When Zhou Enlai was asked about the implications of the French Revolution, he famously said: ”Too early to tell.” This is only an anecdote and  “Brexit” is certainly not a historical event on the scale of the French Revolution, but without any doubt, it is too early to tell the story of the impact and consequence of the British people’s decision to leave the European Union. The tumbling value of the British pound, declining stock indexes around the world, financial and political institutions caught by surprise: all of these are first reactions. Many financial elites and institutions in Brussels were not amused. Most of the continental European press portrays the British as a people who did not understand what they were doing and did not act in their best interest. At the moment, the dominant psychological posture among European governments and party leaders is those of a person left behind in a ‘war of the roses.’ Some are frozen in dismay or horror, trying to come to terms with what seemed to be unimaginable.
 
Even though “too early to tell” holds true in many respects, the British vote did put moral questions on the table and is a strong sign of political 'disbelief.' The thesis I want to put forth is that we see is the beginning of the democratic secularization of a political religion. What started as shared economic interests became a shared political vision. But the shared vision eventually became a political religion that now has to deal with the threat of secularization.
 
One of the moral questions on the table: What is the place of democracy on our moral landscape? Given that we have rival visions of a good life, both on an individual and a political level, how are we going to resolve these conflicting interests? Even among people who tend to share certain universal orientations like human rights and agree on the value of human dignity, there are still many conflicts in more practical matters. How can we settle our disagreement about the proper roads to “enhancing life”?   The (in principle) endless exchange of arguments takes place in finite settings in which organizations like governments or a whole people make decisions. It took the various Christian traditions many centuries to discover and to accept that democracy (that is, free elections) is it the most peaceful and most effective way of reaching decisions with respect to our shared paths of shaping and enhancing our common life. In today’s failed states one key political problem is the refusal to accept of the result of elections.
 
It is this very point where so many reactions to the Brexit reveals a frightening disgust of democracy. When people want to leave a political association that is considered by the remaining members to be heaven-on-earth, the latter feel offended and hurt. But these feelings do not justify moral discrediting and dismissal (“egoists”), psychological tactics and outright paternalism (“they had been uninformed and/or misled”) when one of the oldest democracies of the world is exercising democracy. This subtle but widespread disdain of democracy is the most disturbing and revealing political fact in the days after the Brexit. Those who voted for the Brexit might be wrong, but they to have the right to be wrong. To call into question the right of the political opponents to be wrong is uniting the far left and the far right.
 
The second issue: How do we ,morally and politically, manage the creative tension between our dearly held political visions and political facts? How many counterfactuals does a vision need in order to be changed? When is the time to be bold and visionary, and when is the time for pragmatism and a self-critical revision of visions that turn out to be illusions?
 
Based on the peace created by the allied forces in World War II, the European Union initially embodied an economic agenda that soon developed into a political vision. The process towards an increasingly deep union appeared to be in a Hegelian manner one-directional, expansive (more members), simply “without alternative,” with the common currency as 'crown' and 'engine,' leading into a bright future of a post-national-state unit.
 
Why should Great Britain leave such a success story? Well, because an increasing number of citizens all over Europe no longer believe the story. Look at facts those critical of the EU claim to see. Why belong to a political union that cannot secure its borders, cannot effectively create peace (in Bosnia we needed the Americans) and is not able to solve its economic crises? After WWII, Europe was never so divided as it is today. The common currency is great for companies, but it destroyed whole economies. In Spain, the youth jobless rate is 45 percent, in Italy 36.9 percent, in France 23.5 percent, and in Greece 51.4 percent – something that cannot be solved by any type of “transfer union.” And the so-called refugee crisis seems to be solvable only with the help of an autocratic ruler who is launching a civil war against groups of his people.
 
In this situation,  political statements supporting the EU and claiming an ever-deeper union still reflect the Union’s bright vision – but they lack sufficient grounding in the experience of many citizens, despite pragmatic maneuvering by every-day EU-politics. The British are the first to see the facts and decide they don’t want to follow the vision any more. They asked their people: Do you still believe in this vision? And with sufficient Anglo-Saxon pragmatism they replied: No.
 
Most criticism of the Brexit now follows the logic and even the rhetoric of believers who cannot believe that there are unbelievers – without asking them why they cannot believe. This inability of most EU-proponents to switch to pragmatic political reorientations instead of defending the EU-vision with religious zeal is the best indicator that the vision has become “religious.”
 
Will the secularized ones live a better life? Are they better off? It’s “too early to tell.”  But as George Steiner reminds us: “The genius of Europe is … that of linguistic, cultural, social diversity, of a prodigal mosaic which often makes a trivial distance, twenty kilometers apart, a division between worlds.” The Brexit is one – quite debatable – answer to the question: “How is one to balance the contradictory claims of political-economic unification against those of creative particularity?” 

Schweiker, William. "The Ethics of Brexit?" Sightings, June 30, 2016.

Marty, Martin. "Convulsive Ingatherings" Sightings, June 27, 2016.

Steiner, George. The Idea of Europe.  Overlook Press, 2015 (first published 2004).

Image credit: Shutterstock.com. European Union and British Union Jack flag flying in front of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament at Westminster Palace, London, in preparation for the Brexit EU referendum