were forced to rely on an increasingly hysterical version of the Project Fear that had helped win the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. The problem in 2016 was that people just didn’t believe the howls, which allowed Boris Johnson to mockingly ask which catastrophe would come first, the world war or the economic collapse.
To be fair, as Tombs argues, Brexit was certainly helped over the line by the fact that the UK had managed to stay out of the Euro. Had we joined that common currency, the UK would have been in a similar position to the Scotland of 2014 and it is quite likely that Remain would have won. As it was, the result was close enough to argue that Project Fear had a considerable effect on the final tallies.
On the other side of the English Channel, the euro certainly helps keep difficult countries in line as the EU demonstrated against the Greeks when it looked as if they were about to strike out for freedom. The mafia-type threat: "Nice economy you have here – be a shame if something happened to it," may very well be the one issue that keeps such countries voting the right way. Or to carry on voting until they get to the right way according to Brussels. That threat could not be used against the UK, and we owe a debt of gratitude to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro’s clutches.
Staying in Europe for a moment, Tombs makes the point that most of those countries were desperate to draw a line under their immediate pasts. The original six had the memories of defeat in the Second World War and political systems that had become illegitimate in the eyes of the populations. Later on, the post Cold War entrants wanted to forget all about their Soviet experiences and similarly had discredited systems that needed to be put out of their misery. The EU for all those countries was in large part a stab at legitimacy and an exercise in forgetting the recent past.
The UK by way of contrast emerged from the two World Wars on the victorious side with a legitimate political system intact. Thus roughly half the Brexiteers who were asked to give a single reason for their vote, answered that they wanted Britain to govern itself. They were able to say that because they had confidence in the British parliamentary system. It really was as simple as that.
The Remainers never seemed to understand that desire and so they discounted it as a factor. To them, the Brexiteers were a caricature that they had created in their own minds and then decided that it represented the reality of their opponents. We were uneducated, old and we hankered after the British Empire, when actually, as Tombs shows, we just wanted to govern ourselves.
Nevertheless, that mistake, which came about because Remainers tended to be concentrated in particular parts of the country where they did not come into day to day contact with Brexiteers, led them to overestimate their own numbers, and underestimate the need to get their vote out. As Sasha, Lady Swire, noted in her Diary Of An MP’s Wife when her daughter called her as the results came in and complained that “white van man” had stolen her future, the result might have been different had the darling girl got her friends out of bed and chivvied them along to the polling stations.
One area that the author really should have been expanded upon was the 2017-2019 period that I think history will call the Rogue Parliament. If there is any truth to the argument of British exceptionalism, then this period provides a plethora of evidence for it. Many countries would have unpacked the rifles long before the period ended, but the British bided their time, seethed with rage at the antics that went on and waited for an election when they could exact their revenge against the guilty men who were responsible for it all.
The constitutional position, as Tombs makes clear, is that when a government has lost the support of the Commons, it should be voted down by a motion of no-confidence. Once carried, the rascals are thrown out and a new set of rascals elected in their place.
That did not happen during that roguish time, as an unholy alliance of Neo-Jacobin MPs, a compliant Speaker who clearly sympathised with them, coupled with a judiciary that seemed willing to ride a coach and horses through established precedent all came together to try and force the government to act as they wished. The Fixed Term Parliament Act prevented the government from calling an election, and it looked for many long months as if the situation would continue to resemble the Seventeenth Century crisis that led to Civil War, only this time as Tombs says, with “tragedy repeated as farce.”
Yet it ended, sooner than many of us expected, when the opposition folded and an election was called. Boris Johnson was given an eighty seat majority on the promise to get Brexit done and the Neo-Jacobins were packed off to a lifetime of obscurity. Readers of the Guardian will continue to whine and the rest of us will just get on with our lives, having rid ourselves on an undemocratic layer of government based in Brussels, which is all we ever wanted to do.
An edited version of my review has appeared in The Brazen Head, a quarterly online literary and political journal. https://brazen-head.org
March 2, 2021
In what is just a long form opinion piece that doesn't add much to the conversation, TSI imposes quite a lot of assumptions and anecdotal evidence. It reads like a centrists guide to covering political issues or a better educated Joe Hildebrand take.
August 17, 2021
The first chapter is neutral and interesting, reminding factually the complicated historical relationship between the UK and the continent.
Then it starts becoming contemporary, and I found it less good:
- the anti-EU arguments are interesting, but I already knew them all from reading Emmanuel Todd and Edouard Husson.
- the pro-EU arguments are weak. It seems the only one Robert Tombs has found is wishful thinking about peace. I can't believe there are no other, better arguments.
- the pro-UK arguments were interesting but on the optimistic side, betraying Robert Tombs's love for his country
I found that where remoaners hope that the UK after Brexit will fail to prove their point, Robert Tombs, like Brexiters, talks too much about why the EU project will fail, to prove his point. Hopefully everyone's wrong here. And where Robert criticises Ireland's growth for being artificially inflated by its tax haven status, never does he mention that UK growth could also be artificially inflated because of its tax haven and money laundering status. Which the EU might have some grounds to be unhappy about.
Overall: good read for someone who has never been exposed to an articulate anti-EU and/or Brexiter point of view.
Then it starts becoming contemporary, and I found it less good:
- the anti-EU arguments are interesting, but I already knew them all from reading Emmanuel Todd and Edouard Husson.
- the pro-EU arguments are weak. It seems the only one Robert Tombs has found is wishful thinking about peace. I can't believe there are no other, better arguments.
- the pro-UK arguments were interesting but on the optimistic side, betraying Robert Tombs's love for his country
I found that where remoaners hope that the UK after Brexit will fail to prove their point, Robert Tombs, like Brexiters, talks too much about why the EU project will fail, to prove his point. Hopefully everyone's wrong here. And where Robert criticises Ireland's growth for being artificially inflated by its tax haven status, never does he mention that UK growth could also be artificially inflated because of its tax haven and money laundering status. Which the EU might have some grounds to be unhappy about.
Overall: good read for someone who has never been exposed to an articulate anti-EU and/or Brexiter point of view.
January 24, 2023
In interviews and appearances Tombs likes to say “I am not a Brexiteer” and “I almost voted remain” but this is all the subterfuge of a zealot who wants to be seen as moderate. If he were a decent historian, he should feel some sense that his own personal opinions are of no concern, but in fact he is not what anyone should consider a “serious” historian. The way he spews out and sarcastically parrots various of the Remainers slogans is hard to read (and even worse to listen to).
As a serious piece (which it is not) it’s hard to stomach that while he goes no ad nauseam on “Project Fear” he offers not a scintilla of criticism of the all the lying and other disingenuous of the Leave campaign.
Interestingly, without all the sneering at those who voted to remain, we would have come to the same conclusion - the UK is better outside the EU than in it. They were only it for their self interest and were never more than ballast for Germany and France’s worst ideas
Shame on Robert Tombs. I would want to be his employer at a serious University.
As a serious piece (which it is not) it’s hard to stomach that while he goes no ad nauseam on “Project Fear” he offers not a scintilla of criticism of the all the lying and other disingenuous of the Leave campaign.
Interestingly, without all the sneering at those who voted to remain, we would have come to the same conclusion - the UK is better outside the EU than in it. They were only it for their self interest and were never more than ballast for Germany and France’s worst ideas
Shame on Robert Tombs. I would want to be his employer at a serious University.
June 26, 2021
As an unrepentant Remain voter, I came away with my initial views unchanged; while some later allusions and suggestions related to the initial response to the 2020 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement led me to raise an eyebrow, on Britain's exit from the EU, there are some stretches of substantiated research which gave me pause for thought, and other stretches I fundamentally disagree with - but having said that, I'm not a Cambridge Professor of History. Perhaps ironically, as Tombs is dismissive of fellow academics who argue and assemble evidence in favour of Remain, I considered this a thought experiment to consider and appreciate a complex and multi-faceted issue from a different angle, and as a compact read, would suggest it to somebody with a passing interest in the topic in that particular light.
June 7, 2021
Ideally this would have been 3.5 stars:
Firstly, it makes a number of perfectly valid points, particularly regarding Britain's reasoning for membership of the EEC, as well as some valid criticisms of the EU and the single currency, including an interesting point about perceptions of the EU on the continent.
However, it also is unapologetically pro-leave, which can make for imbalanced analysis and some sections that read more as rhetoric. On a number of occasions it also makes unsubstantiated assertions, often by simply quoting another intellectual.
Those who agree with the author politically will find their views confirmed, those who do not will likely not be swayed- but even its valid criticisms are somewhat offset by biased or incomplete analysis.
Firstly, it makes a number of perfectly valid points, particularly regarding Britain's reasoning for membership of the EEC, as well as some valid criticisms of the EU and the single currency, including an interesting point about perceptions of the EU on the continent.
However, it also is unapologetically pro-leave, which can make for imbalanced analysis and some sections that read more as rhetoric. On a number of occasions it also makes unsubstantiated assertions, often by simply quoting another intellectual.
Those who agree with the author politically will find their views confirmed, those who do not will likely not be swayed- but even its valid criticisms are somewhat offset by biased or incomplete analysis.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 13, 2021
I read this book after reading "Britain Alone: the Path from Suez to Brexit." I felt like it was a great companion to balance things out.
What I enjoyed about this book was how it gave a "nuts and bolts" account of Brexit: not so much "how we got here" but more "why did we do it?"
The author does a great job boiling a lot of history down to a few pages.
Brexit seems like a natural conclusion, from the author's standpoint, and he holds a very optimistic vision for Britain's future.
I wish he had held out for another year to release the book, as it ends kind of abruptly since pertinent events were still unfolding at the time this was released. But alas, it's one small critique of an otherwise well-written book.
What I enjoyed about this book was how it gave a "nuts and bolts" account of Brexit: not so much "how we got here" but more "why did we do it?"
The author does a great job boiling a lot of history down to a few pages.
Brexit seems like a natural conclusion, from the author's standpoint, and he holds a very optimistic vision for Britain's future.
I wish he had held out for another year to release the book, as it ends kind of abruptly since pertinent events were still unfolding at the time this was released. But alas, it's one small critique of an otherwise well-written book.
March 24, 2021
Quite interesting. It's great to see the reasoning around brexit away from popular media and with a bit of a perspective. I must admit, the reasoning here is much different from what I remember hearing at the time, and this was a nice sum-up. Worth a read. It did not change my mind, as I have some personal reasons to want to go the other way, but it definitely explained the opposing point of view in a reasonable way.
September 21, 2021
Extraordinarily mature European analysis
A must-read of UK, European and Global forces & politics at work. A cool headed historical and political analysis of both the national and supra-national forces at work. A perfect response to the often imbecilic political arguments that rage daily in the UK and beyond. An extraordinary, first class book that puts the UK departure from the EU into crystal clear focus. Recommended.
A must-read of UK, European and Global forces & politics at work. A cool headed historical and political analysis of both the national and supra-national forces at work. A perfect response to the often imbecilic political arguments that rage daily in the UK and beyond. An extraordinary, first class book that puts the UK departure from the EU into crystal clear focus. Recommended.
November 19, 2021
Poor vision, poor history, poor book. Like apparently a tiny majority in the uk, the author falls into the trap of not being able to conceive belonging to a community/associations for a greater good than immediate domination and control of the other, a group of which you’re not the guaranteed boss. That’s why commonwealth yes, eu no! I suppose these ideas are from the same mould because these people are forged by the same mould: the British primary and secondary education system.
February 10, 2021
An easy and enjoyable read (if you are a believer in Britain). Points out many issues that the EU have, particularly since the euro. Also the fact that many people including Tony Blair etc. who are free to speak because they live in a democracy tried to reverse the democratic decision of the people.
February 19, 2021
Excellent postscript to Tombs highly readable The English and Their History, looking at the whys and wherefores of BREXIT. Because of when the book was written, it naturally does not include the EU's misstep with the triggering of Article 16 at the end of Jan 2021. However, I do not think Tombs would have been shocked by the behaviour and the subsequent events.
Well worth a read.
Well worth a read.
July 12, 2021
A very informative, succinct book about the background to Brexit and the likely outcome of the UK leaving the EU. Despite Tombs putting the case for Brexit clearly, he isn’t that positive about the withdrawal agreement. I think that the referendum campaign would have benefited greatly from Tombs insights. Several of the chapters were so distilled I had to read them twice.
May 11, 2022
It's a very satisfying book to read after Brexit, almost makes you believe that all is well and we're going to to great! And anyone who says otherwise is just a poor confused fool.
The book doesn't provide any reasons for the optimism beyond the self-confidence and self evident greatness of the UK.
The book doesn't provide any reasons for the optimism beyond the self-confidence and self evident greatness of the UK.
February 14, 2021
Robert Tombs is always a joy to read - in many ways this is a postscript to the excellent 'English and Their History'. A well-told analysis of Brexit, how it happened, and what it might mean. Thought-provoking and challenging.
March 10, 2021
I really enjoined Tombs’ “The English and Their History” but found this much less compelling. It certainly grapples with Remain arguments more seriously than other pieces I’ve seen, but it extends far more credulity to Leave claims than they likely deserve.
December 24, 2024
For those who does not understand the rationale for voting Brexit but truly wants to understand, and suspects the explanation that Brexit was merely a result of manipulating uneducated voters, the book provides an explanation
June 25, 2025
In my opinion, a one-sided review of Brexit with a quick history of Britain and its relationship with Europe. I found it interesting how the author provided the theme that a country that was once top empire was deathly afraid of becoming part of a union and instead wants to isolate itself.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews