June 25, 2021 - 4:30pm
Five years on since the Brexit vote it’s important not to let history forget the real political heavyweights of that era – the ‘activists’ and musical pioneers who provided all of us, Leaver and Remainer alike, with hours of entertainment.
As People’s Vote titans and Brexit Party ideologues battled it out at the top of the news cycle, they attracted the attention of people desperate to get in on the act — formerly unknown individuals who shot to micro-stardom, performing acts deranged political minstrelsy to the delight of their fans.
Nobody better embodies the artistic genius of the remainiac mini-celebs than Madeleina Kay, best known under her stage moniker as ‘EU Supergirl’. The musical arts came naturally to Madeleina, and she used her talents in singing and songwriting to promote the interests of Remain ultras. Equipped with her acoustic guitar and a frankly disconcerting obsession with the European trading bloc, EU Supergirl became a fixture in #FBPE protest circles, meeting with Blairite-fixer-turned-EU-fanatic Alistair Campbell and gifting the world with a photograph reminiscent of a proud dad dropping his teenage daughter off at Bestival.
Indeed, Madeleina was something of a pioneer for enterprising young women hoping to fleece the centrist-dad demographic under the guise of ‘activism’, managing to crowdfund £4,528 to tour the EU27 “promoting the hashtag #TheFutureisEurope” — essentially raising near-on five grand to go on a nice continental holiday.
Madeleina, to her credit, has stuck with her passion, and still proudly reps her ‘Young European of the Year (2018)’ award in her twitter bio. Perhaps she should take this opportunity, five years on from the vote, to attempt a rebrand? Don’t let your musical talent go to waste, Supergirl! After the unfavourable feedback towards Gavin Williamson’s ‘One Britain, One Nation’ song, the government must be desperate for some artistic inspiration.
And who can forget Steve Bray, the archetypical divorced-dad-having-a-meltdown remainiac? Adorned in a EU flag worn as a cape, he acted not as the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed: dastardly MPs plotting against the enlightened benevolence of the European Commission found themselves at a loss, unable to counter the political might of a man equipped with a couple of A2 placards and a megaphone.
Will there still be, in a few decades time, a sizable group of individuals singing about gammons, flagshaggers and brexshitters? I sincerely hope not. But there will always be another ostensibly dull political debate that inspires artistic passion from the terminally un-busy. It remains to be seen whether the longevity and single-mindedness of the Remainiacs will be replicated in the liberal protest movements of future generations — sure, your average Gen Z activist will have a strong opinion on Israel-Palestine, but they’ll also be occupied thinking about whether dating is just unpaid sex work and if pop-superstar Olivia Rodrigo is too skinny. It’s hard to envision a Zoomer Steve Bray, able to maintain their attention on a singular issue for longer than 30 minutes.
Perhaps this is what marks out the EU-Supergirls of the Brexit days so endearing, no matter your political affiliation: they were sincere to the point of hilarity. So spare a thought for the forgotten remainiacs – living proof that when it comes to cringe-worthy activism, nobody does it quite like the British.
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.
SubscribeIt might be relevant whether the targeting of anti-Israel events took place before or after the event. Hi It may also be relevant in what form this targeting took. Criticism, perhaps? Complains about unacceptable behaviour, or incitement to violence? The analysis seems extremely simplistic to me.
Massive shoehorning of the word ‘right-wing’ here. Do these Pro-Netanyahu regime lobby groups cancel leftists for any other reason than their opposition to Israel?
no.
I’m afraid this article and the data it uses mean zilch. The left is renowned as being litigious and having thin skins when it come to slights against them. Given that the majority of academics are of the left and hard left I could well imagine that crying wolf would give themselves a satisfaction of calling out the other for any imagined slight.
I am reminded of the period immediately after the Brexit vote when it was falsely claimed that there had been an increase of racist attacks but upon analysis of the data and events there was no demonstrable or statistical evidence for any such claim.
My feelings about this consist primarily in an intense Schadenfreude.
What this proves is the old stage “anything you can do I can do better”. Time to cancel the cancel culture.
Is this really an academic problem? After my PhD, I started my career in Mathematics at a British University. Nobody was interested in my political opinions, and when I occasionally volunteered them in the pub, nobody seemed bothered.
Perhaps the opinions that seem to cause so much anger, are not proper academic topics.
Yes, all the tensions do seem to erupt in particular studies. Which, if true, makes one wonder why they think their opinions matter so much? Is it a particular person drawn to those studies or the studies themselves that bend students out of shape?
I worked in an educational branch of the civil service, most staff were teachers, it was a horrible stultifying atmosphere (at least for anyone with traditional/conservative views). All these orgs have DEI programmes. This means forced attendance at what amounts to political indoctrination events, progressive messaging presented as if everyone of goodwill agrees with it, recruitment/promotion based on ethnic/gender characteristics.
Reap what you sow!
Politics should stay out of academia. Too many social “scientists”, communication and journalism majors, gender studies, DEI studies, social workers, racial studies, etc. An academic is there to teach all ideas, and allow the students to form their own opinions, not preach their own beliefs. Also, keep DEI out of STEM. I am glad to see the left academics cancelled. They have had too much influence.
As someone who works in a British university, I can tell you that so-called Left-wing academics very much have an easy ride with respect to ‘cancel culture’. They have to say something demonstrably and extremely antisemitic to face sanction – something that might be classed as gross misconduct, leading to possible arrest. On the other hand, all it takes for someone else to face investigation and/or sanction is to say something as simple and true as ‘sex is immutable’. This shows the imballance. The only reason Left-wing academics are now showing up in the stats is because they’re saying some pretty disgusting things by any standard.
The main difference between the two groups may be summed up thus:
The left indulge in cancel culture, if they do, in order to protect the underdog. In contrast the right do so in order to keep harrying the underdog.
The main difference between the two groups is that the left censor their opponents, while their opponents censor themselves for fear of losing their jobs.
Kamala Harris an underdog?! Wow, you have a funny idea of what constitutes an underdog. If I had openly said anything against Harris or her lavishly funded (greatest in history) campaign, I would have been cancelled immediately in my university by Left-wing loonies, that’s for sure!
Well, the Palestinians are the underdogs. And on the evidence of the present article, my contention is amply justified. Even Harris is against the Palestinians!
Oh, that old chestnut! I thought that was behind your whinging. Got it out of you eventually.
I have the feeling that you know not the meaning either of the underdog or of chestnut.
In other words, left-academics have an arrogant saviour complex. Right-academics mostly keep their mouths shut, being unable to ‘harry’ anyone.
If you want to know who holds power over you look at who you cannot talk about
Good. I hope it is now dawning on even the dimmest lefty academic that ‘cancel culture’ has got completely out of hand. Universities should be havens of free speech, where the way to deal with differences of opinion is through vigorous debate.
The only limitation to this is that students and academics alike should feel safe and welcome on campus. Individuals and groups which threaten this, should be jumped on from a great height by the university authorities.
Campus is not a place where you go to feel safe. You go there to be challenged and to grow up.
I agree… but i suspect David was referring to being safe from threat of actual physical violence, not having one’s sensibilities threatened.
Amen. The level of discourse on university campuses would be improved if the response to “I have been injured” was “Show me the bruise.” Tormenting someone emotionally is beyond the pale, but claiming you have been hurt by a “microaggression” is waaayy beyond that.
Read this, then thought about, then thought “I don’t care”, let them eat each other.
Useful article which complicates the picture convincingly
How can an academic – regardless of their own views- seek to shut down alternative opinion ? It is inconsistent with the very concept of academia to deny research and discussion.
“The right” are cancelled for having the temerity to question radical ideas that are clearly unscientific and based on ideology rather than robust evidence. “The left” according to this article are cancelled for anti-semitism and offering support for terrorists. Hmmm! Now can I see any difference?
Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. Many orthodox Jews are against Zionism. In what weird world are they anti-Semitic?
The differences in tone in the reporting on the Amsterdam riot perfectly illustrate the need to be clear on this issue. Naturally the New York Times called the attacks antisemitic but less biased outlets called them what they actually were, anti-Israel. This doesn’t make the attacks any less reprehensible, of course. They were still racist. But they weren’t “antisemitic.”
Sure, chasing down Jews to give them a life changing kicking isn’t anti Semitic.
Oh, wait
They were every bit as anti-Jewish as the Maccabi fans were anti-Arab.
They weren’t even necessarily anti Israel. The Maccabi fans are animals, and had caused trouble all over Amsterdam leading up to the match. A reaction from the more punchy of the home fans was to be expected
Maccabi fans (I won’t make excuses for them, they are hooligans) tear down several Palestinian flags and sang songs . But what happened in this night was a carefully planned action, which was agreed upon on social media networks. The participating local fans were not native Hollands – they were from Turkey, Morocco and Iraq. Drowning people in icy water, checking their passport, trying to run over them with a car – this is a different level of violence.
In the world where a thin veneer of anti Zionism justifies the beating, torture, rape and murder of jews
Sorry, but anti-Zionism can really only mean one thing: the eradication of the Jewish state. How is this not only not anti-Semitic but also genocidal? This is most definitely what is meant by those who call themselves ‘anti-Zionists’ today. This is why so-called anti-Zionism is often seen as either antisemitic or a close proxy to it.
Important point. Anti-zionism has to now, by definition, be anti-semitic. Being anti-zionist before the formation of Israel fair enough. Many jews were too, and some even foresaw the problems we face now. But 77 years later – means one is supporting the liquidation of a Nation. It’s ok to contend the decision to create Israel was wrong, but that’s for historians and not for politics today which has to deal with the realities of now. Liquidation of a nation a totalitarian mentality.
Whether Anti-Zionism genocidal perhaps a slightly different matter though. It could mean one state solution with all having equal rights. It could mean ethnic cleansing and population movement, but not deliberate extermination – although lesson is things slip into the genocidal very quickly. What it does mean though is it’s adherents want an end to a Jewish state defined by it’s religion, and thus it is anti-semitic.
A one state solution won’t work. The antecedents of at least half the Jews in Israel came there to escape persecution in Arab countries legitimised by some interpretations of the Qur’an and most interpretations of the Hadith.
Many Orthodox Jews are under against Zionism, but that doesn’t make them anti-Israel; it is a religious issue to do with divine v human action in the remaking of the nation of Israel. The excuse that Muslim and current left-wing extremism’s anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism is pitiful. You cannot logically call for all Jews to be cleared from the region without knowing it will harm Jews; and you cannot blame Jews for all the capitalist ills of the West and pretend it’s anti-Zionism.
Zionism is the movement to provide Jews with a Jewish-majority state where, as individuals, they are not at the mercy of non-Jewish majorities. If an ultra orthodox Jew is anti-Zionist because he thinks that Jews have to remain at the mercy of non-Jews by divine decree, it might be debatable whether it represents authentic Judaism, but that is an intra-Jewish debate. But for a non-Jew to think that Jews everywhere should always remain at the mercy of non-Jewish majorities, and should be denied a refuge, is indeed antisemitic.
Duh!
Now could it possibly be that academics on the right are ganged up on and ousted by leftists because their research uncovers inconvenient truths, whereas leftish ‘pro-Palestinians’ are likely to be ousted because they organise massive disruption and victimise Jewish students and colleagues?
And the ‘speech’ they are sanctioned for will be things like ‘globalise the intifada, kill the j…s’ rather than things like ‘sex in mammals is binary’.
According to the compilers of the database, every incident involves an attempt to professionally sanction an academic for constitutionally protected speech.
Trump has vowed to crack down on people who censor constitutionally protected speech.
Oh dear, Noah, you’re a bit hard of thinking. The constitution protects the right to free speech and that includes hate speech and racist language. It doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for speech when it violates the codes of professional conduct. Do you get it now. Your idealogically driven agenda – that there’s a co-ordinated effort to shut down left-wing academics for anti-Israel speech – is all too clear. We get where you’re coming from.
The expression of political dissent always feels unpleasant to the side whose views support the object of that dissent but that does not affect one bit whether or not those expressions should be censored. Rather than reifying what is deemed beyond the pale by only one side, take up arms in your own struggle and exercise the very same right of free speech which is guaranteed by the same constitution.
I don’t see any evidence from the author that recent cancellations “of the Left” are being initiated “from the Right.”
Considering the absolute rarity within academia of influential and outspoken professors “on the Right” (after the many purges over the years), the far more plausible explanation is that these cancellations “of the Left” are being initiated “from the Left.”
In other words, if one is looking for new-age Nazis they merely need to pay a visit to an influential Ivy League university campus and speak with self-righteous antisemitic professors and students “on the Left” who have evidenced their desire both in word and via their targeted campus violence to eradicate the Jewish people “from the river to the sea.”
Good and decent people on the Left who’ve witnessed this abhorrent acceptance and promotion of antisemitism by others on the Left have started to police their own.
He’s fairly (not very) clear that ‘from the right’ means ‘conventionally right of the view being expressed’ ie does not exclude left-left conflict.
The author doesn’t provide evidence for his assertion that the new cancellations “of the Left” are coming “from the Right.”
Considering the absolute dearth within academia of popular and outspoken professors “on the Right” (after the many purges of such ‘undesirables’), the far more plausible explanation is that good and decent people “on the Left” have uncomfortably witnessed the rise of new-age Nazism (and a corresponding rise in violence directed toward Jews at university and calls for the eradication of Jews “from the river to the sea”) from fellow compatriots “on the Left,” and have therefore decided it’s in their best interest to police their own.
Dup
Your first word came to mind instantly. Talk about a Master of the Obvious.
They forgot that the right to free speech is explicitly for the protection of the minority. They then forgot they are the minority.
This paper confirms what would be common knowledge to any reasonably educated person reading events of the past ten years. Whether it is important or not is moot. Perhaps we need another reformation to “rid us of troublesome academics “ in the non-STEM subjects.
Dissolution of Monasteries did the job.
I might even be tempted to go further. Three higher grades in STEM subjects and the state will pay your fees provided you agree to work in the UK for 5 years after graduation. It will also help you manage the transition from Uni to work, and support higher courses such as Masters and PhDs. After the next complete university cycle, student loans will cease for non-STEM subjects, especially PPE courses at ancient universities. Students will fund their own courses in non-STEM subjects. Parents, in the short term, will be encouraged to start putting funds away in tailored insurance policies directed at further education. Primary and Secondary education will be transformed by the introduction of vouchers, where parents may choose the appropriate school for their child. These vouchers are good for 15 years in all stages of education and may be redeemed at any point in the life of the student. Students can leave secondary education at any stage after they are 14. This will need tidying up a bit, but it should get rid of producer capture, destroy non-subjects, and encourage parents to become more informed and perhaps more involved in the lives of those they have seen fit to bring into the world.