Brexit - I Was There When Medusa Died

Thursday, June 23^rd,

The Lexington, Angel, London.

 This is the way the world ends, apparently.

There was, in fact, a bang; as Nigel Farage’s face loomed over the packed bar, the Devil Himself projected onto the wall as he retracted his concession of defeat and set about making a victory speech,  a glass soared through the air and caught him just below the right eye. I thought then and think now that the thrower’s aim was, for a drunkard, quite impressive. The glass hit the screen and dropped to the floor intact and un-shattered; a portent of the embattled UKIP leader’s career, perhaps?

There were, of course, plenty of whimpers as the night dragged on. The Lexington crowd was solidly pro-Remain, a fact of which I had to be aware for the sake of self-preservation.

Demographically, I fit the homogeneity of the Lexington lot. Ethnicity: white, British. Age: 24. Social status: middle-ish class, student, massive but ignorable debt, soon-to-be-graduate; the kind of person who was expected to vote Remain. The Lexington lot did; I did not. I was very firm in not doing it.

But Nigel Farage had taken a glass to the face, and those constituencies declaring themselves for Out were met with a torrent of curses and howls of derision. I thought it faintly ridiculous that those declaring themselves for Remain, predictable results like Islington (decidedly more in favour of the EU than Mr. Corbyn, the local MP), were met with loud whoops and cheers. As though they had ever been in doubt! These were not, I wanted to say, victories for Remain. These were not, I was tempted to point out, the places Remain needed to do well; these were not, I muttered below the jubilant cacophony, going to be enough. The pattern had emerged early on and it would not be broken by the cosmo-metropolitan vote.

But I would do no crowing of my own, for my own safety’s sake. Not until I had worked my way in; not until alcohol and defeat had made the crowd a little more pliant.

I earned my first audience by virtue of being a rare and endangered species. Always the darlings of the cameras, we pandas and polar bears; I found an eager if slightly perplexed set of listeners in the various media crews that were picking their way across a floor of dropped glasses and spilt pints.

“Have you found anyone here in favour of leave?” I asked a camera crew who turned out to be from the BBC’s Panorama program.

“No,” was the reply.

“Oh,” I said, something of a slut for this type of thing, “Well, I did.”

So it was that I gave the first of my interviews to the BBC. Others followed: French radio, a German freelancer, Danish and Dutch and Japanese TV; all seemed quite interested the reasons I voted to leave but very interested by my presence, dissent embodied, in a One-Party Pub.

I recited, three or four times, my list of grievances with the EU – its anti-democratic nature, its constitutional protection for its neoliberal and austerity-based economic policy at the expense of social protection (veering as quickly and concisely as possible between Maastricht, the SEA, the Fiscal Compact, Euro Plus, its foreign policy, its response to the migrant crisis) – and what I hoped a Brexit could accomplish.

But all, without fail, asked me what it felt like being alone amongst the Remainers. “Well,” I said, “I’m choosing my words with care. I’d rather not be lynched whilst still an EU citizen.” It was a joke. But I remembered the glass, still rolling under feet and beneath the big screen, crashing against Farage’s comically giant face. Whilst not a violent group, tolerance has its limits.

I was asked, too, for my thoughts on the nature and the character of the Leave campaign. And I remember thinking, only after the interviewers had moved on to corner one tear-stained Remainer after another, that I should have linked the two questions.

Doubtless, as I told the journalists, the Leave campaign had been characterised as one which played to peoples’ divisive nature, their prejudices and their base fears. That was all true, all of it, up to a point. But it was by no means ubiquitous. “We might,” as I made a point of saying to the BBC camera crew, “have benefitted had you taken more notice of us.” The us in that sentence is the group, sometimes called ‘Lexit’, which campaigned, for the most part, on the old Socialist case against the EU. “Slightly to the left of Tony Benn,” as I described my position to another interviewer.

What I didn’t say, and what I should have said, was that, whilst its rhetoric always affected the sentiment of unity, the truest and most real and ingrained ‘divisiveness’ was to be found in the Remain campaign.

It had been in evidence shortly before my first interview. (Or it could have been between interviews, on a brief foray upstairs.)

 “Sheep shaggers!” shouted an Irish lass as the results from one of the Welsh constituencies came in.

On referendum night, watching their own Decline and Fall, the young progressives and liberals of The Lexington had found their inner Waugh.

“From the earliest times the Welsh have been looked upon as an unclean people. It is thus that they have preserved their racial integrity. Their sons and daughters rarely mate with humankind except their own blood relations.” 

Remain shared in Waugh’s high-minded disdain for the poor, the working class, the proles. It has been a feature of their campaign. But where Waugh used it for vicious (but effective) humour, it has expressed itself through Remainers as a bitter, exasperated inability to grasp the truths of the lives of others. (This is one of the things which separates Waugh from Orwell. Both writers and thinkers on the subject of class, both social conservatives by instinct, but whilst Waugh lived nothing but his heritage and position, Orwell lived Down and Out in Paris and London.)

These people, who have not felt the effects of immigration and who have not seen their jobs, their wages, their industries and their very livelihoods torn from beneath their feet by an aggressive, corporatized and corporatizing EU, have defined themselves by their lack of empathy. It’s easy to laugh at the poor, as Waugh demonstrated; it is much, much harder to be one of them. It is not to their credit that the Remain campaign didn’t even try to understand.

Now, one of the advantaged of being a smoker (and maintaining what the late Christopher Hitchens called the master-servant relationship with alcohol) is that one is privy to the best conversation. Whilst out and about in pubs or clubs, it is invariably to be had in those little concentration camps known as smoking shelters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the smoking shelters of Britain are the Anglosphere’s equivalent of the old coffee houses of Vienna.

So it was that, as the clock ticked and the moon sank and the sun ‘found a fresher morning’ (to borrow from that other sort-of revolutionary, William Blake), I took my post-referendum analysis away from the cameras and began to put it to the gathered masses that, actually, those of us who voted to leave are not all racists and xenophobes and blaggards.

It was there that the Medusa effect of the EU, which I had long suspected but for which I was short on evidence, made itself known.

The short-form version of the theory: it was the goal of the political establishment, in its British and American and EU and faux-internationalist incarnations, to paralyse us with fear; fear of the consequences of a decision to break with received opinion and the established norm. EU protectionism was a head with many snakes: if you vote to leave, we were told, it would undermine the cause of peace. It would undermine international co-operation. It would undermine trade. It would undermine the cause of social justice. It would undermine workers’ rights. It would undermine The Economy, Stupid. It would break with a long and multifaceted and noble ambition – European integration – that would negatively affect us in every conceivable way.  It led, with the internal logic of an illogical position, to claims about WW3, about war with Russia, about the collapse of the global economy, about the rise of racism and fascism and the far-right.

Outside the Lexington, in the smokers’ zone, I was met with all of these concerns.

But I was also met by a group of people who were genuinely surprised that an alternative was possible. I give myself some credit as a communicator – I think some of it is merited, given the minds I helped change before and the minds of my fellow smokers I helped change after the referendum – that I was able to put forward the case for Lexit without meeting the same unfortunate fate as Farage’s projected head.

The first, a fairly pretty long-haired lad who was quite obviously angry with the way the night was going, seemed never to have heard anything but a right-wing case for Brexit. He, like the rest, was parroting Medusa’s lines: what about this? What about that?

But, as anyone familiar with the tale – or at least one particular version of it - will know, Medusa’s weakness was herself. It was Ovid who, having popularised the story of Narcissus (from which we get narcissism), drew on narcissism in his tale of Medusa’s downfall.

So it is that, when faced with the truth of itself in the mirror, and when its advocates are faced with the same, the EU begins to fall. Presented not with the faux-progressive’s lie, and faced instead with the true nature of the EU – its neoliberalism, its lack of concern for migrants and workers and the poor, its prioritising of banks and capital and labour over livelihoods and wages and people – its one-time advocates become freed of the spell and the EU itself becomes paralysed by the fear it created. It’s why, I suspect, the British vote will be followed by referendums in France, in Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Hungary; it’s why Project Fear will, given the right conditions, hurt its creators.

As Perseus, having won, mounted Medusa’s head on his shield, so Britain may, if it is bold, do the same.

This was born out by my experience at The Lexington, by my talks with those, once fervent and feverish Remainers, with whom I shared a common purpose and set of goals. Once bathed in the light of its true nature, the EU will – if we play it right – collapse, its constituents leant anew to an ideal but one founded, where the current vision is not, on the people, on democracy, and on a vision of the future defined not by divisiveness and inequality but by social justice and progress from which no one is left behind.

By Brexit, we have at least opened that vision as a possibility. Had we voted Remain, that door would have been locked and double-bolted. We must, of course, fight for our new future; but we can at least say that it is possible.

Joe Cox - A Political Tragedy.

There is a rule, for troubled times, that I would see adopted en masse. I think I would formulate it as follows:

Be most wary, and most critical, of those who implore you not to politicise a tragedy.

Two things seem, to me at least, to be invariably true. First, people who make that request (or demand) are always quickest off the mark. Second, they always have a very political motive. That motive tends to be first conservative, the shielding of a view or alliance or policy from criticism. Once that is achieved, and the criticism forestalled, space is opened for something much more assertive.

“How dare Clinton use Sandy Hook to score political points,” began the NRA following the massacre of schoolchildren in 2012. “How dare she politicize this tragedy?!” Then it progresses: “Guns are not the issue. Gun control is not the issue. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

This sort of thing is not limited to the political Right, of course. Liberals, and the Left, are guilty of the same. Donald Trump is a nasty narcissist and it’s quite possible that he’s clinically stupid, of that there can be little doubt. But the liberal Left’s reaction to his statements after the Paris attacks, and the recent assault on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, tended toward that depressingly familiar refrain: “Donald Trump should not politicize this tragedy!”

It continues: “Religion is not the issue. White people do bad things too. Hate has no religion,” and so on.

This has become the default response, the preferred recourse, to any statement made in the aftermath of tragedy. It’s incredibly popular; it’s also deeply cynical. It seeks not only to pre-empt criticism and close down debate but also to create a setting in which assertions can be made – “Guns don’t kill people,” “Hate has no religion,” – that are themselves explicitly political. How dare you politicize this issue; that’s my job.

So it has been particularly depressing to note the way in which the public, and some politicians, have responded to the brutal murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox.

Granted, the official Leave and Remain campaigns have declared a temporary cessation of hostilities. I am not sure that that is quite so proper and praiseworthy as has been claimed. In any case, that has not stopped observers and participants, especially on the side of Remain, making the most shameless political capital out of the murder, and of the murderer’s alleged political affiliations.

So here we are again. David Cameron, firmly of the opinion that we should not politicize the tragedy, begins to say all the right things about hope not hate, joy not fear, diversity not intolerance, et cetera, ad nauseam. Never mind that, when not banging on about The Economy, Stupid, in the course of the referendum campaign, he has made those same soundbytes and platitudes and niceties his rhetorical tools in service of the Remain faction. But no, not now. Times have changed. He is no longer a politician, he is a human being. He has no opinion on the referendum; how could he following such a tragic event? No, no, he is not politicizing the issue at all.

Others, lacking Mr. Cameron’s experience and gift in the art of trickery, have not been quite so subtle.

The character of the murderer, who it seems was both mentally ill and had links to far-right and neo-Nazi groups, must say something about the state of politics and of political rhetoric in this country. We must not politicize the issue, but surely the toxic atmosphere of the referendum debate is at least partly responsible for this tragedy?

Alex Massie, writing in The Spectator and presumably just as keen as everyone else to avoid politicizing the tragedy, wrote, apolitically of course, that the blame for this horrible crime lies at the feet of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and the casually racist Leave campaign. A political statement? Of course not. Heaven forfend that anyone might make one of those in the aftermath of tragedy.

Massie was not the only writer at The Spectator to offer their thoughts on the matter. Those familiar with Rod Liddle are, if they have any sense, disinclined to assume that anything he writes is meant to be considered sincere. One suspects that the sentiment of his piece, entitled ‘RIP Joe Cox. Let’s call the referendum off as a mark of respect.’ was meant in earnest but not the claim itself. I was surprised to hear Douglas Murray, on Newsnight, express ‘some sympathy’ with the idea.

But there are some – quite a few, judging by the number of signatories to the petition on Change.org – who do sincerely believe that the referendum should be called off.

Whilst put online before the murder of Jo Cox, there are a large number of people, supported by ‘news’ outlets like The Independent which has gleefully reported a surge in signatures since the event, who have been moved to support it precisely because of the killing. What is this if not a political statement? The petition’s argument is that “Britain is a parliamentary democracy and that parliament, rather than a national plebiscite, should determine whether Britain stays in the EU.” What is that if not a political statement? Asinine, to be sure. Fatuous. Nonsensical. Unintentionally ironic. But a political statement is certainly is.

This whole thing is an ugly mess. It is made especially ugly because capital is being made on lies and at the expense of democracy. Is this really the way we wish to mark Jo Cox’s legacy? With deceit?

You are well within your rights to be wrong. You are perfectly entitled to use this murder to support your argument. “The murderer was a Nazi, Farage is a racist, don’t vote Leave” is utterly contemptible, but you have the right to be stupid. But don’t you dare try to excuse yourself of the charge of politics. You are making a political point, you are politicizing a tragedy, and you should bloody well stand up and acknowledge it.

Orlando - It's Not Terrorism.

It's Much, Much Worse.

~~~

It took far too long for the stupid and fatuous term War on Terror to be expunged from the lexicon of foreign policy. The political history of the United States is littered with silly declarations of hopeless domestic conflicts – on drugs, on poverty, on want, on crime – but the War on Terror is so asinine, so self-contradictory, so evidently impossible to prosecute that it could only have been created in and maintained by W’s White House.

What is war if not a terrifying prospect? What does it do if not utilize means and methods that terrify the sane? Has there ever been an account, from a civilian trapped in a conflict zone, that has not spoken in stark and candid terms of the terror they felt?

How can a War on Terror then be prosecuted when it involves us in a mind-numbing tautology. War involves terror; a war on terror must necessarily involve a war on the means of warfare., and yet not once did the Bush White House order the bombarding of an enemy with white poppies.

Bush, it seems to me, was at best half right. What he presented as a declaration of a new war, on terms and against an ‘enemy’ of a nature that made a mockery of the claim, should have been presented as a response to a declaration of war on civil society. Terror was never an enemy to be opposed; it is a symptom of war.

We, who are too often disinterested observers, would do well to keep this fact in mind. We are told of the “desperate search for answers” in the aftermath of acts that are commonly, and wrongly, described as “senseless” and “meaningless.” In fact, attacks like that on the Pulse nightclub (made bitterly ironic because a pulse is what the victims have been cruelly deprived of) should serve as reminders: that, whilst it is obviously ridiculous to say “on terror,” we are still participants in a war that predates, and goes well beyond, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Alright, if we are not at war on terror then against what, or with whom, are we struggling?

The  employment of the term terrorist actually predates the Bush White House by three decades or more. It is not as self-evidently self-defeating a term as War on Terror, which probably goes some way toward explaining why it is still in employ whilst the War on Terror is not. But it, too, is rank with contradictions and ripe for specious misuse. A terrorist cannot be defined in isolation from the concept and definition of terrorism and terrorism has no universal or binding definition.

It is commonly parsed as “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” Yet this is quite obviously inadequate in a conversation which often involves a debate about the ‘backers’ and ‘financers’ and ‘enablers’ of terrorism. And it grants the holder far too much power whilst allowing for capricious and arbitrary application.

So it is that the Reagan White House could justify its interventions in Nicaragua on the spurious grounds that it was becoming a ‘terrorist state’ (thus admitting that terrorism can in fact be ‘authorised’) whilst at the same time making nice with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which actually do support, finance, back, endorse, enable and authorise acts of terrorism. Bush’s War on Terror cannot then be reparsed as a War on Terrorism because his related talk of a new axis of evil made no mention of the supposed allies who created and supported the Taliban and, more recently, Islamic State.

Furthermore, the definition requires that violence is used ‘in pursuit of political aims’. This, again, allows for advocates of political causes to be admitted as terrorists – whether they be Viet Cong, Sandinista, PKK, ETA (but not, curiously, - and here again the point about capricious and arbitrary standards – French colonialists, Bay of Pigs insurrectionists, contras, the Turkish government, the murderers of Salvador Allende, for all of whom the United States has found a use whilst denying that terrorism can be or has ever been ‘authorized’) – whilst precluding the application of the term to the very people we now most readily call terrorists, the invariably apocalyptic and messianic death cults of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic State. These are groups which combine the ugly fatalism of the nihilist with the dangerous supremacist outlook of the fascist and the zeal of religious fanaticism. And one would have to be very generous indeed to allow that the desire to bring on the apocalypse could count as a ‘political aim’.

The injunction to ‘call things by their proper names’ has had an unusual progression through philosophy and politics, it being recommended to us by figures as diverse and removed from each other as Confucius, Orwell and Ted Cruz. Donald Trump claims prescience on this matter but it was Cruz who first and most often and most eloquently demanded that politicians describe their enemies without equivocation, only then to mischaracterise the nature of both the threat and its propagators.

“Radical Islamic terrorism” was and remains his classification of choice. One might, I suppose, give him the credit of trying; the response universally adopted by those on the liberal left-wing of politics has always been to resort to the lines “it has nothing to do with Islam,” “hate has no religion,” and words to that effect, a via negativa approach that does not attempt to provide an explanation or to give answers to those who so “desperately search” for them.

But Cruz fails the standard he claims to value so dearly. For one thing, terrorism is (as we’ve seen) a stupid and inadequate category that affects specificity but is in fact staggeringly vague. For another, it does not distinguish between different forms of Islamic, or Islamist, fundamentalism. Islamic State is born of Wahabbism which is itself a strand of Sunni Islam; should Hezbollah achieve its stated wish  - the destruction of the state of Israel – it would have achieved a goal of Shiite extremists. And for another, it encourages jumping to a conclusion without consideration for the facts. Remember how quickly people declared Anders Breivik’s slaughter in Norway an act of Islamist terrorism?

There is no easy, immediate, catch-all definition which answers our burning questions. Life, like the perpetrators of heinous crimes against humanity, is not so forgiving. It is not blowback; the LGBT community so pointlessly massacred in Orlando have no more invaded another country than had the children at Sandy Hook Elementary, killed not by any Islamist terrorist but by a mentally deranged American citizen. It cannot be justified by citing the alleged crimes committed in the name of foreign policy, nor can it always be said that the perpetrator is gripped by a fervour that is explicitly religious.

Where any of these things can be proved to be true, we should then call them by their proper names. The shooter in Orlando did apparently offer a pre-emptive declaration of affiliation with Islamic State. But what if he hadn’t? What if he had been motivated by Shiite fervour? Would it still have been ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ had this man, with a ‘Muslim name’, instead been a devotee of some crazed, millenialist sect?

No, ‘terrorism’, whether Islamic or anything else, simply will not do. There can be no guarantee of motive, no pre-emptive classification. There can be no certainty, and that is a terrible thing. Nihilism, the pointless taking of life, the wanton destruction in and of this world by those to whom life has no value except as preparation for the unknowable and non-existent beyond; this is what we are faced with. Not a clash of civilizations but a war between civilization and its enemies ; enemies who view all of us, gay or straight, man or woman, adult or child, black or white, civilian or military, as combatants to be targeted.

It has no political aim, it has no realisable dream, it has no goal to be justified. It’s not terrorism; it’s much, much worse.

Hate Farage? Vote Leave.

"Vote leave and you'll get Boris, Gove and Farage," we're told. Here's why that might not happen.

I received some small amount of flak for the suggestion, made in writing elsewhere, that Donald Trump might serve an important and positive function in the progression of American Democracy.

I stand by that assertion, based as it is on a truism that I consider to be uncontroversial: anti-establishment populism, which arises from disenfranchisement and alienation from the political process, is defeated by its own success.

The Tea Party, to draw again on the American example, which spoke to and emboldened a large sect disaffected with a centrist and neo-liberalised Republican Party, earned modest (but overstated) success in the congressional and senate elections of 2010. Trump is the logical next step for Tea Party voters who saw the small fruits of their labours as evidence that so-called anti-establishmentism could be an effective, successful position.

Trump is now the black hole at the centre of their galaxy of contempt whilst the Tea Party itself has become all but irrelevant, and the senators and congressmen it supported (like Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin) are having to live down, in their campaigns for re-election, that fact that they have been in office – and of the establishment – for the past six years.

What is being portrayed almost everywhere as a new phenomenon in democratic politics is, in fact, a return to a very old one. We have had more than two decades during which Left and Right politics and governance have been absent from the thrones of power. The last new phenomenon was the seemingly ultimate victory of centrism and neoliberalism – Clinton and Blair’s Third Way – in the early ‘90s, since when the old parties of the Left (Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US) and the Right (the Conservatives and the Republicans) have remained more loyal to The Third Way than they have to voters who, in reality and to a large but by no means total extent (many people are genuine liberals, of course), are not reliable, devoted centrists but partisans of the old ideologies.

Anti-establishment paragons and pariahs are not, then, anti-establishment so much as they are anti this establishment. What they want, whether they are of the Left or the Right, is an establishment that looks, sounds and thinks like them; one that shares their world view, which is (for all it may often sound a- or anti-political) explicitly ideological. In particular, they want to feel as though it is they who make the establishment.

The Tea Party’s success, which was to embolden a movement that has led to Trump securing the Republican nomination, has come at its own expense. It was the means; the presidency, and breaking that office from a decades-long status quo, is the goal.

On this side of the Atlantic: much has been written about support for UKIP from working class regions and communities that were once of the Labour tribe. And it is certainly true to say that UKIP, like Trump, has been and will be the beneficiary of votes from the Old Left.

But I fail to see how this continues to perplex so-called analysts and talking heads. The reason for it is very simple to understand; the Old Left is not liberal. Indeed, there used to be a healthy disdain for liberals amongst groups that considered themselves true Leftists. (The late Christopher Hitchens once described liberals as “dangerous compromisers.” Some of us maintain that view.)

The Old Left, particularly the working class Left, has not benefited from liberalism as it pertains to the interrelated issues of economics and immigration, and has been betrayed by a Parliamentary Labour Party still packed with the ghostly disciples of Blair.

Moreover, Eurosceptic and Europhobic members of both sides of the hidden divide feel betrayed, with some justification, by party élites who have sought to enshrine Third Way policies beyond the reach of sovereignty; to remove the ‘British’ prefix from domestic politics in favour of the diktats of a continental commission. This, politics under the EU, is a trickle-down philosophy that removes the people from the decision-making process; members of the demos become the subjects to whom decisions are applied rather than willing supporters offering affirmative consent at the ballot box.

The response to this disenfranchisement has been, as in America, the rise of reactionaries and populists on both sides of the hidden divide, but (again, as in America) particularly on the political Right. UKIP may take votes from Labour, but its founders, funders and most of its key members have come from the Conservative Party. Its charismatic, almost totemic leader, Nigel Farage, who trades in anti-politics and on an ‘everyman’ image, was himself a member of the Conservative Party until ’92, when he resigned his membership in protest against Maastricht and, along with other members of the Bruges Group, became a founding member of UKIP.

But the referendum ‘debate’ (though it is barely worthy of the title), as is so often the case in big political ‘moments’, has imprinted, on our collective consciousness, an impression of UKIP itself that is now wholly inaccurate: that it is a united political force.

Regardless of the result of the referendum, but especially in the event of a vote to leave the European Union, this will be exposed as one of the great lies of the campaign. The existing divisions between the leading members of UKIP are, for a party of its size, remarkable. It is only for want of space in the media narrative that they have not become fatal. Once that space opens up, I suspect they very much will be.

Nigel Farage, still the face of the party, has been sidelined over much of this referendum period by the official Vote Leave campaign, which he does not support but which his party’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, does. Farage and Carswell are enemies not only in private but also, given the time and space, in public. Another high-profile Tory defector, the appropriately named Mark Reckless (who was an MP before his defection and is not an MP anymore), was publically opposed by Nigel Farage over comments the former had made about immigration. Reckless accused Farage of arbitrarily changing party policy without consultation and without consent.

Reckless is now a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, serving under UKIP’s  Assembly leader, the unscrupulous serial litigator and generally dodgy Neil Hamilton, who is yet another high-profile UKIP figure happy to publically denounce his nominal leader. The same is true of Susanne Evans. Once Farage’s dauphine, one of UKIP’s most successful spokespeople and the author of its well-liked manifesto, Evans was purged from the party after Farage’s decision to rescind his resignation. She, along with Reckless, Carswell, Patrick O’Flynn (former Farage spin doctor and UKIP’s most prominent MEP), Godfrey Bloom and UKIP founder Alan Sked, form at least one – and probably more – faction within UKIP which is opposed to the party’s leader and barely leashed to the idea of unity by a common purpose.

Now, I have written elsewhere (and will write again) on what I consider to be the right reasons to vote in favour of leaving the EU. This does not quite number amongst them, but the idea which underpins it is not so far removed as to be entirely unrelated.

Consider what I have written already: the Conservative Party has been wedded to a centralist, neoliberal philosophy since at least the days of John Major. During that time, and in service of the EU which protects that philosophy, the party’s Eurosceptic faction (and much of its base) has been very deliberately restrained, ignored as often as possible. Consider that disenfranchisement, as I have argued, creates dissent and leads to reactionary and populist resistance. Consider that UKIP, defined by its resistance to the EU and receiver of defectors resisting the Tory mainstream, is the embodied response to that disenfranchisement.

Now consider what may happen should we vote to leave the EU. The Conservative Party will be split; gone will be the days in which centrism was its guaranteed approach. The voice of the party’s right wing will have been freed; the leader of the party, in a bid to hold it together, will have to make concessions to that faction. That faction will believe it has a chance to shape the party’s future; its voice, its arguments will be important. Freed from the certainty of centrism, those pushed to UKIP, whether they be grassroots activists or party members and perhaps even elected officials with close and recent ties to the party (O’Flynn, Carswell), would at least be tempted to return. The deep division within the party remains, and its internal squabbles (coupled with the heightened influence of its more illiberal constituents) will harm its chances in local, regional and general elections.

Farage, meanwhile, is still popular amongst those UKIP voters who have remained loyal but is deeply unpopular amongst its high-profile members. Some have left, others see him attempting to reposition the party for a post-Brexit future and mount a leadership challenge on the grounds that its future should not be defined by a man from its past.

Most of its supporters, united only in their rejection of the EU’s anti-democratic, neoliberal attitude towards economics and immigration now find that their differences are far more potent than their similarities. Many begin to drift back toward their old allegiances, whether on the Right or the Left. A decline in party membership advances the cause of those looking to oust Farage, who, in his customary fashion, refuses to go quietly. Bitter and protracted disputes, played out largely in the media, give the impression of a party utterly divided. UKIP begins to slide in the polls.

Farage may emerge victorious, but one man does not a party make and any personal success is likely to be short-lived. George Galloway and the slightly more serious Robert Kilroy Silk provide unhappy evidence that popularity, like relevance, is fleeting and fickle.

Alternatively, he might lose. Embittered, largely friendless and demonstrably angry, he might mount an ill-fated challenge as an independent candidate but the result is likely to be little different to that of the scenario in which he wins. Still, he’s a media darling; we’ll see him again in one form or another.

But the point is this: there is, as I think I have shown, at least a plausible case to say that a vote to leave the EU, far from legitimising UKIP, may be its undoing. Without a party (or at least with one bitterly divided) and shorn of the support of previously disaffected Tory and Labour voters, Farage’s personal stock might rise but his political chances will not, and the aftermath will be a gruelling period of factional disputes, infighting, and declining support.

Leaving the EU pops the centrist bubble, the mainstream parties diversify, voters return to their old ideological factions having been emboldened by the new political possibilities, and UKIP – and eventually Farage – are confined to that unpleasant period of our history under Europe.

Think about it. It’s not impossible.

Friends Don't Threaten Each Other, Barack.

Friends Don’t Threaten Each Other, Barack.

Not in a healthy relationship, anyway.

Time and memory are precious commodities in politics, made so by the fact that they are in short supply. But I invite you back to 2013 and the occasion of the G20 summit in St Petersburg.

Britain had been branded “just a small island” by Vladmir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov. “No one pays any attention to them.”

David Cameron saw this as the perfect time to emulate the best, most foppish and lecherous Prime Minister Britain never had. This was his Hugh Grant moment. Britain, he said, was great. Sorry, is great. We beat fascism and slavery with Dick Francis and One Direction.

Absent from his sterling riposte (aside from any retort to the comments also reportedly made by Mr. Peskov about Russia owning Kensington and Chelsea) was a very important qualification.

The qualification is an inconsistency (I do not say paradox); one that never seems to be caught in the open but is detectable by its scent and the vague sense that something is happening just out of eye-line and ear-shot. It is a dog doggedly dogging in the dark; that unsettling thing that you seldom see as you stroll through the woods but that you are quite sure exists.  

And it is unique to the Better Together tribute act. The Brexit campaign has an alternative which is at least rhetorically cogent: Britain is great and therefore capable; it is great enough to, so-to-speak, stand alone. Moreover its greatness is served best by standing alone; it is only being held down by the burdens of a failing foreign power.

Cameron’s omission of this inconsistency is also one of Remain’s biggest flaws. It seems, at best superficially and at worst seriously, incongruous to speak of the boldness, patriotism, bravery and greatness of Britain if your argument tacitly acknowledges that we are reliant upon others for our status.

I make no secret of my own partisanship. Though I could hardly be accused of patriotism, I do not think that Britain is necessarily reliant upon Europe for its status.

But David Cameron undoubtedly is. George Osborne is, too. (Not for nothing does one cultivate a cosy relationship with Christine Lagarde.) The belated concession to those clamouring for a referendum forced them to gamble on that most important of currencies in politics: legacy.

So, whilst Mr. Peskov elicited such a quaint but firm response, Barack Obama was met not only with what we are obliged to call the red carpet treatment but also the personal and absolutely slavish devotion and indebtedness of the leader of a supposedly proud nation.

We should not kid ourselves on this: Barack Obama, speaking in the nauseatingly ‘candid’ tones of a dear ‘friend’, has left us with no room to doubt the depths of esteem in which he holds the junior partner in the special relationship; a real and valuable relationship disgraced by the monarchical attitude of the President and by a Prime Minister with an expression befitting only a sufferer from Stockholm Syndrome.

The conclusion we should draw from Obama’s speech is that Britain serves American interests by acting as its 51^st state lobbying within the borders of Europe; both a prostitute and a pimp. Out of Europe, Britain ceases to perform that useful function and is then, as Mr. Peskov stated, “just a small island.” No one will pay any attention to us, not least the United States, who will happily push us to “the back of the queue.”

A friendly reminder, apparently. Well, as the old saying goes: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

We are fortunate that the political scene in the United States suggests Mr. Obama was speaking not for any future administration and barely even for his own. Even Anne Applebaum, normally as astute as a tactical nuclear weapon, has noticed the almost perfectly bipartisan move away from exactly the type of trade deal (TPP and TTIP) that Obama has chosen to weaponize.

Whether Trump or Cruz, Clinton or Sanders, the next president is not likely to accelerate any free trade deal of the type for which he is an increasingly lonely advocate. And I know for a fact that I speak for many, on both sides of the Atlantic and of the supposed political divide, when I say that I would not be sorry to see daddy confiscate those particular toys. Let us continue to be the largest single foreign investor into the United States and still register a trade surplus without signing away the future of the NHS in a bid to appease any desire for ‘harmonization’.

But seldom is it that monarchs are concerned with reality, and Barack Obama is the most monarchical President of my living memory. He seems to have given no consideration whatever to the necessary trade-offs required by our continued membership of the European Union; democracy, accountability and sovereignty were not factored into his speech.

Then again, this is a President more at home in the company of our own queen than he would ever be in the House of Commons. His rhetoric is smooth and polished, his presentation superb, but this is a man whose tenure in high office only flourished after the Democrats lost both the House and the Senate. This is a man whose astonishing hubris (he claimed of his own election that it marked the moment the oceans ceased to rise) was only ever constrained by democracy and fit only to be enacted by decree. The leader of the free world has always preferred to act by executive order, often imposing policies less extreme than those he presented to his political opponents in the certain knowledge that they would be rejected. His lasting democratic achievement is the making of democracy redundant: rendering Republican speaker John Boehner’s position all but untenable and creating the very divide he has since used to justify his royal prerogative.

And this is a President whose promised “Change We Need” and “Change We Can Believe In” has been so remarkable by its absence that huge swathes of voters are now, apparently without self-critique, flocking to the candidate, Hillary Clinton, he once (and rightly) portrayed as the antithesis of that change. Millions more are so fed up with business as usual that they are helping to create the biggest protest movement since the Dixicrats walked out of the Democrats’ convention in ’48.

Barack Obama is popular. And, if popularity is a measure of success, then he is successful. His words and his warnings will probably resonate in the halls of the debate over Europe. But he will leave office with his legacy that of a commander by diktat; one whose actions demonstrate an absolute failure to work within the confines of democracy and to whom the notion of accountability and due process is seemingly alien. Little wonder, then, that he has many friends in the pro-EU establishment.

But, stripped (as he is soon to be) of the regalia of his esteemed office, his arguments for our continued membership are less convincing than those of even the least competent junior minister. That he used the privilege of his power to threaten the people of the United Kingdom is a repugnant abuse of his position, evidence of the vacuity of his cause, and an abuse of the friendship he affects to laud.           

Stephen Fry is Right - We Need to Grow Up

If his critics are right, and if gradation and shades of grey either do not or should not exist, then I have the same right as a victim of a brutal gang rape to be outraged by comments made by Stephen Fry in an interview with US chat show host David Rubin. The same right? No, the same obligation. If his critics are right, I should by now be writhing, crippled by anger. I should have been hurt; I should have been triggered.

For, if his critics are right, rape is rape and abuse is abuse and not only are there no questions left to be asked or answered but anyone stupid, anyone insensitive enough to doubt that inherent truth is a monster; a relic of a less progressive age; a hideous ogre.

So I should be triggered.  I should be. We are all supposed to read from the same Newspeak dictionary, that wonderful thing that frees us from the pain of difficult thoughts by depriving us of the language used to express them.

I have been abused; the victim, I bellyfeel, of sexcrime; and damn the blackwhiters and crimethinkers who duckspeak otherwise.

It – this abuse - has happened on no less than four occasions. Sex whilst one party is inebriated, intoxicated and incapable of giving proper consent, is rape, is it not? That, the exploitation of my own past-penchant for illegal and mind-altering substances, accounts for three of the four; three ‘days-after’ spent regretting to my core that I was too fucked to say no.

The fourth occurred long before. It would be more accurate to call it the first. I was twelve or thirteen, perhaps fourteen, and visiting my uncle in his care home. It was his birthday; we took him a cake and balloons (of which he was once terrified; the chance of bangs and loud noises triggers those occupying his place on the spectrum but he grew up and away from that fear). We were to spend time celebrating with him and his carers and his fellow residents.

Whilst most went into the kitchen, to cut the cake with deliberately blunted knives, I stayed in another room with two of those fellow residents. One was a woman rocking quietly and with earnest intent in the corner. I don’t mind saying that I found her disconcerting; I did. And the other was a man, huge and black. Not fat, just huge. And I found him endearing by comparison. He looked kind and friendly, smiling absent-mindedly as he turned some toy over in his hands.

I was about to leave the room and find the others when that man stood up. I assumed he’d had the same idea and I waited for him to leave first.

Except that he wasn’t leaving, was he. No, he was walking over to me and, pressed up against the wall by his bulk, I felt one large hand, warm and calloused, find its way inside the waistband of my trousers.

It didn’t last long; the hand was hurriedly withdrawn when the rocking woman screeched from the corner. “No! What have we told you about touching!”

And I left the room, nonplussed and a little breathless but otherwise unaffected. I’ve never forgotten the experience and I’d never want to. Looking back, and thankful to that rocking woman who had so alarmed me, I think it is probably the first time the old adage about appearances was made real to me. They can be deceiving. The value of that experience vastly overmatches the occasional chill I get from the memory of it.

I have a vivid imagination. I could ponder here, in writing, what might have happened had the rocking woman not been there. I could speculate as to what might have occurred had I encountered that man not in a care home with my family but in an empty house or a secluded alleyway. It would have been unpleasant. Dare I say worse?

No, I dare not say worse, because that would imply that there are different forms of abuse or severities of rape. And that would be inconceivable, unconscionable in this enlightened day and this progressive age where we are all survivors; where there is no acknowledgeable qualitative difference between an unwanted hand on your cock and a rape at the hands of Jimmy Savile or an entire Somali militia.

It is as if we now live in a culture dedicated to the propagation of trauma. Whereas once we would have looked for ways to overcome what has happened to us, we are now encouraged to feel it as keenly as we can and for as long as we can; to let it define us; to adopt it as an integral part of our identity. We are encouraged to free associate with feeling and to expand our own to encompass the pain and sadness of others.

I say that what happened to me was bad but that it does not begin to compare with what has happened to others. But this new movement would have me say that it does compare, moreover that is the same and so I should feel worse about it. When there is no gradation, when we do not consider relativity in these matters or discriminate between cases, we are forced to elevate the banal and the moderate in order that we not exclude the extreme from this single, unified standard we now operate by. It is all a case, as Fry decries, of black and white, Good and Evil, with all moral nuance dispensed with.

I don’t doubt that this movement, and related cases like #Rhodesmustfall which encourages black students to inherit offences against their ancestors, is sincere in its belief that such conflations are in our best interests and that they serve the common good. It takes a sincere belief in good to breed the most sinister and harmful thoughts and ideologies. As Voltaire is thought to have said “l meglio è l'inimico del bene;” They make the best the enemy of the good.

But to understand that is to understand the need to fight against it, to know that the sacrifice of nuance and of good sense and intellectual rigour contributes only to the conflagration of the crimes these movements rail against. Seldom is it a commitment to harm and to evil that drives authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent; they do it because they know that they are right and the dissenters just don’t get it!

But which of the two most resembles the Ogre? It is not Stephen Fry, who argues against the trivialisation of rape that his opponents accuse him of and is undoubtedly better equipped than they of the moral arsenal needed to condemn it. No, the Ogres are the reactionary forces that believe that they are right regardless of their ability to justify it, and who prefer to fall for the easy temptation of censorship than take the difficult path to enlightenment.

As Auden said:

“The Ogre does what ogres can,

Deeds quite impossible for man,

But one prize is beyond his reach:

The Ogre cannot master speech.

About a subjugated plane,

Among its desperate and slain,

The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,

While drivel gushes from his lips.”

Cry Me A River, Barbra.

Cry Me a River, Barbra.

A reply to Barbra Streisand's piece, published in The Huffington Post, entitled "The Sexism in American Politics.

I am not quite old enough to remember the career of Ms. Barbra Streisand. I’m told it was once rather impressive; she boasts a resume that glitters with the accumulated stardust of decades.

I’m sure she has achieved much that is worthy of respect. Gandhi probably did not say, of Western civilization, “I think it would be a good idea,” but one would be justified in saying the same of meritocracy. It is more concept than truth. Still, success is success and sustained success is a feat of its own.

But it is an unfortunate foible of our over-the-counter culture that a placement on the Billboard Top 100 grants, as an unofficial award, a platform from which celebrity may pronounce and pontificate and hold court in the real world; an arena from which celebrities are by definition removed.

So it is that I have long been aware of Ms Streisand not as a singer and an actress but in her role as a moonlighting political activist; a friend and supporter of the Clintons and a donor to their Foundation.

All three roles were merged in a paltry and patronizing piece in the Huffington Post, penned by Ms. Streisand, under the title The Sexism in American Politics.

The argument, for those who’ve hitherto avoided exposure to it, can be fairly summarised as follows: Hillary Clinton is disliked, sometimes viscerally so, because her critics are sexist and cannot stomach the thought of a woman having power.

To quote Ms. Streisand directly: “There is no one in this country who would deny the competence, intellect, stamina, warmth and courage of Hillary Rodham Clinton... But the criticism of Hillary Clinton has again demonstrated that the strong, competent woman is still a threatening figure in our culture.”

That is a challenge I intend to meet in due course. But first: I have never found this excuse to be anything other than facetious. If I were a woman, living in the United States, I think I would be fed up with the likes of Streisand, and the odious Madeleine Albright, speaking at me in this tone of voice.  (Hillary Clinton’s dire performance amongst millennial women in particular suggests that I would not be alone.) I think I would be fed up with being told that policy and record and character are to be considered irrelevant by presumption of merit earned and that Ms. Clinton deserves my vote because we happen share a gender.

As it is, I am a man living in the United Kingdom. But I am morally certain that my opposition to the likely Democratic nominee stems from something a little more substantive than my feelings toward, shall we say, the female form and visage.

I am quite willing to concede the broader, non-specific point about sexism in political discourse, but I was surprised at the relatively innocuous nature of the examples cited by Streisand.

“When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough tweeted she should, “Smile. You just had a big night,” should we have been surprised? Hillary Clinton has a great smile and smiles often. So does Barack Obama. So does Bill Clinton. But no one would tell those two men to smile.”

This strikes me as ill-treatment of an important issue. There are tropes and visualizations and dog-whistle innuendos reserved exclusively for women in public life, to be sure. Donald Trump’s spat with Megyn Kelly is perhaps the most prominent case (though Ms. Streisand would have served her own purposes better had she cited his far more overt and reprehensible response to Clinton’s late return to the ABC debate stage in December). But to claim that something so innocuous as an injunction to smile ranks amongst the worst cases of sexism in American life is to invite the charge of over-sensitivity. Facile it may be, but it is no more severe or degrading than Rubio’s ‘small hands’ quip against Trump, or the talk of John McCain’s senility in ’08, or Hillary Clinton’s own suggestion (in the same campaign year) that Barack Obama was too black to be president.

But these remarks, when made about or against Clinton, are evidence of what Streisand believes to be “a pernicious double standard” to which Ms. Clinton alone is subject. That may or may not be true, but if Streisand believes that making women the subject of special standards is a bad thing then perhaps she will consider advising her friend to avoid playing to that same disparity in future. For it is not just Clinton’s allegedly sexist critics who define her candidacy in terms of gender but also Clinton herself: it was Clinton, not her critics, who deemed her womanhood to be more important than policy during ABC’s Las Vegas debate.

“How,” asked Anderson Cooper, “would you not be a third term of President Obama?”

“Well,” Clinton replied, grinning with arms outspread and a confident twinkle in the eye, “I think that’s pretty obvious.” Whoops and cheers all around the room for that remark. Clinton went on to say that “Being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.”

Clinton is no stranger to this sort of pandering to identity over policy and substance. Let no one claim she is not a quick and studious learner: prolonged proximity to loathsome manipulators like Dick Morris, friend of both Bill and Hillary and an infamous race-baiter who exploited the identity-related fears of the white working class during the first Clinton administration, has surely rubbed off. 

But either women are different, and thus subject to different standards, or they are not. Either Ms. Streisand believes gender disparity to be a bad thing (in which case she disagrees with the candidate she is supporting) or she does not. I should like to know which view she intends to adopt.

If identity is to be treated as the first of all issues then I should also like to ask Ms. Streisand how it is that she finds herself defending someone who both defended and enabled what we might charitably call the imposition – on Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky and others - of Bill Clinton’s services to women. If we are permitted indignation by association, I should like to know how she can support a candidate who supported DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and who claimed that the Reagans were good for LGBT citizens. If identity is important, I should like to know how Ms. Streisand can support a candidate who played the race card against Barrack Obama and whose husband, not to mention many of her associates and employees and advisors, is a Dixiecrat.

If, on the other hand, Ms. Clinton is to be judged by the same standards as her peers and on, as Streisand herself puts it, “the substance of what a candidate has to offer: his/her policies, his/her agenda, his/her experience, knowledge and demeanor in dealing with world leaders,” then surely she cannot complain about the sexism of Clinton’s critics when they point out her compromising connections to Wall Street, when they point to her botched healthcare reforms (and the fact that hundreds if not thousands of lives in Bosnia were spent on securing it coverage in the American media); when they question her links to Big Pharma and Big Oil; when they look into the murky world of her financiers and tremble with rage, and when they question her conduct and competency in the office of Secretary of State and conclude that her oft vaunted experience is a fortress built on sand. Surely Ms. Streisand would then understand our non-sexist aversion to any candidate on good terms with Henry Kissinger, would then appreciate our doubts about Ms. Clinton’s principles given that she behaves as though she has none, would then share our ire at a candidate who cynically exploits identity for personal gain.

Streisand says “We should stop being afraid of women, and meet them on a level playing field without resorting to name calling and sexist condescension.”  Rest assured: We are more than happy to oblige. But Ms. Streisand should be aware that a level playing field does not free her preferred candidate from criticism. Far from it.