Read on Twitter
1/ My thoughts in response to Ian Dunt's article on "Remainers should not give in to temptation to gloat"
probably should be in blog post form due to length, but I have no blog. https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1339502443323912193
probably should be in blog post form due to length, but I have no blog. https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1339502443323912193
2/ Firstly - gloating implies taking pleasure in someone else's suffering. I don't endorse this, but I also doubt remainers actually take pleasure in the consequences of Brexit, even if they point the finger and say "karma". It's not exactly "fun" is it?
3/ Wallow also implies (indulgent) pleasure - but again, it's not exactly pleasurable to be proven right on Brexit with confirmation of correctness coming in the form of bad news.
4/ This is in danger of being a straw-man or at least an edge-case: I have only seen very few incidents of any remainer "enjoying" bad news on Brexit: There may be a sense of karma, but it's not so much motivated by revenge but as a desire for justice...
5/ ... perhaps relief that occasionally the world actually does make sense and that we were being gas-lit by leave after all. "It turns out we weren't going mad".
6/ Remainers have been endlessly insulted over explaining consequences- being called traitors, saboteurs,"remoaners", whingers, and far worse terms than this obviously, or part of project fear - as if concerns were a politically motivated game of manipulation, not genuine issues.
7/ Leavers seem to have an endless obsession with "drinking remainer tears"? https://twitter.com/search?q=drink%20remainer%20tears&src=typed_query
8/ This multi-year abuse may be a motivating factor in remain's desire for karma. It doesn't excuse equivalent attacks by remain but it might explain it.
The article uses the word "revenge" - I think that's too strong. For one thing it's no compensation for Brexit's damage.
The article uses the word "revenge" - I think that's too strong. For one thing it's no compensation for Brexit's damage.
9/ Having said the above, for me, the problem is not that Leavers don't deserve karma, but that the damage from Brexit cannot be hypothecated to only leavers. Brexit is not a smart-weapon: it's indiscriminate carpet bombing. It's the collateral damage I have a problem with...
10/ ...not with leavers experiencing blow-back. More on this later re: voter responsibility.
11/ Leave depicts us this way because politically it works for them: it deflects from actual consequences, and turns the topic on to an ad hominem attack on us rather than the actual issue: the consequences of Leave's policies.
12/ It doesn't make this representation true or representative of our movement that they do this.
Also within our movement there will always be divergence of opinion: it's perhaps naive(?) to expect all to behave homogenously.
Also within our movement there will always be divergence of opinion: it's perhaps naive(?) to expect all to behave homogenously.
13/ There is however an emerging homogenity of seemingly self-appointed ex-remain thought leaders: Robert Shrimley (who makes similar points in the FT) also makes similar arguments. Is this coincidence or is it a coordinated approach? In which case who is coordinating?
14/ I call what you are talking about "Disaster Remainerism" - after Disaster Capitalism/Disaster Socialism: the idea that the disaster itself can further the cause - that the disaster can be leveraged for political aims.
15/ There has been a belief over the last few years that once the damage of Brexit is felt, then like the Iraq war, opinion will turn and Brexit will be reversed. Here Simon Wren-Lewis outlines a strong case why this may not happen. https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2020/12/brexit-may-be-pointless-but-it-will-be.html
16/ Two main arguments here:
1. Labour thinks social liberalism/remain values will lose them another election - so they won't touch Brexit with a barge poll hence Starmer's quasi-nationalistic pro-Leave pivot.
1. Labour thinks social liberalism/remain values will lose them another election - so they won't touch Brexit with a barge poll hence Starmer's quasi-nationalistic pro-Leave pivot.
17/
2. Economic damage from Brexit won't be associated with Brexit - too difficult to hypothecate - impossible to compare current stage vs a hypothetical modelled UK that had remained in the EU.
2. Economic damage from Brexit won't be associated with Brexit - too difficult to hypothecate - impossible to compare current stage vs a hypothetical modelled UK that had remained in the EU.
18/ WRT point 1, whilst Starmer has been virtually silent on Brexit (claiming wrongly that "There are no leavers or remainers any more. In 2024 there will be no leave or remain constituencies."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/labour-leave-remain-divide-brexit),
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/labour-leave-remain-divide-brexit),
19/ Rachel Reeves has gone far further: ruling out rejoining the single market or the customs union, saying that even if polls are 70% in favour there will be no rejoin referendum.Starmer has gone even further, appointing BrexitCentral's Claire Ainsley as his political strategist
20/ Here is a quote from one of her articles on Brexit Central:
"People want and need to be heard on issues about identity, sovereignty and immigration." https://brexitcentral.com/claire-ainsley-brexit-opportunities/
"People want and need to be heard on issues about identity, sovereignty and immigration." https://brexitcentral.com/claire-ainsley-brexit-opportunities/
21/ WRT point 2, since the economic damage won't be felt, opinion on Brexit won't markedly change - meaning there is no route back.
And (back to point 1 again) even if opinion did change due to economic impacts being felt and hypothecated to Brexit,..
And (back to point 1 again) even if opinion did change due to economic impacts being felt and hypothecated to Brexit,..
22/ ...the only chance of reversing Brexit is via electing Labour, but since Labour has ruled out rejoin or even any material softening of the deal with the EU, and has now pivoted leave, there's no route back even then.
23/ ...If both these points are true then Disaster Remainism won't work since even if it did alter opinion, it wouldn't result in any softening of Brexit or its reversal via the election of Labour.
24/ Unfortunately - also for the reasons Simon Wren-Lewis outlines, the approach you advocate - e.g. being incredibly careful about not upsetting leavers over how bad Brexit is - being tactful, won't have any effect either.
25/ Nothing will have an effect. Even millions very inoffensively and politely marching in London had no cut-through.
There is nothing to lose because there is now nothing to gain. "The Bums lost."
There is nothing to lose because there is now nothing to gain. "The Bums lost."
26/ Re: patriotism
In 2012 or 2016 or even up to mid 2019 I think remainers could love our country but I think, by the 2019 general election, and after the actions and statements of the government in 2020, the situation has changed.
In 2012 or 2016 or even up to mid 2019 I think remainers could love our country but I think, by the 2019 general election, and after the actions and statements of the government in 2020, the situation has changed.
27/ There's an irony about Brexit: Theresa May called us "citizens of nowhere" referencing "rootless cosmopolitans" ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/09/theresa-may-rejection-of-enlightenment-values) at a time when we did feel love for our country, and wanted the best for it.
28/ But, ironically for a project sold under the banner of "we want our country back", Brexit stole remain's country away from us, and turned it into something we no longer recognise.
29/ Half of our country is against us on both values and policies. 45% of NI, 32% of Wales, and 58% of Scotland is in favour of leaving the UK. Our new government is purely an English Nationalist government.
30/ When we are asked "do we love our country?" it's now a confusing question: we certainly used to love out country even under Cameron when the Olympics were held, but now, what does it mean?
31/ Do we love England in 2020? Is it now best if Scotland leaves or stays? Do we love leave voters and our leave administration? They represent about half the country. I no longer recognise my country and to the extent I no longer feel any allegiance on a social contract basis.
32/ I wasn't a "Citizen of Nowhere" when May claimed I was, but I am now.
33/
1. Britain has already failed - or at least is failing
2. Brexit is not Britain: it's government policy. Hoping the policy fails is not the same as hoping the country has failed.
3. As I said above - it's debatable whether anything makes a difference anyway.
1. Britain has already failed - or at least is failing
2. Brexit is not Britain: it's government policy. Hoping the policy fails is not the same as hoping the country has failed.
3. As I said above - it's debatable whether anything makes a difference anyway.
34/
4. "coming across" actually refers to leave distorting our position, rather what our position is. We are not responsible for their deliberate misrepresentation of our position and we shouldn't get hung up about how they play the culture war.
4. "coming across" actually refers to leave distorting our position, rather what our position is. We are not responsible for their deliberate misrepresentation of our position and we shouldn't get hung up about how they play the culture war.
35/ Just state the truth and if there is any possibility of self-righting here, (not that I think there is), then reality will do our job for us.
36/ "Instead, we're hoping it succeeds" - who is "we" here - you are certainly not talking about me for example. Why would I hope Brexit succeeds? What does "succeed" mean? "Not too much economic damage", or "ensures the government can't be criticised...
37/ ...because the policy wasn't "too damaging"? When do you decide whether it's succeeded? After a few weeks, months, or years after "managed divergence"?
Does "succeed" mean I get my family's freedom of movement rights back?
Does "succeed" mean I get my family's freedom of movement rights back?
38/ Does it mean, Brexit ditches its a standard-lowering nationalist, populist rogue state agenda and returns the UK to the heart of progressive western democracy - because if that's what succeeds means it's a definitional impossibility.
39/ I'd be very interested in what you think Brexit success actually consists of and what you are hoping for. Also if rejoin is something you want ...
40/
(you have indicated it is with this sentence "We have a chance now to seize the narrative, to start to build the movement for rejoining"), then doesn't Brexit success undermine the case of rejoining?
(you have indicated it is with this sentence "We have a chance now to seize the narrative, to start to build the movement for rejoining"), then doesn't Brexit success undermine the case of rejoining?
41/ - in which case isn't it disingenuous of you to claim to want Brexit to "succeed"?
" with the grim awareness that the government is preventing that from happening" - this suggests that you think there's some form of Brexit (ex-SM, ex-CU) that would "succeed"?
" with the grim awareness that the government is preventing that from happening" - this suggests that you think there's some form of Brexit (ex-SM, ex-CU) that would "succeed"?
42/ Brexit is at best an exercise in damage control, so again I don't know what you mean by succeed even in a soft brexit context where there's a democratic deficit (becoming a rule taker with no say).
43/ "Support for Brexit is falling through the floor. Public approval of the government's handling of Brexit is miniscule"
Support for the government's handling of Brexit may only be 28% but satisfaction with the government and with Johnson is well within historical norms.
Support for the government's handling of Brexit may only be 28% but satisfaction with the government and with Johnson is well within historical norms.
44/ I.e. even a total lack of support for brexit as a project may be inconsequential electorally for the Tories.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-12/ipsos_mori_december_2020_political_monitor_141220_public.pdf
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-12/ipsos_mori_december_2020_political_monitor_141220_public.pdf
45/
This is a false dichotomy: it's not a choice between blaming voters or the government: both leave voters and leave politicians deserve blame because both are responsible and it wasn't just a one-off. They were repeatedly responsible.
This is a false dichotomy: it's not a choice between blaming voters or the government: both leave voters and leave politicians deserve blame because both are responsible and it wasn't just a one-off. They were repeatedly responsible.
46/ It is a lie of omission to pretend voters don't bear responsibility. Leave politicians gamed leave voters by identifying the "values" issues that would repeatedly motivate them to vote against their economic interests but...
47...politicians are the least trusted of all professions, are we really expected to believe leave voters forgot that politicians lie and that leave voters, tricked in the ref, then didn't work out the con over 3 years and two general elections? Let's be honest here.
48/ It's inescapable that Leave voters are jointly responsible with leave politicians even though in your view it makes no sense to tell them - and even there I'd argue against...
49/ There's an unwritten rule in politics that you can't tell voters they are wrong (see Brown bigot-gate https://twitter.com/dasvee/status/1336034079087751168). But
1. Perhaps if Brown had explained why he called her bigoted, we might have been able to face down racism, https://twitter.com/dasvee/status/1336034737249464320
1. Perhaps if Brown had explained why he called her bigoted, we might have been able to face down racism, https://twitter.com/dasvee/status/1336034737249464320
50/
and 2. This rule only applies to not telling bigots they are wrong. It's now perfectly politically correct to insult ex-remainers, or tell them they are wrong. It's now politically correct to not even tell Millwall supporters to stop booing players showing support...
and 2. This rule only applies to not telling bigots they are wrong. It's now perfectly politically correct to insult ex-remainers, or tell them they are wrong. It's now politically correct to not even tell Millwall supporters to stop booing players showing support...
51/ for black-lives matter. Not telling voters that they are wrong is part of the problem, not the solution. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9023039/Cabinet-minister-wades-row-Millwall-fans-boo-players-taking-knee.html
52/ If your argument is - "yes leave voters are responsible but we can't tell them that because that would undermine our rejoin movement" then I would refer you back to the the pivot in the Labour party - the reason why there is no viable rejoin movement under FPTP.
53/ Surely step 1 in this plan is to get Labour to endorse PR and then to reform the electoral system, pivoting pro-EU after being elected and for future governments after that (hopefully composed of pro-EU parties) to look at softening the deal and/or rejoining.
54/ This plan looks, right now, to be completely unfeasible. It relies on far too many leopards changing their spots.
I'm left feeling that any action is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.
I'm left feeling that any action is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.
55/ It doesn't matter what we do because FPTP and Labour have not got our backs, so don't sweat it. Some of them won't get the memo and Leavers will be angry with them, and maybe this will be used as ammunition in the culture war by the government, but it doesn't matter now.
56/ It didn't matter then either. We were ignored (see the marches). And anyway, it's too late - Labour hasn't got our backs so there's no route back..
/ends
/ends
