A warning about the disturbing fundamentalism of Continuity Remain and the anti-Brexit crusaders
In the course of arguing on Twitter this evening, I received back the following piece of friendly psychological analysis from a longtime follower and antagonist.
The text reads:
“You are almost always wrong, as if you’re from another planet. I’m starting to feel pity, not sure if for you or for the people who have to suffer the consequences of what you keep saying with grave conviction. Please take a step back and reflect.”
Now, I don’t necessarily take issue with the charge of being “almost always wrong”, nor even the insinuation that I hail from extraterrestrial origins. But the funny thing is that I am actually a rather introspective person, and do spend quite a lot of time stepping back and reflecting on my beliefs and political worldview – perhaps in fact never more so than now, when law school has limited my available time to write.
Also, having never attained any level of fame or recognition from my writing (save a solitary appearance on the BBC and the very occasional retweet from a famed Twitter bluecheck journalist) I have not been subject to the temptation to lapse into permanent “transmit mode”, that gnawing need to be seen by my legions of followers as an all-knowing sage, privy to Great Knowledge and the secret schemes of the political elite.
In fact, performing a word count search on my blog reveals that the word “introspection” appears over 30 times in more than 20 articles – usually in the context of me demanding that certain politicians, journalists or other actors engage in some introspection as to their recent behavior, and precisely because I hold myself to this standard of regular self-reflection and accountability.
So I do take it somewhat personally when it is suggested I “take a step back and reflect” on my position on Brexit, because that is something I frequently do anyway. Having begun my age of political awareness as a devout europhile and even ardent euro-federalist, I already know many of the arguments in favor of the EU and against Brexit inside-out, without needed to hear mangled recitations of them from the Continuity Remain lobby’s telegenic campaign mouthpieces. In some cases, I was spouting many of those same tedious lines about “friendship ‘n cooperation” while pro-EU “celebrities” like EU Supergirl and Femi Oluwole were probably still watching children’s television rather than the evening news.
Having been on a journey from ardent euro-federalist (I once proudly wore a polo-shirt emblazoned with the Euro logo, soon after the single currency’s launch) to reluctant supporter to resigned leaver to committed Brexiteer, I have naturally examined and re-examined my views and the evidence supporting them on repeated occasions. That’s what it is to change one’s mind. And when it comes to the question of Britain’s European Union membership, I would always sooner listen to someone who once held an opposing view only to change their minds – whichever side they ultimately end up on – because at least I then know I am dealing with someone who has likely evaluated conflicting evidence or willingly exposed themselves to alternate viewpoints. The result is almost always a more productive exchange of ideas, and the avoidance of those dreary social media debates where two ideologues simply sling dueling talking points at one another with no intention of engaging in real debate.
Thus I continually questioned my beliefs before I started taking a more outspoken role in the Leave movement. Was the EU really as harmful to our democracy and impervious to attempts at reform as I had come to believe? Were many of the benefits of EU membership really replicable through other means that did not involve supranational government? Was the EU actually the best we could hope to do in terms of looking at governance beyond the nation state at a time of globalization? Were there realistic prospects of spurring that broader international discussion through Brexit, or would it be an act of national self-mutilation that had no ripple effects beyond Britain? Would it be better to just bide our time sheltering inside the European Union while we waited for someone else to finally address the pressing issue of balancing global governance with national (and local) democracy? Does it look like anybody else is about to step up to the plate and begin that work? Is the EU actually going to step up, admit its past failings and respond in a humble new citizen-centered way?
I also inevitably thought about how history would judge the positions I took and the statements I made, particularly at a time when social media records every throwaway remark or careless retweet, creating a rich seam of information that can be used by the unscrupulous to destroy one’s reputation and career. If Brexit was likely to fail and its opponents succeed in portraying it as a doomed nationalist spasm fueled primarily by xenophobia, was it worth the risk of me sticking my head above the parapet and supporting it? With so many powerful people on the pro-EU side, Remainers never seriously had to worry about being viewed by the history books as a latter-day Nazi if Brexit succeeded despite their opposition – they had more than enough manpower in the political, commercial, academic and cultural arenas to effectively absolve themselves from any blame for standing in the way of Brexit if it did lead to good things. Not so Brexiteers – like the American revolutionaries who would have been hung for treason had they not prevailed, history’s judgment would likely be merciless to Leave advocates and voters if Brexit did not go well, even if the fault was that of saboteurs determined to ensure that it not succeed.
Even after winning the referendum in 2016, I questioned my choices. The very next day, as Brexiteers toasted victory, I travelled with my wife and friends to Greece on holiday. As we passed through the EU flag-starred lane at passport control, I again asked myself if my decision to support Brexit had been a mistake; whether the EU, imperfect as it is, was the best we could do; whether it were better to remain in a vast bloc and regulatory superpower that looked likely to centralize further and become more powerful, even if it meant the further atrophy of British democracy, in order to remain “in the club”.
And of course the dismal events of the past two years – as Article 50 was triggered prematurely and without a plan, negotiated ineptly by a government sorely lacking in expertise, held to account by a Parliament full of MPs who cared more about appearing superficially knowledgeable or striking partisan poses than actually understanding the important minutiae on which everything depends, watched over by a debased and infantilized national media which either failed to contain its bias or do its due diligence – only led to more such introspection. Was it all a terrible mistake? Was there never anything good to be won? Was it inevitable that things would end up this way, with our government, opposition and legislature beclowning themselves in front of the world on a daily basis?
Yet after all of my questioning, my answer remains the same – Britain was right to vote to leave the European Union. I was right to campaign for Britain to do so. Even now, we are right to pursue Brexit and to resist those who would like to simply maintain the status quo in our governance and relationship with the EU. The fundamentals have not changed – indeed, Continuity Remainers seeking to overturn the result have generally still not bothered to discern precisely what those fundamentals are, in order to better communicate with Leave voters.
I do, however, wonder whether my far more famous and eminent counterparts on the Remain side have ever once engaged in the kind of introspection and self-questioning as to their stance of opposing Brexit and uncritically embracing the EU that I perform on a routine basis regarding my opposition to the project. And I strongly suspect that many of them have not.
Do you think for a moment that James O’Brien, LBC’s anti-Brexit polemicist-in-chief, as ever once taken a break from his task of finding the most inarticulate, confused and angry Brexit supporters to “defeat” in argument on his show to question any of the fundamental issues about the EU and Brexit that I and other Brexiteers consider every day?
Do you think that eminent celebrity academics like AC Grayling ever once take a break from rending their garments and peddling conspiracy theories on Twitter to consider whether they might themselves be trapped in a closed ideological echo chamber which prevents them from fulfilling the basic academic and scientific duty of exposing their dogmas and hypotheses to scrutiny and criticism from alternative perspectives?
Do you think that grandees like Tony Blair and John Major ever really stop and reconsider the pivotal moments in their administrations, and ask themselves whether they might have ever misjudged the march toward greater EU integration without public consent? Or is it more likely that they are simply desperate to cement their legacies rather than concede potential error?
Do you think that progressive-left religious leaders like the vast majority of bishops of the Church of England – people who are supposed to unite the nation in faith but who have often chosen instead to use politics to divide us while idolizing a slick salesman’s vision of European unity – have ever prayerfully reflected on their behavior?
Do you think that issue-illiterate, virtue-signaling woke celebrities like Gary Lineker and Eddie Izzard ever engaged in a serious evaluative process of understanding valid complaints about the EU and the driving forces behind Brexit, or is it more likely that their publicists simply spotted a good opportunity for them to effortlessly win acclaim from the chatterati?
Do you think that the self-regarding doyens of the prestige international media ever take a break from communing with Bono to learn the causes of populism in order to question whether their very actions might contribute to the problem, and whether their uncritical acceptance of the legitimacy of bodies like the European Union (and consequent feeble scrutiny of them) was harmful to the very democracy they claim to defend?
Do you think that the plum voices of the BBC ever take a break from smearing UKIP voters or flatly declaring without evidence that Tory MPs belong to the “far right” in order to question whether they are really promoting the cause of truth and serving the whole of society?
Do you think that shamelessly biased Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow ever actually seriously considered whether he was wrong to negatively highlight and criticize the number of “white people” attending a pro-Brexit rally in Westminster?
In all of the above cases, I believe that the answer is probably “no”. Convinced of their righteousness from the start, these individuals and many others switched into permanent transmit mode on 24 June 2016 (and in some cases long before), never once subjecting themselves to the discomfort and potential cognitive dissonance of questioning their own assumptions.
Maybe these people have actually forfeited the public trust and the right to their bully pulpits in the media.
Maybe when evaluating how Brexit is being attempted, resisted and portrayed in the media, we should ask ourselves who is actually engaging in an intellectual exercise of any kind, and who has simply lapsed into triumphantly bleating articles of faith, with little questioning of their own side. I would argue that many of the latter can be found in prominent positions on the Continuity Remain campaign, or at the apex of those organizations and industries which most strongly support it. And ironically, many of them can also be found publicly marveling at the inability of Brexiteers to reconsider their stance, question their dogmas and change their minds.
The truth is that Brexiteers have had nearly three years of unremitting exposure to the scorn, derision and hatred of many of the most respected and influential groups in our society – the politicians elected to our Parliament; the people who staff our civil service, lead our educational institutions, run our largest companies, lead our charities and edit our newspapers; the people who act in our favorite films and television shows, entertain us with their stand-up comedy or represent us at the pinnacle of professional sports, literature, music and the arts. Three years of this unremitting negativity and hostility from opposing forces in the most powerful reaches of the country; three years of embarrassing failure after failure by the people tasked with executing the decision we made at the ballot box on 23 June 2016, and still there is no overwhelming desire among Brexiteers nor the country as a whole to scrap Brexit and remain a member state of the European Union.
You could say that this is emotion over reason, that it is faith over fact, that it is a desperate act of confirmation bias by people who simply don’t want to admit to themselves that they were wrong. But every single one of these attack lines is also a piercing dagger which can just as easily be aimed right back at the heart of the Continuity Remainer “resistance” movement – people who despite being rebuffed at the referendum against all the odds and opinion polls have still not engaged in any kind of meaningful introspection at a group or individual level, and many of whom never once questioned their stance on Brexit, prior to nor after the referendum.
We are continually told that Remain voters and their movement’s heroes are more highly educated – even more moral – than those of us who had the nerve to imagine a future for British democracy outside the European Union. We are told that they are stringent disciples of reason while we are base creatures motivated by nativist superstition and easily led astray by nefarious outside influence. But it’s all a total sham. Theirs is a priesthood with no monopoly on fundamental truth, just a desperate faith in the European Union as the solution to problems which it has shown no capacity to meet.
There is indeed an emergent quasi-religious movement in Britain, one which holds its truths as unquestionable dogma, which views nonbelievers as automatically “lesser than” and which blindly fetishizes a flag as representation of all that is good and true in humanity. But the new faith militant in British politics is not the fractured and browbeaten Brexit movement. It is the Cult of Continuity Remain, and the banner under which it triumphantly marches bears the twelve yellow stars of the European Union.
–
Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.
Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on Twitter, Facebook and Medium.
Semi-Partisan Politics 
So, whither the EU elections?
Five or so weeks away, in the UK context, there should now be signs of the main parties campaigning. OK, let’s forget the Parties which are declared anti-EU, let’s just concentrate on those which are declared and enthusiastic Pro-EU.
In the past twenty years, the most pro-EU political activists have suppressed openly pro- Campaigning immediately prior to actual democratic expressions of the electorate. To be blunt, they won’t touch the subject with the metaphorical bargepole. The 2014 European elections saw Miliband’s Labour remove practically any mention of the EU from their Campaigning. They fought it on domestic issues only. The LIbDems, technically more enthusiastic but had Nick Clegg declaring that ‘if you want a Referendum on the EU, you should be voting LibDem’. Cameron’s Conservatives also withholding any open discussion on the subjective matter of the EU behind his promised Referendum. That one after which he would enact the result of the Referendum ‘no matter the result’ not least because we all knew that he would [sic] ‘not resign’.
Happy to have that clarified then.
But now, the pro-EU active parties are compelled to Campaign (at least theoretically) on an openly pro-EU ticket. There’s no credible way they can hide behind a promised Referendum since they won’t recognise the one that’s already been held and only the Prince of Fools would believe that they would recognise the result of any Referendum that went against their Campaigning. And let’s forget now, that quaint mantra about ‘Reform’. They’re not going to ask for it, most pro-EU active Politicians don’t actually want it, and even if they did, it’s not going to happen anyway. Labour has to clearly articulate whether they are actually pro- full membership or would be content to preside over a Government progressing a controlled withdrawal from the EU. If pro-full membership, that will mean illustrating to the electorate what that EU is actually going to look like. What they are in favour of, and those facets with which they disagree.
Because, without that detail clear and in advance of voting, ‘the electorate won’t know what they’re voting for’ and a follow-up vote will be obligatory when that same electorate find that those promises of which they were assured were actually false claims. (Now, where have I heard that before?)
As it stands, there is no clarity from the main traditional Parties. Not even active Labour Members or Campaigners seem to know what Party line to follow, the LibDems dare not openly espouse continuity EU integration – because they’ll end up with the same result as in 2014 – and without hyperbole, wtf is the Conservative position? As for UKIP, Change or the new Farage party, the detail is still missing and I suspect will remain so. Even tho’ the two anti-EU Parties are likely to attract a deal of voting support.
When in a country you have a democratic process the parties won’t touch then there is something wrong with that process. Without prior clear campaigning details, nor is it a ‘democratic’ process if the electorate has been intentionally denuded access to core policy intent. In advance, from the UK perspective, this oncoming EU Parliamentary election bears all the hallmarks of a historic shambles.
LikeLike
You have articulated the same thinking I have gone through these last few years. I think ultimately, despite the terrifying inadequacy of our government and parliament, one thing has kept me favouring Brexit over Remain, however messy it seems it will be:
– a belief that decisions are best taken locally. The EU is a machine for the centralisation of power. Power has moved steadily to Brussels over 40 years. Every move they make is aimed at increasing this centralised power. In the UK, Parliament has helped them with this, and never stood in their way. I believe that taking the decision making process centrally, further away from the people it affects will result in worse decision making, as local issues will be ignored, and decisions will reflect what is most convenient to those in power and closest to power.
Watching the UK national debate over the last 3 years has shown us that the media and politicians are incapable of widening their scope to cover EU matters – everything is seen in a UK lens. This is pointless if we are in the EU, and means that most important decisions affecting our lives are not reported, studied or evaluated. We have been in the EU for 40 years and this has not changed. It will not change if we remain. But at least if we leave, the power-brokers who make decisions that affect us will be the ones being scrutinised by the media, whereas now those being scrutinised actually have very limited powers over most important matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This, and previous governments have always hated their own people – unless the people are asked to take up arms of course, then we get little gongs for courage and bravery, or the familes do if we don’t come back. If you thought surfdom and slavery were dead, look at your next council tax bill or loan repayment small print.
In peacetime (long may it last) the ‘war’ is in keeping the population at large submissive and under control – also taxed to the hilt with any new scam that can be thought of. To emphasise the surveillance and obedience regimes, we are fed programs like ‘Big Brother’; ‘Stop Police’, and those nice men who come to reclaim your home and posessions if you can’t pay up. Is it any wonder many youth resort to crime and drugs.
We are the enemy of our government, and the easiest way of controlling us is to give up habeas corpus and adopt corpus juris – job done. Let Brussels manage the details while our government continues to function and receive fantastic pay cheques and pensions in a show of ‘governing’ within the EU state.
I see the analogy of football and rugby, but that the larger, more commercially successful football following as also being the one with the most amount of violent side-shows. You don’t get that in rugby, and as yet, we haven’t had tear gas on the streets of our main cities.
LikeLike
One thing that is now clear as a bell is how much the British establishment hates its own people. I have no idea where this hatred comes from, nor is purpose – but it is real and if we do not overthrow them (hopefully peacefully) the future looks very grim indeed. If these people manage to overturn Brexit their revenge on the upstart plebs will be swift and harsh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Change a few words and turn it around a bit, aim at different targets and this piece could be written by a remainer.
I have read a few blogs that have had one or several posts with victim status for leavers, none of them have considered the status for people on the other side of the debate, even those who just want an orderly withdrawal are often branded as traitors. For some people it seems to be a case of confirmation bias, others seem to want to use it to suggest that it’s all about posh remainers talking down to the working class, an extension of various argument about elites etc. Which is a useful way of saying that unless you voted leave your voice doesn’t count on how we leave.
Theresa may even said similar in her last address to the country, the only people who count are those who voted to leave (apparently her version of Brexit is the only interpretation of the will of the people), oh and she also said that the DUP count. So if you don’t fit in to those categories your voice doesn’t matter, from our own PM!
There are many examples of the press talking down to people who question the form of Brexit the government have been pushing. Plenty of celebs, columnists, news presenters showing overt bias and talking down to people on the side of remain or even just not on the side of leaving without a deal.
I am not a hard core remainer, I voted remain but am not opposed to now leaving the EU, I have been called a thicko remainer by an elected politician for asking a question about what their version of Brexit meant. But so what, it’s not the end of the world to be called a name.
However the idea that leavers have had it worse in the name calling, insult stakes, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
There is too much talk of revolution, and far too many conspiracy theories.
Perhaps time everyone stopped exagerating, reflected on their own behaviour and started talking.
LikeLike
I was going to ask the writer, as a law student, why he didn’t ask his “followers” some questions like these, but I’ll just ask you them instead:
So why did you decide we’d be better off abandoning the Common Law, where everything is legal unless specifically outlawed, and switching to the more “liberal” Civil Law of the Roman Emperors, Napoleon, and other dictators, where nothing is legal unless specifically permitted in law?
Why do you prefer a legal system where you are effectively (regardless of any lip-service, or even constitutional claims to the contrary) guilty until proven innocent, rather than our way round?
Why do you prefer to live in a state where you can be arrested without reason and even without any evidence a crime has been committed, you did it, or even that what you are accused of would be considered a crime here (under our traditional, old fashioned, regressive, ways), or that the punishment risked would be reasonable and proportionate?
Why do you want your police to be an arm of the state, and to enforce the above on its behalf, rather than citizens carrying out their normal responsibilities, but in uniform, on a full time basis, on behalf of fellow citizens?
Do you have any answers to those questions?
Have you even ever reflected on them?
Do you even have a clue what I’m talking about?!
How about non legal issues?
Remainers seem to be obsessed with the economic “arguments”, especially as we are apparently so weak an economy.
So why do you think we’d be better off with ever greater “integration” and having the debt and unemployment “benefits” enjoyed by Greece or Spain due to fiscal integration?
In fact, do you support any Rugby team?
Do you continually argue it should join the soccer leagues?
After all, the two are closely related, very similar, share a history and culture, have very similar laws and rules.
BUT THE ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL LEAGUES ARE SO MUCH BIGGER, STRONGER, RICHER, AND ECONOMICALLY MORE SUCCESSFULL!!!!!
How could ANYONE even dream of arguing against ALL sports switching to soccer, eh?!
And why does Scotland even bother having a Scottish football team when a UK, never mind an EU, one would beat all comers?!
As for some of your “points”:
“victim status for leavers”
Unlike Remainers who are being denied the “right” to have what the MINority voted for?
“none of them have considered the status for people on the other side of the debate, even those who just want an orderly withdrawal”
One where we give up any benefits of membership but retain all the DISbenefits of Remaining which the MAJority voted to Leave to free ourselves from?!
“are often branded as traitors.”
Often?
So in your dictionary what is the correct word for surrendering Sovereignty of a country against the wishes of the majority?!?!
“For some people it seems to be a case of confirmation bias,”
Indeed! Buy a mirror!! Reflect on yourself!!!
“others seem to want to use it to suggest that it’s all about posh remainers talking down to the working class,”
Do you mean that James O’Brien isn’t all that posh?
Or that Linnaker isn’t really posh at all?!
Or are you seriously suggesting that neither are talking down to the working class Leavers?
“an extension of various argument about elites etc.”
So almost all the media (did anyone at the Guardian, Beeb, or C4 “News” NOT go to a private school?!), most politicians, academics, global CEOs… aren’t part of the elites?!
“Which is a useful way of saying that unless you voted leave your voice doesn’t count on how we leave.”
Tell you what, let’s Remain, but let’s put actual Brexiteers in charge of HOW we “Remain”, shall we?
Let’s Remain by having no tariffs on trade within EU, except on any imports we choose to, no EU say on our trade with anyone else, full EU compliance on all our goods, that are going to be exported to the EU, only, none on goods for other markets or home consumption, free movement, of British people, in EU, but restrictions on who can come in from, or through, the EU, entirely in our hands, etc, etc.
Seems reasonable to me.
ESPECIALLY AS LEAVE WON!
“Theresa may even said similar in her last address to the country, the only people who count are those who voted to leave (apparently her version of Brexit is the only interpretation of the will of the people), oh and she also said that the DUP count. So if you don’t fit in to those categories your voice doesn’t matter, from our own PM!”
Yup, you’re right, she DID SAY that.
Only one teensy weensy tiny winy flaw in your “argument”:
She’s IGNORING what Leavers are saying and she is doing everything possible to Reamain, or as near to it as she can!
“There are many examples of the press talking down to people who question the form of Brexit the government have been pushing. Plenty of celebs, columnists, news presenters showing overt bias and talking down to people on the side of remain or even just not on the side of leaving without a deal.”
So it should be easy peasy for you to quote half a dozen, no, as you’re so confident, let’s make it a dozen, examples from each of the main media (BBC, Channel 4, Sky…..) and each of your other categories.
Over to you!
“I am not a hard core remainer, I voted remain but am not opposed to now leaving the EU, I have been called a thicko remainer by an elected politician for asking a question about what their version of Brexit meant.”
So as you’re so clever, tell us what YOUR version of Brexit means.
Especially as you claim no one’s even listening to, never mind allowing for, what you say.
Come on, fill yer Linnaker boots, let Leavers know EXACTLY what YOUR “Brexit” looks like.
If YOU had been listening, you’d have spotted I’m not the first person to ask that.
Tell us, for example, why we “MUST”, “*AT* *LEAST*” Remain in the Customs Union, subjecting ourselves to *ALL* EU tariffs on external goods, AND dropping all tariffs on imports from counties the EU has trade deals with.
BUT STILL BEING SUBJECT TO THE OTHER COUNTRY’S TARIFFS ON OUR EXPORTS BECAUSE WE’RE NOT IN THE EU AND SO NOT IN THE TRADE DEAL, ONLY THE CUSTOMS UNION, WITH NO WAY TO NEGOTIATE AN INDIVIDUAL DEAL WITH THE COUNTRY!
(Do ANY Remainers, or even any Remain politicians or other “experts”, have a clue what a Customs Union is? Perhaps you could explain what your version of a Customs Union looks like while you’re explaining what your version of Brexit looks like?!)
“But so what, it’s not the end of the world to be called a name.”
Actually, I think you’ll find most “liberal” and “progressive” Remainers think it is, and call the police from their safe spaces if they think even someone else has been called a name they feeeel they SHOULD be offended by.
“However the idea that leavers have had it worse in the name calling, insult stakes, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Of course not, because Remainers believe that Leavers not only ARE Stupid Thick Uneducated Unqualified Pale Stale Gammon Evil Racist Xenophobic Knuckledragging Neanderthal Bigoted (look it up!) Little Englander Fascist Nazi Scum Thugs.
And that it’s not only OK to pre-judge, sterotype, other, insult, and shame them.
But that it’s the duty of all “liberals”, “progressives” and other Remainers to do so!
Repeatedly and frequently!!
Preferably while punching the Leaver in the face!!!
There is too much talk of “Resistance”, and far too many Remainer conspiracy theories.
Perhaps time everyone on the Remain side stopped exaggerating, reflected on their OWN behaviour and started talking.
It’s only because you have never even considered any “argument” for Remain, never mind Leave, that you can say something as ridiculous as:
“Change a few words and turn it around a bit, aim at different targets and this piece could be written by a remainer.”
So, over to you!
LikeLiked by 1 person