Mr Independence Day (Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

On the eve of the final day of campaigning for the Brexit referendum of June 2016, the BBC hosted its Great Debate live from Wembley Arena. Each campaign had three speakers. One side featured a trio of MPs from the establishment parties, all of them over 50, none of them representing a constituency outside the south and middle of England. Their opponents put forward no MPs, choosing instead a much younger, more diverse team that looked a lot more like contemporary Britain.
If you knew nothing else, and you were told that there was a public mood of discontent with the status quo, this line-up of speakers would give you a strong hint about who won the vote two days later. The middle-aged, establishment figures would surely have lost.
Except they didn’t. The three white, middle-aged MPs were Gisela Stuart, Andrea Leadsom and Boris Johnson. Their opponents were Ruth Davidson, Sadiq Khan and the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady.
It is easy to imagine how pleased the Remain campaign must have been with the composition of their trio: a Scot who is also a lesbian, a military vet and a Tory; a working class Londoner from a British-Pakistani background; and the first woman ever to get to the top of the organised labour movement. The collective image they projected could hardly have been more inclusive or well calibrated to the complex realities of Britain in 2016.
It was also, of course, quite useless. Complexity and variousness did not carry Remain to victory in 2016. These qualities also proved, in the struggle to prevent a very hard Brexit, not only ineffective but arguably counterproductive.
All things being equal, it seems obvious that, in a democracy, a broad alliance is always better than a narrow movement. The problem for Remain is that all things were not equal. When national identity becomes the dominant issue, it rips up the familiar score. Harping on one note becomes much easier than trying to conduct an orchestra with too many instruments.
It is hard to avoid the old (and admittedly cliched) Greek image of the fox that knows many things and the hedgehog that knows one big thing. Remainers were animated by many different things. Leavers were defined by one big thing.
To leave the European Union was to be out. To remain was to be in. But in what exactly? There were far too many answers to that question and most of them were in conflict with each other.
What polity, what place, what imagined community could Nicola Sturgeon and Keir Starmer, Gerry Adams and Dominic Grieve, Caroline Lucas and David Cameron collectively conjure? There was none because there could not be. On almost everything except the desirability of not leaving the EU, Remainers had profoundly different visions of what the UK should be, and indeed sharply conflicting views on whether it should exist at all.
Embodying a persuasive idea of contemporary Britain is actually a very hard thing to do. Is Ruth Davidson the kind of Tory with whom most English conservatives would identify? Do Sadiq Khan’s working-class credentials evoke a sense of solidarity among working class voters in the Midlands? What political weight does the organised labour movement represented by Frances O’Grady really carry any more?
Defining a collective identity is difficult in any country, but much more so in a multi-national kingdom with shifting and uncertain notions of its own past, of its place in the world, of the relationships between its constituent parts, of the politics of social class, and of attitudes to migration and globalisation.
The great irony of Brexit is that it did in fact generate a kind of collective identity for Remainers. But it did so only in reaction to defeat. Remain lost because its only real binding agent was a sense of loss. It had to be beaten before it could discover a collective self. By definition, that was too late.
It is true of course that Leavers didn’t agree with each other about what Brexit really meant. But the crucial difference is that they didn’t have to. For the one big thing that nationalist movements know is not who “we” are. It is who we are not. Leavers had a deep-rooted sense of their Other, their dislike and distrust of the EU. For Remainers, the Other was merely the Leavers. If, as W.B. Yeats claimed, there is “More substance in our enmities / Than in our love”, the Leavers had the great benefit of enmities whose substance had been formed over centuries rather than mere years.
If, like me, you’re Irish, it seemed very funny that Brexiteers were casting England (and it was very much England) as an oppressed nation, a colonised country being given the chance to overthrow its imperial overlords. (The picture on the door of Nigel Farage’s office at the European Parliament was not of himself but of the 19th century Irish nationalist leader Charles Stewart Parnell.)
I remember laughing out loud when Johnson, in his summing up at the end of that Great Debate, said that “Thursday can be our country’s independence day” — a claim that Farage indeed repeated when the result of the referendum came in. This notion of England as Kenya or Ireland or India at the end of empire seemed too over the top as a performance of victimhood to have much purchase on the minds of voters.
I was wrong. The idea of Brexit as the rising up of a subjugated nation clearly did seem real to many voters. And once that is the case, you are in very different game. Because if you’re Irish you also know that national insurgencies have a great advantage. They capture the idea of freedom as an end in itself — they do not have to say what you will be free to do.
Once you generate the belief that you are in a movement towards independence, you establish a temporal order. First, we become independent. Then we decide what to do with our freedom. There may be various promises about what we aspire to when we have broken away from our oppressor, but they exist in a different time zone, the one that only becomes real after we’ve broken our chains.
Remainers, confused by the innate absurdity of the idea of enslaved Britannia, never quite understood this. They stuck with two assumptions that had ceased to apply once the Leavers had successfully generated the idea of Brexit as a nationalist revolution. One is that it surely must matter deeply that the Brexiteers betrayed their promises. The other is that it also mattered that the Brexiteers had no agreed idea of what form Brexit should take.
Thus, when the Brexiteers very quickly disowned the infamous pledge from the side of the bus — £350 million a week for the NHS — Remainers expected outrage from voters who had been so cynically misled. There was none because the promise was about the afterlife, the time that lies on the far side of the great defining moment of independence. It was always in a different category of reality.
The same, incidentally, goes for all the threats made by the Remain side, even the ones that were (unlike the Project Fear vision of an immediate one-way trip to Hell in a handcart) well founded. They existed, for Leavers, in that nebulous never-never land of the future, another country where they do things differently.
Nor was the Brexit project really weakened by what, in a different kind of political discourse, ought to have doomed it. The deep internal divisions about whether the UK should remain within, or at least be closely aligned with, the EU’s single market, made it look like the Leave cause would implode under the pressure of its own contradictions. It did not seem foolish to believe this as Theresa May’s haplessness turned to a paralysis that shaded into anarchy.
But in fact even this disarray was a kind of strength for the Leave cause. The profound uncertainty about what Brexit would mean in reality allowed it to sustain its character as a gesture, a notion, a one-off act of liberation. It kept it on the plane where it was most inviolable, unsullied by mere detail: reclaimed sovereignty, golden age, sunlit uplands.
Think, by way of contrast, of why the SNP lost the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. It provided the details: 900 pages on what an independent Scotland would look like. This was a target-rich environment and unionists could see all the weak points at which to aim their fire. The very vagueness of Brexit saved it from this fate. Remainers never knew, until the endgame, what the deal was going to be. They were always chasing a shadow.
What could Remainers have done differently? Well, as we say in Ireland, you wouldn’t start from here. If there was going to be an epic debate about how the peoples of the UK see themselves, you would not start with David Cameron’s glib promise of a referendum on Europe to appease his internal malcontents. You would not begin with a smug assumption that questions of identity could be shooed away with dire warnings about trade.
You would have started with a recognition that, in the wake of the Belfast Agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales the following year, ideas of belonging have become deeply unsettled within the UK. You would have engaged in particular with the growing evidence from the turn of the century onwards of an emergent but unformed English nationalism and thought about how it could be expressed, not just as a “not them” but as a positive “us”.
The Leavers were talking, though usually in reactionary and often in absurd ways, about identity. Remainers largely disdained such talk as innately reprehensible. But an identity crisis doesn’t go away if you ignore it. Leave offered some kind of an answer — albeit a very bad one. Remain barely recognised the question.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribethe guidelines if implemented would be in Breach of the ECHR( they have even said this) and probaly numerous UN codes
Any White , male, straight person sentenced after the implementation of these guildines would be able to sue the goverment, get a payout and a sentence reduction. As White, Straight, Male’s are a significant % of the prisoner population (lower than their % in the general population). This would be very expensive, very embarassing for the Goverment
So will Labour implement an illegal guideline. Here’s the thing, we already have lower sentencing for Women for the same offence, they just don’t write that down in law
The main takeaway from this article, for anyone who hasn’t noticed yet, is that the Conservatives are fake opposition.
I can’t think of a single bad Labour policy that the Conservatives reversed. Remember the promised Bonfire of the Quangos? They could have done it several times over, but chose not to.
We’ve had a New Labour government for the entire 21st century. It’s no wonder we’re in the state we’re in.
The one “Conservative” accomplishment was Brexit, and that was just a gamble that went the wrong way. The aim was to crush resistance to transnational government within the Conservative Party and in society at large.
The bonfire of the quangoes would have then required them to do and act, and of course then when their incompentence shone through, take the responsibility. And none of them would have wanted to do that once they realised that would be their fate. You only need listen to Johnson now and you can tell he feels hard done by. Not in any way accepting of the failure of his leadership. The man has no idea, and no ideas.
Brexit was not, of course, a Conservative Party accomplishment since the party did not support it and Cameron resigned rather than be responsible for implementing it. The Brexit vote simply highlighted how out of touch the entire political class was with the wishes of a majority of the country – a majority forged in the face of the propaganda of the three major parties and the MSM generally and the BBC in particular. Brexit has not been the success it might conceivably have been had it not been implemented by a Conservative Party that largely opposed it. That failure to ensure any substantial benefit flowed from Brexit has had the result we see today of a massive majority for Labour against the rightward drift seen on the continent.
A proper Conservative government would have had the promised bonfire of the Quangos and would certainly not have appointed an ideologue like Lammy to head up any racial commission. The report referred to in the article refuted the idea that BAME defendants are more likely to be convicted than white defendants despite the belief in this by many in the BAME community. Institutionalising a finger on the scales of justice in favour of BAME accused should have been anathema for a justice system wishing to be perceived as colour blind. If you want to persuade the populace that there exists institutional discrimination against the native population these guidelines are just the way to go about it, and even members of Labour can see it and know that endorsing this would be electorally damaging, but Quangos don’t care as they don’t rely on popular approval.
there are 2 reasons why BAME are more likely to be in Prison, they are more likely to commit a crime, anyone with their eyes open knows that
The other excuse i’ve heard, they are less likely to please guilty, hence getting a longer sentence
The public are increasingly losing faith in the judiciary and the judicial process, whether it is the ridiculous implementation of speech laws which sees mothers and grandmothers behind bars for years for fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things social media posts, or ludicrous blocking of deportations supposedly on human rights grounds. The whole system needs a radical overhaul – winning a minor spat with one quango won’t be enough.
You’re 100%right in my opinion. Personally, I think the starting point is to repeal or amend every law that even mentions human rights. Instead renew laws to enforce human and corporate responsibilities. At the same time introduce a rule that for every new law (after the human rights changes) two existing laws must be either ended or combined with others. This would lead to far fewer opportunities for lawyers to play fast and loose with justice.
Repeal every piece of legislation passed by a Labour government in the last 25 years – human rights, “equality” “gender recognition”, employment.
Maybe by the Tories too.
Set legislation back to 1997 and we will all be freer, safer and our economy might start functioning again.
And replace all the current judiciary.
This looks to be ‘BLM sentencing’ based on adherence to the structural principle of systemic racism in modern Marxist discourse. My greater concern is with the judiciary today reaching out for an updated form of the insanity plea (Nottingham triple murder) as well as the interventions of human rights lawyers in the cases of aggressive/violent/criminal so-called asylum seekers. That is why the UK needs to be out of the ECHR before it starts considering Rwanda-style deterrents or naval interventions to protect her sea borders.
Policies that favour foreigners, non-whites, women or homosexuals over British, heterosexual, white men will lead to the utter disintegration of “liberal” society. Women only have equal employment and voting rights because men have allowed them to have them. Immigrants – Commonwealth, EU or other – are only here at the pleasure of the native majority. Alternative lifestyles only exist because they are tolerated by the straight majority. So long as white men don’t feel they are being taken advantage of, things can tick along nicely. As soon as they do feel that, things will change very rapidly indeed. And in scary ways.
These idiots at the Sentencing Council should realise they are playing with fire! Starmer should immediately disband the whole quango and return its powers to the cabinet.
Yes. But he won’t.
You are right and it is very scary. I think two-tier-ism (aka policies that discriminate against white men) will be the end of two-tier Keir. And I think the next government – which I believe will probably be a Reform/Tory coalition – will be the last chance to fix this at the ballot box. After that comes non-democratic means of sorting our the issue and that is a terrible prospect.
“After that comes non-democratic means of sorting our the issue and that is a terrible prospect.”
I think this is near inevitable , and what’s the outcome from it, well no offence, it’s no contest , the winner is already known and it’s not the side Labour thinks
I know the capability of my fellow people, they nice, slow to act, but mess with them and there no saving you
So the outcome will be the fault of the left, who will quickly find not all people, cultures are equal
Never back a bear into a corner
“Women only have equal employment and voting rights because men have allowed them to have them” 100% , i’ve been stating the same. Women’s rights are dependant on having the Men of that society, agree and support them. It won’t just affect women’s rights in the west, but globally as there will be no dominant west pushing for it
It’s why i say Trump is the best deal for the Left, why because he preserves a functional society with laws, rights, protections. The left if given power for long enough erode all of that, therefore it’s the law of the jungle, and they will lose
Defund the police was always quiet amusing, as sure get rid of the police, then what’s happens to all Civil rights laws, oh wait, you don’t have them, because there is fundamentally no law, and the strongest prevail, and that’s not the left who get triggered over bad words
Men no matter the descrimination they face will always fundamentally decide what society will be , whether it’s in the liberal west or the less liberal developing world
Women need to understand this, their freedoms are at the discretion of the men in their society. For Western women, they got lucky, most Western Men are ok with Women having equal rights, but change that demographic, not as certain
“Starmer should immediately disband the whole quango and return its powers to the cabinet” he won’t because they provide a useful scapegoat, he can pretend he does’nt agree with it, but he does. These are the same people as he is. They think they can implement apartheid against the majority and get away with it.
See here’s the problem, that might work for the majority in India, Africa when the Europeans did it, that not gonna fly with us.
If White men are treated like this, why would’nt they just say, lets remove no matter your passport, all non whites from the UK.
If they don’t see this as a likely possibility , then they really are stupid
Today we learn that this infects bail decisions as well.
Robert Jenrick cannot possibly claim any credit here. This is one of those problems which at least 95% of the blame can be put on the disastrous 14 years of Tory rule.
Total farce.
I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary (for all her limitations) can foresee the ‘….oh but my religion and e.g. West African culture allows me to clip my wife with a stick…’ defences cheered on by Queers for Palestines and Lesbians Embrace the p***s type folk.
It is fantastic to be a tax payer in the UK today. Paying for layers and layers of Gov quangoes and departments that undermine the Gov and the implementation of duly elected political manifestoes, like them or not. So you get nothing done about immigration, nothing done about the implementation of unfair sentencing, and on and on. Meanwhile local authorities are going bust because money is being sucked out of the tax coffers to pay for this sort of rubbish, instead of funding school, police, refuse collection, roads, hospitals and so on. No, it is far more important to pay people inordinate amounts of money to do things like this article presents to prevent Govs doing what they were elected for. UK DOGE anyone?
Actually, local authorities are going bust because, every year, a larger proportion of their income has to be devoted to paying the unfunded pensions of former employees. Same for the NHS.
That too is a contributory factor, and the types of Gov depts as mentioned above are also producing people that will continue to suckle at the state teet for 40 or 50 years post retirement….. It is necessary to reduce the burden on the tax payer signficantly in the UK. That can start with getting rid of departments that do not serve the people, but instead hinder them and burden them with huge ever growing costs.
The problem is always the same: the complete lack of any organisational defence mechanisms protecting the white native population. Every other ethnic, racial, religious, or sexual group has a vast network of advocacy organisations — but white natives have nothing. With no pushback, the woke fascist left are free to do whatever they want.
White natives must organise ( if they want this type of thing to stop ) and stop thinking of themselves as a ‘majority’ in the balkanised dystopia that modern Britain has become.
How is it that BOTH are main political parties have allowed this utter nonsense to get this far!?
Because millions still keep voting them in. Vote Reform, whenever they’ll let you.
Call their bluff and just disband it.
God, the Tories were useless.
“the Sentencing Council is a Labour creation, [and] the Tories… presided over the appointment of the Council’s current membership ”
Yep, this part of the ‘deep state’ is the work of the ConLabLib Uniparty. Vote Reform, whenever they’ll let you.
This whole story is utter rubbish as anybody in the profession well understands. What is appalling is the inability of those in government to withstand an ill-informed mob, and the willingness of the official opposition to fan the flames. And there was nothing “wild” about the LCJ’s warning that it is a dangerous precedent for politicians to announce that a judge has given a wrong decision in a specific case, rather than abiding by the judgment or appealing it. What will you do when all the laws are cut down, and the devil turns back upon you?
Well that was a convincing argument.
Perhaps, but ‘everyone in the profession’ is also convinced that the state ought to be run by lawyers – and that £600 per hour for having a Home Office document on your desk is fair remuneration.
As with so many things, Shakespeare had the answer.
It’s a pretty safe bet, given his record and despite everything he says, that Starmer thoroughly approves of the Sentencing Council’s policy and will do nothing about it beyond rhetorical posturing – just as he has no intention at all of doing anything about illegal immigration. It’s quite astonishing that anyone takes him at his word. It’s Taqqiya, all of it.
No one knows why Starsi Starmer appears with a Union Jack. It doesn’t feel like England around here anymore……..