I really like Maajid Nawaz as a pundit. I think he is an interesting addition to a commentariat that can often feel boringly samey. A self-identifying Muslim who is a proper liberal and not only happy to criticise what he thinks is wrong or at least not working in the Islamic world but has taken to doing so as one of his driving missions. A liberal who is not swayed at all by the “liberal orthodoxy” of the present moment, one that often feels anything but liberal; this is unfortunately a real rarity. Maajid is someone who is happy to reach out to people way outside of his own politics and have a genuine debate with them, which in this day and age is little short of miraculous. His current campaign to raise awareness of the plight of the Uyghurs is downright heroic.
I say all this because I heard something on Maajid’s show yesterday that I need to pick up on. And in a sense, it was because Maajid said it that I felt it needed addressing; if what he’d uttered came from a pundit I respected less, I would have just ignored it. Also, it gets to the heart of what I think is wrong with the pro-European movement in Britain at present – and conversely, what concessions that same movement should and definitely should not be making.
First of all, here’s what I agree with Maajid on in regard to British pro-Europeans. Yes, Remainers are too stuck in a civil war footing, with a desire to demonise anyone who still sees Brexit positively. There is a focus on living in the past, trying to re-do 2016 only this time with a different result. Although Maajid didn’t touch on this, there is a nutty, conspiracy theory element to the extremes of Remainer thinking that has crept in over the last couple of years, the ultimate recent example of this being the embarrassing “Boris fake baby” phenomenon on social media. We’ve got Remainers acting even worse than the right-wing conspiracy fruitcakes they pretend they are better than. The need to constantly fight with Leavers, to declare them either corrupt in some sense or totally stupid, is a losing formula that has totally backfired on the pro-European cause in Britain.
However, where I disagree with Maajid comes down to two things. One, I don’t believe that Remainers have to accept that Brexit is a good thing or even accept that it is a permanent thing. While it is now going to happen, I don’t think Remainers should chuck in the towel on the basic principle of what is best for the country. Remainers need to accept the result was democratically legitimate and stop going on about the Russians or some other such nonsense as the cause. However, the fact that people voted for something in 2016 by a narrow margin does not make it a good idea even if it makes it democratically necessary in the short term.
The second thing I disagree with Maajid on is to what degree Remainers could hope to shape a “liberal post-Brexit Britain”, lest Remainers be excluded from such a discussion – or indeed, the parameters of such a concept. For a start, Remainers are being excluded from the conversation and that’s not going change whatever happens. If the entire pro-European movement tomorrow said that they accepted Brexit and were ready to talk about a liberal post-Brexit Britain, it wouldn’t change a thing. The reality is, Britain is playing chicken with a European Commission that knows it has the upper-hand, not only because it is the much bigger market but because the UK has essentially offered them a six-month extension that they don’t have to reciprocate. The British government seems to have decided to drive as fast as possible toward the cliff in the hopes that the Commission changes its mind, with seemingly very little serious thought given to what happens if this doesn’t turn out to be the case. Nothing short of the parliamentary Conservative party deciding they don’t want to play this game any longer and expunging Boris will possibly change this – and I shouldn’t have to point out to Maajid that there are not many Remainers in that parliamentary party any longer.
What is meant by a “liberal post-Brexit Britain” anyhow? A lesser pundit would have uttered the phrase and left it there, but Maajid elaborates. In turning our back on the EU, we should look to “forging closer alliances with the Five Eyes nations”, which are USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and of course, us. And here we get to the heart of it. This sets up a debate that is ultimately a false one; an idea of post-Brexit Britain that has been trumpeted by Brexiteers from long before the referendum campaign that not only doesn’t stack up, but falls down completely when you examine the last four years and indeed, global realpolitik with any sort of objectivity.
Let’s start with America. The discussion around a trade deal with the US in Britain tends to centre on either how amazingly close this is to being realised with no context as to what it would involve; from the other end, how it would involve chlorinated chicken and other such horrors. Both viewpoints are false – the truth is, a trade deal with America is extremely unlikely, or at least, extremely unlikely any time soon. America tends to drag out its trade deal negotiations over long periods of time for a simple reason – it is simultaneously the most successful economic and military power in the history of the human race, not to mention being the size of a continent, thus is doesn’t strictly need to do trade deals with anyone unless it feels it will either 1). increase its soft power in some very desirable manner or; 2). be so economically lopsided as to disproportionately benefit Americans. So, the US trade deal as a reason for Brexit being a good or even a bad idea is a red herring. As scientists like to declare when someone is way, way off: you’re not even wrong.
Then we come onto the three other Five Eyes countries: Canada, New Zealand and Australia. None of them have shown particular interest in some new Five Eyes shaped trading future; they want it as a defence and intelligence sharing arrangement and nothing else from the looks of things. Some of this is led by America – were the US much more into the whole idea of the Five Eyes as a real trading bloc and leading from the front, it might be different. Yet have we seen no evidence of this. This is where British exceptionalism kicks in: the idea that we can be the catalyst for such an arrangement, even if the US is blasé at best about it. We can’t – America really are just much, much, much, much more influential in this equation than almost anyone in this country is willing to admit. Wishing Suez didn’t happen isn’t a good excuse for willing on another similar incident, only this time one where the rest of the world cares a whole lot less.
In the absence of American leadership, all that’s left is national interest, which doesn’t involve the other three Five Eyes countries giving Britain concessions that were difficult to concede in order to gain access to the largest trading bloc in the world in the first place, all to a country who has acted for the last four years like launching Empire 2.0 was either the conscious or unconscious plan. Canada refusing to roll over their trade arrangements with the UK recently caused a confused flutter in the Daily Express and didn’t even get traction in most of the remainder of the UK press. It’s like there is wilful denial going on around this issue.
To summarise: yes, Remainers should stop talking about how 2016 was fixed and how Britain is basically North Korea. No, that does not mean Remainers should just go along with Brexit and admit that it was a good idea. Brexit is about to get real at the end of this year; if Remainers can stop going on about Russians and fake babies, it has a chance to change some minds if no deal really is as bad as a lot of us think it will be. If Remainers can stop picking fights with Leavers for no good reason, I believe at least 20% of Leavers are up for grabs if the pro-European approach changes, weird as that may seem from where we sit now. Even if we this doesn’t occur, it still won’t make Brexit a good idea. Which is ultimately, more than any other reason, why Remainers shouldn’t back down from what they ultimately believe in.
************************************************************************
I have a book out now called “Politics is Murder”. It follows the tale of a woman named Charlotte working at a failing think tank who has got ahead in her career in a novel way – she is a serial killer. One day, the police turn up at her door and tell her she is a suspect in a murder – only thing is, it is one she had nothing to do with. There is also a plot against the Foreign Secretary and some gangsters thrown into the mix while Charlotte tries to find out who is trying to frame her for a murder she didn’t commit.
Also: there is a subplot around the government trying to built a stupid bridge, which now seems a charming echo of a more innocent time!
It’s here:
Sarah says
This is interesting and thoughtful analysis. I didn’t happen to vote for Brexit – a late and very considered decision – until the last minute and it was not on the basis of trade. I fully accepted that Brexit might catastrophically affect UK trade on a short to medium term basis. I entirely swallowed the propaganda of the day including that there would be 500,000 job losses immediately following the vote. What were my reasons for voting leave ? They were entirely centred around self determination. I did not like the EU direction of travel toward federalisation and did not think there was sufficient unity in the UK to support it. When advocates of membership point to the opt outs with triumph there is something wrong with the general proposition. Before I am challenged on the general proposition of self determination please understand that I have read the treaties, possess a law degree and feel intellectually comfortable making that assessment.
My further concerns centred around the notion that the EU advances through crisis. I was concerned that the next crisis would advance the integration process rather than calm rational evaluation by citizens of its pros and cons. Talk of a Hamiltonian moment this week on EU bailout rather confirms my theory.
Brexit may well be negative in the short term, it might well make us all feel isolated but I believe in the long term the advantages of increased democratic responsiveness will benefit us all.
LibDemmer says
Although I campaigned for and voted Remain, I have some sympathy for Sarah’s position. When we voted to stay in what is now the EU the first time round in 1975, we were staying in the Common Market, a primarily economic union of independent countries. Since then we have had the Single European Act (1986), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), the Nice Treaty (2001) and the Lisbon Treaty (2007) and we never got to vote on them in a referendum, unlike some other EU countries. This created a democratic deficit which was one cause of the Brexit vote.
A particular grievance of mine was the EPP and S&D stitching up J-C Juncker’s election as President of the European Commission by agreeing beforehand that both groups would support the lead candidate of whichever group gained more MEPs. Juncker’s group was elected by just 29% of those who voted (and 13% of the total electorate). It as if they had taken all the worst features of FPTP and translated it to defeat the aim of a proportional system. It is shameful that ALDE went along with this, instead of calling out EPP and S&D for their anti-democratic attitude and it saddened me that senior members of the Liberal Democrats who should have known better stayed silent also. Sometimes the europhilia that has been a consistent Party position has blinded it to the EU’s failings.
Julian Tisi says
I completely concur with Nick’s analysis here, As a Lib Dem, one thing our party failed to get right – in addition to the disastrous Revoke pledge – was failing to explain WHY we were anti-Brexit and in a way that reached out to those who were not already fervently pro-European. Which is sad because we have a lot we could say – even now – to those who may have voted for Brexit but are now sceptical about what exactly we’re going to gain from it as a country.
For example, on sovereignty it’s now becoming clear that any form of Brexit will lead Britain to becoming a rule-taker (from the EU or USA) rather than a rule-maker because the reality of our size means that any deal with either will be skewed against us. The one disagreement I have with the article is that I believe it is possible that a trade deal could be reached with the USA relatively quickly, perhaps even before 2024, as Boris might see such a deal as politically expedient. But any such deal reached so quickly would involve very major concessions by the UK in terms of having to agree to abide by US rules we have had no say in creating.
Nonconformistradical says
“Remainers need to accept the result was democratically legitimate”
Oh please! No way!
Our so-called democracy has been highjacked by a pack of liars to achieve the referendum result.
M says
Our so-called democracy has been highjacked by a pack of liars to achieve the referendum result.
Can you explain the mechanism of this ‘hijacking’? Did they have agents at the counts, filling in false results? Did they intercept and stuff the ballot boxes? Did they use widespread personation? Or did they buy votes or intimidate voters, in which case how did they get around the secrecy of the ballot box?
Because if the result was based on the accurate counting of votes cast by actual people without coercion or compulsion, then I’m afraid the result is democratically legitimate, no matter how much you might feel like they were lied to. Because the essence of democracy is that people are allowed to decide for themselves who to believe and cast their votes on that basis, and the fact they decided to believe people who you think were lying in no way invalidates that.
The phoenix says
No reason to back down
Reality is like gravity
Geo politics is a strange condition where individual countries with large land mass and economic power like America and China call the shots
The EU is the only block to rival this
This is not the victorian era where we were the first industrial power so could dictate our power around the world
Individual countries know they are weak alone therefore the countries mentioned will not be looking to a small isolated Britain to group with to take on the 3 power blocks
America is a ruthless power who will utilise British weakness to pillage our economy for American benefit
Rather like a US state
BRITAIN unchained
Good time to go vegetarian if you like chicken
n hunter says
The Russians may not have had ‘influence’ in the 2016 vote however they do seem to have a big interest in the Tory party.Why? There are other parties. Equally cos the have ‘British Citizenship’ does NOT mean they have loyalty to the UK. The Trojan Horse in Greek times (enemy within unless of course the Tories are also only in it for the money) brought down Troy.
M says
The Russians may not have had ‘influence’ in the 2016 vote however they do seem to have a big interest in the Tory party.Why? There are other parties.
Why do you think they only have an interest in the Tory party? A couple of years ago the leader of the Labour party was acting as an apologist for the Russian state after they murdered people in cold blood on British soil; that seems a pretty big ‘interest’ to me. And the ex-leader of the SNP is literally employed by the Russian state’s propaganda arm; again, that seems a pretty big interest.
Martin says
The anti-Brexit plan from most quarters seems to be to say very little, to shut up and wait until the consequences of Brexit become really, really bad, to wait until the pain and damage is palpable. I think this means shortages, price rises and unemployment. It is a grim prospect borne of dejected resignation.
Anti-Brexiters are not allowed to say this for fear of being accused of wishing deep economic and social damage on the country. These accusations would be totally unfair of course; it is a major reason why anti-Brexiters resisted Brexit, but the accusations would be widespread in the media. Anti-Brexiters are caught in the position of having seen evidence of the tsunami that will be destructive, but castigated for what they understand is imminent. Worse, anti-Brexiters, for the most part, are unable to mitigate damage to themselves by seeking higher ground..
M says
The anti-Brexit plan from most quarters seems to be to say very little, to shut up and wait
Except on Twitter, of course, where every new piece of Brexit news is greeted by a flurry of Remainers saying how this shows that in a year’s time we will somehow at the same time be starving in the streets while our supermarkets are full of cheap American meat undercutting our British farmers.
If they would shut up for a bit that would be nice, but I have seen no signs of it.
The phoenix says
Look forward to see your reaction to how wonderful brexit was in a year
Your optimism is touching
Don’t be a stranger
M says
Look forward to see your reaction to how wonderful brexit was in a year
Your current record on predictions is 100% wrong, so sure.
The phoenix says
Starmer labour leader
Biden president
Typical brexiteer
Don’t let facts get in the way
M says
Sorry 98.6% wrong
The phoenix says
Oh dear oh dear
3 predictions
2 will be correct
Starmer Biden
Yes I got the Marxist wrong
2 out of 3 does not make 98 per cent
God help England if this is the calibre who voted Brexit
We really are in trouble