A noteworthy aspect of the People's Vote in class terms was the high level
of education combined with political naiveté. A central hallmark of professional class people is mutual recognition for each others' professional expertise as a form ultimately of assuring one's own identity. Hence a great deal of respect for doctors and chartering bodies; in the context of the People's Vote this meant authority over entirely unrelated domains was leant to the political one (which is, needless to say, a generalist one) and those involved assumed they were righteous and leaving was "obviously" a bad idea/a mistake per epistocratic standards. This arrogance not only lead to basic campaign messaging mistakes but the lack of persuasion and dialogue was enthroned as a virtue. Leave voters were treated as obviously thick and all messaging and campaigning aimed at persuading elites and insider institutions (with the Supreme Court etc made into the totems of truth). Although he is not a political novice, Raymond Geuss's article in The Point on this demonstrates this fundamental low liberal lack of faith in liberal methods (persuasion and debate) that ends up in my view mirroring that of the populist right, a game low liberals will https://thepointmag.com/politics/a-republic-of-discussion-habermas-at-ninety/
Strongly agree that we would be closer to the EU now if not for People’s Vote et al. Given the closeness of the result it would have been completely legitimate for remainers to campaign for a softer brexit than we otherwise got - putting to one side whether this would have been good for the country. The brexiteer ultras are often blamed for dragging the debate towards a maximalist leave position but plenty were only responding to a remain side that started calling for a second referendum *the day after* the first.
I always thought the name itself was strongly indicative of the character of the movement: a sinister underlying ideology combined with mass stupidity. "The People's Vote"? Which marketing genius came up with that? They couldn't have sounded more North Korean if they'd tried.
It's not a surprise the book doesn't reflect on the ethics of it. The EU project itself survives because its supporters don't look too closely at the ethics of anything related to it.
The pre-vote apathy of Bray and others is surprising, but maybe in hindsight shouldn't be. It's always the newest converts with the greatest zeal. I discovered during the referendum campaigning period that the most swivel-eyed Remainiacs invariably knew nearly nothing about the EU itself and sometimes hadn't even been there. They treated it more like an aesthetic than an actual set of treaties and institutions, and cared much more for what it said about themselves and Britain than the details of the decision itself.
We not only exist, we're in the majority. So you don't accept the rule of law, then? It is a fact that Vote Leave was found to have broken the law, and paid the fine <https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/media-statement-vote-leave>. If they didn't break the law, why didn't they appeal? 'Admitting' breaking the law is neither here nor there - did Peter Sutcliffe 'admit' to breaking the law?
The main organisations behind the Leave campaign were found to have broken electoral law, and admitted it by paying their fines. Given the close nature of the vote, that was sufficient reason to hold a second referendum.
They never did admit to breaking the law. The Electoral Commission itself, though, got slapped by the police for making politically motivated and vexatious complaints. When the EC itself is openly bent, claims of violations of "electoral law" doesn't land quite the same way.
As Thomas points out, the entire thing was a farce to begin with as the Remain campaign was directly funded by the government! Remain blew past its supposed spending limits just with the cost of the nationwide mailshot but when the government is the one enforcing the spending limits, and it supports one side, the limits obviously don't really exist.
the "whodunit"/mystery Carole Cadwalladr-type appeal to find a supposed smoking gun of suspicious links between Russia and Vote Leave, the hunt for supposed illegal campaign practices and shady international dealings were also a key part of attracting normies by selling it as IRL true crime rather than politics. They convinced themselves an internet marketing company (Cambridge Analytica) using the same techniques and such as any mid-level Facebook ad partner circa 2016 was in essence a global psychological mind control device. Ultimately cosplaying American Mueller people because ultimately many of these people just wanted to be American MSNBC #Resistance. Warning to the Brexit Party now that UK≠US, something they seem to be a risk of forgetting as much as FBPE did—People's Vote's spiritual home was not in Europe but in Georgetown (the comparison was indeed stupid, Boris Johnson was incompetent/poor character as many Tory MPs across the party's wings have long argued but would not have come close to Jan 6 and even in the US legalism failed)
As someone who went on the various marches and supported the campaign from c.2017 onwards, but do acknowledge and accept its undemocratic nature, I am a little annoyed with a lot of the "rational" and "pragmatic" and generally sanctimonious (which as a Lib Dem I am very familiar with!) comments and reviews of the the book / pointing out how bad we all were to participate without acknowledging the reasons why the movement moved from a bunch fringe cranks to the mainstream and then over-reached itself.
That was the uncompromising nature of the winners and refusal to acknowledge let alone accept the views of the 48% who voted remain and going for the worst possible Brexit. After the result I accepted the result, but increasingly got angered by the winner takes all attitude summed up by the numerous "We won, you lost, suck it up." from Brexiters that I felt compelled to get involved because the other side wasn't listening.
This comment by the reviewer: "Rather than acknowledging the result of an epochal vote and working towards a compromise, the movement bet the house and lost spectacularly." is I think profoundly unserious and seems to ignore the political / emotional environment at the time as I think many people who joined the marches etc were like me. While the comment about the difference between the Lib Dems in 2019 and 2024 fails to take in to account the febrile environment hyped up by both sides in 2019 and the state of the party.
I would love to know from the review author what compromises were possible. The governing party led by May boxed itself in so tightly so quickly ruling out both single market and customs union and was more concerned with keeping the Tory Party together than figuring out what was best for the country. The May deal should have been taken as it was better than the Johnson one but we'd marched ourselves so far up the hill it was too late to come down.
The May deal was a possible compromise! Though I agree with you - the high emotion made compromise very difficult and lots of us probably did/said things we regret.
They were correct to act that way. The reason is the vote was written as a hard Leave/Remain decision by Cameron and the EU itself, specifically to try and ensure Leave could be painted as extreme.
The Conservative Eurosceptics would have much preferred a less stark choice, something like "Remain in the single market but leave the EU vs Remain", but Cameron wanted to crush them and get himself a "mandate" for unlimited power transfers. The EU also is a desperate, totalitarian system that insists on an all-or-nothing approach because they know if they stop threatening countries with a total rupture everyone would leave.
It was a question set by the Eurosceptic's enemies and then they won anyway. They had every right to insist on the hardest break possible. The extremely communist sounding "People's Vote" was a disgusting movement that frankly should have resulted in much tougher repercussions for those who took part than it did.
No they weren't it was a vote to stay or remain in the EU, single market etc didn't come in to it. Indeed many of the chief protagonists such as Gove said we would remain in the single market. There was no need to put the red lines they did and when they did that was Nick Timothy's doing. They did so because the prioritised keeping the Tory Party together over keeping the country together. If they had offered remaining in the customs union (realise with freedom of movement single market probably a no go) by early 2017 they could have got a deal over the line that was acceptable and nipped the peoples vote in the bud. Would have meant a split Tory Party probably but that's what we've got now (Reform and Tories almost identical).
The EU weren't willing to make such a deal, again, that was specifically to try and empower the People's Vote totalitarians. At every point the EU side refused compromise and got nothing as a result.
I don't understand how anyone is still pro EU today in Britain. Clearly SM membership had no economic value given you can't see any impact of leaving in the trade or economic data.
'Clearly SM membership had no economic value given you can't see any impact of leaving in the trade or economic data' Blimey... I guess the 6% hit to GDP is neither here nor there eh. Btw most of the ERG was as opposed to May's deal as remainers.
A noteworthy aspect of the People's Vote in class terms was the high level
of education combined with political naiveté. A central hallmark of professional class people is mutual recognition for each others' professional expertise as a form ultimately of assuring one's own identity. Hence a great deal of respect for doctors and chartering bodies; in the context of the People's Vote this meant authority over entirely unrelated domains was leant to the political one (which is, needless to say, a generalist one) and those involved assumed they were righteous and leaving was "obviously" a bad idea/a mistake per epistocratic standards. This arrogance not only lead to basic campaign messaging mistakes but the lack of persuasion and dialogue was enthroned as a virtue. Leave voters were treated as obviously thick and all messaging and campaigning aimed at persuading elites and insider institutions (with the Supreme Court etc made into the totems of truth). Although he is not a political novice, Raymond Geuss's article in The Point on this demonstrates this fundamental low liberal lack of faith in liberal methods (persuasion and debate) that ends up in my view mirroring that of the populist right, a game low liberals will https://thepointmag.com/politics/a-republic-of-discussion-habermas-at-ninety/
always lose when pitted against their native populist opponents
Strongly agree that we would be closer to the EU now if not for People’s Vote et al. Given the closeness of the result it would have been completely legitimate for remainers to campaign for a softer brexit than we otherwise got - putting to one side whether this would have been good for the country. The brexiteer ultras are often blamed for dragging the debate towards a maximalist leave position but plenty were only responding to a remain side that started calling for a second referendum *the day after* the first.
Yes and many of the ERG voted for compromise options in the indicative votes!
Good on you for leaving it.
I always thought the name itself was strongly indicative of the character of the movement: a sinister underlying ideology combined with mass stupidity. "The People's Vote"? Which marketing genius came up with that? They couldn't have sounded more North Korean if they'd tried.
It's not a surprise the book doesn't reflect on the ethics of it. The EU project itself survives because its supporters don't look too closely at the ethics of anything related to it.
The pre-vote apathy of Bray and others is surprising, but maybe in hindsight shouldn't be. It's always the newest converts with the greatest zeal. I discovered during the referendum campaigning period that the most swivel-eyed Remainiacs invariably knew nearly nothing about the EU itself and sometimes hadn't even been there. They treated it more like an aesthetic than an actual set of treaties and institutions, and cared much more for what it said about themselves and Britain than the details of the decision itself.
Yeah Jones also makes this point in the book; lots of the extreme Remainers knew very little about the EU!
We not only exist, we're in the majority. So you don't accept the rule of law, then? It is a fact that Vote Leave was found to have broken the law, and paid the fine <https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/media-statement-vote-leave>. If they didn't break the law, why didn't they appeal? 'Admitting' breaking the law is neither here nor there - did Peter Sutcliffe 'admit' to breaking the law?
The main organisations behind the Leave campaign were found to have broken electoral law, and admitted it by paying their fines. Given the close nature of the vote, that was sufficient reason to hold a second referendum.
It's amazing that people like you still exist.
They never did admit to breaking the law. The Electoral Commission itself, though, got slapped by the police for making politically motivated and vexatious complaints. When the EC itself is openly bent, claims of violations of "electoral law" doesn't land quite the same way.
As Thomas points out, the entire thing was a farce to begin with as the Remain campaign was directly funded by the government! Remain blew past its supposed spending limits just with the cost of the nationwide mailshot but when the government is the one enforcing the spending limits, and it supports one side, the limits obviously don't really exist.
the "whodunit"/mystery Carole Cadwalladr-type appeal to find a supposed smoking gun of suspicious links between Russia and Vote Leave, the hunt for supposed illegal campaign practices and shady international dealings were also a key part of attracting normies by selling it as IRL true crime rather than politics. They convinced themselves an internet marketing company (Cambridge Analytica) using the same techniques and such as any mid-level Facebook ad partner circa 2016 was in essence a global psychological mind control device. Ultimately cosplaying American Mueller people because ultimately many of these people just wanted to be American MSNBC #Resistance. Warning to the Brexit Party now that UK≠US, something they seem to be a risk of forgetting as much as FBPE did—People's Vote's spiritual home was not in Europe but in Georgetown (the comparison was indeed stupid, Boris Johnson was incompetent/poor character as many Tory MPs across the party's wings have long argued but would not have come close to Jan 6 and even in the US legalism failed)
Yeah, that Cadwalladr-type argument was crackers.
As someone who went on the various marches and supported the campaign from c.2017 onwards, but do acknowledge and accept its undemocratic nature, I am a little annoyed with a lot of the "rational" and "pragmatic" and generally sanctimonious (which as a Lib Dem I am very familiar with!) comments and reviews of the the book / pointing out how bad we all were to participate without acknowledging the reasons why the movement moved from a bunch fringe cranks to the mainstream and then over-reached itself.
That was the uncompromising nature of the winners and refusal to acknowledge let alone accept the views of the 48% who voted remain and going for the worst possible Brexit. After the result I accepted the result, but increasingly got angered by the winner takes all attitude summed up by the numerous "We won, you lost, suck it up." from Brexiters that I felt compelled to get involved because the other side wasn't listening.
This comment by the reviewer: "Rather than acknowledging the result of an epochal vote and working towards a compromise, the movement bet the house and lost spectacularly." is I think profoundly unserious and seems to ignore the political / emotional environment at the time as I think many people who joined the marches etc were like me. While the comment about the difference between the Lib Dems in 2019 and 2024 fails to take in to account the febrile environment hyped up by both sides in 2019 and the state of the party.
I would love to know from the review author what compromises were possible. The governing party led by May boxed itself in so tightly so quickly ruling out both single market and customs union and was more concerned with keeping the Tory Party together than figuring out what was best for the country. The May deal should have been taken as it was better than the Johnson one but we'd marched ourselves so far up the hill it was too late to come down.
The May deal was a possible compromise! Though I agree with you - the high emotion made compromise very difficult and lots of us probably did/said things we regret.
They were correct to act that way. The reason is the vote was written as a hard Leave/Remain decision by Cameron and the EU itself, specifically to try and ensure Leave could be painted as extreme.
The Conservative Eurosceptics would have much preferred a less stark choice, something like "Remain in the single market but leave the EU vs Remain", but Cameron wanted to crush them and get himself a "mandate" for unlimited power transfers. The EU also is a desperate, totalitarian system that insists on an all-or-nothing approach because they know if they stop threatening countries with a total rupture everyone would leave.
It was a question set by the Eurosceptic's enemies and then they won anyway. They had every right to insist on the hardest break possible. The extremely communist sounding "People's Vote" was a disgusting movement that frankly should have resulted in much tougher repercussions for those who took part than it did.
No they weren't it was a vote to stay or remain in the EU, single market etc didn't come in to it. Indeed many of the chief protagonists such as Gove said we would remain in the single market. There was no need to put the red lines they did and when they did that was Nick Timothy's doing. They did so because the prioritised keeping the Tory Party together over keeping the country together. If they had offered remaining in the customs union (realise with freedom of movement single market probably a no go) by early 2017 they could have got a deal over the line that was acceptable and nipped the peoples vote in the bud. Would have meant a split Tory Party probably but that's what we've got now (Reform and Tories almost identical).
The EU weren't willing to make such a deal, again, that was specifically to try and empower the People's Vote totalitarians. At every point the EU side refused compromise and got nothing as a result.
I don't understand how anyone is still pro EU today in Britain. Clearly SM membership had no economic value given you can't see any impact of leaving in the trade or economic data.
'Clearly SM membership had no economic value given you can't see any impact of leaving in the trade or economic data' Blimey... I guess the 6% hit to GDP is neither here nor there eh. Btw most of the ERG was as opposed to May's deal as remainers.
'Winning over wokeness' wtf...
Look at a graph of GDP. There has been no such hit. The British government itself says there's been no impact to GDP nor trade levels from Brexit.