Rorke’s Drift and Culloden, and Waterloo:
WILL ALL BE RESTORED WHEN WE LEAVE THE EU!
A paean to Brexit
Furlongs and fathoms and gallons and perches, Schools re-equipped (with canes, slippers and birches), Time at the bar at 11pm, Ladylike skirts with an ankle-high hem.
Antimacassars and old music boxes, Legal permission to maim and kill foxes. Coal mines and coal fires and smog and black lung, Horses and coaches
and streets full of dung!
Rattles on match day, not them vulvazelas, Sensuous foot rubs at camp from Akela, Skipping and hopscotch and conkers and jacks, Pubs that are free of dogs, Irish and blacks!
Washing the dishes by hand, not machine, Pogroms and blackshirts and Combat 18! Checkout staff who call me “Sir” and not “Bruv”, Films without swearing and homes without love!
Typewriters, pencils – or better, a quill! Thirty per cent chance of death when you’re ill! Andersen shelters and Spitfires and Spam! Frankly, dear Scarlett, I don’t give a damn!
Bring British justice back home from the Hague! Bring back red squirrels! Bring back the plague! Rorke’s Drift and Culloden, and Waterloo: WILL ALL BE RESTORED WHEN WE LEAVE THE EU!
You may not want this, but I won the vote; And democracy says that we’re in the same boat. As I depart through the heavenly doors, That past I
requested, my son – now it’s yours.
CBAs may be a flawed and oversimplified way of looking at Brexit, but they’re still more than most Leave voters have bothered to do
You’re a business owner. An opportunity arises for expansion. The risks are daunting – but the potential boost to income is huge. How do you decide whether to proceed? The first thing any halfway competent company director will do in this situation is undertake a cost-benefit analysis.
Essentially, you note down all the anticipated dividends of the project, alongside all the costs, risks and drawbacks. Assign values to each dividend and cost, then add up both totals. If the figure in the first column is greater than the figure in the second, expansion is officially a Good Idea, and you should crack on. If the opposite is true, you can the plan.
The technique has two main weaknesses. First, benefits and costs can be hard to evaluate. How much is an hour of your time worth? What about stress? Environmental impact? Reputational damage to the company? Can you put any meaningful value on things like job satisfaction, or the feeling that you’ve made a positive difference to the world?
Second, the universe loves delivering nasty surprises. It’s impossible to factor in every eventuality, and even the best-informed predictions can be undone by twists of fate. What if demand for your product suddenly fizzles? What if interest rates shoot up immediately after you take out that huge loan? What if your product is implicated, however unfairly, in a national scandal?
But
while it might be an inexact science, taking any decision that may have
far-ranging consequences without some sort of attempt to estimate its chances
of success is downright irresponsible.
Hang on, you interject. Isn’t “cost-benefit analysis” just a fancy economese way of saying “making a list of pros and cons”? Superb observational skills, I reply. While the term comes from economics (coined by the French engineer Jules Dupuit in the 1840s, it didn’t catch on until the 1950s), it does bear some similarities to an operation that humans have been carrying out for millennia.
In fact, your brain is conducting CBAs all the time; it just does most of them – ones involving familiar situations – at a subconscious level. “Shall we go to work today?” your automatic, system 1 brain asks itself. “Uh, yeah, if we want to carry on putting food on the table.” “Shall I dodge this falling rock?” “Duh!”
Sometimes, though, when we find ourselves in novel situations, or ones where the arithmetic is not laughably simple, the reflective system 2 brain steps in.
Say you’re in a relationship, but things are getting a bit stale, so you’re umming and ahhing about ditching the boyf. Some in this predicament will go with their gut; others might talk to a friend or family member; still others will actually hunt down a pen and paper and tot up the pluses and minuses of giving poor Baz the heave-ho. The finished report might look something like this:
Like the business owner’s, Sammie’s calculations are bedevilled by uncertainty – what if it turns out she misses the action movies and tongue-clicking? What if Liam doesn’t fancy her after all? – but now there’s an extra complication. Whereas a businessperson can at least attempt to assign a monetary value to each cost and benefit in order to make them easier to compare, Sammie has no such option.
While the business assessment would read something like “New office = £100,000 per year, extra staff = £80,000 per year …”, Sammie’s is a mess of question marks. “No more Saturday nights of the lads just popping round for one beer” = ??, no more stupid fucking action movies = ?? …”
Since there are no objectively established units for “value”, all Sammie can do is compare the two lists and try to get a feel for which wins out.
The same problems beset CBAs in the public arena. And as the decisions of local councils, military commanders and national governments can affect millions, the need to properly evaluate the ramifications of any new operations or policies is all the greater. Let’s take two examples.
If
there were some way to “score” these quantities objectively, there would never
be any dispute over whether a particular policy was right or wrong. But the
awkward truth is, if you asked 100 people to rank the costs and benefits listed
above, you’d get 100 widely varying results. While some people attach great
importance to the environment, others are more concerned with personal liberty,
the economy, and their personal comfort and convenience.
It so happens that in the case of cars – powerful environmental movements notwithstanding – most countries have come to broadly similar conclusions. While mass motorised transport has many sizeable drawbacks, one of its benefits is considered so great that it outweighs all the negative considerations (although more and more countries are taking steps to minimise the downsides by encouraging the design of safer, more environmentally friendly vehicles, imposing speed limits, criminalising drink driving and using phones while driving, and so on).
Now for a more contentious and tragically topical issue.
Cost-benefit
analyses should not be one-shot deals. If the circumstances or risk factors
change, you need to run the scenario again. And this is one reason why policies
on gun controls across the modern world are so polarised.
What’s interesting about this case is that technological and social change have altered the calculus. When guns were first invented, they were inefficient and limited in their capacity for damage, capable of firing only single bullets. Today, of course, they are far more sophisticated, with some models able to fire 100 rounds a second. Even an amateur gunman can kill 10 people and injure 26 more in under 30 seconds.
Perhaps just as importantly, times have changed. When America first adopted its lax stance on gun laws, people lived in much smaller concentrations. The world was more lawless – state security was patchy, scrappy and corrupt – so it was more important for citizens to be able to defend themselves; and there were fewer people (in absolute terms, if nothing else) with serious mental illness or bitterness born of social isolation. Run the cost-benefit analysis in the southern states of the US in 1776, and you might well conclude that giving everyone the right to bear firearms was a reasonable proposition. Run it again today, and most people come to a very different conclusion.
The majority of civilised nations have decided, in light of these developments above, that the balance has shifted decisively. The benefits of arming the populace have dwindled and the risks have increased a thousandfold. Mass shootings in the UK and Australia, for example, prompted draconian clampdowns on gun ownership (and as a consequence, no mass shootings have happened there since). It’s only a hardcore of psychopaths in America who refuse point blank to rerun the cost-benefit analysis in 2019.
What about another highly controversial topic, immigration? Well, this post from last November was essentially one big cost-benefit analysis of freedom of movement, so I won’t repeat the arguments here. To summarise: minimal costs, lots of benefits.
(This
is to say nothing of the various laws beneficial to safety standards, workers’
rights and the environment that have been passed by the EU, which we cannot strictly
count as costs since they may theoretically survive Brexit. However, if
the party leading the UK out is the Conservatives, whose chief motivation for delivering
Brexit was precisely the removal of such “Brussels red tape”, you can kiss
those goodbye too.)
I’ve done my level best here to make an honest assessment. Despite asking Leavers for tangible upsides of Brexit well over a thousand times, I’ve rarely had any (rational) answers that aren’t covered in the seven points listed. I listed some of the looniest ones here. As for the cons, the evidence for all of them is only a Google search away. But for the exceptionally lazy, many are covered here and here.
There are very few ways you can conclude that column A outweighs column B. But first, let’s be honest: most people, when they voted on 23/6/16, were not aware of the sheer number of items in column B (not even most remainers). For this, much blame must be laid at the feet of the half-hearted and disjointed Remain campaign.
But
even now, 38 months later, there is still a sizeable rump of individuals who insist,
while generating biologically unfeasible amounts of spittle, that the rewards
of Brexit outweigh the costs. How is this possible?
One form
of mental gymnastics I regularly encounter is the wholesale dismissal of column
B as “Project Fear”. “Of course the European Medicines Agency won’t relocate,”
they babble, weeks after it has gone. “Of course there won’t be a hard border
in Ireland,” they froth, despite being unable to offer an alternative solution.
Another
is to attempt feebly to recast the costs as benefits in disguise: “We can just
train our own doctors … The bankers deserved punishment anyway … I preferred
it when you could only get raspberries in October.”
But probably the most common attempt at an argument is that you can’t put a price on sovereignty. No matter how numerous or how valuable the entries in column B, sovereignty trumps all. Half of leave voters over 65 said as much in a YouGov survey published in August 2017.
They might have had a point if Britain were actually shackled to a dictatorship and enjoyed no independence at all. But the fact is, the UK only ever pooled a small amount of its competences, in minor areas of law. And it’s not as if it even surrendered those completely; it still had a say – many would say a disproportionately large say – in the drawing up of that legislation, and a powerful veto.
The
UK government certainly didn’t think the country had forfeited much sovereignty
when it published its Brexit white paper in February 2017: “Whilst Parliament
has remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU,” it said, “it
hasn’t always felt like that.”
And
judging by the polling carried out by Ipsos MORI every year, neither did you,
until 2016. If you did, it clearly wasn’t very high on your list of priorities.
No
Brexiter has yet been able to put their finger on any specific negative
outcomes of this partial sacrifice of sovereignty; few can name a single law passed
by the EU that even mildly inconveniences them. If you’re lucky, they might mumble
something about fishing (0.12% of the economy); but they don’t seem to
understand that the UK will still have neighbours. If we stop Europeans fishing
in “our” waters, they’ll retaliate – and most of the fish that Britons like to
eat swim far from British shores. Exporting fish (most of our native species
are more popular in other EU countries than they are here) will be harder. And
quotas will still need to be observed in order to prevent overfishing.
If sovereignty is really so important to people, why did we hear practically nothing about it before the referendum? Why were they not marching in the streets? The simple answer is, it wasn’t an issue. It’s a buzzword, a revisionist escape clause, a superficially respectable fig leaf for the true underlying drivers of Brexit: unfounded British exceptionalism and full-fat racism.
To anyone whose perception is unclouded by hatred and nostalgia, there’s only one way to interpret this cost-benefit analysis. Half the country made the correct call in 2016. Let’s hope we can persuade enough of the rest to stop chanting “Project Fear” before it becomes clear just how terrifyingly right we were.
A letter to the man who has devoted his life to taking Britain out of the EU – regardless of the cost to his fellow man
“No one, but no one, is talking about leaving the single market”
If you had told people that you wanted them to vote for Brexit because you wished to pursue unconstrained neoliberalism; because you wanted to sell off all of Britain’s public services to the highest bidder –
If you had told them that the only sovereignty you were interested in was that of the Conservative party, which would then be able to railroad through its anti-human rights agenda without fear of oversight by supranational courts –
If you had told them that the only freedom you were interested in was that of big business, which could similarly turn a blind eye to worker protections, like maternity pay, a minimum wage, and the right to sue for wrongful dismissal –
If you had told people that you wanted them to vote for Brexit because you wished that large British companies could operate outside EU laws designed to protect the environment and address the climate crisis –
If you had told people the truth, that the EU is not holding them back, but that it is holding you, and the climate crisis-denying industrial lobbyists who pay you, back –
(You did not, of course, tell people any of this, because not one of them, in their right mind, would have voted for it)
If you had told people all these things before the referendum – and, ideally, if you had not resorted to gerrymandering the vote, illegal campaign collaboration, illegal overspending, illegal data harvesting, and disinformation on an industrial scale –
And the country had somehow, in flagrant violation of its own self-interest, subsequently voted for what you proposed … then even those who voted against you would, somewhat incredulously, have got behind Brexit.
Because that is the essence of democracy: promises are made. Choices are made on the basis of those promises. The people who made those promises then do their level best to deliver them.
But to your everlasting shame, you said none of those things. Therefore, those who voted against you will, as long as they draw breath, resist you, and all who support you, and all that you stand for.
A collection of the various contradictory, hypocritical and downright absurd positions held by Brexiters
1. “Love Europe, hate the EU. Know nothing about either.”
2. “Proven grifting, self-serving liars [Farage, Watson, Robinson] are far more trustworthy than people who occasionally make mistakes [MSM, experts].”
3. “A bunch of billionaire capitalists and toffs who have never before lifted a finger to help the working class are the champions of the working class.”
4. “People who passionately believe that they are doing the best for their country are traitors to their country.”
5. “Wanting the status quo to continue, and believing in sensible, incremental reform, is extremism.”
6. “You metropolitan elites are so condescending. You are also stupid and wrong.”
7. “The UK is shackled to the EU that we just democratically voted to leave!”
8. “Once we leave the EU, we will be free! To do what, that we can’t do already, I , er … what about that commie Corbyn, eh?”
9. “Once we leave the EU, we will be free to trade with the rest of the world that currently makes up 55% of our trade!”
10. “We must vote to leave the EU, where we have enormous influence, in order to join the WTO, where we have next to none.”
11. “Every single Remain warning is Project Fear. Even the ones that have come true. Those were just coincidences. But the predictions about Turkey joining, the EU collapsing, the EU army, are all bang on.”
12. “Do you have some sort of crystal ball? No one can predict what will happen after Brexit! However, I happen to know that Britain will thrive!”
13. “It is vitally important that we leave the EU IMMEDIATELY. Even though 97% of the country didn’t give a crap either way until four years ago.”
14. “Leaving will have zero negative consequences for Britain. Also, sovereignty is worth making sacrifices for.”
15. “Things were so much better before we joined the EU. Which is why we begged to join it and overwhelmingly approved the move in a referendum in 1975.”
16. “EU membership has been terrible for Britain! It has only increased its GDP by a factor of 12 during that time, a better performance than any other major power except China.”
18. “The UK gets outvoted at the EU all the time! Yes, 2% of the time! Like I said, all the time! Never mind that this is entirely on laws that benefit ordinary people and protect the environment, which Conservative and UKIP MEPs inexplicably voted against.”
19. “We must get rid of this stifling EU red tape! Even though 75% of all businesses clearly have no problem with it, as they are desperate to remain in the EU, I can’t name a single example of it, and most of it is rules that directly benefit workers, consumers and the environment.”
20. “The EU inflicts so many nasty laws on the UK! Yes, of course I can name one, but sorry – doorbell.”
21. “The EU is weak, corrupt, bloated and on the verge of collapse. It is also a nasty bully that has not given an inch and treated the UK atrociously.”
22. “Other countries are growing much faster than the stagnant EU! Yes, I know my baby son is growing much faster than me. What of it?”
23. “The EU is failing! Look at the poor, suffering unemployed youth of Greece! Should we help with bailing them out? No, fuck those lazy goatbangers.”
24. “Foreigners are taking all our jobs. Which is why employment is currently at its highest levels ever.”
25. “We need to look after our own first. And everyone on benefits is a scrounger, and no, I can’t spare the price of a cup of tea, you stinking bum, you brought this on yourself.”
26. “Getting a good deal will be the easiest thing in history! But at the first sign of difficulty, we must flounce out and embrace no deal.”
27. “No deal* is better than a bad deal**, and a bad deal is better than a good deal***.”
*WTO (hopefully)
**WAB
***EU membership
28. “I voted for no deal, even though no one mentioned it as a viable option at the time, and most Leave campaigners dismissed even the possibility as Project Fear.”
29. “If we leave without a deal, we’ll have an extra £39bn! Which will go some way to offsetting the £90bn that Brexit has cost so far.”
30. “If we leave without a deal, we’ll have an extra £39bn to spend! On paying off our £39bn debt, which the EU will oblige us to do before it negotiates the deal we will be begging them for.”
31. “We don’t like the EU telling us what to do. However, that time Britain told a quarter of the world what to do, while asset-stripping its lands and subjugating its peoples, without allowing them any voice at all – that was fantastic.”
32. “German car manufacturers will come to Britain’s rescue and get us a good deal! Also, Germany is trying to conquer the world by stealth through the EU.”
33. “It’s not all about the economy, you know! But as it happens, the economy will boom.”
34. “Of course Britain can survive outside the EU! It’s the fifth largest economy in the world! Never mind that it was sixth and floundering when we joined.”
35. “Of course I’m not racist! I discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, not their colour. But only if most of its followers are brown.”
36. “You hate democracy! I love it so much that I want to deprive you of your right to peaceful protest and insist that we vote on this issue only once.”
37. “How dare you attack my freedom of speech!” … *Blocks/reports in bid to provoke Twitter ban/triggers pile-on*
38. “Ugh, Remoaners, they have no arguments. Always so aggressive and nasty! All I did was lazily copy and paste a deliberately provocative and insulting tweet, like ‘Why don’t you fuck off to the EU if you love it so much?’, with a cry emoji.”
39. “Ha, you believe ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Russians and American billionaires funding Brexit! I, meanwhile, believe there is a worldwide plot by the elites, funded by George Soros or some other Jew, to destroy white culture and inflict multiculturalism on the world.”
40. “So, how many refugees have you taken in? What do you mean, the same number as Islamist terrorists that I have killed?”
41. “My opinion is just as valid as yours – more so, in fact – even though you can support yours with evidence and logic and I’ve only got a Daily Express headline and a feeling in my tummy.”
42. “I demand to see evidence for each of your assertions, and refuse to provide any for mine.”
43. “I demand that you provide evidence for your assertion, so that I can dismiss it as fake news from an obviously biased source. Like the GUARDIAN. Which as we all know is funded by … oh. An independent trust.”
44. “Of course my vote wasn’t swayed by dark Facebook adverts!” … *Backs up argument with meme originally posted on Facebook*
45. “When you’re in England, you should speak English. And when we are in Spain, you should speak English.”
46. “Jean-Claude Juncker is a drunk! Meanwhile, Nigel Farage is just a bloke’s bloke who enjoys a pint, David Davis is a very laid-back person, and Tommy Robinson is naturally hyper.”
48. “We’ll just train our own doctors and nurses. Regardless of their aptitude for the job or whether they want to do it. In a year.”
49. “Eighty per cent of people voted for pro-Brexit parties in the 2016 general election, which was about a range of issues. But no, you absolutely cannot add together the figures for Remain-supporting parties in the 2019 European elections, which were plainly just about one.”
50. “Once all those Muslim ‘refugees’ have crossed into southern Europe, they can just saunter freely into the UK! Crammed into the backs of lorries and via hugely dangerous dinghy crossings of the Channel!”
‘We’ is a slippery little pronoun that can have any number of meanings – a fact that populist demagogues are gleefully exploiting
A world without pronouns would be a tedious one. “Bryan Fielding was an ordinary man. Bryan Fielding did not think of Bryan Fielding as an ordinary man, but Bryan Fielding most certainly was.” Pronouns save us time by avoiding the need to spell out the objects of our utterances in full at every mention.
But they can be slippery blighters.
When I use the word “I”, you have a pretty good idea of who I’m talking about. With a bit more context (where you are, who you’ve been talking about), the same goes for “he”, “she” and “they”. Minor confusions can arise in sentences like “When Sara kissed Barbara, she felt amazing”, but things are usually clear enough.
“You” is a trickier proposition. If I address a statement to “you”, I might be talking to you and you only, to you and others present, or to you and others of a group of which I consider you a member who are not present. Those who have studied foreign languages will know that while English lumps all these possibilities together, other tongues admit more distinctions: the French tu and vous, the German du and Sie.
But of all of personal pronouns, by far the biggest potential troublemaker is “we”.
Without any context, all you can be sure of when someone says “we” is that they mean “me, plus at least one other individual” (and even then you’ll still be wrong some of the time). This may or may not include any or all present; it may include only one other person, or it may stretch to every other human being who is living, has lived, or is yet to be born.
But the crucial ambiguity – and one that populist demagogues have gleefully exploited – is this: “we” may include or exclude the person being addressed.
Some examples to show you what I mean.
1. “We are not amused”
I’ll get two special cases out of the way first, as although they’re not especially relevant to my argument, they’re fascinating.
The “royal” we, meaning “I”, while associated most closely with Queen Victoria, has actually been with us for almost a millennium. Depending on who you believe, the first to use the word this way was either Henry II or Richard I, and its intended signification, apparently, was “God and I” – ie it was an attempt by the monarch to shore up his authority by claiming a “special relationship” with Him Upstairs.
It soon spread by contagion to anyone who overrated themselves – Margaret Thatcher was widely lambasted for her comment, “We have become a grandmother.”
2. “How are we feeling today?”
This “doctoral” we, also sometimes heard from carers of small children, actually means “you”. It’s a trick GPs, specialists and other “responsible adults” use to put the patient or child at ease from the off by creating a sense of affinity.
3. “What shall we do tonight?”
The most basic meaning of “we” is “the person speaking plus the person they are speaking to”, namely “me” and “you”.
4. “We are gathered here today …”
Ever since the first human ancestor ululated from a treetop, it’s been possible to address more than one individual at a time. Now, in the era of mass communication, you can talk to millions.
5. “Sorry we’re late”
The second simple meaning of “we”, again mostly restricted to real-life applications, has a radically different meaning from no 3: it’s “me, plus another person or persons, and explicitly not you”.
6. “We know from Godel’s second incompleteness theorem…”
The academic we, used in dissertations and other research literature, is frowned upon by most pointy-heads these days, precisely because it presupposes the reader’s agreement. “We” should strictly refer only to the authors of the study, not to “the scientific community” or “people in general”.
7. “We are destroying the planet”
What you might call the “Attenborough we”: generally taken to mean everyone; humanity as one monolithic mass. Can be extended to denote all humans past, present and future: “As a species, we do not know what our legacy to the universe will be.”
8. “We’re gonna win the league”
In the above cases, the referents of “we” are generally very clear (while the first two cases are a little odd, they are agreed by longstanding convention). There’s no potential disparity between who they actually mean when they say “we” and who you understand them to mean.
But now we’re entering murky territory. How can this 20-stone football fan, who hasn’t kicked a ball in anger since 1987 and whose sole contribution to match strategy has been to bellow “Useless wanker” at the team’s left-back, possibly claim any ownership of the on-field players’ success?
What he is signifying by “we” here is the team, or the club, that he supports, rather than himself and his Stella-swigging friends in the Fyffes End. He feels a connection to the club, even though his contribution is limited to a few hundred quid a year in season tickets and foul-mouthed support from the sidelines.
The club itself, assuming he hasn’t disgraced himself by throwing coins at the opposition goalkeeper, barely knows that he exists. But when that trophy comes home, he celebrates just as wildly as if he were the team’s veteran captain.
This is the chief appeal of tribalism: the ability to opt into and out of whatever aspects of membership you see fit. Your responsibilities within the tribe are minimal, and yet you feel able to take your share of the credit in the event of a victory.
9. “We won the war”
If you were a 95-year-old who served in the North African campaign, you might be justified in claiming a small part of the acclaim for Britain’s victory in the second world war (along with millions of Russians, Americans, Chinese, Indians, Poles, Aussies, Kiwis, French, etc). But as a fat middle-aged loser from Coventry who was born in 1963, you absolutely cannot.
What this old bigot means to be understood by “we”, of course, is all British people who have ever lived and will ever live. There is no such thing as an “innate British character” that you simply pick up by virtue of being born in these isles.
It also raises the question, how far back does Britishness go? To the Empire? To the Norman kings? To King Alfred? To Boudicca? And where do conscientious objectors, traitors, naturalised immigrants, and anti-Brexit liberals fit into your “we”?
Wars these days are fought on values, not nationalities. It’s difficult not to conclude that, were the same conditions of 1945 to emerge today, this old bigot would pick the other side.
10. “We don’t like strangers round here”
The speaker presumes to speak on behalf of all members of a group, when in fact their view may not be universal or even widespread.
There is undoubtedly a malicious element to this “confrontational we” – it is after all an attempt to intimidate by suggesting that the speaker has extensive support. But there may not necessarily be any deception involved; the speaker may well believe, correctly or not, that everyone else thinks the same way he does.
11. “We have a remain parliament”
Permavictim rentagob Chloe Westley of the TaxPayers’ Alliance has no such defence. When she says “we” here, she wants Brexit voters to believe that she is on their side. For one thing, she’s Australian, so not even part of the group she claims membership of. For another, she’s paid by US corporations to spread falsehoods in order to secure a damaging no-deal Brexit that will actively harm British citizens and facilitate the sell-off of public services and the quashing of workers’ rights and environmental protections, all to swell the coffers of the Koch brothers.
12. “We voted out”
An intimidatory “we” similar to No 10, and a favoured tool of the Brexit voter. There’s a huge and important disjunction here between who the speaker intends us to picture, and who they actually mean. In this case, the intent is to give the impression that the United Kingdom voted as one unit to leave the European Union, when in reality, only 17.4 million people, or 26% of the population, did.
Just under a quarter of the population voted for the exact opposite outcome, and the remaining half voted for nothing at all (which you could legitimately interpret as a passive vote for the status quo). Furthermore, 3 million EU citizens and a sizeable number of the 1.5 million British migrants to the EU were denied a voice.
(The phrase “the people” is often used in the same misleading fashion: “the will of the people”, “the people have spoken”, “enemies of the people”.)
But this “we” falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. As long as your collective aims are nice and broad and vague, you can muster quite a lot of “us” in support of them. But as soon as you try to narrow down those aims to specific course of action, the illusion of unity vanishes and your following splinters – as we are now seeing with the various warring Brexit factions.
“What do we want?”
“Change!”
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”
“What specific changes do we want to make?”
“Well, Parvinder favours option A. Sally prefers option B, which is completely incompatible with option A, and Keith doesn’t really have any ideas. He’s just cranky.”
13. “Let’s take back control”
The “we” is rather buried, in the form of that apostrophe+s, in Vote Leave’s ingenious and probably decisive slogan for the 2016 referendum campaign, but it’s crucial.
Almost three years after the vote, no Brexit campaigner has yet been able to explain how leaving the EU will restore any control to the average person in the street. The truth is, the only beneficiaries of the change will be whoever is in power at Westminster and, some way down the line, the big businesses that lobby them.
And they will benefit precisely at the expense of the average person in the street, whose rights and protections they will be free to curtail once the UK leaves the European Union. The slogan is a ruthlessly cynical exploitation of the ambiguity of the word “we”. It implies everyone in the UK; in fact it means only a very small subset of that group.
Dominic Cummings and his fellow cacodemons were essentially trying to pull the same trick as your GP – but with far less benevolent intent. In return for nothing more than putting a cross in a box, they seemed to promise, you could become part of a project, a team, a family. You’ll feel valued again! And that family will go on to achieve untold glories, that you can share in!
Alas, the bitter truth for Brexiters is the same as for the football fan: while you may experience the elation of vicarious victory, it’ll cost you a small fortune, and you won’t so much as lay a finger on that trophy.
Cummings, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Westley et al can say “we” till they’re blue in the face – but know this: you, the common person, are not and never will be part of their club.
The Bad Boys Of Brexit is an all-warts study of an irredeemable crook massively overstating his role in a fraudulently procured disaster
Going down?
I’m guessing not all Remainers and opponents of racism will be falling over themselves to wade through The Bad Boys Of Brexit, Arron Banks’s account of his part in the EU referendum campaign, so in a fit of masochism, I’ve done it for you.
While no one would be fool enough to pick this up expecting a literary tour de force, it’s not as unreadable as you might think. It was not, after all, written by Banks himself, but by the journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who, soulless monster though she be, knows how to string a sentence together. And the first-edition text at least, prior to the two hurriedly bolted-on updates, clearly passed under the eye of a halfway competent editorial team. (It would have been nice if they’d decided on a tense and stuck with it, mind.)
Tonewise, it’s a different story. It’s repetitious, riotously unfunny, and unremittingly smug. If a normally proportioned man waved his wang this hard, he’d take off. It’s also pretty dull, unless your idea of a rollicking yarn is a bunch of fat middle-aged men slapping each other on the back or, more usually, stabbing them there. If you’ve ever wondered what Hannah Arendt meant by the phrase “the banality of evil”, look no further than this book.
Banks’s boundless arrogance does, however, lead him to say quite a lot more than he probably should, which, especially now that we know so much more about the people, places and programs involved in the runup to the referendum, means there are some isolated pockets of interest.
Dishonour among thieves
One of the mildly surprising things about the book is the sheer malice that many of the anti-EU crowd bear towards each other. They block each other on Facebook, snipe at each other in the press, hire private detectives to spy on each other, and serve each other writs. It’s like a boring, R-rated version of the Borgias.
And even by his own account, the pettiest, most paranoid culprit of all is Banks. For someone so purportedly keen on “playing the ball, not the man” (p 212), he spends a stupendous percentage of the book insulting, mocking and otherwise belittling every other player on the field.
The principal targets of his ire are the rival Vote Leave campaign (notably Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings), but there are harsh words aplenty also for Nigel Lawson, the Conservatives, most of Ukip (special rancour is reserved for “slanty-jawed, boggle-eyed bellend” Douglas Carswell), the directors of Grassroots Out (“second-rate nonentities”), the director of Get Britain Out, George Galloway (“irritatingly sanctimonious leftwing political hasbeen”, “bellend”), and “Flexciters” Richard and Pete North.
Remember, these are almost exclusively his allies he’s talking about. What’s more, these are his edited, sanitised, fit-for-public-consumption recollections. Imagine what he says and thinks about these people in private. Now imagine what he says and thinks about people who aren’t on his side in private.
The only people Banks shows a modicum of respect or affection for are Kate Hoey (!) and his main muckers, Wigmore, Farage and Tice – and even then he takes every opportunity to scoff at them and minimise their role. It’s a wonder the man has any friends at all.
Socking it to the (common) man
Perhaps the book’s most miserable failure is its attempt to portray a battle between valiant underdogs and the Establishment. You know, the “ordinary people versus the elites” shtick that the likes of Darren Grimes are still breathlessly spurting in a bid to whip working-class white men into a murderous frenzy. Right now, it’s worrying. Here, in its infancy, it’s risible.
Protagonist Banks, the Banks in the book, shows an awareness of bad optics early on when he cancels a swanky donors’ dinner aboard HMS Victory and upbraids Andy Wigmore for moaning publicly about anti-offshoring legislation. But writer Banks, secure in the glow of his Brexit victory, clearly no longer gives a shit.
Virtually all the dramatis personae in this story are either billionaire investors, peers, politicians or wealthy businessmen. And most of the inaction takes place against a backdrop that would give Leave voters a myocardial infarction: Brown’s, Boodle’s, Claridge’s, private members’ clubs in Soho, Belizean beaches, Swiss ski chalets, the Hamptons, Cannes, Cunard’s Queen Elizabeth. Think Keeping Up With The Kardashians, minus the beauty. And the class.
This isn’t the Ordinary Man against the elite; this is one dodgy, illiberal, corporate elite, narked at having to pay taxes and give its staff paid maternity leave, trying to oust the liberal elite that champions those things. It’s the Meribel bubble versus the Westminster bubble.
While Banks might be a little more familiar with Joe Schmo than your average politico, he holds him at least as much contempt. You can count the “ordinary” people in the book on the fingers of one hand, and they’re mostly irrelevant flunkeys.
If Banks has any sort of grand vision for Britain’s post-EU future, he doesn’t share any details here. But you can bet your bottom diamond that there’s no place in it for Sid and Phyllis from Cromer.
For my money, there was never any vision. Putting hundreds of thousands of people out of a job, taking away citizens’ rights and opportunities, driving carers and nurses out of the country and wrecking the country’s global standing is all just a jolly Beano wheeze to Arron Banks. All that matters is winning and socking it to The Man, because The Man has a slightly bigger yacht than Arron does.
Banks is desperate to be seen as a sort of Robin Hood figure, a roguish champion of the people; but this is a Friar Tuck-shaped Robin Hood, who lives in a castle bigger than the Sheriff of Nottingham’s, and who instead of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, steals from everyone to give to himself and his Merry Fucking Crooks.
A head for sin and a body for business
While Banks doesn’t actually confess to any crimes – he’s not that stupid – the whole book drips with dodginess.
He starts off by boasting that both of the book’s two protagonists, himself and Andy Wigmore, were expelled from school for theft, and it goes downhill from there. Almost everyone he consorts with is arrested or under investigation at some point. George Cottrell. Lord Ashcroft. Richard Tice. Jim Mellon. Roger Stone. Jason Miller.
And there are 100pt comic sans question marks over practically every episode. The Love Saves The Day charity. The diamond mines. The GoSkippy data. Goddard Gunster. The Russian ambassador. Banks clearly has zero respect for the rule of law – every mention of the Electoral Commission, HMRC, or any other legal entity is accompanied by a snort – and one of the main threads of the book is his battle to circumnavigate spending limits. He practically admits that his modus operandi is to bend and break laws and worry about it afterwards.
I suspect the only reason he hasn’t yet been brought to book is that he has powerful friends and extremely expensive lawyers.
At one point in the book, he says he will “do anything” to win the referendum. It’s hard to imagine that rampant cheating would be excluded from that list.
There’s no smoking gun here. But there are five used rounds, a receipt from a gun shop, and a set of grubby fingerprints a few inches lower than you would expect on the wall.
Ming the Clueless
Sure, so Banks backed the winning horse in the EU referendum and the 2016 US elections. But those are the sole victories in a campaign otherwise characterised by laziness, incompetence and rank stupidity. First, he and Farage crash and burn in Thanet South. Then he backs Steven Woolfe as UKIP leader. Then the Leave.EU campaign loses the official designation to Vote Leave. Then there’s the Brexit song, the Brexit essay contest, the Brexit concert, the Brexit movie, coming out for Leadsom and Fox as Tory leader, backing Diane James for UKIP leader … Everything the man touches turns to shit.
For all his boasting that he single-handedly won it for Brexit and Trump (while Wigmore is a constant presence in the book, Banks is careful to ridicule him at every turn and deny him credit for anything, while Farage is portrayed as a snivelling wreck and Tice as a bimbo), it’s clear even to the casual reader that both campaigns succeeded in spite, rather than because of this malevolent gnome. Banks was just a chancer with a bucket of cash who happened to pick the right side – which he promptly did his level best to eliminate with friendly fire.
Sure, pushing the well-worn immigration buttons worked well enough; but any twat could have done that, as many have done for centuries. None of the good ideas were Banks’s, none of the technology was his, and he wasn’t exactly a convincing TV pundit. He’s no writer, as the ghosting by Oakeshott proves, and he’s not even very good at lying.
Banks will die before admitting it, but Leave won only because it possessed the twin nuclear weapons of Cambridge Analytica’s psychological profiling and real-time advertising technology, and lies about immigration and Muslims.
In a way, the book’s title is apt. Sure, being aged between 52 and 54, the protagonists certainly aren’t boys by the dictionary definition. Nor are they “bad boys” in the cuddly, idiomatic sense. There’s no Will Smith or Martin Lawrence in this line-up, and there’s certainly no George Michael (although Wigmore could serve as a passable cunt double for Andrew Ridgeley).
They are, however, truly execrable human beings.
In any other reality, Banks would by all rights have been a knock-off DVD salesman or a promoter of illegal bareknuckle fights. It’s only in our universe – curse our luck – that the stars aligned perfectly and elevated him to the level of dull James Bond villain.
Miscellaneous notes
It is depressingly predictable to note that at no point in the book is Banks ever found to be reading anything, or doing any research of any sort. He knows what he knows about the European Union – presumably based on a quick scan of the redtops over breakfast – and that is all he will ever know.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the haunted pencil, features in the book just twice, and in minor roles, not particularly connected with the Leave campaign. Did he deliberately keep a low profile until he saw which way the wind was blowing?
It transpires that Farage is a bit of a self-doubting snowflake, who crumples at the slightest criticism. No great surprise there, but it’s good to get independent confirmation that prison will utterly annihilate the slimeball.
Banks has a wife and five children. He mentions them once, and in the course of a year, spends one solitary afternoon with one of his kids when he gets injured playing rugby. Lord only knows how those poor souls will turn out.
(Oh, and by the by, Arron, I’m afraid my acquisition of your book will not have swelled your bank balance by much. Sue Ryder, 50p.)
No, you felonious lardbucket, I didn’t enrich you by buying it full price.
Dem notes, innit
xxi. Both Banks and his literal partner in crime, Andy “Wiggy” Wigmore, were expelled from school for theft.
xiii. “Peter Hargreaves … thinks British finance industry will thrive free of the Brussels straitjacket.” Well, Pete is on his own here. Even the soberest assessments point to enormous risks, short-term chaos and long-term decline for the City.
xxvi. On Nigel Farage’s thwarted bid to win the seat of South Thanet in the 2015 general election: “Taken together, the excessive spending, the push polling, and the very murky ‘sharing’ of UKIP’s private data suggest an extraordinary stitch-up by the Tories.”
Might this stinging injustice explain why Banks and friends felt justified in deploying the exact same dirty tricks in order to win the referendum?
xxvi. “Our brief was to … keep immigration at the top of the agenda.”
xxvii. “Our strategy was to go direct to the people, using techniques that bypassed the mainstream media.” Why would you want to do that? Oh yes: so that you can tell them lies as big as you like, and no one can call you out on them.
xxvii. “We were … gloriously unaccountable.” You say that …
4. Wigmore “comes from a long line of fugitive pirates and buccaneers” and is “descended from Blackbeard himself”.
11. “We are going to be blunt, edgy and controversial, Donald Trump-style.” I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the world’s first blunt, edgy weapon.
11. Of the nascent Leave.UK campaign: “We were calling ourselves The Know. Because the wording on the ballot paper was going to be ‘Do you want to remain in the European Union? Yes, or no?’” 1) Top-notch info you have there, Mr Banks. 2) Jesus Christ. How did these intellectual Lilliputians ever persuade anyone of anything?
12. “Today’s story was Osborne’s plan to abolish permanent non-dom status. I’m not offshore myself, but kept my head down. Doesn’t do to be [seen] sticking up for the super-rich.” But you would dearly have liked to – and Wigmore did.
15. “Cameron wasn’t wrong when he said UKIP has more than its fair share of fruitcakes and loonies.” This is the party Banks has given £1m to and chosen to back.
15. “[Cameron] should really be aiming for associate membership that leaves us with free trade but no political or economic integration with the eurozone – in other words, what people voted for back in 1975.” First up, if it is what they voted for, they weren’t paying a blind bit of attention.
Second up: why are you now banging on about no deal?
16. “Cameron will be calling in favours from the global elites, and we need sympathisers from abroad, too.” Narrator: apart from Donald Trump, they didn’t find any. And we all know what happened when Barack Obama had the temerity to express his opinion on the matter. Fucking hypocrite.
17. UKIP sends out an email to its members that signs off, “Remember the Battle of Britain, let’s get airborne.” Banks is furious because it makes the party of doddering xenophobes look like a bunch of doddering xenophobes.
17. Banks spends £1,800 a month on health insurance. The monthly premium for comprehensive cover for a 49-year-old smoker supporting a family of six is £330 tops. What the hell is wrong with you, man? Might impending mortality begin to explain his cavalier attitude to a) the future of his country and b) his own likely destiny within the UK justice system?
18. “A rightwing thinktank in the States called the Heritage Foundation has promised to find us a couple of red-hot interns”. First mention of one of the members of the shady network of corporate-backed climate-change-denying lobby groups attempting to influence politics and wider opinion in the UK. Start being scared here.
21. Banks wants to hire Dominic Cummings (who ended up heading Vote Leave) as a strategist. We know from the film Brexit: The Uncivil War exactly how far off Cummings will have told him to fuck.
22. Billionaire property tycoon Richard Tice: “I’m in. Whatever. Needs. To. Be. Done.” Why the disturbing zeal? It certainly doesn’t feel as if it comes from a passionate desire to defend the working classes.
22. “The Indy … tried to imply Jim Mellon is a bit dodgy.” What, suggest that your main sponsor, the co-owner of your mysterious Isle of Man-based bank and innumerable shell companies, who made “countless millions” in the carnage of 1990s Russia, is anything less than squeaky-clean? Moi?
24. “A few years ago, I bought several old De Beers mines: two in South Africa and two in Lesotho.” Why would De Beers, the second largest producer of diamonds in the world, offload viable mines? If they couldn’t efficiently extract any more precious stones, how could rank amateur Banks expect to?
25. “[Daily Mail wetwipe] Andrew Pierce has made a career out of telling people what they want to hear.” Indeed. What would be far more socially useful, of course, would be someone who told them what they need to know.
26. Banks admits he’s “worried” about the Electoral Commission, because “they will be overseeing the legalities of the referendum campaign”.
29. “[Donald Trump] represents a new kind of politics, and I think it’s coming here.” What makes you think that, Arron? Gut feeling?
31. Banks claims that a global economic crisis is imminent, “which is why I am stockpiling gold”. (Gold and other precious metals and minerals – like, er, diamonds – only increase in value when the usual investment favourites, like government bonds, shares and currencies, are a bad bet.) Banks is banking on a crash. Surely, though, he would never take active steps towards triggering one purely for his own gain?
31. Email from (eventual Vote Leave chief) Matthew Elliott to Banks: “When we win the referendum, we’ll both have invitations piling up, and people saying they were with us all along.” How’s that prediction working out, Matty?
36. “The big question Remainers will ask is what Britain will ‘look like’ outside the EU. We need an answer.” Banks goes on to give a brief summary of Richard North’s “Flexcit” idea – the one actual plan that any believer in Brexit bothered to concoct, involving a slow, managed departure from the EU – and seems broadly supportive. And now here we are, 31 months later, with all such “Brexit lite” options jettisoned, and no new suggestions beyond unilaterally dropping all our tariffs to zero and crossing our fingers.
38. Banks fervently hopes Corbyn is Labour leader by the time of the referendum: “Everyone knows Corbyn’s a Eurosceptic.”
40. Banks toys with hiring Goddard Gunster, a US firm with expertise in polling for referendums and social media. GG claims a success rate of 90% in its previous campaigns, which include: blocking taxes on sugary drinks and plastic bottle deposits in several US states, defeating Hillary Clinton’s healthcare programme, and thwarting Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to ban large sugary drinks in New York.
Banks later said in an interview: “What [Goddard Gunster] said early on was ‘Facts don’t work’, and that’s it. The Remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”
NB: Leave.EU’s failure to declare its costs relating to the hiring of Goddard Gunster was one of the reasons the Electoral Commission found it in breach of electoral law and fined it £70,000.
Banks tried to convince the watchdog that Gunster’s advice had come before the official campaign period began or that the advice was given to him in a personal capacity, not to the campaign. But Goddard Gunster is mentioned umpteen times in the book, throughout the campaign, and Gunster himself admitted that some of his staff were embedded in the Leave.EU offices.
40. Another wizard idea from PR geniuses Banks and Wigmore: a Brexit concert. Early suggestions for a name include BRock Around The Clock and BPops. Read the full, rather amusing story here.
41. Farage is pleased about the announcement that the wording on the referendum ballot paper will be leave versus remain instead of yes versus no or in versus out. “He thinks it’s the best question we can get.”
43. First mention of Jack Montgomery. Here, a “young PR guy”. Now, deputy editor of Breitbart and deputy head of communications for Leave.EU. One of the nastier pieces of work.
44. Banks believes someone has hired a private detective to spy on him, and thinks Elliott is the culprit. He writes to Elliot threatening to retaliate by deploy his own security firm: “It’s called PrecisionRiskIntelligence.com.” Catchy! Its staff, apparently, include ex-MI5 and SAS employees. Does this perhaps begin to explain the spectacular failure of Britain’s security services to properly investigate the Brexit swindle?
(“Precision Risk Intelligence was established in 2005 to provide our clients with innovative excellence in risk and crisis management, cybersecurity and investigation services with a global reach,” says its website, which doesn’t offer much beyond assurances of top-level, extremely vaguely defined services, but you can check it out here if you really must.)
48. The sole mention in the book of any of Banks’s five children: one paragraph about his son sustaining an injury in a rugby match, and Banks going home to look after him. What a salt-of-the-earth family guy.
51. Banks gets stuck in traffic and doesn’t like it. We suggest he steers clear of Kent for the foreseeable future.
57. “Farage let fly about the ‘toxic Tory toffs from Tufton Street’.” Another Leave faction Banks and co were apparently at war with. Are they still, I wonder?
79. “Andrew Neil’s asked me to speak at an event for the Addison Club, his very elite private dining society.” Neil has sworn oaths on sacred relics that he is neutral on Brexit.
84. “We’ve hired Cambridge Analytica, an American company that uses ‘big data and advanced psychographics’ to influence people … They devise psychological profiles of the electorate, using thousands of pieces of data to filter the population into 150 personality types. With this information, you can tailor campaign material to particular groups … It may sound a bit creepy, but these days it’s how most political parties work.”
85. “Cummings has been shooting his mouth off about having two referendums.”
88. “Immigration, immigration, immigration … Wiggy reckons [Theresa May would] be the best person to front the Leave campaign.”
92. “Liz [Bilney]’s ‘pop star’ Antonia Suñer launched the Brexit song.” Let the River Run currently has a shade over 5,000 views on YouTube, most of which resulted from a tweet mocking how few views it had on YouTube.
96. Banks and Wigmore meet the Russian ambassador. “We’d been invited by a shady character called Oleg who we’d met in Doncaster at the UKIP conference.” Banks tells us where they met, what they drank, and some of the banter; but other than a vague “Our host wanted the inside track on the Brexit campaign”, he’s shtum on what they actually talked about.
97. “We shook hands and promised to meet again.”
In November 2017, Banks responded to the Electoral Commission’s questions about his contact with Russians thus: “My sole involvement with ‘the Russians’ was a boozy 6 hour lunch with the Ambassador.”
It has since emerged that he met officials from the Russian embassy – also known as spies – as many as 11 times before and shortly after the referendum.
100. Strong insinuation that Tory MPs Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove are homosexual lovers.
102. “[Campaign strategist] Gerry [Gunster] thinks the final vote will be 55% Leave.”
103. Banks blames the EU’s open borders policy for the terror attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. Rather than, say, the terrorists. Or hate preachers, or inequality, or mental health provision, or disaffected youth … If a man catches a bus on his way to commit a murder, do you ban buses? Twat.
106. Four months earlier, Banks was insistent that having separate campaigns would be to Leave’s advantage. Now he says: “Two rival campaigns is a waste of time, money and effort” and suggests to Vote Leave that the two groups merge.
106. Ah. Everyone pipe down. Banks doesn’t just give to charity – he runs one. Let’s take a look, shall we?
From the Charity Commission:
Love Saves The Day
Registered charity number 1161939
Registered 1/6/2015
Removed 31/5/2018
Charitable objects Such charitable purposes for the public benefit as are exclusively charitable according to the laws of England and Wales as the trustees may from time to time determine.
What the charity does General charitable purposes, education/training, prevention or relief of poverty, economic/community development/employment
Who the charity helps Children/young people, elderly/old people, people with disabilities, people of a particular ethnic or racial origin, the general public/mankind
How the charity works Makes grants to individuals, makes grants to organisations, provides services, provides advocacy/advice/information
Have you ever seen a charity with a wider remit? To help “the general public/mankind”? There are no records in existence of how much money Love Saves The Day raised, or where it went. It’s a colossal piss-take.
118. Lord Ashcroft conducts a poll. 75% of the UK thinks immigration is out of control. Thanks, Daily Express and Nigel Farage.
120. Banks asks economist Ruth Lea, of Economists for Brexit, for help with an economic question. She says it’s not her area of expertise. So what is economist Ruth Lea’s area of expertise?
121. Banks sends luxury hampers to all his staff for Christmas, and buys all his kids hoverboards. Who said there was no money in insurance?
My dad was director of an insurance broker and my mum was a senior executive with one of the very largest insurance firms. Between them, they cleared about £110,000 a year.
123. “Vote Out, and the repercussions will be as big as the fall of the Berlin wall.” Nah, mate. The fall of the Berlin wall led to forgiveness, strengthening, and unification.
132. “The Brussels-funded CBI”. Part of the CBI’s remit is to carry out economic surveys. The European Commission is naturally interested in some of these, so it pays for them. The work amounts to 0.6% of the CBI’s income.
132. “It’s a shame our competition for the best essay on what shape Brexit should take never really took off. We didn’t get the quality of entries we’d hoped for.”
136. The one thing you would expect Banks to know something about, given his insurance background, is the financial services industry. “Brexit will breathe new life into the UK’s financial services.” Hmm. The Economists for Brexit might agree with you on this … if it was their area of expertise.
137. Banks observes boldly that Toyota, Volkswagen, Nissan, Rolls-Royce, General Motors and Jaguar will never reduce investment in or leave Brexit Britain in a million years. He’s also quietly confident that Leave.EU are going to win the nomination for the official Leave campaign. Jonathan Cainer can rest easy.
138. Wigmore accuses Vote Leave of “astroturfing” – giving the impression of widespread grassroots support, when they do not have it. As far as we can determine, this is Wigmore’s sole accurate observation in the campaign.
141. “I reckon [BPop will be] the biggest political rally since the war.” If you’re after racing tips, Arron might not be your guy.
142. The mini-Michelin man disses the “meddling” Pope (for saying cooperation is better than competition, in a possible veiled dig at Brexit).
145. “We’ll keep the Airbus wings, which we make here.” Oh, Arron, you are truly spoiling us.
146. Banks has a meeting with Jim Pickard and Kiran Stacey, two journalists from the Financial Times. He gets them so drunk that they start oversharing. Neither has said a bad word about him since.
(@odysseanproject is Dominic Cummings, director of Vote Leave and my neighbour at Exeter College, who has since quit Twitter.)
155. Of entrepreneur John Mills’ involvement with Vote Leave: “Sometimes it’s best to cut your losses.” Sound advice, there, for once, Bankski. Perhaps Theresa May could do with taking a leaf out of your book. Perhaps you could do with taking a leaf out of your book.
156. Four months before the referendum, Banks spends nine days “checking on the mines in South Africa”. He fills up a few pages with what the rest of the gang are up to, but is oddly tight-lipped about his own activities.
158. “The sinking Vote Leave ship”. Shades of “the failing EU” and “the failing New York Times”. Starting to wonder if this man could correctly predict night following day.
158. Steve Baker, the ERG Tory MP, is “pompous … a little greaseball”. For once, we are more than happy to agree with Banks on something.
166. Security staff apprehend a man trying to enter one of Farage’s gigs “armed with a machete”, apparently. I can’t find any mention of this anywhere. Surely they’d have exploited the publicity – unless the grunts were overly heavy-handed with the guy and it wasn’t a machete at all?
189. Now he’s skiing in fucking Meribel. Anti-elitism can be such a drag.
190. Leave.EU spend £3.2m on targeted leaflets, positively brimming with half-truths and outright lies, which are delivered to 8.1 million homes. (The infamous Remain “propaganda” leaflet was sent to all 27 million UK households at a cost of £8m – but it’s restrained in tone and I for one can’t find a falsity in it).
190. “I don’t think we’ll need to print as many copies as we planned,” Banks admits. Why might that be? Not because you’ve obtained targeting data from your shady American friends, perchance?
191. Banks whines that the BBC, in selecting the lineup for a Brexit debate at Wembley, is “trying to make Brexiteers look like a bunch of grumpy old men”.
192. “Wiggy and I like winging it.” No plan? No shit.
195. “Negative campaigning is not engaging the public. We are going to be the keen, bright-eyed optimists.” A proper tea-spluttering moment.
197. The plot to weaponise Turkey. Depressing stuff.
198. “The Duke of Edinburgh, a man with a great sense of humour”. I bet this foreskin stretched over a balloon spends his evenings watching old VHSs of Jim Davidson gigs.
199. Banks whines about Barack Obama coming out for Remain. He’s clearly sore that Leave still haven’t managed to find a single person outside Britain who thinks Brexit is a good idea. (Trump didn’t give his blessing until after the vote.)
206. Matthew Elliott and Bernard Jenkin “were putting it about that I’m a racist homophobe and misuse personal data to boot”, so he serves Elliott with a writ. Rule of thumb: if Arron Banks serves you with a writ, you’re likely on to something.
212. “Let’s play the ball, not the man.” Banks’s entire modus operandi is to play the man. Dirt-digging, smear campaigns, playground insults … If he ever makes contact with the ball, it’s by accident.
216. Now he’s in Miami, clearly a crucial swing state in the Brexit vote.
217. All bar one of the acts booked to appear in Banks’s mega-BPop concert pull out, leaving them with a bill of Phats and Small.
218. Now he’s in the British Virgin Islands. Another must-win constituency for Leave.
219. “We have comprehensively overspent on the campaign anyway.” I repeat: “We have comprehensively overspent on the campaign anyway.”
224. “I’m sorry to report that our last stop was a sleazy gay bar in Soho, the only place still open.” Why is he sorry to report this? Might it be because … he’s a raging homophobe after all?
229. Banks wants to emulate Beppe Grillo’s populist Five Star Movement. Funny I should read that on the day the oinking little fascist and Wigmore are reported to have met not Italy’s far-left populist movement, but its increasingly frightening far-right equivalent, La Liga.
230. Describes Jeremy Corbyn’s campaigning efforts for Remain as “useless” and “half-hearted”. “Everyone knows he’s been a lifelong opponent of the undemocratic EU.”
232. Mocks George Osborne’s latest economic forecast (GDP 6% lower by 2030 in the event of Brexit). Leave.EU issues press releases labelling him “Mystic Gideon”. This also marks the point at which the Leave campaign started deriding any negative predictions with playground snarkery like “Scaremongering!”, “Prorect Fear!” and “Have you got some sort of crystal ball?”, all the while merrily scaremongering about Turkey joining the EU and predicting that the UK will be billions better off out of it.
233. More brickbats, this time for the “slightly loopy” director of Get Britain Out, Jayne Adye.
234. Negotiations with Martin Durkin, maker of Brexit: The Movie, which Banks is part-funding. The feculent toad is concerned that it will just be a puff piece for libertarianism, and wants more anti-immigration material, and clips of Farage.
The Wikipedia page for Brexit: The Movie claims its budget was £100,000 and that it was entirely crowdfunded, but when it was announced in January 2016, it already had £50,000 in “seed funding”, and here Banks tells us he’s forked out another £55,000 for the project.
Durkin is a climate change-denying free-market libertarian very much in the mould of, if not in the pay of, the network of fake rightwing thinktanks, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Civitas, et al.
His previous project, Britain’s Trillion-Pound Horror Story, put forward the case that public spending stunts the economy (and thus, indirectly, promoted austerity). The one before that, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was rebuked on multiple counts of imbalance and inaccuracy by the media regulator, Ofcom.
235. Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove are caught paying themselves out of Grassroots Out funds. Banks calls them “second-rate nonentities”.
238. Tice’s turn to get into hot water, as the Inland Revenue demand to see his records.
239. An openly scornful account of Tice and Banks’s interview with the Treasury Select Committee, in which Banks manages to slag off literally everyone on the committee, plus everyone else who has been summoned before it.
241. “London’s status as an English-speaking global hub with a legal system people can trust is what lies at the heart of our success.” True, but it stops being a hub the second you drag it out of a close-knit alliance with its neighbours, blatantly subvert its laws, dismiss its lawyers and judges as “out-of-touch elitists” and set out on the road to regulatory divergence.
243. It feels odd, from our 2019 vantage point, that this marks the first appearance of Jacob Rees-Mogg in the book – and even then, he only has a bit part, on the Treasury Select Committee, rather than any significant role in a referendum campaign.
246. Apparently, constantly being called a racist gets Farage down. In that case, we have some top-drawer advice for him.
246. “A Victoria’s Secret model … turned on her heel, leaving him staring forlornly at her perky derriere”. Fear not, Benny Hill fans! Your hero is alive and knocking back cocktails in Knightsbridge!
248. The Republicans are confident that Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination for the presidency, but privately, none thinks he has a chance of beating Clinton. Nor do they foresee any prospect of Brexit. This is early May 2016.
250. The BPop concert is back on the cards, with prospective acts including Alesha Dixon and Soul II Soul.
251. A discussion of possible hosts and acts for the event reveals who they regard as anti-EU: Jeremy Kyle, Michael Caine, Sol Campbell, Joey Essex, Roger Daltrey, Mick Jagger. Wigmore, ever the groundbreaking PR man, suggests hiring some Stringfellow’s table dancers.
251. More worries about breaking spending limits, and contortions to try to pacify the Electoral Commission.
253. More bellyaching about the Tories busting spending limits at the 2015 general election: “We’re supposed to be Great Britain, not a banana republic!” This, two pages after confessing to pulling every trick in the book to bypass those limits himself.
253. On seeing rushes from Brexit: The Movie, Banks bleats that it contains no reference to Isis terrorists infiltrating the migrant caravans into Europe. Hm. Maybe that’s because no one has the tiniest scrap of evidence of that happening.
255. Banks and Wigmore balk at a section of the film on “the joys of unregulated toys”, for once rightly divining that a reference to the EU’s efforts to prevent children’s deaths might not be the massive Brexit recruitment tool they were aiming for.
257. David Cameron’s “world war three” Mansion House speech. Nothing much of note, but I’ll never pass up an opportunity to link to this debunking of a Brexiter staple.
258. “The Electoral Commission should wind their necks in.” Gosh, all this checking-that-people-aren’t-breaking-the-law stuff is such a drag, isn’t it?
259. Some exquisite ball control from Banks in this section. The Guardian’s “synthetic rage”; “self-appointed spokesman for political correctness Chuka Umunna”; “Tommy Two Belts Soames”; “invisible Tim Farron”; “Eurosceptic corpse Bill Cash”.
261. Banks gets high and mighty (or as close as he is able) about the £350m “blatant lie” on the side of the Vote Leave bus. An only superficially different version of which he included in the Leave.EU leaflets that were printed and sent to 8.2 million households two months previously.
261. In a braggadocio email to Vote Leave and other Leave groups, Banks admits to having paid £5m into the campaign (sans mentioning its ultimate source, of course). FYI, the commission’s full breakdown of donations to both campaigns is here. Interesting reading.
Banks signs off thus: “We will set this campaign alight in the last four months!” There are six weeks of the campaign left. Probably just an oversight, but … an odd one.
262. Hatchet job on the IMF. “Dodgy single currency groupie” Lagarde, “in the pocket of Brussels”, “made incorrect predictions”, “Project Fear”. Sometimes you get the impression that this man believes his own bullshit.
263. Rees-Mogg reappears, but again, not specifically in connection with Banks or any Leave campaign, just on Robert Peston’s sofa.
264. Ryanair founder Michael O’Leary has changed his mind on the EU, and Banks is incensed. This must have happened, Banks assumes, because O’Leary has been bribed, not because, ooh, I dunno, he has acquired new information and rationally revised his opinion. This is how Banks’s mind works: the only thing people can possibly care about is money, because all he cares about is money.
265. Farage has begun his battlebus tour targeting the areas that Gerry Gunster’s polling technology has identified as being full of “persuadables”.
266. Banks jokes about killing Dominic Cummings. Ha ha, très drôle.
267. Another “humorous” reference to killing Dominic Cummings.
268. Believing himself the victim of an “establishment stitch-up” (Farage pulled from a pre-referendum debate at Wembley), Banks … doxxes everyone involved. Yup, he sends the personal details of five Vote Leave staff and the director of the BBC to tens of thousands of people on his databases. He doesn’t seem to get any blowback from anyone but Farage.
270. “The truth is that a post-Brexit economic boom will bring thousands more jobs.” Banks neglects to explain by what mechanism this will occur – and, indeed, why it is needed, when the employment rate is currently the highest it has been since records began.
271. A new tranche of acts pulls out of BPop Live after finding out that it is promoting Brexit. Meanwhile, Liz Bilney, Leave.EU’s chief exec, threatens to quit because funding the concert in breach of campaign spending limits “is a jail offence”. Banks still thinks he can land AC/DC and the Who.
279. Banks praises Michael Gove’s “People in this country have had enough of experts”. Of course he does. Of course he fucking does.
282. Ever had a rightwinger accuse you of “attempting to politicise” a tragedy in its immediate aftermath? A school shooting, a far-right terrorist attack? Because, basically, they want to silence you until the fuss has died down?
“We will do whatever we need to get people talking about it [immigration]. Today, that meant exploiting a dreadful incident in Orlando, Florida, in which 49 people were murdered in a gay nightclub by a Muslim with an assault rifle.”
Omar Mateen was an American citizen; EU membership has precisely nothing to do with levels of immigration to the UK from majority-Muslim countries; Britain already has strict controls at its borders; and leaving the EU will harm, rather than improve, UK security, because it will jeopardise the UK’s access to the EU security database and its participation in the European Arrest Warrant. These points were curiously omitted from the race-baiting, fearmongering advert that Leave.EU put out.
286. The Battle of the Thames: Bob Geldof’s cruiser goes bow to bow with a few fishing trawlers, Kate Hoey panics about being seen with Farage, and Farage shits his pants. Banks claims it as another win for Leave.EU (rather than for Leave more broadly).
(One question for the – mostly Scottish – fishermen: if the EU really has destroyed your livelihoods, then how come you’re all still fishing? Couldn’t you have switched to a more lucrative career? And how come you can afford to take a week off to sail down to the Thames for a cheap stunt?)
292. The murder of MP Jo Cox by white nationalist Thomas Mair. “Wiggy, Tice and I agreed we should suspend campaigning immediately.”
294. “Lagarde says jobs, growth, investment and financial markets will all suffer if we leave the EU. It’s just noise.” Arron knows best, because … hang on, why do you know best again, you jumped-up insurance salesman?
295. “Our contacts at Labour Leave think 43 Labour MPs would vote Out if they could.” Wonder what that figure is today.
295. “We’ve done some polling on Cox. The tragedy doesn’t seem to have made any difference to voting intentions on Thursday.”
298. Banks gets all jizzy over an anti-EU letter from an old war bigot who is still bitter about not being thanked by every single Frenchman and Belgian for his actions in the second world war. I thought the UK was leaving the EU, not Europe?
298. A Norwegian anti-EU campaigner is described as “a lovely Scandinavian blonde”.
300. “20 million leaflets, 10 million letters, 9 million views for our best video, 1 million social media followers, and reaching 15 million people every week.” Curiously, he doesn’t mention what their “best video” was. I’m guessing it wasn’t a bland paean to sovereignty. If anyone knows, do share.
302. Banks and co select Italian restaurant Zafferano as the venue for their celebratory Referendum Day lunch. Zafferano was opened by Claudio Pulze, who began his hugely successful career founding high-end eateries in 1975, having moved to the UK to exploit the opportunities afforded by its membership of the EEC.
302. Banks buys Farage a first edition of Hemingway’s For Whom The Bell Tolls as a gift for Referendum Day. “It seemed so appropriate, because the bell was very definitely tolling for Nigel.” Farage seems unappreciative; perhaps because he knows the phrase “the bell tolls for you” means “you are dead or about to die”.
303. Banks is excited about the discovery of a valuable blue diamond in one of his South African money-laundering holes. If you fancy delving further into this particular mineshaft, there’s more info here.
You never have to dig far before you get to Russia.
306. Banks takes out a full-page advert in Telegraph thanking Farage for his efforts. It features a quote from Teddy Roosevelt: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly.”
The quote could not describe Farage more perfectly: a man who has devoted himself to attacking everyone else’s mistakes while failing to offer any constructive suggestions of his own. He is a shirker, a sniper, a backseat driver, a wrecker. He hasn’t achieved one positive thing in his life.
308. “This decision has started a potential domino effect across Europe, with other countries facing referendums.” Bang on, except for the small point that the UK’s Brexit convulsions have sent support for the EU rocketing to unprecedented levels across Europe.
308. In an email to Christopher Hope at the Telegraph, Banks sets out, with characteristic immodesty, how the “war” was won. It’s worth reading in its entirety, because I have a feeling much of this will ultimately be found unlawful – and if it isn’t, outrage will ensure that the law is changed. Highlights: “The use of big data for the first time in any election the UK left Leave.EU with a massive advantage over both official campaigns … Leave.EU had 100,000 followers on Twitter and 800,000 supporters on Facebook. Weekly posts often broke 20 million … a broad range of content [lies, to you and me] designed to appeal to different types of voter … We were able to update this material in real time to improve its appeal … Goddard Gunster were able to mine this database to conduct in-depth demographic polling and recommend precision target messaging.”
This is all remarkably reminiscent of what Cummings said about how AIQ/Cambridge Analytica helped Vote Leave. Even if you accept that the technology is morally and ethically acceptable, it looks very much as though Vote Leave and Leave.UK shared the same technology and, quite probably, the same illegally harvested data.
310. A rise in racist attacks follows the vote. Banks dismisses people’s concerns out of hand like the sociopathic little shitpiece he is.
312. “It’s unlikely that the Chinese or the Russians are hacking our website.” This is unintentionally revealing. How can he be so confident that the Chinese and the Russians have no interest in attacking his operation? The least sinister interpretation here is that he knows they share the same goals – ie, the undermining of democracy and security in Europe.
313. The phrase “biggest democratic decision in British history”, which the likes of No Facts Chloe and Darren Crimes still parrot on a daily basis, has entered circulation within a week of the vote. Yeah, kind of hard for it not to be the biggest democratic decision in history when it’s the most recent, and given that population increases over time.
314. What Arron Banks wants: “Immigration cap of 50,000, with a £5,000 deposit. The economy would explode. Singapore on steroids.”
Singapore’s spectacular economic growth is almost entirely attributable to the open migration policy it embraced until 2011 (its population almost doubled over that time, largely because of migrants). In 2014, non-resident workers made up 38% of the non-resident Singaporean workforce. In the face of populist unrest, it has recently introduced curbs on immigration – and seen its growth slow commensurately.
(Anyone objecting to the “floods” of migrants coming to the UK could do worse than read this analysis of the situation in Singapore. Yes, even the unskilled workers are valuable.)
315. Tory leadership contest: “The only two I trust with carrying out the people’s wishes are Andrea Leadsom and Liam Fox.” Backing some more nailed-on winners there, you walking rectal prolapse.
320. “We’re ready to put the Tory party to the sword so we can stop the establishment murdering Brexit.” That policy is beginning to bear fruit as we speak.
320. Banks is ecstatic that Corbyn looks likely to survive the Labour leadership challenge. “We [Ukip] stand to gobble up 40% of their supporters.”
321. “He’s our greatest ally. Long live Jezza!”
321. What to do next with the infrastructure and power base they have built? Banks fancies setting up “a rightwing Momentum”.
323. Health scare. Banks is told to rest and sort out his lifestyle, and thus misses the trip to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.
325. The rest of the gang meet Roger Stone, who has since been indicted for witness tampering, obstructing an investigation, and lying to Congress about his communications with WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. The same Julian Assange that Nigel Farage slipped into the Ecuadorian embassy for a covert meeting with in March 2017.
325. The rest of the gang meet Donald Trump, who has since … sorry, jumping the gun.
326. Farage is mortally wounded, again, when a blogger approaches him in the street and asks, “How does it feel to be hated, Mr Farage?”
327. Farage’s aide, George Cottrell, is arrested for fraud at Chicago airport.
Cottrell’s CV reads as you would expect: expelled from Malvern College for illegal gambling; became an expert at shadow banking, offshore accounts, transmitting money across borders without detection, and money laundering. Cottrell was found guilty of wire fraud and released from prison in March 2017 after serving eight months. However, the price for this short sentence was “information”. Watch this space (and George, watch your back).
It’s worth noting that when “Posh George” is arrested, Farage and his so-called friends … just leave him there alone and fly home.
329. Another incoherent, hypocritical rant about the “Westminster bubble” and the “Remain-supporting establishment”.
329. “Voters … coalesced around Brexit not only because they believed in it, but also because they wanted to teach the cosy elites a lesson, that the status quo does not serve everyone well.” I’m not going to argue with him here; I’ll just note in passing that Banks and his nefarious ilk are definitely not the solution.
331. Epilogue: Farage has been invited to help Trump on the presidential campaign trail.
333. Republican delegates mob Farage. “They appeared to know more about Brexit than a good many British voters!” What’s this, Arron? You’re suggesting that a large number of British voters … didn’t know what they were voting for?
336. “Nigel got a call from Steve Bannon.”
340. “Nigel’s old friends Steve Bannon and Jason Miller …” You’ve no doubt heard about avowed white supremacist Bannon. Here’s the low-down on Miller.
341. Banks decides to back Diane James to succeed Farage as UKIP leader. Sorry, Diane.
349. Farage is suddenly “battle-hardened”, having been a portrayed as a thin-skinned, whingeing snowflake all the way through.
350. Banks’s response to Trump winning the presidential election: “We’ve won.” That’s right – fresh from his victory over the liberal Goliath in Britain, Arron, by spending no more than a few days across the Pond, has spurred the weak, struggling Donald Trump to the same feat in America.
351. Wigmore has crush on Kellyanne Conway.
352. “He [Trump] and Nigel had forged an unbreakable bond.” How many times has this unbreakable bond led them to meet again since?
358. Of Douglas Carswell: “the slanty-jawed, boggle-eyed bellend”.
358. “I am convinced that the Queen secretly loves him [Farage], and would welcome him as a knight of the realm.”
359. Meetings with Hollywood moguls about a Bad Boys of Brexit film. Let’s hope that goes as well as Brexit: The Movie, South Thanet, Let The River Run, BPop, and Leave.EU’s bid for designation as the official Leave campaign.
362. Banks dismisses a report on his and Wigmore’s involvement with the Russians as “absolutely mad”. Can’t wait to see how that defence holds up in court.
362. In a beautifully appropriate coda, Wigmore is stripped of his diplomatic status for breaching the Vienna convention. The person who made the complaint to the Foreign Office? One Dominic Grieve.
As loyal reader (not a typo) will know, I’ve compiled a fair bit of material about Brexit and the rise of populism on this site. But there are of course plenty of others with more knowledge and a better work ethic than me, so there’s a veritable glut of information out there now. Only thing is, it’s all so … scattered. So this page will serve as a nexus for all the best articles, blog posts, tweets and other resources related to the ongoing clusterfuck.
It will of necessity be fairly skeletal to be begin with, as I wanted to get it up sooner rather than later, but I hope it will grow quickly – ideally with your help. Feel free to suggest any links you’ve found useful. (And don’t be upset if I don’t use them straight away. I don’t have as much time or energy to spend on this as I’d like.)
Brexit terminology explained: EEA/EFTA, non-tariff barriers, max fac, backstop, etc. Part of a huge reference resource
Full Fact: What proportion of UK laws are written by the EU (of which, just to remind you, the UK is a contributing member)? Answer: smaller than you think. There’s a ton more EU mythbusting on the same site.
European Law Monitor: did people really fall for Leave’s lies? All that matters is, enough of them did. (Leave campaign literature and post-ref polling information)
Fake thinktanks, data harvesting and targeted propaganda
Richard Corbett’s Long List of Leave Lies lists the fibs the Leave campaign told in order to cheat their way to victory, along with some impressive refutations
European Commission’s Euromyths: hundreds more examples of the above, generally peddled by the UK’s gutter press
The Bad Boys of Brexit: MEP Molly Scott Cato’s treasure trove of background info on the people who engineered the disaster: a cabal of chancers, shysters, hucksters and outright villains
We need to talk about Tufton Street: Details of the shadowy network of opaquely funded “thinkthanks” based at 55 Tufton Street – the Institute for Economic Affairs, Civitas, the Taxpayers’ Alliance et al – whose representatives, despite their complete lack of relevant qualifications and clear neoconservative agenda, are interviewed on political talkshows as “independent experts” on a daily basis
Why do American corporations want Brexit so badly? Read this 2014 essay on the Heritage Foundation website to find out. (Heritage is the US template upon which the UK “thinktanks” were built: climate change sceptics, anti-tax, anti-regulation, inexplicable charitable status, donors unknown – but agenda points squarely to big business)
Carole Cadwalladr’s Observer piece on the global data operation that drove Brexit, still one of the few efforts by mainstream media to get to grips with the problem
JJ Patrick’s Pfft-what-tinfoil-hat-bollocks-oh-no-it’s-suddenly-all-terrifyingly-true Alternative War, on the kleptocrat/populist disinformation masterplan. That’s a link to the Amazon page; there’s a good taster here
My bit on feeble populist arguments and how to rebut them. Basically, how to shoot down those dreary, witless souls who parrot slogans they’ve picked up from memes and the Daily Express – “They need us more than we need them”, “Millennium bug!” – but don’t really understand.
It’s way past time we had a grown-up, informed conversation about freedom of movement
Warning: pot at gold at end of rainbow may turn out to be punch in face.
I’ve made the case for migration being an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. That does not, of course, necessarily make it a good thing. Human instinct is not the most reliable moral compass. And since purportedly liberal voices have recently joined the far-right tub-thumpers in talking about “tighter controls”, and even the Guardian has to use “actually” in the headline of a positive story about immigration, there are clearly issues yet to be settled here.
So here’s a cost-benefit analysis: a comparison of the (alleged) benefits and drawbacks of human resettlement.
The downsides
Prior to 1066, most arrivals in the British Isles were invaders or raiders rather than true migrants. The relative calm that followed the Norman Conquest paved the way for the first peaceful settlers – and the slurs the natives have lobbed at them have barely evolved in a millennium.
‘They’re stealing our jobs’
Twaddle on every level.
It was never “your” job to begin with. It was a job advertised in the country where you happened to be born. It was the employer’s job, to give to whomsoever she chose.
The migrant is in no sense “stealing” the job; she is merely competing fairly for it. If you’re finishing second best to someone whose first language isn’t English, you might want to think about a different line of work.
The majority of immigrants take jobs that Britons simply don’t want to do, such as cleaning, fruit picking and social care. Many more take roles that Britons cannot do: the UK has huge skills shortages in a number of sectors, notably engineering, IT and healthcare.
(Incidentally, the racists who trot out this line can rarely back it up with evidence. When they do, it’s anecdotal: “It happened to me” or “It happened to my mate”. Sorry to break it to you, Socrates, but the value of anecdotal evidence is precisely diddly-squat. All the large-scale data says otherwise.)
Besides, the number of jobs available is not fixed (this common misapprehension is known as the lump of labour fallacy). Immigrants earn and pay taxes, pay rent, buy food and clothes and phones and all the other things natives do. This indirectly creates more jobs. Furthermore, many of them start up their own businesses (indeed, immigrants are twice as likely as locals to do so), thus directly creating more jobs. If there were a fixed number of vacancies in an economy, then unemployment after years of mass immigration should be stratospheric. It’s not. The latest figure is 4.1%, or 1.38 million people – among the lowest of all time.
It’s true that living in an economic union of 550 million citizens means there’s 10 times as much competition as when the UK’s borders were closed. But it also means there are 10 times as many job opportunities. That’s the whole point of an expanded labour market: more choice for employers, more for employees.
‘They’re driving down wages’
Not according to 99% of all research into this issue, they’re not. Some studies have found marginal evidence of a slight depression in pay for the very lowest-paid, but the picture is far from clear-cut, not least because it’s impossible to know what would have happened to wages in the absence of freedom of movement.
At worst, according to the Migration Advisory Council’s calculations, a 10% increase in the number of non-natives entering the services industry may have resulted in a 1.9% decrease in wages for those employed in it – most of whom, traditionally, were migrants already.
Besides, any short-term losses are more than made up for in the long term by overall growth in the economy due to immigration, which benefits everyone.
‘They’re all scroungers’
This argument, in conjunction with the above, conjures the image of Schrödinger’s immigrant: a shadowy figure simultaneously stealing people’s jobs and lazing in front of Jeremy Kyle while wallowing in the opulence conferred by the UK welfare system.
It’s also bollocks. Government figures show that foreign nationals are far less likely to claim benefits than people born in the UK; while they make up 17.6% of the working population, they account for less than 7.4% of benefits awarded.
This is largely because the law grants foreign-born citizens less access to the welfare system in the first place. Under our arrangement with the EU, no EU citizen can claim benefits for the first three months of their stay, and they can be deported if they have not found work after three further months on benefits (or cannot otherwise support themselves).
Besides, it makes no sense. Who in their right mind would give up their friends, family and culture, uproot everything and go to all the trouble of building an entire new life in a country with unfamiliar food, customs and language, with the sole aim of pocketing the princely sum of £73 a week?
‘They’re all criminals’
Jewish usurers, Gypsy thieves, Italian mobsters, Irish thugs, Asian grooming gangs: virtually every wave of foreigners to set foot on these shores has endured systematic accusations of wrongdoing. While every cart has its bad apples, it simply isn’t true that immigrants are more likely to break the law than natives.
Unfortunately for your argument, Mr Racist, IRCs are … immigration removal centres, which hold people awaiting deportation, almost exclusively for immigration violations. They generally hold around 3,000 people. So the number of foreigners detained in English and Welsh prisons, for actual crimes, is only 8% of the total. Or below the national average.
In some cases, it appears that immigration actually lowers crime. One research paper, for example, found that the incarceration rate among foreign-born US citizens was a quarter of the rate for those born there.
Criminals, like benefit scroungers, are lazy. It’s their defining quality. The reason they commit crimes and sign on, rather than getting a job, is that they want maximum return for minimum effort. But (as any British plumber allegedly put out of work by a Polish counterpart will tell you) most migrants work hard.
It stands to reason. Is someone who has the get-up-and-go, organisational skills and commitment to do the necessary research, learn a new language, fill out all the paperwork, leave behind home, career and family, travel hundreds of miles, set up a bank account, etc, really going to turn into a slob on arrival? Is a rapist-in-waiting really going to go to all that trouble merely because he fancies raping British women?
Blackguards and wastrels are more likely to ply their “trades” nearer home, where they have established criminal networks and understand the local markets and loopholes, than to trudge halfway across the world to an alien land with a firmer rule of law.
It’s worth mentioning – because most Leave voters sure don’t seem to know – that under EU law, the UK already has the power to deport criminals of EU origin. It can also prevent known offenders from entering. In the year ending June 2017, 5,301 EU citizens were deported from the UK, and in the period 2010-2016, the Border Force refused entry to 6,000 EU nationals.
“But look,” say the racists, linking to a single story about an EU immigrant who committed a crime, or a handful of bad guys. Again, they’re generalising from isolated incidents to a broader pattern that the figures just don’t support.
“I don’t care if only 0.25% of foreigners commit crimes,” bleat other racists. “Ten thousand is too many! Get rid of them all!” That’s like banning all cars because 0.6% of them are involved in serious accidents every year, or banning all doctors because 0.4% of them have criminal convictions. Madness.
When racists attempt to support their claims with evidence, they invariably cite the Quilliam report, just about the only vaguely authoritative investigation into so-called grooming gangs conducted to date in the UK. Close analysis, however, reveals it to be no such thing; its assumptions, methodology and conclusions have all been rubbished by other commentators.
As a footnote, I would remind you that Britain’s departure from the EU threatens its participation in the European Arrest Warrant, under which almost 7,000 criminals were removed from 2009-2016.
‘They’re putting pressure on housing and social services’
There is some logic behind this one. Unlike the labour market, a country’s resources and services are, at any given point, finite. If more people arrive, there will be fewer houses, school places and GP appointments to go around.
However, governments always have the option to build more houses and schools, just as they have done to accommodate population growth throughout history. And as it turns out, immigrants disproportionately take jobs in education and healthcare, and, being younger and healthier, use these services less. As the UK is now discovering, if you create a hostile environment for foreigners, the teachers, lecturers, doctors, nurses and carers will be among the first to leave, and services will come under yet more strain.
“Why can’t we just train our own?” whine the racists. We can; but in the first place, it’s expensive – it costs £70,000 to train a nurse from scratch, £479,000 for a general practitioner, and £725,000 for a consultant. Second, it takes time: four years for a nurse, nine for a doctor. And third, you can’t expect exactly the right number of British students to step into a particular role simply because The Country Needs It. Supply does not always meet demand (which is another argument for a common market; it creates a larger playing field over which such imbalances can be corrected).
By the by, the notion that “Britain is full” is risible. The population density of the UK is 272/km2. By comparison, Monaco has 19,009 people per square kilometre, or 70 times the concentration. The UK population would have to reach 4.5 billion before it was as full as Monaco.
‘They’re destroying our culture’
A couple of hundred years ago, English culture was cockfighting, bear-baiting, maypoles and Morris dancing. Few got out their hankies when they faded away to be replaced with football, pubs and Celebrity fucking Big Brother.
In any case, the speed of change in the UK is constantly being exaggerated by the media. The endless stories in the Daily Mail and Express about people forced to say “Happy holiday” instead of “Christmas”, the word “Easter” being omitted from chocolate eggs and pork products being dropped from restaurant menus are usually anecdotal if true at all: scaremongering designed to sell more papers. Oh, and there are no sharia courts. There are a few dozen sharia councils that consult on matters of marriage and divorce.
To those racists who insist that the British way of life is under threat, I say this: Welsh, Scottish and Irish cultures are all still pretty damned vibrant. If they can survive centuries of English dominion, why can’t English culture survive the arrival of a few million guests?
Culture is fluid. Like language, it’s a living, breathing thing. Any culture that stops changing withers and dies. And how do cultures change? By evolution, certainly, but mostly, like language, by borrowing from others. To illustrate this point, I’ve compiled a short list of aspects of “British” culture that aren’t actually British at all:
Fish and chips (Portugal, Belgium), roast dinners (France), full English breakfast (Germans popularised sausages and bacon, while baked beans come from South America via the US and their sauce is made from Mediterranean tomatoes), barbecues (Caribbean), beer made from hops (Netherlands), golf (ancient Rome or China, via pre-Union Scotland), April Fool’s Day (France, or the Netherlands; certainly not England), Christmas and all things Christian (Middle East), Christmas trees (Germany), Easter eggs (Africa via Iraq), New Year’s celebrations (Iraq), pantomime (Italy), curry (India/Sri Lanka), pizza (Italy) and St George (Turkey).
‘They don’t integrate’
Admittedly, some do so more successfully than others. Just two points here: 1) integration is a two-way street. If you demonise and/or intimidate immigrants and refuse to employ them or socialise with them, you can hardly blame them for sticking with their own kind. 2) I can state categorically that every one of my friends from the EU – the ones who are still here, as well as the ones driven away by Brexit – speak and write English to a far higher standard than the average Brexiter on social media.
‘Allowing free movement within the EU discriminates against non-EU citizens’
This laughable bad-faith argument is about migration from specific countries rather than migration in general, but I’m mentioning it here because it seems to have gained a lot of traction of late.
You can see its appeal. It allows Brexit diehards to paint Remainers as the bad, racist guys and by extension themselves as the angels. But the notion that, because certain people enjoy certain advantages and others do not, you must create a level playing field by removing them from everyone – “’S not fair!” – is absurd.
By this reasoning, Fitness First is discriminating against non-members by only allowing in paying members. Alice is discriminating against Jenny (and everyone else on the planet) by dating Brian, so she must remain single for ever. And you are discriminating against all other fruits by eating an apple, and so must starve.
It’s impossible to strike deals with everyone at once. This is just a cynical contortion of language in an attempt to mislead, one that smells very strongly of 55 Tufton Street.
‘They’re all riddled with disease’
What utter bastards! When they’re not stealing your job or raping your children, they’re infecting you with typhus and AIDS!
Accusations of uncleanliness have dogged migrants for centuries – the Irish and the Gypsies came in for a particularly hard time – and while this line hasn’t seen so much play in the Brexit debate, the fake news merchants at Fox Newsand the like are frantically pursuing the health emergency angle in their rush to demonise the central American migrant caravan.
The more hysterical nationalists are convinced that if immigration persists at its present levels, white British people will soon be in a minority, or eliminated altogether.
This is the slippery slope fallacy in action: the assumption that a trend will continue unchanged. But trends never do. Rates of migration rise and fall. The UK has recently experienced a peak in new arrivals, as a result of the accession of the eastern European states. As those states’ prosperity approaches that of the UK, the number of people moving here will decline.
No one’s seriously going to dispute this, are they? I’ve already mentioned the high levels of foreign-born staff in the NHS and the education system, but they also make up a disproportionate chunk of the workforce in catering, construction, fruit-picking, food preparation and technology. Food is already rotting in fields and patients dying alone in hospitals since the number of immigrants began to fall after the Brexit vote.
They’re great for business
Immigrants bring energy, dynamism and ideas. Immigrants are responsible for one in every seven new startups in the UK, and their ventures create 14% of all British jobs. Here’s a far from complete list of great “British” brands that were in fact founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants: Dollond & Aitchison, M&S, Tesco, Rothschild & Co, ICI, General Electric, Burton, Selfridge’s, Barings Bank, Barnardo’s, Mme Tussauds, GlaxoSmithKline, British Petroleum, Reuters, Schroders Asset Management, Moss Bros, Triumph, Lion’s soaps, Shell, Easyjet, Cobra Beer, Acorn Computers (ARM), WPP, Cafe Nero, DueDil, RationalFX, Deliveroo, Transferwise, Kano, Carwow and Hassle.
They enhance our culture
New food, new music, new fashions, new words. You can draw up your own fucking list this time.
They boost the economy
If you can find me a single authoritative, peer-reviewed study that shows that immigrants to the UK have a net negative effect on the economy, I’ll shag Katie Hopkins.
But you don’t have to trawl through academic papers for proof that freedom of movement is an economic boon. You just have to draw up a list of the richest cities and countries in the world and then look at their respective levels of migration.
They compensate for falling birthrates
Indigenous Brits are not reproducing at a sufficiently high rate to replace the existing population. British-born women have an average of only 1.7 children each, and a further 200,000 Brits leave these shores every year. Without immigration to make up the shortfall, the British population would decline by 417,000 every year.
And a shrinking population, as China is discovering, is catastrophic for the economy, because there are fewer people to pay tax and thus fund healthcare and pensions for the older generation.
They enhance our personal lives
As well as giving us access to a wider employment market, migration – inward and outward – vastly increases the choice of friends, business partners and lovers available to us. As this is hard to quantify, there’s little in the way of hard research on the subject, but I know I am not alone in having made dozens of wonderful, life-changing connections that would never have come to pass without freedom of movement.
They make war less likely
Last and foremost, freedom of movement between the nations of Europe has – exactly as it was intended to – increased mutual reliance, cooperation and understanding between peoples, tempered nationalist tendencies, and led to the longest spell of uninterrupted peace in the continent’s history. I’m in no hurry to throw that away.
So that means …
“Tottenham has turned French” – Unnamed Londoner, early 16th C
“A certain preacher … abused the strangers in the town, and their manners and customs, alleging that they not only deprived the English of their industry, and of the profits arising therefrom, but dishonoured their dwellings by taking their wives and daughters” – Sebastian Giustinian, ambassador to Venice, 1517
“A congregation … of distressed exiles growne so great and yet daily multiplying, that the place in short time is likely to prove a hive too little to contain such a swarme” – W Somner, 1639
“The nation it is almost quit undone//By French men that doe it daily overrun” – Anonymous, 1691
“Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?” – John Adams, US president, 1800
“The Jews of the lower orders … have not a principle of honesty in them; to grasp and be getting money for ever is their single and exclusive occupation” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1830
“Refugees from Syria are now pouring into our great country. Who knows who they are – some could be ISIS. Is our president insane?” – Donald Trump, 2015
I feel ashamed to be a human being when I’m reminded of how little we have learned through the ages.
When debating Brexit with Leave voters on Twitter, I used to concede the point that “having concerns about mass immigration is not racist”. I take it all back. It’s racist as fuck.
The reason I’ve liberally peppered this post with the word “racist” is that, after looking at material from hundreds of sources and weighing the matter long and hard, I’ve concluded that there is no argument against immigration. The benefits are enormous, the costs negligible. The only possible reason left that anyone could have for objecting to immigration is xenophobia, English exceptionalism, Fear of the Other: in a word, racism.
Immigrants are people. Just like us. In fact, usually, better than us; more industrious, less likely to commit crimes, younger, healthier, brighter. If you deny or dismiss the fact that migration is a fundamental part of human nature; if you wave away the proven benefits; if you insist on stressing the downsides to the exclusion of all else, even though there is scant (if endlessly repeated) evidence to back up your point; then you, my foe, are a racist.
Historically, there have been some problems, but it’s invariably the migrants who bear the brunt. Locals might have been mildly inconvenienced by the unsanitary conditions in an Irish ghetto, or the din generated by Italian ragamuffins playing barrel organs on the streets of 19th-century London; meanwhile, the migrants themselves were starving, dying from cholera, being shunned and deported and lynched.
Robert Winder put it so eloquently in his book on migration, Bloody Foreigners, that I’m shamelessly going to quote him in full:
“Illegal immigration is a fine-toothed comb. The system catches the clumsy or the clueless; only the best, the bravest and the luckiest slip through. It should never surprise us when migrants prosper; nearly all of them have passed an exacting extrance exam.”
All this fearmongering about immigrants and minorities has no basis in reality; it is the tool of dangerous demagogues. It is they, and not the targets of their false fury, that we should be deporting.
Migration is not just something that some humans do to earn a quick buck. History shows us it’s in our DNA
Humanity has itchy feet. Long before he flew his first powered flight, before he wheeled his first wheel, and even before he tamed his first horse, man was on the move. Within just a few thousand years of leaving Africa, he had settled the world twice over.
The evidence is piecemeal, but it looks as if the first enduring, large-scale exodus of Homo sapiens from Africa took place around 70,000 years ago (although our ancestor, Homo erectus, had ventured abroad a million years before, leaving remains as far apart as Spain and Taiwan, and Homo heidelbergensis, forefather of the Neanderthals, had already arrived in Europe). A group of more or less modern humans crossed the Bab-al-Mandab Strait on foot from present-day Yemen to Djibouti. Some headed north, some west, some east, and within 10,000 years, the descendants of these intrepid explorers had reached northern Europe, eastern Asia and Australia.
By 20,000BC, humans had crossed from the far east to the Americas via a convenient ice bridge over the Bering Strait. Within 8,000 years, they had reached modern-day Chile.
Prehistory being pre-history, we’ll never know for sure what drove those early upheavals. Speculation has centred on climatic and ecological pressures – the ice age, desertification, loss of tree cover, changes in sea level – but since many self-evidently remained in Africa, some of the movement may simply be attributable to overspill, competition with neighbouring tribes, and the serendipity of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle: “Ooh, look! There are more goats and more fresh water in the next valley.”
Snap, crackle and stop
Agriculture changed everything. The domestication of pigs and cultivation of cereals about 12,000 years ago obviated the need for hunting and gathering, and made roaming harder; growing root crops means putting down roots. The improved efficiency of food production also meant that a smaller area of land could support a greater number of individuals.
So successful were these proto-farms that they quickly proliferated and expanded, soon coalescing into small communities, then towns, then cities. The next few millennia brought technological innovation and trade, which only accelerated the trend towards ever larger settled populations. And in between their many and ruinous wars, the cities gradually formed alliances, which solidified into nation states. And with nation states came borders.
(There is no mistaking the direction of travel here. Throughout history, the size of the communities in which humans could manageably live has grown, from tribes to farms to villages to towns to cities to countries to supranational entities like the European Union. And in that time – a propos of nothing – the amount of violence has fallen dramatically.)
Now humans were limited politically as well as practically in terms of where they could go. And yet the peregrinations went on; natural disasters, famines and droughts are no respecters of borders, and war continued to displace millions. Since the dawn of civilisation, to take a handful of examples, we have seen the Jewish diaspora, the spread of the Huns across central Asia and Europe, the expulsion of the Huguenots from Catholic France, the settlement of the Americas by European powers and the forcible relocation of millions of Africans as slaves.
Resettlements large scale and small continue to this day (I wouldn’t be writing this if they weren’t). The last century has seen a further surge in the US population, Nazis deporting 8 million Jews and other minorities, and the Rohingya driven from Myanmar. Some peoples, of course, never stopped gadding about; there are still plenty of nomadic tribes in Africa, Siberia and Afghanistan, and many Australian Aborigines still go on their “walkabout”.
Even in the most stable cultures, wanderlust is still very much a thing. Most people now channel it into formalised escapes such as fortnights in Europe or gap years. But that’s not enough for some. They take up itinerant lifestyles; they uproot themselves entirely and start new lives on the other side of the world; they retire to sunny Spain. Around 130,000 Britons depart these shores for good every year (it’s telling that there is a wealth of information out there on the number of immigrants entering Britain, but very little about the number of people leaving).
In the modern era, we have a much better understanding of the reasons behind these upheavals. They can be divided into two categories: voluntary and involuntary. The first group consists overwhelmingly of economic migrants (although people also emigrate for love, lifestyle, climate and curiosity). In the latter camp, we have forcible removal – slavery and trafficking – and displacement due to war, famine, overpopulation and religious persecution. Those who cross borders for any of these reasons are classified in international law as refugees (asylum seekers while their status is being confirmed).
How does the total break down? To take the recent history of the UK as an example, refugees make up less than 10% of the total of newcomers; the UK receives about 50,000 asylum applications per year – many of which are unsuccessful – out of a total of 550,000 migrants. For comparison, Turkey is currently harbouring more than 2,500,000 displaced people.
An Englishman’s home …
You might expect island nations to be a special case. When your borders are naturally defined, there’s little scope for dispute, and having a giant moat around the country hampers wantaways as much as it does invaders. This is certainly true of Iceland, which has largely been a bystander in the global hurly-burly and consequently has a population so homogeneous, they’ve developed an app to prevent accidental incest.
Things panned out rather differently in the British Isles.
While Homos antecessor and heidelbergensis apparently paid visits to Britain while it was still attached to the European mainland, and several groups of Neanderthals popped in, the land was not continuously settled until the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago. The first modern humans to arrive were Neolithics about whom we know next to nothing. Next up were the Beaker People, probably originally from Portugal, in around 2,500BC, followed by two waves of Celts from central Europe, and the Romans. (Side note: the occupation forces were not, for the most part, Roman, being made up of tribes from all across Europe and North Africa.)
Rome’s withdrawal was the cue for another spate of incursions. First came the Germanic tribes, mostly Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Just as they were settling in, the Vikings turned up. After a few generations of pillaging and raping raids, many of them, too, settled down. Then came William the Bastard.
And despite the nationalist boast that Britain has repulsed all invaders since 1066, the influxes didn’t end there. Many of the pilgrims who flocked to Canterbury from across Europe never left. Specialist tradesmen – weavers, cobblers, masons, miners, brewers – filed in from France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Thousands of French and Flemish Jews came at the bidding of the Norman court. Tens of thousands of Huguenots, fleeing persecution in 17th-century Catholic France, chose England as their haven. They were followed by waves of Dutchmen, Travellers, Italians, and Irish. Almost all received the sort of reception that would make a Daily Mail editor proud.
And yet without these injections of labour, talent and energy, there would have been no British Empire. It was the Huguenots who brought the textile expertise that gave the country a solid financial base. Britain’s navy would have been far less formidable without the technical prowess of Dutch engineers. And the subjugation of India and the slave trade (all the advantages of immigration, but none of the bother of letting them in!) swelled British coffers to the point where it could begin to paint two-thirds of the globe pink.
For all the nationalists’ claims of “British purity”, if you were to take a DNA test, there’s every chance that as well as Angle, Saxon and Norman blood, there’d be traces of Beaker people, Celts, Picts, Gauls, Mediterraneans, north Africans, various Danes, French Huguenots, Flemish, Germans, Dutch, Ashkenazy Jews, Italians, Gypsies and Irish.
The ‘migrant caravan’ travelling across central America towards the US, apparently with the aim of blowing it up or giving everyone Aids or something
To boldly go
Humanity has only been relatively sedentary for a tiny portion of its history. It would be preposterous if we had shed all our wayfaring instincts in the space of a few generations.
Sure, we have a sense of home, of identity, of belonging; but we also have a driving need to move on, to explore, to seek out new worlds and civilisations. Humanity’s passion for discovery has already driven us to every corner of the globe, to the darkest depths of the ocean and the largest object in the night sky – and still we yearn to go further.
Migration is in our marrow. To jam a spoke in the wheel at an arbitrary point in history – to say, “It ends here” when the world is changing at ever more bewildering speed – is not just economic and political folly; it’s a denial of our very nature.
The Leave campaign won chiefly by lying and cheating – but also through the cunning manipulation of metaphors
“That’s the EU, that is.”
You may have heard of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the theory that language determines thought. Benjamin Whorf, building on the work of Edmund Sapir, suggested in his 1940 essay Science and Linguistics that what and how we think are at least partly shaped by the words and grammar that we use to conceive and express those thoughts. (Whorf’s preferred term for the theory was “Linguistic Relativity”.)
He reached his conclusion after noticing huge systemic differences between languages: how different peoples divided up the colour spectrum in different ways; how the Hopi language lacked a word for time, or any recognisable tenses; how Eskimo languages had multiple words for snow.
The idea was revolutionary, hugely popular, and ever so slightly racist. Could our perception – and therefore our behaviour – really be determined by the place we were born? By the 1960s, however, after a number of rebuttals, the hypothesis, in its strong form at least, had fallen out of favour. How could form really affect content? Surely, even if your language doesn’t have a word for a particular colour, you can still perceptually tell the difference?
***
All my life, I’ve loved language. Like Stephen Fry (but not as well as Stephen Fry), I’ve savoured it, sploshed in it, flossed with it and galoshed in it. I kept my first diary at seven. I was writing stories at 11, scripts at 13, and soon studying English, German, French and Spanish. At university, I dipped into Hopi, Swahili and Inuktitut (and Whorf). And as an adult, virtually every penny I’ve earned has come either from writing, or from editing other people’s writing.
And all this time, I never considered language to be that important. Ultimately, while it was a useful tool, a fascinating area of study, an enjoyable way to earn a crust and a handy icebreaker at parties, it didn’t butter many parsnips. It was a passion that paid the bills.
But the events of the last couple of years have prompted a rethink. Seismic changes in the political climate and public mood have been engineered in the blink of an eye – and language, particularly as used in mass media, seems to have been one of the main vectors of this change. Perhaps Mr Whorf wasn’t so far off the mark after all.
***
Whatever else you think about the people who are dragging the UK out of the European Union, some of their wordsmithery has been astute. While most have relied on untruths and logical fallacies, subtler tricks have also played a part.
The peerlessly sinister MP Steve Baker engineered the wording of the EU referendum, persuading David Cameron to change a YES/NO vote to LEAVE/REMAIN. (“Yes” tends to attract more votes from the undecided because of its positive overtones; meanwhile, “Leave” is muscular, active and Anglo-Saxon, while “remain” is languid, passive and Latinate.) And we know that it was charmless Jack Skellington clone Dominic Cummings, the director of Vote Leave, who came up with the viscerally appealing but meaningless slogan “Take back control”. And the use of terms like “swarms” and “cockroaches” by the likes of Katie Hopkins and the Daily Mail to describe refugees entering Europe is well documented.
The turns of phrase used by the Brexit mob are deliberately selected to provoke an emotional, rather than a rational response. “You’re being attacked!” they bellow, or “You’re being held prisoner!” This triggers the fear centres in the brain and bypasses the rational circuits. Because all rational circuits conclude that the better course of action is remain in the EU.
Here are a few instances of linguistic chicanery that have become far too deeply embedded in far too many consciousnesses.
Protectionist
One spurious argument you’ll hear quite often from Brexit diehards is that the EU is protectionist; that it discriminates against non-member nations by imposing tariffs on their goods but not on those of member states.
They have, of course, got things (deliberately?) arse about face. Before the EU, tariffs and non-tariff barriers applied to all trades between all nations. The EU was created precisely to abolish those barriers, but obviously only for those who signed up, paid their dues and contributed to the legwork. In any case, these benefits don’t just apply to EU members; the Union has agreements in place with 47 countries or trading blocs which drastically reduce the impediments to trade, with many more in the pipeline.
In leaving the EU and withdrawing from all these treaties, it is the UK that becomes the protectionist, isolationist party. A bold few are advocating that the UK should unilaterally drop all its tariffs, but there are no end of potential hazards to this, not least the fact that a) there is no guarantee that other countries will reciprocate, and b) such a move would flood the market with cheap foreign produce and inevitably destroy British manufacturing and agriculture.
Red tape
One of the earliest of the Brexit mob’s clarion calls. “We need to slash all this EU red tape!” they wailed. “It’s strangling British business!” Of course, what they mean by “red tape” more often than not is regulations that benefit consumers and workers: safety standards, consumer protections, workers’ rights and environmental safeguards. The only people this red tape is “strangling” – or, to put it more clearly, “denting the profits of” – are megarich CEOs and shareholders.
Dictatorship
As absurd as it may sound, this is probably the Brexit fanatics’ most popular way of describing the European Union. For their benefit, let’s compare concept and the metaphor and see how apt the comparison is.
A dictatorship is defined by most dictionaries as “a government by a ruler with absolute power, typically one who has taken power by force”. Britannica elaborates: “Dictators usually … maintain power through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda.”
The imagery falls down on every count. The EU does not have anything close to total power over its members; it is concerned largely with trade, agriculture and the environment. Defence, taxation, welfare, education and healthcare all fall within the purview of individual states. Moreover, member states have a say in those laws (and the UK has been disproportionately successful in this regard). The EU did not seize power in a coup, it does not intimidate or terrorise, and no one has had any rights removed. In fact, British people enjoy more rights and protections as a result of EU membership than they otherwise would.
Shackles
Of all the Brexiters’ misleading metaphors, “EU shackles” has undoubtedly gained the most traction. I see it dozens of times every day. But how exactly does EU membership resemble a pair of fetters connected by a chain used to bind prisoner’s legs together?
The UK’s relationship with the EU is a bond, but it is one that was entered into voluntarily.
It is a bond of friendship and cooperation, not one of indenture or servitude.
It is also one that the UK can leave of its own accord. Sure, leaving is a complex matter, because we’ve spent 45 years integrating our economy with 27 other countries’, but no great feat of escapology is required.
It is a mutually advantageous agreement, not one designed to restrain or oppress one party.
It grants both parties more freedom (of movement, of trade, lower prices, simpler travel, worker protections), not less. It doesn’t prevent us from doing anything that we wouldn’t otherwise have to do ourselves. 55% of the UK’s trade is already with the rest of the world, and Germany, for example, does plenty of importing from and exporting to other countries.
Alas, this tiresome pairing is now imprinted on millions of impressionable minds, and undoing it will require the work of generations, or at least several years of penury and global humiliation.
Other commonly used terms that feed into this fraudulent narrative of subjugation and freedom include colony, vassal state, yoke, escape the clutches, independence and, of course, betrayal.
Freedom of movement
There was one big obstacle to the Brexiters’ messaging plans. They had banged the immigration drum so loudly during the campaign that when they won, they had no choice but to deliver on it – by ending freedom of movement. But when you’re running on a platform of “emancipation from oppression”, how on earth do you sell the removal of people’s freedom to travel, study, work and retire across 31 countries?
Their solution, as ever, was to turn things on their head. So you’ll rarely hear Brexit supporters talking sheepishly about taking away your freedom of movement (except the staggeringly inept, like Jeremy Corbyn). Instead, they will rhapsodise about how we are gaining control of our borders. Never mind that the UK already has control of its borders – it’s going to gain even more luvverly control over them!
When they are not twisting words and metaphors for their own nefarious purposes, of course, the Brexit wrecking crew are twisting the words of Remain campaigners in an attempt to undermine their validity. The outstanding instance of this was Boris Johnson’s shameless reductio ad absurdum of David Cameron’s point about 70 years of peace in Europe, but it happens on a daily basis. Any attempt to point out that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving people, for example, is met with a murderous “You defend terrorists! You love paedophiles!”
I don’t have the space here to begin on Donald Trump’s linguistic abuses, except to note that while his misrepresentations are considerably less sophisticated, they appear to have been no less successful. Might may not make right, but shite certainly seems to.
People armed with enough time and enough critical thinking skills can generally see through these cheap conjuring tricks. The trouble is, in this era of instant gratification and limitless diversion, that’s a rapidly dwindling band. Meanwhile, a growing number of people who cannot (or will not, because the message resonates with their animal fears) question the platitudes that feed their lizard-brain’s fears are fortified, emboldened by them, and ever more convinced of their righteousness.
***
How do you fight back against this? I welcome all suggestions, because the only plan I have right now sounds far too much like hard work. Call this language out wherever you see it. Challenge people to justify their metaphors. Exactly how the UK’s relationship with the European Union like a shackle? “Protectionist”? You mean, abolished all barriers to trade with its partners? Copy and paste in the dictionary definition of the chosen metaphor, to highlight the absurdity of their point.
And let’s hope that we get through to enough people to prove Benjamin Whorf wrong, and reverse the catastrophe of Brexit before it’s too late.
For more examples of semantic skulduggery, check out the Dictionary of Brexitese – the bespoke dialect of English developed by the far right to mislead the easily misled.
1. “Love Europe, hate the EU. Know nothing about either.”
A world without pronouns would be a tedious one. “Bryan Fielding was an ordinary man. Bryan Fielding did not think of Bryan Fielding as an ordinary man, but Bryan Fielding most certainly was.” Pronouns save us time by avoiding the need to spell out the objects of our utterances in full at every mention.
In the above cases, the referents of “we” are generally very clear (while the first two cases are a little odd, they are agreed by longstanding convention). There’s no potential disparity between who they actually mean when they say “we” and who you understand them to mean.
The speaker presumes to speak on behalf of all members of a group, when in fact their view may not be universal or even widespread.
An intimidatory “we” similar to No 10, and a favoured tool of the Brexit voter. There’s a huge and important disjunction here between who the speaker intends us to picture, and who they actually mean. In this case, the intent is to give the impression that the United Kingdom voted as one unit to leave the European Union, when in reality, only 17.4 million people, or 26% of the population, did.
(@odysseanproject is Dominic Cummings, director of Vote Leave and my neighbour at Exeter College, who has since quit Twitter.)
190. “I don’t think we’ll need to print as many copies as we planned,” Banks admits. Why might that be? Not because you’ve obtained targeting data from your shady American friends, perchance?
286. The Battle of the Thames: Bob Geldof’s cruiser goes bow to bow with a few fishing trawlers, Kate Hoey panics about being seen with Farage, and Farage shits his pants. Banks claims it as another win for Leave.EU (rather than for Leave more broadly).
Prehistory being pre-history, we’ll never know for sure what drove those early upheavals. Speculation has centred on climatic and ecological pressures – the ice age, desertification, loss of tree cover, changes in sea level – but since many self-evidently remained in Africa, some of the movement may simply be attributable to overspill, competition with neighbouring tribes, and the serendipity of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle: “Ooh, look! There are more goats and more fresh water in the next valley.”
