The headline is a couplet from a gloriously funny Tom Lehrer satirical song titled National Brotherhood Week. I was prompted to use it after reading some tweets (or should that be ‘Xs’? … let’s call ‘em twxxts to please or anger everybody), yesterday, by author and philosopher A.C. Grayling. Here’s the text from one twxxt:
Only another hill or two and we'll surely meet the Dawn." Ethna Carbery. Never give up. Brexit will be reversed.
So, there we are. Brexit. That’s the issue that the good professor dislikes, nay, abhors! I know this because he expresses his abhorrence on a daily basis.
On 11 April the Prof posted a twxxt that linked to a report, on neurosciencenews.com, that includes this:
The analysis revealed a strong statistical link between higher cognitive ability and having voted “Remain”. In addition, people whose spouse had higher cognitive ability were significantly more likely to vote “Remain”. In cases where one spouse voted “Remain” and the other “Leave”, having significantly higher cognitive ability than one’s spouse was associated with an even higher chance of voting to Remain.
The twxxt seems clearly intended to promote the idea that Leavers are thick or stupid. Gosh, that makes life easy, doesn’t it? Although, when one goes to the source, the report authors are a tad more cautious, if grudgingly so, about their findings:
[T]here are, however, some limitations to our study. Most noticeably, the positive correlation between cognitive ability and voting to Remain in the referendum could, as always, be explained by omitted variable bias.
So, what is my point? The good professor is, of course, entitled to his view on any topic but, particularly considering his academic credentials, I would expect any views to be communicated in a reasonably rational and balanced manner. However, when it comes to talking about Brexit, Professor Grayling seems to lose all sense of reason. As far as he is concerned, those who voted, in the UK’s 2016 referendum, to leave the European Union committed such an egregious and unparalleled act of self-harm that the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that they are ignorant and/or xenophobic and/or wilfully stupid. This view is presented, time and again, with what seem to me to be added helpings of snobbery and condescension. All of which leads me to wonder if the level of antipathy actually amounts to hate?
Here’s a definition of hate …
dislike and antipathy inflamed to a high degree and inspired by beliefs which stimulate a set of other emotions in the hater, chief among them fear, ignorance, jealousy, anger and disgust.
Well, I just went to see Professor Grayling’s latest twxxt: he has reposted one that leads with…
This is why I despise these “Brexiteers” most of all
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that seem to at least align with the “anger and disgust” elements of the above definition, plus possibly the “fear” element?
Also, I have just checked all of the activity logged by Professor Grayling today. Thus far today there are seven posts, five of which are directly related to Brexit and the campaign to reverse the referendum decision.
You decide, does this all constitute “dislike and antipathy inflamed to a high degree”?
Methinks there is at least a case to answer.
I guess it’s only fair that I state my own position. As is probably obvious I am one of those sub-human specimens who voted ‘Leave’. Perhaps I’d better briefly outline why.
In 1975, the UK held its first-ever referendum to decide whether or not we should continue as members of what was then the European Economic Community or Common Market. At that time, as I remember it, the issue was presented to the British population as being all about trade. It was a pragmatic debate in the sense that it was based upon practical considerations rather than theoretical or idealistic ones. I voted to stay in, as did two-thirds of all voters.
Subsequently, a whole series of developments came along, categorized under a string of treaties: The Single European Act (1986), The Treaty of Maastricht (1992), The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), The Treaty of Maastricht Nice (2001), and The Treaty of Lisbon (2007). These developments evolved and reinforced every aspect of the arrangements, including many theoretical and idealistic ones. And, on the relatively few occasions that countries gave their citizens a say in the matter, they were, if they made ‘the wrong choice’, forced to have another go to ‘get it right’.
The issue of democratic legitimacy, or lack thereof, is, to many of us, one of the troubling issues about the EU. I find it intriguing that those of us who rejected the EU as it stood are often now accused of being ‘far right’ in our views, but one of the most consistent and outspoken objectors to the democratic deficit was the distinctly left-wing politician, Tony Benn (1925-2014).
By the way, the list of treaties, above, is one short. There was also a Constitutional Treaty presented in 2004, intended to provide a single constitution for the EU. However, in 2005, when put directly to the people of France and the Netherlands, they rejected it. Tweaked, it was subsequently represented as The Treaty of Lisbon. The Irish put this to their people, too, and it was rejected. Again, it was re-presented to get them to ‘give the right answer’.
This, in my opinion, is not the way to go about things. Democracy should be sacrosanct. And I mean democracy based upon each person having an equal vote and the rights and responsibilities that go with it.
Admittedly, this is also where the whole thing gets tricky because our sacrosanct single vote system in the UK is the basis of a representative democracy, not of an ‘every-single-person-show-of-hands’ model.
We achieve the ‘wisdom of crowds’ effect by making every single person’s vote of equal weight. Male or female. Black or white, or any other shade. PhD or D for dunce. Beautiful or a face only its Mum could love. And so on. One person, one vote. But that vote is normally used to determine who will represent us in arguing specific topics, rather than as a kind of instant decision-making tool.
So, maybe, the whole business of resorting to referenda was a mistake in the first place. In any event, it speaks to a failure of our representative democracy. In fact, I think it speaks to a woeful withering of our political class … whatever happened to proper election manifestos and the kind of heavyweight politicians who could argue cases properly? Does the fact that we now seem to have more of a bunch of technocrats, itself owe something to the ‘offshoring’ of political activity that was introduced by our membership of the EU?
I know, I know, one can go round in circles here but it’s a point, isn’t it? Maybe it all stems from the fact that the EU itself is not sufficiently democratic. Does the whole idea of nation-states ceding their sovereignty to a unitary state (or, as German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck described it in 2019, “A Doomed Empire”) sound more like the thinking of a certain ambitious petit caporal?
In sum, I’m all for peace and co-operation between nations, but I don’t see why that should necessitate compromising the very aspect of Western thinking that differentiates us from every dictatorial state in the world - our Democracy.
Finally, let me just go back to those references that I used to question whether or not Professor Grayling’s antipathy is sufficiently acute to qualify as hate. I took the book whence they come down from my bookshelf: it’s one of several that I have by … yes, of course, you guessed it … A.C. Grayling.
Here’s the Prof’s definition again:
dislike and antipathy inflamed to a high degree and inspired by beliefs which stimulate a set of other emotions in the hater, chief among them fear, ignorance, jealousy, anger and disgust.
But there’s more. He goes on to say:
But note that all these emotions, and especially the first three, are about the hater; thus hating says more about haters than what they hate.1
Interesting, no?
Thanks for reading.
Grayling, A.C. The Meaning of Things (2001)
I must disagree with you on your post.
I spent nearly a year, on a small team, studying this subject at Wolfson Collage, Cambridge, for my then employers, IBM, advising them on effect on the computer industry it would be if the UK decided to join the EEC ( as it was then).
Our advice was to join the EEC/EU because we would lose any capability to influence any EU decisions if we were not a member of the "club".
I am under an NDA but I can quote some of the report.
"Holding a referendum on EU membership was a highly divisive and politically polarising process for the UK. The issue of European integration has long been a contentious fault line in British politics, splitting both the ruling Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party. A referendum campaign would exacerbate these internal divisions, pitting Eurosceptics against Europhiles in a bruising and acrimonious battle.
This polarisation was not limited to the political class, but also deeply fractured British society more broadly. Referendum campaigns have a tendency to bring out the worst in people, with rhetoric becoming increasingly vitriolic and personal. This has eroded social cohesion and will leave lasting scars on the national psyche.
Referendums are a blunt instrument of direct democracy that can bypass and undermine representative institutions. By putting a complex, multi-faceted issue like EU membership to a simple 'yes or no' public vote, a referendum sidelines the role of parliament and elected officials in the decision-making process.
This is problematic because members of parliament are meant to carefully deliberate on issues, weigh evidence, and make nuanced judgments on behalf of their constituents. Reducing this to a binary public ballot oversimplifies the debate and risks policy being dictated by populist sentiment rather than considered judgment.
Furthermore, referendums can establish a dangerous precedent of politicians outsourcing difficult decisions to the public, rather than taking responsibility for them. This risks hollowing out the foundations of representative democracy in the UK.
Directly putting a complex issue like EU membership to a public vote also raises the risk of undesirable or uninformed outcomes. Referendums tend to be more susceptible to emotional appeals, misinformation, and the whims of public mood rather than substantive policy analysis."
- not to mention the interference by a biased press and the impact of the plethora of unmoderated social media platforms out there in 2024.
"The 2016 Brexit referendum itself is a cautionary tale, where a narrow majority voted to leave the EU based on a campaign heavy on nationalist rhetoric and dubious economic claims, but light on concrete details about the process and consequences of withdrawal.
There is no guarantee that a future referendum would produce a more considered or ideal outcome for the UK. Public opinion on EU membership was swayed by short-term factors, knee-jerk reactions, or a failure to fully grasp the economic and geopolitical ramifications. This could lead to a decision that ends up being detrimental to the country's long-term interests.
The mere prospect of a referendum on EU membership generates significant economic uncertainty and disruption for the UK. Businesses and investors are reluctant to make long-term plans or commitments during the protracted period of political turmoil and constitutional upheaval.
This uncertainty manifests in reduced investment, capital flight, and economic stagnation - even before another referendum takes place. With the UK vote to leave the EU, the economic fallout is severe and prolonged as the country navigates the complex process of withdrawing from the world's largest single market.
Such economic disruption has tangible impacts on the lives of ordinary Britons, leading to job losses, rising prices, and a lower standard of living. Putting the country's economic future at risk in this manner is a high-stakes gamble that many would consider unwise.
A referendum on EU membership would also have significant ramifications for the UK's international standing and diplomatic influence. The spectacle of a major European power publicly debating its commitment to European integration would be interpreted as a sign of instability and wavering resolve.
This undermines the UK's credibility and soft power on the global stage, making it a less reliable and attractive partner for other countries and international institutions. It also embolden anti-EU, populist movements elsewhere in Europe, further destabilising the continent.
Moreover, the decision to leave the EU severely diminishes the UK's geopolitical heft and ability to shape the future of Europe in accordance with its interests. Surrendering this central role in a crucial geopolitical bloc is a major strategic setback for the UK."
While a referendum may seem like a democratic way to resolve the issue of EU membership, the potential downsides have proved to be substantial. The deeply divisive and disruptive nature of such a vote, the risks of an undesirable outcome, and the damage to the UK's economy and global standing all point to compelling reasons to avoid this course of action.
The better path forward would be for the UK to remain a committed member of the European Union.