Only the Conservative party can save us now

A catchpenny headline, I grant you, but I hope to persuade you of the truth of it.

Screen Shot 2019-09-26 at 11.10.42

By any measure, yesterday in parliament was an extraordinary spectacle. Here we had the least successful prime minister of all time, whose government has not won a single vote since he came to office, who has lost his majority live on television then compounded that loss by expelling more than a score of his party’s most loyal members (a band later joined by a defector from his own cabinet) – thereby rendering himself incapable of governing – who had the day before been the subject of an utterly damning defeat in the Supreme Court which judged him to have acted unlawfully in proroguing parliament for five weeks instead of the usual few days at a time of national crisis, yet in the face of all that, he was brazenly unabashed.

The warm-up act was his loud-voiced Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, who in an extraordinary demonstration of what psychiatrists call ‘negative projection’ attributed to the benches opposite every fault that was true, a fortiori, of his own government – that they were paralysed, incapable of coming to a decision, a dead parliament,  a disgrace, a zombie parliament without the moral authority to occupy the benches they sat on; he charged them with cowardice for failing to call a general election when his own government is so powerless that it cannot even do that for itself – he actually called on them to move a vote of confidence, not because he thought they would lose, but because he was sure his own government would be defeated.

Then came the main act. The tone was set early on when the Prime Minister asserted that he meant no disrespect to the Supreme Court when he said that they were wrong – this is a man who speaks in conundrums and contradictions, who likes nothing better than to deliver a sentence where the second part flatly contradicts the first and to move rapidly on while mouths are still gaping at the sheer brazenness of it – did he really say that? It was the same with the most infamous episode, where he dismissed as ‘humbug’ the plea by Jo Cox’s successor to moderate his language because it would inflame violence and put MPs’ lives at risk; while people were still fuming at that, he went on to suggest that the best way of honouring Jo Cox was ‘to get Brexit done’.

Given that Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death in the street, in the run-up to the 2016 referendum, by a man who shouted ‘Britain First’ as he murdered her and later gave his name in court as ‘Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain’, it is difficult to find a scale of inappropriateness on which the Prime Minister’s remark can be measured.

And yet there will have been those looking on who thought, not in spite of this shocking behaviour but because of it, that here was a man who could win an election.

In that they will have been emboldened by the success of Donald Trump on whose behaviour Boris Johnson has increasingly modelled his own, as last night’s performance demonstrates – and be in no doubt that a performance is what it was, cynically calculated to play well with pro-leave voters as it is conveyed to them through the sewers of The Daily Mail and The Sun and the other conduits of feculence that form their views. Those rags will present it as ‘the people’s champion’ standing up to the ‘Liberal Remainer Establishment’ – a term that encompasses Parliament, the Supreme Court, experts and anyone who is capable of articulating a reasoned argument to show that we are better off in the EU.

And this is where the Conservative party faces a stark choice. Across the Atlantic, the Republican Party ushered in the reign of chaos by throwing in their lot with a man they knew to be dangerously unfit for office, whose political credentials as a genuine Republican were doubtful at best, all because they thought he could win and keep them in power. That act of ignoble self-interest has not only served their country badly, it has made the world a more dangerous, unstable place.

If the Conservative party back Johnson because they think he can win and he does, then they will find themselves prisoners of their choice in precisely the way that the Republicans have in backing Trump: we will be out of Europe (on bad and economically-damaging terms), trying to stand alone against economic superpowers – China, USA, India and indeed the EU – and our government will be in the pockets of a small band of very rich men. It will suit the likes of Mogg, Duncan Smith, Johnson and the wealthy, privileged elite they count as friends but the notion that it will be a victory for ‘the people’ is a very sick joke indeed.

Para. 55 of the Supreme Court’s judgement opens with a timely reminder:

‘Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that.’

 

Once you start talking, as an MP,  in terms of ‘people versus parliament’ you are disavowing the very thing that gave you authority to speak in the first place and espousing gangsterism – the gangsterism of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Putin and Trump. There are, I am sure, enough decent Conservatives who are deeply worried by the direction in which Johnson and his advisers are taking their party, and who are as appalled as any decent people would be by his shameful and cynical conduct last night.

Now is the time for them to put Country before Party. Johnson has to go, and it is they who should take the lead in ousting him.

 

Hijacking the common speech: A bad deal is better than a worse one, but no deal is better than both.

The use and abuse of language has been critical to the continuing political crisis initiated by David Cameron’s ill-judged and badly-executed attempt to stem the flow of votes from his party to UKIP in the 2015 General Election.

Recently I remarked on how ‘just get on with it’ and kindred expressions had been subverted to serve the Brexit cause. There are, I suggested, a great many ordinary people  – burden bearers, we might call them – who are the ones who keep things going from day to day, who make sure the mundane things happen – that the bills are paid, that there is food on the table, that the children are clothed and fed and got off to school. For them, the phrase ‘just get on with it’ has a peculiar resonance – it is what they do, day in, day out; it carries with it an implication that a whole lot of other things might be all very well if there was time to indulge in them, but life being as it is, we must just get on with it and get what needs doing done. As I pointed out, the phrase might well be one that we would agree with in everyday circumstances, but not in the particular case where you found yourself on a strange road in the fog with the growing sense that you might be about to walk over a precipice.

In the same way, an expression central to the debate (it may even have featured in Mrs May’s manifesto in 2017) has been hijacked from the everyday context where it makes sense and slyly introduced to one where it makes no sense at all, with deliberate intent to deceive: I mean the oft-repeated mantra ‘no deal is better than a bad deal.’

When is no deal better than a bad deal?

Always, I would say with confidence – and that is what makes the particular use to which the term has been put recently so pernicious, cynical and downright wicked.

Consider an instance. I set off for Italy because there is a special car there that I want to buy – an old classic Lancia, perhaps. The owner knows that I have come from abroad so can gauge the extent of my commitment – I am serious about wanting this car. He considers that this puts him in a strong bargaining position so holds out for a far higher price than he would otherwise ask because he is confident that I will not walk away, having come so far. But I consider that at this price I would be paying way over the odds – the car needs work done and further expenditure to make it presentable, so the price should reflect that. As it stands, this is a bad deal. I say as much. ‘Then it’s no deal,’ says the owner, in a last attempt to persuade me. ‘No deal is better than a bad deal,’ I say, and walk away.

There has been no transaction: the situation remains as it was – he has the car, I have my money (though I have to put down my expenditure to experience, the price I am willing to pay to achieve my desire). I tell myself that there will be other cars, or indeed that I could learn to live without one.

If we try to map this case onto our present one – leaving the EU – a peculiar thing emerges: no deal is indeed better than a bad deal, but only provided we resume the status quo – in other words, that we walk away, not from the EU, but from the idea of leaving it – on the very good ground that we cannot get a deal better than the one we already have, so we’ll just stick with what we’ve got, thanks, and put the time and money we have spent down to experience.

But that is not what is on offer here: rather it is a choice between a bad deal that is at least orderly and leaves us on good terms with our neighbours (though not as good as those we currently enjoy, which is what makes it bad) and a deal that is a great deal worse, because it involves our crashing out in a disorderly fashion, breaking all sorts of commitments in the process (such as paying our debts)and tying ourselves to WTO rules that will prove economically disastrous for the country as a whole and will ruin many businesses individually.

So yes, no deal is better than a bad deal and very much better than a worse one. So let us not make any deal to leave, but rather stay as we are.

This way to the oligarchy

An odd collocation: I came home from a visit to Stanley Mills to find that Dominic Cummings had said he wanted to ‘get away from rich remainers’ and ‘talk to ordinary people.’ As many were quick to point out, Cummings himself is exceedingly wealthy, as are his closest allies in the Brexit camp; so this was clearly a bit of ‘projection’ on his part, the device where you attribute to your enemies the very fault you yourself are guilty of – if one thing is evident from the whole affair, it is that Brexit is being driven by wealthy men. But what is the connection with Stanley Mills?

Stanley Mills typify a period in the early industrial revolution, when energetic entrepreneurs saw the moneymaking potential of the mechanisation of weaving that happened in the 18th century. This led to the construction of vast multi-storey mills which were essentially huge complex machines for processing cotton from raw material to finished goods under one roof, generally driven by water power.

These mills required a numerous workforce so their construction was accompanied by the building of houses and related infrastructure for the workers and their families (many of the millworkers were young children, small enough and nimble enough to get in below the machinery to help keep it working by clearing away waste, etc.). 

Thus, the construction of a mill was also the creation of a community, with the millowners providing not only housing but schools, shops and churches. There was no doubt that the living conditions (and pay) were an improvement on anything the workers had known previously – most of them would have been agricultural workers – though the working conditions were in a variety of ways hazardous to health, from the perils of unguarded machinery, the deafening noise of the mill and the atmosphere thick with lung-threatening dust.

However, it was certainly possible for the millowners to consider themselves benefactors, giving their workforce clean, modern housing with sanitation, providing education and meeting their spiritual and material needs; and it is probable that many of their workers would have shared that opinion, especially if they still had relations toiling on the land and living in primitive conditions. But another aspect of this set-up was that the relationship between community and millowner was one of total dependence – they were relatively well-off and certainly well-provided-for, and as long as they did what the mill-owner wanted (working hard and causing no trouble) it would stay that way. And of course the millowner had a vested interest in treating his workforce well, since they in turn made him rich.

This looks, from some angles, to be what the Americans call a ‘win-win situation’: the workers get a secure livelihood and all sorts of benefits while the owner not only gets rich, but gets to feel good about doing so – ‘what’s not to like?’ as they say.

Well, the inherent inequality of the relationship, which for all its apparent modernity has a strong whiff of the feudal about it – the mill-owner holds the lives of his workers (and they are ‘his’ in every sense of the word) in the palm of his hand: all is in his gift.

The counter-argument is to say that this is all right as long as the owner is well-disposed, as he has every incentive to be – the better he treats his work-force, the more the rewards for him; and in any case, are there not strong social constraints among the mill-owners as a body, who see themselves not only as enlightened men who are benefitting the whole country through the application of modern ideas but generally as pious, upright Christians, with a strong sense of decency?

We will leave aside what happens when forces beyond the owner’s control – the American Civil War and its effect on the supply of cotton, for instance – lead to an economic downturn which imperils the livelihoods of the millworkers, and concentrate instead on the relationship between these two distinct classes of people, one of which is responsible for the livelihood – indeed, in many ways, the very lives – of the other.

It is an old-fashioned patriarchal model: the father provides for his children, who in turn do him proper respect and give him his place – which is in charge, naturally enough: the responsibility for direction and decision-making falls to him.  It seems obvious: after all, has he not created all this through his own acumen, built it up by his shrewdness, to the benefit of all (though most of all himself)? And everyone does well out of it, as long as they all know their place in the scheme of things.

This, I think, is the model that Johnson, Cummings and his fellow wealthy ‘Brexiteers’ are aiming for (and doesn’t the swagger of that title, ‘Brexiteer’, with its echo of ‘musketeer’ and ‘buccaneer’, fit perfectly here?). Look at recent history: the painful wake of the collapse of Soviet communism led not to the promised democracy but an oligarchy allied to political dictatorship – and did so by allowing the seizure of what were hitherto state assets (in theory, at least, the people’s assets) by private individuals, who have profited massively from exploiting them. [though advocates of free-market capitalism will doubtless recast this as proof that what becomes moribund under the dead hand of state control has its potential realised by enterprising individuals]

Look at what Trump is doing: weakening legislative power and state regulation in every direction, and benefitting the super-rich who already control so much of the American economy. He aims to revive the days of the ‘Robber Barons’  – Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller et al. before anti-trust laws brought them under some sort of control. The ambiguity with which America still regards the effects of concentrated wealth is neatly expressed in this lesson plan, quoted in the Wikipedia article on ‘Robber Barons’:

‘In this lesson, you and your students will attempt to establish a distinction between robber barons and captains of industry. Students will uncover some of the less honorable deeds as well as the shrewd business moves and highly charitable acts of the great industrialists and financiers. It has been argued that only because such people were able to amass great amounts of capital could our country become the world’s greatest industrial power. Some of the actions of these men, which could only happen in a period of economic laissez faire, resulted in poor conditions for workers, but in the end, may also have enabled our present day standard of living.’

The key that links all these groups – from eighteenth century mill-owners to Cummings and the gang – is the sense that large affairs of state are best left in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, as untrammelled as possible by any state regulation or legislation, whom the great mass of ordinary people (who know little of such things) should trust to do what is best. Of course they will get even richer as a result, but we should not worry about that – isn’t it their just reward? In any case, doesn’t it mean we’ll all be better off in the long term (just as long as we all remember our proper place in the scheme of things and don’t get ideas above our station)?

Viewed in that light, that bastion of democratically-agreed legislation and regulation, the European Union, for all its faults, looks very much the safest refuge in an increasingly dangerous world for ‘ordinary people’ who ‘just want to get on with it’.

If what they say is true, then how did we get here?

A Dutch view of prorogation

A useful test is to ask whether the account that people give of events is consistent with the events themselves.

If it were really the case that in the 2016 referendum ‘the country voted overwhelmingly to leave’ (to quote the chronically untruthful Bernard Jenkin, MP*) is that at all consistent with the point we have now reached, and the path we have followed to get there?

If that were the case, is it conceivable that Theresa May, boldly flying her banner with a strange device – ‘Brexit means Brexit’ – would have lost her majority when she called an election expressly to increase it, so finding herself reliant on the ‘support’ of the DUP, which proved fatal not only to her Brexit deal, but ultimately to her premiership?

Would we not rather have expected her to be swept to power by the 80% of the electorate that supposedly support Brexit, according to the convoluted casuistry of the congenitally mendacious Jake Mogg? ** 

From such a position of strength, her deal would have passed first time, complete with Irish backstop, and we would have left the EU on the date originally intended.

But Mrs May did lose her majority, her Brexit deal and finally her job; yet if all this was the fault of a treacherous Remainer parliament determined to thwart the will of the British people, why did Mrs May and her successor consistently rule out a ‘People’s Vote’, i.e. a second referendum on the subject of EU membership?

If it were the case that ‘the country voted overwhelmingly to leave’ then a second referendum could only confirm the first, leaving those Remainer elite MPs without a leg to stand on, nor any rag to cover their shame. Surely – if the facts were as Jenkin, Johnson, Mogg, Gove and the rest pretend – it would be the Leavers who would take to the street in their millions demanding a People’s Vote? Why would the Remainers call for something that would only confirm once more that theirs was a lost cause?

And if there really was a solid majority in favour of leaving the EU would we not already have left in an orderly fashion under Mrs May, rather than have reached the present pass where a Prime Minister appointed by 92,153 people to lead a population of 65.5 million issues a public statement that “the claim that the govt is considering proroguing parliament in Sept … is entirely false.’’ when in fact he has already decided to do so (as was demonstrated at the Court of Session in Scotland today)?

And would the same Prime Minister have to maintain the threadbare pretence that, by ruling out the Irish backstop – which the EU have made clear is not negotiable – and by taking the position that the UK will leave on 31 October ‘with or without a deal’, he is genuinely engaged in trying to negotiate a better deal with EU rather than intentionally precipitating a no-deal Brexit? (an outcome that is generally agreed to be calamitous for the country)

I suggest that, if Messrs Jenkin, Johnson, Gove, Mogg and the rest were actually telling the truth when they said (as they have repeatedly) that the British people voted for Brexit, then events would not have played out as they have to bring us to our present predicament. I therefore conclude that those ‘honourable gentlemen’ have not been telling the truth and that our present situation is quite the opposite from what they claim it to be: far from a recalcitrant Remainer elite group of MPs  attempting to thwart the will of the people, the reality is that a small gang of unscrupulous and self-interested MPs have hijacked the government of our country and are determined to force through an outcome that has only ever been supported in any form by a minority of people and in this latest form – a disorderly Brexit with no arrangements in place – has few supporters if any.***

They appear to be hellbent on steering the ship of state onto the rocks, in some cases at least (the egregious Mogg) for personal gain: it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that their behaviour is both criminal and treasonable.

*as I have pointed out many times before, there are around 65.5 million British people, of whom 46.5 million were eligible to vote in the 2016 referendum. Only 17.4 million expressed a desire to leave the EU and so change a status quo that is all that half the population has known since birth (according to the most recent census data (2011) over half the population were 39 or younger at a time when Britain had been in the EU for 38 years; it is safe to say that it was certainly the case that by 2016 more than half the British people had grown up as EU citizens) It is therefore impossible to sustain with any truth the claim that the British people (or even a majority of them) voted to leave. The great majority of the electorate (62%) expressed no desire to do so. For a closer examination of this point, see ‘Liars in Public Places‘.

**In a brief interview of extraordinary mendacity, the egregious Mogg attempted to claim that there was no need of a further referendum because ‘We had an election in 2017 where over 80% of people voted for parties committed to leaving’. He conveniently overlooks the fact that it has been the norm for the last hundred years for the great majority to vote for the same two parties, and also that many who voted for those parties did so for reasons other than their Brexit stance.

***No less an authority than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself, plucky Michael Gove, has assured us that ‘no-one voted for no deal

Ow! yaroo! Stop it, you beasts!

Yaroo

I have remarked before that the level at which Boris Johnson operates – and those about him – is ‘school debating society’. That is why the majority of EU politicians, who are serious-minded, grown-up types who see politics in terms of public service (as we once did in this country) cannot comprehend him.

Today’s proroguing of parliament epitomises this: it is the kind of thing only a schoolboy would think clever.

First we have the wording of this response given by Downing St. to Iain Watson, BBC political correspondent, regarding the Observer article that broke the story about the government checking out the legality of such a move:

“the claim that the govt is considering proroguing parliament in Sept in order to stop MPs debating Brexit is entirely false.’’ [my italics]

You can just picture the tittering behind hands that accompanied this – ‘we just have to say we prorogued it for a different reason and that will make it true! Aren’t we clever?’

Then we have (with more schoolboy sniggers, no doubt) the devising of the story to be given out when questions are asked: this is perfectly normal, entirely usual, nothing at all to do with Brexit – so far I have heard this in various forms from messrs Redwood, Mogg, Dung-can Smith and of course Johnson himself (who rather overstepped the mark with typical bungling exuberance when he dishonestly claimed to be leading ‘a new government’ – did you win a General Election then, Boris?)

Picture the smirking self-congratulation –  ‘all we have to do is to stick to saying that the reason is nothing to do with Brexit and just about allowing time for a new programme of legislation and they can’t get us!’

well, as the Walrus of Westminster, the redoubtable John Pienaar (BBC deputy political editor) succinctly puts it, 

“If you wholly and unquestionably believe that, you will wholly and unquestionably believe anything.”

And there, I think, he puts his finger on the major flaw in the Johnson gang’s merry prank. 

People do not like being taken for fools, particulary by smug public schoolboys like Jake Mogg and Boris Johnson. The entire country knows that this is about stifling debate on Brexit and that what they are being offered is a knowingly false account.

But there is something else: behind the smug, dishonest facade – ‘nothing to see here, not to do with Brexit at all, just move along’ I catch the rank smell of fear. Johnson is desperate, as today’s measure demonstrates: one of the few true things he has said is that he will do anything to get Brexit done by 31 October.

But that does not mean he will succeed.

Time to stop this ‘Carry on’

Careless talk, as the war time poster tells us, costs lives.
9781844861293 It may not have reached that point yet, but there is no doubt that what the Prime Minister sloppily calls ‘the Brexit process’ has been bedevilled from the outset by much talk that is careless and some that is down right lying.

And as for Fougasse’s warning that ‘you never know who’s listening’ – well, in our case, we know who isn’t.

It is not ‘the Brexit process’ that the British public are tired of, nor are they deeply frustrated (as Mrs May seems to think) by MPs’ failure to support her deal. What they are tired of is the sorry concatenation of errors and misjudgements, most of them made by the Prime Minister personally, which has seen her commit the country to a timetable it could not hope to meet by prematurely invoking Article 50 – something that she did not need to do – then calling a General Election (again, something she did not need to do and indeed said she would not) in the mistaken belief that she would increase her majority, only to find herself reliant on the goodwill of the DUP; then, having committed the country to an unrealistic course and weakened further her ability to deliver what she had promised, instead of admitting failure and accepting responsibility, she simply carries on.

It is ironic that ‘Carry On’ – best known as the title of a succession of uniquely British film farces – should have become Mrs May’s sole strategy. It becomes apparent, on the promised date before Christmas, that her Withdrawal Deal will not gain the support of Parliament; her solution? Postpone the vote and carry on. When the vote is held and she suffers a defeat of historic proportions, what does she choose to do? Carry on. When, unsurprisingly, the same proposal meets the same fate a second time, what does she think it best to do? Carry on. When the Speaker points out that parliamentary precedent does not permit her to put to the House the same matter that it has already rejected, her highly original solution is to carry on.

Last night, in response to the Prime Minister’s attempt to blame the crisis on everyone but herself, one Brexit type said that to delay ‘would be a betrayal of the 17.4 million’ (who voted for Brexit). Up and down the country, people must have been urging the the interviewer to make the obvious response –‘yes, but what about the 48 million?’ that is, the remainder of the population – the great majority of the British People so often invoked in this debate but so little heeded – who have expressed no desire to leave the European Union but who will suffer the consequences of the government’s insistence on heeding only the wishes of an ill-informed and misguided minority. Sadly, with the ineptitude that has characterised the great majority of our political journalists, the interviewer failed to raise the point.

If there is one thing to be singled out from the great many that the British People are tired of, Mrs May, it is your contradictory insistence that leaving the EU is something the British People want and your refusal to give them any voice in the matter. Of course, you are not alone in that – the entire Brexit camp claims to be acting to implement the will of the people yet are curiously unwilling to put that claim to the test.

What they know, of course, is what the referendum of 2016 has told us all along – that there never has been a majority of the British People in favour of leaving the EU: at most, only 17.4 million – 38% of the electorate, 26% of the population – wish to do so; I think it highly likely that the number is even smaller now.

Yes, the British People made a mistake in 2016 – many of them complacently assumed that the vote was a foregone conclusion, that we would never be so daft as to abandon something so self-evidently beneficial for something that we had no clear idea of (and we still have none).

But that was one mistake – given the myriad blunders that you have committed since, Mrs May, I do think you owe it to the British People – on whose side you claim to be – to give them the opportunity to correct it.

The petition I signed last night when it had around 160,000 signatures now has (about twelve hours later) more than 700,000 and rising steadily (depite an interval when the Petitions site was down, which I hope was due to nothing more sinsister than overload). It calls on you to revoke Article 50 and hold a second referendum.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

I think it is time you listened to the People whose interests you have so signally failed to serve.

Brexit? it’s just a flesh wound!

I am grateful to my wife for drawing attention to this article by Giles Fraser,  ‘why won’t Remainers talk about family?’ , even if reading it did take me back to my days marking essays by adolescents whose ardour outstripped their capacity for reasoned argument: having conceived a notion, and decided that it must be right, they proceeded by astonishing leaps and bounds to alter and even invent the facts to suit their case.

Up here in Scotland we are rather a backward lot: we live far from London, so don’t get to see The Evening Standard, and we have forgotten who George Osborne is, so clearly we are out of touch with current trends, but it still came as something of a shock to learn that in voting Remain in 2016 (which our entire country, every council area, did) we were actually signing up to George Osborne’s neo-liberal project to destroy the family and community life by stockpiling our elderly relatives in care-home warehouses staffed by foreign nationals in order to persuade them that a quick trip to Dignitas would be a better option for everyone but especially the heartless uncaring young – ‘rootless Ronin’ as the writer quaintly calls them – who are abandoning their communities in droves in order to earn lots of money for themselves as far away from home as possible.

But no less a person than Evan Davis tells us that the author is ‘one of the most fluent critics of the remainer world view’, so there must be something in it, surely? Granted, ‘fluent’ is faint praise – nonsense can be fluent, after all – but what I have difficulty recognising is the ‘remainer world view’ that Fraser presents. In fact, the real insight he provides is how the Brexit worldview has evolved to cope with mounting evidence from every side that their chosen path will be disastrous.

Take that headline, for a start – what is the evidence that Remainers ‘won’t talk about family?’ The sole ground Fraser puts forward for this extraordinary assertion is that one person who supports Remain once wrote a newspaper article that failed to mention ‘family’ – possibly because it was about something else.  Writing in The Independent,  Luciana Berger (recently in the news for leaving Labour to sit as an independent MP) said that Brexit would be a disaster for the social care sector because with the number of older people needing care set to double by 2040, there could ‘28,000 fewer workers in the social care sector in England five years after leaving the EU’.

Fraser’s gripe with this article is not with the figures Berger quotes nor with the argument she makes but rather with the fact that it was not about something else: his complaint is that ‘never once in the piece did she mention the word family’ and that ‘the only way the piece related to family life and the mutual care that this has traditionally implied is through the idea that caring for a family member equals “lost earnings”’.

Without having the article to hand (it is unfortunate that Fraser gives no more detailed information about it than that it was written last year) it is difficult to judge how appropriate it would have been for the writer to make any mention of family or family life in a piece that was evidently about the impact of Brexit on the social care sector, nor how fair is Fraser’s implication that Berger sees caring for a family member solely in terms of lost earnings (unfortunately, in quoting the text he omits the words that connect the statement about there being fewer workers to the statement about loss of earnings). In any case, to proceed from the fact that someone didn’t write an article the way you wanted to the conclusion that ‘Remainers won’t talk about family’ is something of a leap.

It would appear that, confronted with yet another well-supported argument that Brexit will be a disaster for Britain in yet another sector and finding himself unable to to answer it (and it is noteworthy that he makes no attempt to deny any part of Berger’s argument), Fraser resorts instead to complaining about the way things are – ‘but people shouldn’t put their parents in care homes!’ – and takes off from there on an extraordinary fugue – in the sense of a flight from an unbearable reality – which concludes with the preposterous claim that ‘Remain is all about ever new opportunities for the rich. Brexit seeks a reclamation of something we have lost. The ability to stay put and care for each other.’

This is a most extraordinary piece of repackaging: all the privations that Brexit will bring are to be welcomed because we didn’t want to be rich anyway: it’s better to be poor and have your freedom (cue clip of Mel Gibson in Braveheart). But perhaps it is more like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who insists that he will fight on – ‘it’s just a flesh wound!’ – as his various extremities are successively lopped off. With each new damning proof of the folly of Brexit, defiance becomes the only available recourse. 

The Black Knight with his refusal to accept defeat could be seen as a parody of the ‘Dunkirk Spirit’ so often evoked in relation to Brexit, with its bizarre implication that our entirely self-imposed choice to leave a democratic federation that has maintained peace and prosperity in Europe for over half a century can somehow be equated with a near-miraculous hairsbreadth escape from military rout by the forces of a megalomanic dictator – with actual guns, tanks and aeroplanes – intent on destroying all that we hold most dear.

Confronted with mounting evidence that Brexit will make us poorer and our lives harder, possibly for years to come, the Brexiter’s preferred response now seems to be the famous riposte of Londoners to the Blitz – ‘we can take it!’ – conveniently overlooking the fact that in this case, we have backed ourselves against the wall – no-one is pushing us – and the impending destruction will not be the work of enemy bombers but something we have wrought ourselves.

It is worth looking in detail at the picture Fraser paints, in the first instance to ask whether it bears any resemblance to reality, and then to consider whether all this is just a muddled rant or if it might be something more sinister.

The article is short on evidence and argument but long on anecdote and windy rhetoric; what passes for reasoning does not bear examination. Anecdotes are not evidence, but they have their place, provided they furnish a pithy illustration of some key point in the same way that an apposite quotation can, or a clever cartoon. Unfortunately, Fraser’s do not do this. His first makes a distressing human situation –the sad reversal of roles where the adult child must now look after the most intimate needs of a demented and incontinent parent – the occasion for a finger-wagging lesson on filial piety: ‘we don’t ask for state help in changing our children’s nappies, so why should we expect it in caring for our parents?’

Leaving aside the fact that there is a network of health visitors and midwives to give support to new parents, there are some serious flaws in Fraser’s anecdotal argument. Caring for a grown adult who has suffered a loss of mental and physical capacity is not much like looking after a baby: quite apart from the emotional demands, it can be physically taxing and even dangerous; even those who do have both time and means to devote to caring for a parent in decline are often forced to the reluctant conclusion that they simply are not equal to the task – they may well be elderly themselves and not in the best of health.

But for Fraser, ‘Children have a responsibility to look after their parents…It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom. This sort of thing is not something to subcontract.’ What are we to make of this? Are you only meeting your filial responsibility if you do it in person? Ought society not to have deemed it a common good to develop a state-supported system of social care?

Fraser’s ‘argument’ consists mainly in objecting to the way things are now then blaming it all on Remainers and, by implication, the European Union. It is worth noting that the principles of the European Union (including the famous ‘principle of subsidiarity’ that power should be exercised, not from the top, but at the lowest level capable of doing so) are drawn to a very large extent from Catholic social teaching, which sits rather oddly with Fraser’s portrayal of it as a heartless neoliberal capitalist scheme to destroy family and community values.

Fraser goes on, ‘Ideally, then, people should live close to their parents and also have some time availability to care for them. But instead, many have cast off their care to the state or to carers who may have themselves left their own families in another country to come and care for those that we won’t.’

Setting aside (once again) the lack of evidence that Fraser produces for his assertions, there are two points to be made here. One is the implication that just as we should stay in our community and care for our own, so those who presently do it should return to theirs and do likewise. That has a somewhat sinister ring to my ear – ‘they should all go home’ – and takes no account of the fact that the reason many of them are here is precisely to earn enough to support their families because the opportunity does not exist where they come from. The second point is one that Fraser goes on to develop in the next stage of his rant, the skewed idea that we have somehow developed the mechanism of social care primarily to free ourselves from responsibility, to allow us to shirk our duty and go off and earn money for ouselves.

This is illustrated by Fraser’s second anecdote, which is worth quoting in full, if only to appreciate the extraordinary leap he makes from it to the conclusions that he draws: ‘My GP friend also told me another story. Just before Christmas he did a home visit to an elderly woman, living on her own, but surrounded by Christmas cards. She proudly told him how well her kids had done, showing him the cards sent by her children living all round the world. “I never see them very much now” she explained. She was on her own for Christmas. They might Skype.’

Here is the lesson he draws: ‘This is what happens when that much over praised value of social mobility becomes the way we think about dealing with social inequality. Social mobility is very much a young person’s value, of course. Get on. Get out of your community. Find a job anywhere you please. Undo the ties that bind you. The world is your oyster.’

There seems to be a serious confusion here between ‘social mobility’ and, well, ‘mobility’, in particular moving to get work (is there a nod to Norman Tebbit there, perhaps, and his father getting on his bike to look for a job?). If a joiner or an electrician leaves his home town to work in the oil industry or on an overseas construction project as a joiner or electrician, that is not social mobility. Social mobility is a movement (generally upward) in social class or social status. It may be bound up with a change of occupation and might be facilitated by increased earning power but the commonest agent in my lifetime and perhaps still is education, which is not without its dislocating effects, as documented in Willy Russell’s admirable play, Educating Rita, or by Seamus Heaney in these lines from Clearances, a sonnet sequence dedicated to his mother:

Fear of affectation made her affect
Inadequacy whenever it came to
Pronouncing words ‘beyond her’. Bertold Brek.
She’d manage something hampered and askew
Every time, as if she might betray
The hampered and inadequate by too
Well-adjusted a vocabulary.
With more challenge than pride, she’d tell me, ‘You
Know all them things.’ So I governed my tongue
In front of her, a genuinely well-
Adjusted adequate betrayal
Of what I knew better. I’d naw and aye
And decently relapse into the wrong
Grammar which kept us allied and at bay.

But we must not expect such perceptive observation from Fraser:

‘This is the philosophy that preaches freedom of movement, the Remainers’ golden cow. [Golden Cow?? Does he mean Golden Calf? Sacred Cow? Golden Goose?] And it is this same philosophy that encourages bright working-class children to leave their communities to become rootless Rōnin, loyal to nothing but the capitalist dream of individual acquisition and self-advancement.’

(I do wonder if Fraser is familiar with the history of the working class and in particular the industrial revolution, with the flight from the land to the teeming cities, the Irish navvies coming to build canals then railways and hydroelectric plants, or the great transatlantic migrations from Europe to the New World: but then I don’t suppose he could blame any of that on George Osborne or the EU, and besides, aren’t those the good old days he wants us to get back to?)

Poor bright young working-class people! there is, it appears, no good reason for leaving home, and it is doubly shameful to do so in the hope of earning money or bettering yourself. You should stick around waiting for your parents to dement so that you can be on hand to wipe their bums. Nowhere does Fraser address the possibility that people might leave home because they have to, from economic necessity, and not because they want to; that they might do so precisely in order to support their families better than they can by remaining at home. Indeed, in a striking confusion of cause and effect, he attributes the decline of communities to young people leaving them, rather than vice versa:

‘robbed of their most go-ahead young people, working class communities become ghost towns of hopelessness.’

That is just nonsense. It is because so many communiuties have become ghost towns through economic decline that young people have to leave.

Fraser, like many who espouse the Brexit position, does not like the turn the modern world has taken. Well, as Philip Marlowe might say, I’m not too keen on it myself: I lie awake at nights grieving about it. For instance, the impoverishing effect of the banking crisis of 2008 has exacerbated the demographic imbalance created by the very success of modern medicine and the welfare state, so creating tension between young and old, the dwindling tax-base of younger people who must support a burgeoning older population in a pensioned retirement that they themselves are unlikely to enjoy; but I do not see that these undoubted ills of modern society can be blamed entirely on the European Union, nor that they can be cured by Brexit – save perhaps that the elderly might start dying sooner.

But Fraser thinks they can. In that, he epitomises the Brexit position: he attributes a general dissatisfaction, an unfocused resentment – ‘fings ain’t what they used to be’ – to a specific and visible cause: it’s all the fault of that European Union and those Remainers (one of the most paradoxical aspects of his argument is that Remainers are simultaneously characterised as a homogeneous group who think and behave in the same way and as self-seeking individualists who have rejected all community values).

Some of the leaps and non sequiturs he makes in pursuing his case  are breathtaking:

‘Always on the move, always hot desking. Short-term contracts. Laptops and mobiles – even the tools of modern workplace remind us that work no longer has any need of place. [do they? really?] All this is a philosophy that could not have been better designed to spread misery and unhappiness.’

All what? one may ask – and what is the connection between the first part of this paragraph and the concluding sentence?  Perhaps these things will get clearer if we read on –

‘Human beings need roots for their emotional and psychological flourishing. They need long-term, face-to-face relationships; they need chatting in the local post office; they need a sense of shared identity, shared values, mutual commitment. No amount of economic growth is worth sacrificing all this for.’

– or perhaps not. It is not mere pedantry to point out that one of the distinguishing characteristics of human beings, as indeed all animals, is that they do not, in fact, need roots; when we use that term metaphorically, it emphasises that we can form deep and lasting attachments for particular places that persist no matter where in the world we happen to be: the exile draws spiritual and emotional sustenance from his homeland perhaps even more than the one who stays at home. And apart from the curiously specific ‘chatting in the local post office’– not, I confess, a human need I had been aware of, myself – none of the others is necessarily tied to place as Fraser seems to want to claim. The notion that you somehow have to stay in the community where you were born or grew up in order to have ‘long-term, face-to-face relationships’ or to develop ‘a sense of shared identity, shared values, mutual commitment’ is just nonsense. It is certainly true that human relations are more important than economic growth, but they are not incompatible with it: you can have both.

I have quoted part of the final paragraph of this section already; here it is in full: ‘Because robbed of their most go-ahead young people, working class communities become ghost towns of hopelessness. And care homes for the elderly become ways to warehouse those who cannot be persuaded to make the trip to Dignitas.’

What is the word ‘And’ doing here? Does Fraser really believe that a direct consequence of young working class people leaving their communities is that ‘care homes for the elderly become ways to warehouse those who cannot be persuaded to make the trip to Dignitas’? On what is this entirely fanciful notion based? Does he offer a single shred of evidence to support it? Or is it perhaps just something he wants to be true?

The most striking part of the article comes at the end, and initially it seems a pleasant  surprise – unexpectedly, in an argument from a Brexiter, Muslims are held up as a positive example:  ‘We were eating in a Pakistani restaurant in Tooting. All around us extended Muslim families were sitting together, children and the elderly, aunts and uncles. It was a buzzy hub of a homogeneous society – the sort of society that the West sometimes criticises for being inward looking. “They must integrate!” comes the familiar line, which, in effect, means they should disperse, learn the values of progressive individualism.’

I find Fraser’s illustration problematic and, on a deeper level, disturbing. From its position in the article – it is the penultimate paragraph – this is evidently the vision to which he wants us to aspire, that ‘something we have lost’ which Brexit seeks to reclaim, ‘the ability to stay put and care for each other.’

Leaving aside the questionable accuracy of his implication – having family gatherings in restaurants is not, in my experience, a practice reserved to muslims – let us ask what the example is that he wants us to follow, that he hopes Brexit will bring. In describing the extended muslim family as ‘a buzzy hub of a homogeneous society – the sort of society that the West sometimes criticises for being inward looking’ Fraser seems to imply (unwarrantably, I would suggest) that there is a muslim monoculture and that ‘the West’, rather than condemning it, should imitate it.

I do not think that he means we should all, post-Brexit, convert to Islam: instead, he wants British society to be a monoculture, as he mistakenly supposes muslims to be and equally mistakenly imagines that Britain once was (I am a Scots catholic of Irish extraction who was born in a council house in Clydebank and went to Edinburgh university; I was raised in Perth, went to school in Dundee, raised a family in Edinburgh and Inverness – what community do I belong to?).

This monoculture should be built on ‘staying put and caring for each other.’ I have nothing against caring for each other, but the implications of that ‘staying put’ are rather sinister: we should all stay where we belong and look after our own. By implication, those who don’t belong here should go back to where they do and look after themselves, leaving us to do the same. The sentiments are chillingly similar to those expressed in these posters, which have recently been appearing in Italy –

52723196_10218283205374305_3205880563168706560_n

[The text is, from the top, ‘births at an all-time low’ ‘Italy needs daughters, not gay marriage and immigrants’ the hashtag is ‘income for mothers’]

Is that the vision of ‘the something we have lost’ that leaving the EU will reclaim?