I don't know enough about the Brexit saga to confirm or deny the author's contentions, but item #5 is clearly a misdirection. Regardless of whether Britain has *good* politicians or *bad* politicians, ones who acted honorably or who abused the system, it has *answerable* politicians.
The citizens get to vote them out of office -- or not -- as they see fit. My understanding is that can't be said for the European Parliament or the European Commission.
I think it would be worthwhile for Persuasion to reprint John Gustavsson's conservative take on Brexit, just published in The Dispatch (https://thedispatch.com/p/a-non-populist-case-for-brexit). It seems more a considered argument and less a hit-piece to me... but then I'm conservative, so make of it what you will.
The article that you shared is very persuasive and eye opening. I also subscribe to The Dispatch, even though I am a Liberal. The principle of democratic accountability should be common to both Liberals and Conservatives. I am surprised more Labour politicians did not support the Leave campaign. I guess it was partly about class/identity. The educated, professional classes and the managerial elite saw it as part of their identity and self-definition to be part of the EU. It is way cooler and has a cosmopolitan vibe. The Leave campaign was also successfully tarred as xenophobic partly due to the rhetoric of some Leave politicians which wasn't exactly enlightened and did seek to capitalise on anti-immigration sentiment.
I read it, but contrary to what you say, it was basically a hit-piece on the EU, with no constructive comment on the consequences of Brexit. I don't mind people criticising the EU (there's plenty not to like), but the question now is about what happens to the UK, which the Persuasion article did, and your recommened article did not.
I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. It certainly criticized the EU, but I saw that as its way of explaining the conservative case for Brexit. It's a week since I read it, but I don't think its aim was to show how England can avoid economic harm from Brexit.
I'm overall anti-Brexit, but could still make anti-EU case. What I'd prefer to see is an explanation of how the current deal is actually good for the UK (and not just England). From what I've seen so far red tape has increased, UK products are not getting to Europe, NI is getting pulled to Ireland, and Scotland will also vey likely leave the union. It's ironic that the increased power that leavers wanted for the UK, will likely lead to the end of the UK.
I understand, and I have no idea how this will end up for the UK (I'm one of those Americans who don't know the distinctions between England, Great Britain and the UK, btw) economically. I think the argument in the Dispatch piece was about sovereignty. It could be that taking whatever control the EU had over the UK back is a costly proposition, but some might consider it worth the cost.
That was indeed the principal driving force (and ironically one that also drives the anti-Brexit yet pro-Independence Scots), but I would ask what that really means in the 21st century. Much of the rhetoric in the referendum campaign seemed to be for a nostalgic view of the UK, with WW2 being brought up by people who were born in the decades after that war. And even if the idea of sovereignty is more than illusory, will getting it back be worth it? I guess we'll find out over the next months and years, but it's certainly off to a rocky start.
No argument there. Personally, I consider sovereignty to be non-negotiable. Even were I interested in joining a "United States of Europe", I'd want it on the model of the USA rather than what I'm told the EU is like, with laws promulgated by people who are neither elected nor otherwise answerable to the citizens.
Thanks for your excellent piece, Mr. Dunt. Brexit has been such a slow-rolling disaster that we need concise accounts of the key "leave" figures and where they are now (rolling in clover), the false claims they used to persuade the constituencies they were aiming at, and the consequences, which will continue to unfold over time.
I agree. Watching the withdrawal bill debate yesterday was disheartening, as it highlighted once again the lack of consequences for lying.
In order to rebuild trust, we have to take concrete steps to hold politicians to account, starting with the broken promises during the referendum campaign. I fear the lack of commitment to truth will get even worse as the full impact of Brexit becomes clear, making it even more urgent to challenge false claims and hold politicians to account.
A completely one sided argument by a committed Remain supporter. They forgot to mention that they are very much part of the culture war that they pretend to decry now. Watching a BBC referendum debate (held in 2016) yesterday, I was struck by the rhetoric and scaremongering by both sides. The Remain side repeatedly cited experts to show that a vote in favour of Brexit will be calamitous for the UK economy. They said there can be no doubt about this because experts (including the Treasury) said so. Each of those predictions turned out to be totally wrong. They repeatedly engaged in lying and scaremongering. I particularly remember an article written by Pankaj Mishra in the NYT which had a dark, apocalyptic tone and predicted catastrophe for UK. Now they turn around and say Brexit is not a big deal.
Trade negotiation with other countries happens routinely, what's the big deal about that? Even Singapore can negotiate a free trade deal with major trading nations, why can't UK? From the standpoint of the Brexiteers, they now have full control over immigration policy, economy policy and are not hamstrung by regulatory policies imposed by a distant bureaucracy over which UK has little control. It is very reasonable for any country to want to decide their own immigration policy.
As an English speaking Western liberal democracy, Britain might be better off outside the EU. The EU's economic performance, unlike say USA or Australia has not been stellar, to put it mildly. The EU seems to have a far more interventionist mindset and cutting red tape for businesses or individuals is certainly not a priority for them. Britain should chart its own course.
Spoiler: Mr. Dunt is a one-eyed cheerleader for the Remain team. The Brexit mob did tell some porkies about the low cost of the deal. But had they said: "we will restore British freedom from unelected Brussels bureaucrats and European judges, possible at some economic cost", they still would have had a good argument. And in the end, they got quota free, tariff free trade with Europe along with their freedom.
I can't help post another comment. This article is particularly unbalanced in that it is so openly one sided. It is easy to pick some comments made by Remain politicians and claim this didn't happen, therefore the politicians are liars and "populist" etc etc. But you only do it to people on the other side and try to feel superior. This is a very shallow (we might say populist?) form of political commentary where you don't engage with the best arguments of the other side and play the "gotcha" game. I invite everyone interested in this to watch the following debate between Remain and Leave politicians held right before the referendum
Daniel Hannan was very impressive, clear and cogent throughout and I didn't think the Remainians were able to refute his arguments. In any case, he made solid arguments based on facts and evidence which shouldn't. be especially "populist".
Mr. Dunt writes: "The principle of honor, of being expected to keep one’s word, has now almost completely disintegrated in British public life." That may be too strong, but I think he's right about the direction of travel and in implying that Boris Johnson isn't morally fit to be PM. Then again, if the government had not carried through on the promise of the referendum (however false the exit campaign), many Brexiteers would be making precisely the same case today about the disintegration of honor and the waning value of keeping one's word. Either way, and with justice on both sides, the system would be in disrepute.
Let's hope we'll see a repeat of 1945 next. Few people wanted an aggressive imperialist like Churchill as PM in the 1930s, but he was right for war. Then, with the war over, people voted him out to pursue peace and expand the welfare state. Maybe an aggressive and slippery charlatan who pretends away difficulties won't seem so attractive if the next election is about building the country up and strengthening the union rather than cutting a Gordian knot.
And I agree with Dunt about the legacy of Iraq. The fact that Blair didn't consider resigning when his justifications for war fell apart was a corrosive example.
Brexit is another example of the post-truth phenomenon and, like the Trump presidency, climate-change denial and the anti- vaccine movement, it will do irreparable damage unless there is a concerted push-back. Tighter controls on social (and more traditional) media may seem illiberal and smack of censorship but we’ve seen the results of doing nothing and it’s taken us in a very dangerous direction indeed. The phrase ‘the truth will out’ may hold good in time but not before it’s too late to act.
I don't know enough about the Brexit saga to confirm or deny the author's contentions, but item #5 is clearly a misdirection. Regardless of whether Britain has *good* politicians or *bad* politicians, ones who acted honorably or who abused the system, it has *answerable* politicians.
The citizens get to vote them out of office -- or not -- as they see fit. My understanding is that can't be said for the European Parliament or the European Commission.
I think it would be worthwhile for Persuasion to reprint John Gustavsson's conservative take on Brexit, just published in The Dispatch (https://thedispatch.com/p/a-non-populist-case-for-brexit). It seems more a considered argument and less a hit-piece to me... but then I'm conservative, so make of it what you will.
The article that you shared is very persuasive and eye opening. I also subscribe to The Dispatch, even though I am a Liberal. The principle of democratic accountability should be common to both Liberals and Conservatives. I am surprised more Labour politicians did not support the Leave campaign. I guess it was partly about class/identity. The educated, professional classes and the managerial elite saw it as part of their identity and self-definition to be part of the EU. It is way cooler and has a cosmopolitan vibe. The Leave campaign was also successfully tarred as xenophobic partly due to the rhetoric of some Leave politicians which wasn't exactly enlightened and did seek to capitalise on anti-immigration sentiment.
That sounds about right, unfortunately.
I read it, but contrary to what you say, it was basically a hit-piece on the EU, with no constructive comment on the consequences of Brexit. I don't mind people criticising the EU (there's plenty not to like), but the question now is about what happens to the UK, which the Persuasion article did, and your recommened article did not.
I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. It certainly criticized the EU, but I saw that as its way of explaining the conservative case for Brexit. It's a week since I read it, but I don't think its aim was to show how England can avoid economic harm from Brexit.
I'm overall anti-Brexit, but could still make anti-EU case. What I'd prefer to see is an explanation of how the current deal is actually good for the UK (and not just England). From what I've seen so far red tape has increased, UK products are not getting to Europe, NI is getting pulled to Ireland, and Scotland will also vey likely leave the union. It's ironic that the increased power that leavers wanted for the UK, will likely lead to the end of the UK.
I understand, and I have no idea how this will end up for the UK (I'm one of those Americans who don't know the distinctions between England, Great Britain and the UK, btw) economically. I think the argument in the Dispatch piece was about sovereignty. It could be that taking whatever control the EU had over the UK back is a costly proposition, but some might consider it worth the cost.
That was indeed the principal driving force (and ironically one that also drives the anti-Brexit yet pro-Independence Scots), but I would ask what that really means in the 21st century. Much of the rhetoric in the referendum campaign seemed to be for a nostalgic view of the UK, with WW2 being brought up by people who were born in the decades after that war. And even if the idea of sovereignty is more than illusory, will getting it back be worth it? I guess we'll find out over the next months and years, but it's certainly off to a rocky start.
No argument there. Personally, I consider sovereignty to be non-negotiable. Even were I interested in joining a "United States of Europe", I'd want it on the model of the USA rather than what I'm told the EU is like, with laws promulgated by people who are neither elected nor otherwise answerable to the citizens.
Thanks for your excellent piece, Mr. Dunt. Brexit has been such a slow-rolling disaster that we need concise accounts of the key "leave" figures and where they are now (rolling in clover), the false claims they used to persuade the constituencies they were aiming at, and the consequences, which will continue to unfold over time.
I agree. Watching the withdrawal bill debate yesterday was disheartening, as it highlighted once again the lack of consequences for lying.
In order to rebuild trust, we have to take concrete steps to hold politicians to account, starting with the broken promises during the referendum campaign. I fear the lack of commitment to truth will get even worse as the full impact of Brexit becomes clear, making it even more urgent to challenge false claims and hold politicians to account.
Politicians lied?
Ha Ha. This is the most brilliant comment in Persuasion till date! Happy New Year!
A completely one sided argument by a committed Remain supporter. They forgot to mention that they are very much part of the culture war that they pretend to decry now. Watching a BBC referendum debate (held in 2016) yesterday, I was struck by the rhetoric and scaremongering by both sides. The Remain side repeatedly cited experts to show that a vote in favour of Brexit will be calamitous for the UK economy. They said there can be no doubt about this because experts (including the Treasury) said so. Each of those predictions turned out to be totally wrong. They repeatedly engaged in lying and scaremongering. I particularly remember an article written by Pankaj Mishra in the NYT which had a dark, apocalyptic tone and predicted catastrophe for UK. Now they turn around and say Brexit is not a big deal.
Trade negotiation with other countries happens routinely, what's the big deal about that? Even Singapore can negotiate a free trade deal with major trading nations, why can't UK? From the standpoint of the Brexiteers, they now have full control over immigration policy, economy policy and are not hamstrung by regulatory policies imposed by a distant bureaucracy over which UK has little control. It is very reasonable for any country to want to decide their own immigration policy.
As an English speaking Western liberal democracy, Britain might be better off outside the EU. The EU's economic performance, unlike say USA or Australia has not been stellar, to put it mildly. The EU seems to have a far more interventionist mindset and cutting red tape for businesses or individuals is certainly not a priority for them. Britain should chart its own course.
Spoiler: Mr. Dunt is a one-eyed cheerleader for the Remain team. The Brexit mob did tell some porkies about the low cost of the deal. But had they said: "we will restore British freedom from unelected Brussels bureaucrats and European judges, possible at some economic cost", they still would have had a good argument. And in the end, they got quota free, tariff free trade with Europe along with their freedom.
I can't help post another comment. This article is particularly unbalanced in that it is so openly one sided. It is easy to pick some comments made by Remain politicians and claim this didn't happen, therefore the politicians are liars and "populist" etc etc. But you only do it to people on the other side and try to feel superior. This is a very shallow (we might say populist?) form of political commentary where you don't engage with the best arguments of the other side and play the "gotcha" game. I invite everyone interested in this to watch the following debate between Remain and Leave politicians held right before the referendum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTJGBBjkGo&t=2582s
Daniel Hannan was very impressive, clear and cogent throughout and I didn't think the Remainians were able to refute his arguments. In any case, he made solid arguments based on facts and evidence which shouldn't. be especially "populist".
Mr. Dunt writes: "The principle of honor, of being expected to keep one’s word, has now almost completely disintegrated in British public life." That may be too strong, but I think he's right about the direction of travel and in implying that Boris Johnson isn't morally fit to be PM. Then again, if the government had not carried through on the promise of the referendum (however false the exit campaign), many Brexiteers would be making precisely the same case today about the disintegration of honor and the waning value of keeping one's word. Either way, and with justice on both sides, the system would be in disrepute.
Let's hope we'll see a repeat of 1945 next. Few people wanted an aggressive imperialist like Churchill as PM in the 1930s, but he was right for war. Then, with the war over, people voted him out to pursue peace and expand the welfare state. Maybe an aggressive and slippery charlatan who pretends away difficulties won't seem so attractive if the next election is about building the country up and strengthening the union rather than cutting a Gordian knot.
And I agree with Dunt about the legacy of Iraq. The fact that Blair didn't consider resigning when his justifications for war fell apart was a corrosive example.
Brexit is another example of the post-truth phenomenon and, like the Trump presidency, climate-change denial and the anti- vaccine movement, it will do irreparable damage unless there is a concerted push-back. Tighter controls on social (and more traditional) media may seem illiberal and smack of censorship but we’ve seen the results of doing nothing and it’s taken us in a very dangerous direction indeed. The phrase ‘the truth will out’ may hold good in time but not before it’s too late to act.