Bullxit
Sadakat Kadri
Boris Johnson uses today's Telegraph to trail what will doubtless become a leadership bid, and his agenda for post-referendum Britain contains some remarkable claims. Not in the form of proposals, but by its lack of them. If Johnson has his way, Brexit is going to involve inactivity on an industrial scale. He envisions a 'balanced and humane points-based' immigration system, but that’s for the extremely indeterminate future – and everyone can meanwhile look forward to 'intense and intensifying' co-operation with Europe, and opportunities to live, travel, work and study on the continent just as they please. British businesses will enjoy uninterrupted 'access to the single market'. The only apparent change, which will happen 'in no great rush', will be the UK's 'extrication' from the European Union's 'extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal’.
The programme sounds so laid back that it's tempting to wonder why we committed national hara-kiri in the first place. But Johnson’s proposals obscure a lunge for power as disingenuous as it is opportunistic. The only pledge that's even arguably within his power to achieve is a points-based immigration system, and we've had one of those since 2008. Every other European activity he promises to preserve, from residential rights to the single market, will have to be the subject of fraught negotiations; and the legal measure he mentions, apparently based on a blog post written by his wife a couple of months ago, demands constitutional unravelling on a scale that would keep lawyers and civil servants in lucrative employment for decades to come.
Johnson knows all this. As a few sceptics have already observed, he almost certainly hoped to lose the referendum by a whisker, which would have left him perfectly positioned to snipe at David Cameron, but spared the tedious business of actually amputating the United Kingdom from Europe. The plan went awry, because he’s too natural a demagogue: like Jeremy Corbyn’s charismatic twin, he put his case too irrepressibly to attain the precise balance between plausibility and unpopularity that heroic failure would have required. Now that he unexpectedly finds himself at Downing Street's threshold as a consequence, he needs to buy time – and his meaningless manifesto in the Telegraph is designed to do just that.
Worried Remainers might take comfort from this, especially because almost everyone who knows Johnson attests to his many liberal and Europhiliac instincts. The problem is that his gamble for the sake of personal ambition has raised the stakes far higher than he could ever have anticipated. On the day in February when Johnson chose to throw in his lot with Michael Gove rather than David Cameron – a decision he said was taken after veering between the two sides 'like a shopping trolley' – a poll gave supporters of the EU a 15 per cent lead. Had Johnson campaigned with less panache, Brexit would probably have fallen short of a majority; and if he had plumped for Remain in the first place, the UK would almost certainly still have a future in the EU.
The political achievement implied by that observation carries a concomitant responsibility. The Vote Leave team achieved its victory by inflating expectations wherever potential votes could be found: not just with its implied promise of £350 million more to spend on the NHS each week, but also by feeding fantasies of sealed borders and immigrant repatriation that anyone non-white who came of age in the 1970s knows to recognise with cold fear. Over the last few days, supporters of Brexit have tended to dismiss these concerns – and the multiplying reports of racist incidents on social media – as the bleating of anti-democratic sore losers. But Johnson is probably not among them, and his insistence in the Telegraph that the referendum result was inspired by a belief in democracy rather than anti-immigrant sentiment reflects his hope of taming the dangers that he has helped loose. Unfortunately, it is very probably too late.
I distinctly remember Johnson’s self-deprecating response when a friend we have in common congratulated him on his appointment as editor of the Spectator in 1999. Paraphrasing Keats’s epitaph, he mumbled that fame meant nothing because all lives are 'writ in water'. I find it as impossible now as I did then to gauge how he squared that sentiment with his ego. Against recent events, however, the words have assumed a peculiar truth. Upheavals frequently throw up trailblazers – Jean-Sylvain Bailly in revolutionary Paris, Alexander Kerensky in pre-Bolshevik Moscow, Shapour Bakhtiar in Iran in 1979 – who are swept aside by the causes they championed. Such parallels probably appeal to Johnson’s sense of self, but he has personally unleashed nationalist forces that won’t be restrained any time soon. It remains to be seen if he will ride the beast or be devoured by it – but whatever happens, it isn’t going to be pretty.
Comments
There has to be a national parliamentary election and the settlement with Europe must be presented to both Houses before ratification.
We cannot in this day and age have as PM a demagogue; and we have to give credit to David Cameron that despite his light-weight PR nature, he has kept to something like open government - skewed but approachable.
(Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit")
The "Telegraph" had pulled out a slivet for the front cover. Its semi-English caught my eye. Boris's English isn't that good.
"I believe that this climate of apprehension is understandable."
It makes you think that nothing is really understandable to this oaf. He talks in a machine-translated, "latinate" way then bungs in Daily-Maily, kidditext words like "upside".
There's a faffing-around, Prince-Charles element, too:
"We must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges..."
"... a Britain rebooted, reset, renewed..."
As he wrote that, England were putting on their boots to face Iceland. They showed a similarly shallow national character.
So far, so predictable. But while I'm pretty confident that Corbyn voted Remain, I wouldn't be surprised if Boris and Gove had also voted to stay in, their dismay at winning was so palpable.
But, what the hey? The 17 million or so who voted for Brexit were being told almost from the moment the polls closed that they weren't going to get any of what they had voted for anyway. That £350 million a week for the NHS emblazoned on the battle bus? Not a promise, according to Iain Duncan Smith, a man whose record of mendacity is as long as, and partly consists of, his CV. A fall in immigration? Nope: probably a rise, actually. Possibly not even a Brexit, and in any case, says Boris, there's really no rush. In other words: thanks for putting Boris where he's always wanted to be, in pole position to become Prime Minister. Now bugger off, there's good chaps.
But somehow what matters - as multiple times the value of the UK's annual contribution to the EU is wiped from the economy in a couple of hours; as that "magic money tree" the Tories had spent 8 years claiming Labour believed in, suddenly bore a forced harvest, as the Bank of England pumped imaginary sums into shoring up the currency; as the Liberal Democrats announced they would campaign for a second referendum, or as many as it would take until we got the answer right; and as the Parliamentary Labour Party sets about disenfranchising their members and supporters by moving to remove the leader they elected less than a year ago - is that we have "taken back control".
Living in Southern Italy in the 80s and early 90s I commonly heard people saying "the problem is, our political class is corrupt, a failure." It shocked me then, even though it was the end of the Andreotti era, and the first signs on the horizon of the rise of Berlusconi.
I am not at all glad to be able to say the same thing now about my own country.
Meanwhile, Labour self-immolates in a blaze of sub-Marxist ideological purity, unless....
When did Labour during the Blair years ever advance a socialist or even social-democratic agenda in the EU or at home?
I must agree with both the above replies that those at the bottom of the economic order were left further and further behind during the Blair governments, which, rather than genuinely improving workers' rights, applied the sticking plaster of supplementary in-work benefits to top up inadequate wages. Coming on top of that, they further did nothing to improve provision of affordable housing, a policy since exacerbated by the subsequent coalition and Tory governments.
While much anti-immigrant feeling has been whipped up by the Brexit-supporting press and politicians (even in areas which have seen little immigration), perhaps the immigration agenda pushed by the Brexiteers would have had less traction were it the case that people in parts of the country genuinely affected by a large influx of EU migrant workers did not really feel that the presence of these migrants was putting pressure on local services and displacing local people from jobs and housing.
While much of this can be laid at the door of the last two governments, it began with Thatcher but continued throughout the Blair years.
That last phrase always amuses me. After all, there is little cannibalism in my area but I am still opposed to it.
USA Today described how Johnson’s “quick sense of humor and outlandish ways” endeared him to Londoners when he was mayor. But is that all it took to convince 17 million people that the UK should leave the EU? Seems there were other extenuating circumstances, as well; none mentioned here.
There was no clear popular vote. The problem is that the Leave proposition was underspecified.
Remain was clear, i.e. stay in the EU and the single market, take advantage of the concessions that Cameron negotiated.
By contrast, Leave has many variants. Let’s call the main ones Brexit Light (i.e. leave but stay in the single market), Brexit Max (leave completely) and Brexit NHS (leave the EU and spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS).
In regard to the leaders of the Leave campaign it’s now clear that Johnson and Gove were campaigning deceptively and covertly for Brexit Light, Farage for Brexit Max (and presumably no-one actually believed in Brexit NHS).
I’d like to ask those on the Leave side what mandate it is exactly that they think they have.
And to the UK Parliament ‘Your folly has got us into this mess. Now you have to get us out of it.’
An article expanding on this thought here: https://medium.com/@alex__morrison/night-thoughts-on-the-eu-referendum-c327e5bfc7cd#.9zxu8t9gw
But this was far worse than Bullxit. Churchill used his speeches to unite and inspire a nation to fight on against the ultimate evil. Johnson used those same skills to divide a United Kingdom and unleash racist and xenophobic forces of evil which may indeed consume both him and the country he claims to love. Perhaps most disingenuous of all was the early claim that the EU was equivalent to Hitler and that Churchill would have been a Leaver. Nothing could be further from the truth ... and he knew it.
Winston's moral compass was firmly set to true North. Boris' turns with the winds of fortune.
The one thing I knew - didn't we all know, really? - was that Johnson is entirely unfitted to be a candidate for the Tory leadership. His incontinence, his false immodesty, his hail-fellow-well-met schtick was exposed with exemplary clarity by Eddie Mair in his welcome stint on the 'Andrew Marr Show' in which his unwillingness to allow Johnson his 'glamour' (in its Scots' sense as employed by Tom Nairn) succeeded completely in eviscerating his ghastly Higher English air of entitlement masquerading as bloke-friendly populism.
Now what to do about the very, very ambitious Gove and his equally ambitious wife.........
Fraternally,
Gary Morgan.
Having made an exhibition of trashing the quad to show off how he *owns* the whole place, he's now leaving it to the college scouts to clear up the mess.
And yet people still prefer him to the slimy sidekicks who followed him round, snickering.
Lady McGove is already often satirised in the Eye as 'Sarah Vain'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/how-sarah-vine-outed-herself-as-the-lady-macbeth-of-the-leave-ca/