On 29th October 2019, the LibDems and the SNP, bloated with hubris and swollen with bluster, led a recalcitrant Labour into voting for a General Election, and Brexit became certain. It was, needless to say, deeply opposed by the haute-remainers
- the Blairs, Grieves and Adonises, who were keenly aware that postponing things as long as possible, gaining a year-long extension from Brussels, would give them the best chance of a second referendum and of reversing Brexit. The inflated egos of second-rate politicians won, to the benefit of the nation and the gratitude of the 17.4m who voted to Leave.
On the morning of that momentous vote it was still absolutely unclear which way it would go. I was prepared for months, even a year, of continued uncertainty and the prospect of Brexit becoming ever more distant. Thank you, Jo Swinson, for being such a monstrously vain, conceited and deeply stupid Parliamentarian. We owe Brexit to you.
Nemesis of the haute-remainers - John Gray
Today is yet another crunch day for Brexit. So many crunch days for
Brexit have come and gone that I am not getting excited; either the
Commons agrees an election and the EU deigns to allow an extension, or
something else happens.
It's always good to take the chance to step back and look at the bigger
picture. The Telegraph is absolutely right today in drawing attention to
an essay in New Statesman America by John Gray.
As the unfortunately-acronymed NS is core leftie-thinking fodder, it
will be uncomfortable reading for many of those Gray terms
'haute-remainers' - the Blairs, Adonises, Grieves and others. I commend
it to you.
I have said all along that Brexit was not primarily about the EU but
about a wider democratic correction in the UK that re-balances power
away from an establishment elite and back to the voters. This year the
BBC, in a rare act of political prescience, featured Reith lectures by
Lord Sumption covering the effects of State capture by this political
elite on the relationship between law and democracy. Gray's focus is the
way in which the Conservative Party has reacted and changed, as it has
throughout its history, to ensure it comes through intact. The same
cannot be said of parties embracing the haute-remainer cause.
Gray's essay is too crammed with succinct and tight analysis to usefully
select any single paragraph to quote summation, so here then, as a
sample of the essay rather than a precis, is just one -
The haute-Remainer mind is an example of what the 20th century’s
subtlest and most original conservative philosopher called political
rationalism. Michael Oakeshott (1901-90) used the term to describe
totalitarian ideologies such as Leninism and National Socialism, but he
was clear that any kind of political tradition could succumb to
rationalist ideology – including conservatism. (His own version of
conservatism – an ultra-liberal variety, in which the ideal role of the
state was that of an umpire – itself did.) The core of rationalism in
politics is an idea of politics itself. Rather than being a practice in
which people negotiate the terms on which they co-exist with one
another, politics means the imposition of an idea. The idea is
self-evidently true; anyone who questions it is ignorant and stupid, or
else wilfully malignant. Though they claim to embody reason in politics,
haute-Remainers cling to a view of the EU in which facts are secondary
or irrelevant. They fulminate on the dangers of Brexit without ever
mentioning that Paris has been convulsed by riots while Barcelona has
become the scene of mass demonstration, burning streets and police
violence. No mere fact can be allowed to cloud the vision of a sacred
Let's see what the day brings.