The strange case of how Brexiters think Remainers won the argument in 2016 A common refrain from Corbynistas is: “Jeremy won the argument”. It’s the bizarre idea that even though Labour lost two elections on the trot under Corbyn’s leadership, on some level, Corbyn changed politics so that his style of politics won the day anyhow. It’s a silly stance to take and ignores a basic idea that is central to democracy: that the party which wins an election by default wins the argument. At least for the time being. That’s just how democracy works.
Good takedown of an increasingly commonly made argument. Another way to show its illogic is by reference to the persistent Brexiter claim that at the 1975 referendum those who voted ‘yes’ (to stay in the EEC) ‘were told we were just joining a common market’. That’s a false claim in itself, but leaving that aside and using this latest argument, it would mean that because the 1975 ‘no’ campaign constantly argued that voting ‘yes’ would mean not just a common market but political union and loss of sovereignty then ‘therefore’ those who voted ‘yes’ knew they were choosing political union and loss of sovereignty because the ‘no’ campaign had told them. Chris Grey
I can never understand how a country that has lost it's Sovereignty can make a Sovereign decision to leave a trading bloc. Perhaps that country was Sovereign all along.
I think it's fair to point out that making out that the economic damage was factored in to the 2016 vote is a lie. But on the other hand, I find that I can't blame the Brexiters too much for that move, given that no-one now believes that "Project Fear" was a lie. If you want to keep arguing even now that Brexit was not a mistake, you are pretty much stuck with making some kind of argument like that that the decision to leave was "worth it anyway" because the gain in sovereignty is worth the economic cost (of course, the other lie that the Brexiters get in to at this point is to pretend that the economic damage is "just" a period of readjustment that will improve over time, rather than a permanent 4% hit to the size of our economy, as predicted by most reputable economists before the vote in 2016)
As Nick has alluded before, the "sovereignty" word barely featured in the referendum itself. The first time I remember hearing it in the Brexit context was around September 2016, from the Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley on a tv political talk show. So my guess is it might have originated from the Telegraph, probably as a post referendum Brexit justification/excuse, from someone like Charles Moore or Daniel Hannan.
To be fair, all these "Take back control of" slogans were conceptually about sovereignty.
None of those were anchored to reality as the UK either has had control (e.g. borders) or the amount of control gained was minuscule compared to the amount already held (e.g. money, law)
I think there is a slight difference. "Taking back control" seductively implies you can have whatever you wish, just by voting in a referendum. This then morphs into accusations of BRINO and failing to carry out Brexit "properly". Sovereignty carries fake historical allusions - which of course don't bear any scrutiny. But also, there's the inference that the noticeably superior performance of comparable European countries - Germany, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Ireland - is due to the system/EU being somehow rigged against us.
With the local elections I've only just had a chance to catch up with this. Agree with every word - excellent article.
"It’s that Brexit has fundamentally poisoned our politics..."
Exactly this. This was what made me sick during the referendum campaign. I could see that Leave was likely to win and would do so the basis of mutually contradictory promises that could only undermine faith in politics. And so the winners would have no choice but to continue to lie and destroy. The country cannot fix its problems without acknowledging them.
Personally I'd have been willing to vote for being a bit poorer if that genuinely was likely to have led to a more equal and more democratic society where individuals and communities had more agency. I certainly wasn't unsympathetic to the principle of the sovereignty argument. But Brexit was just obviously not going to actually lead to any of these positive outcomes that might have been worth the economic hit. And that's never mind the fact you highlight which is that people were promised an economic boost.
This Brexit brainwashing is a nice example of debating technique also known as fascism. Under that name it became more prominent en Europe, The Americans use Gaslighting instead. The central tenet is to confuse by intermingling facts with fantasies in such a way that the addressed can not discern between truth and lie and just believe what they are told. Brexiters believe in their side of the story as if it were gospel. Russians, Americans, and practically most other nations that live in a more or less conservative environment are all convinced that their side is right and all others wrong
Good takedown of an increasingly commonly made argument. Another way to show its illogic is by reference to the persistent Brexiter claim that at the 1975 referendum those who voted ‘yes’ (to stay in the EEC) ‘were told we were just joining a common market’. That’s a false claim in itself, but leaving that aside and using this latest argument, it would mean that because the 1975 ‘no’ campaign constantly argued that voting ‘yes’ would mean not just a common market but political union and loss of sovereignty then ‘therefore’ those who voted ‘yes’ knew they were choosing political union and loss of sovereignty because the ‘no’ campaign had told them. Chris Grey
I can never understand how a country that has lost it's Sovereignty can make a Sovereign decision to leave a trading bloc. Perhaps that country was Sovereign all along.
Oh, a comment from Chris Grey!
I think it's fair to point out that making out that the economic damage was factored in to the 2016 vote is a lie. But on the other hand, I find that I can't blame the Brexiters too much for that move, given that no-one now believes that "Project Fear" was a lie. If you want to keep arguing even now that Brexit was not a mistake, you are pretty much stuck with making some kind of argument like that that the decision to leave was "worth it anyway" because the gain in sovereignty is worth the economic cost (of course, the other lie that the Brexiters get in to at this point is to pretend that the economic damage is "just" a period of readjustment that will improve over time, rather than a permanent 4% hit to the size of our economy, as predicted by most reputable economists before the vote in 2016)
Being a Brexiter is a bit like being Sisyphus.
Every time they are close to having rewritten history, something happens and they have to do it all over again.
In away their fate is even worse.
Sisyphus' hill remained constant, the Brexiters' hill grows steeper at ever iteration.
Mark my words: at some point they will argue that Brexit was all about rejoining the EU under different terms
Another nonsensical argument debunked. We'll get there, Nick.
As Nick has alluded before, the "sovereignty" word barely featured in the referendum itself. The first time I remember hearing it in the Brexit context was around September 2016, from the Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley on a tv political talk show. So my guess is it might have originated from the Telegraph, probably as a post referendum Brexit justification/excuse, from someone like Charles Moore or Daniel Hannan.
To be fair, all these "Take back control of" slogans were conceptually about sovereignty.
None of those were anchored to reality as the UK either has had control (e.g. borders) or the amount of control gained was minuscule compared to the amount already held (e.g. money, law)
I think there is a slight difference. "Taking back control" seductively implies you can have whatever you wish, just by voting in a referendum. This then morphs into accusations of BRINO and failing to carry out Brexit "properly". Sovereignty carries fake historical allusions - which of course don't bear any scrutiny. But also, there's the inference that the noticeably superior performance of comparable European countries - Germany, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Ireland - is due to the system/EU being somehow rigged against us.
With the local elections I've only just had a chance to catch up with this. Agree with every word - excellent article.
"It’s that Brexit has fundamentally poisoned our politics..."
Exactly this. This was what made me sick during the referendum campaign. I could see that Leave was likely to win and would do so the basis of mutually contradictory promises that could only undermine faith in politics. And so the winners would have no choice but to continue to lie and destroy. The country cannot fix its problems without acknowledging them.
Personally I'd have been willing to vote for being a bit poorer if that genuinely was likely to have led to a more equal and more democratic society where individuals and communities had more agency. I certainly wasn't unsympathetic to the principle of the sovereignty argument. But Brexit was just obviously not going to actually lead to any of these positive outcomes that might have been worth the economic hit. And that's never mind the fact you highlight which is that people were promised an economic boost.
This Brexit brainwashing is a nice example of debating technique also known as fascism. Under that name it became more prominent en Europe, The Americans use Gaslighting instead. The central tenet is to confuse by intermingling facts with fantasies in such a way that the addressed can not discern between truth and lie and just believe what they are told. Brexiters believe in their side of the story as if it were gospel. Russians, Americans, and practically most other nations that live in a more or less conservative environment are all convinced that their side is right and all others wrong
Brilliant as ever