Brexit is about usurping democracy, not supporting it

Some things need repeating, and this is one of them.


Brexit is not about glorious ideal of standing up for democracy or the rights and will of the people.

It is not about championing the downtrodden masses or standing up to an out-of-touch elite.

It is not about the establishment going up against the people.

It is not about making society fairer and it certainly isn't about making the country more prosperous.

Brexit is about the exact opposite of those things. It's about enriching a tiny elite - some of them establishment, some not - at the expense of the masses. It's about ensuring that their power and their ideologies win out and all others are swept into obscurity.

The economic case against Brexit is so solid that I scarcely need mention it; the economic case against Brexiteers themselves is also damning. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer ? It was ever thus. As for "rich Remainers", that is a patently ludicrous allegation clearly designed as a bullshiting comment whose only goal is a momentary distraction. I shall say no more about it.

But the notion that Brexit is actually about the will of the people triumphing over some oppressive, out-of-touch elected Parliament is one that's so pervasive and so dangerously wrong-headed that it needs to be attacked with the utmost ferocity. It employs a classic tactic of telling people that they're being attacked for the sole purpose of stoking fear, and thereby avoid rational, sensible inquiry.

It's a claim given particular persuasive force in this instance because the "enemy" is not wholly imaginary or without blame. Not even the most devout Parliamentarian ought to claim the institution is a bastion of moral fortitude or rigorous devotion to its legislative duty. The idea that every MP is blameless is clearly laughable - they are all too human. And yet, it would be a much bigger mistake to suppose that they are all untrustworthy, self-serving snakes. There are in fact very good reasons why Parliament is so often dysfunctional, and highly plausible ways to reform it.

What should disturb us most in the case of politicians is a case of "there but for the grace of God go I". We despise politicians not so much because they're especially awful people, but because - deep down - we know that they're not that much different from normal people. If we can't admit our own faults (and many of us are largely blameless, as it happens), then we at least know plenty of other horrible people close to us. Imagine them in a politician's situation - a truly weird combination of power and impotence, pressure and privilege - and it becomes almost frighteningly easy to see how the system is vulnerable.

Yet the claims of the fringe right go far beyond any legitimate criticism of individuals or even the institution of Parliament. Instead, they attack the very ideology of democracy, and to find examples we need only turn on the news for scarcely a few minutes.

We have Jacob Rees-Mogg calling the Supreme Court's ruling that proroguing Parliament was illegal a "constitutional coup". That's the leader of the House of Commons trashing the judicial system. And in the most absurd way too, as though merely resuming Parliament could possibly constitute a "coup". No, Jacob, it's quite obvious that removing accountability from the executive is the behaviour of one engaging in a coup - giving Parliament the power to scrutinise legislation is the exact opposite of autocratic rule.

Then there was a Leave campaigner saying that it was unhelpful and divisive for Remainers to use words like "dictator", as though frustrating Parliament wasn't an act of tyranny. Words should be chosen carefully, but when the government unlawfully removes its accountability from the democratically elected representatives, just what else are we supposed to call it ? The hard right love to proclaim themselves as champions of free speech who stand up against political correctness, but when anyone dares call them out for what they are, they're suddenly a lot less keen on their professed ideals.

Or how about a Brexit Party MEP saying they believe sovereignty lies with the people ? Well, it's fine enough to say that you think it should rest with the people, but legally it doesn't. It belongs to Parliament, who hold it on the sufferance of the people. To wilfully discard the law is directly equivalent to saying that you don't believe in civilisation and that everyone may as well do as they please. That's not democracy. That's mob rule. Mob rule isn't democracy - it isn't even any sort of government at all.

And then we come to last night's sick and ghastly perversion of a debate in the House of Commons. We had the Attorney General repeatedly trying to outdo himself in a competition to become Parliament's biggest arsehole. He began with the ludicrous claim that the Supreme Court had made a new law, something which is fundamentally impossible. He said that "constitutional coup" was merely a phrase used in the heat of anger and "poetic license." He then went on to say that Parliament was "dead" and that MPs "had no right to sit on the green benches". When questioned by fellow Tory Amber Rudd, he said that he was "driven" to using such language because of the untenable situation.

With a truly contemptible lack of irony, he proclaimed that "nobody has worked harder than I did for compromise" and that it would "be a good thing if we could resume calmer waters." Did it not occur to him that accusing the Opposition of cowardice and lack of morals would, perhaps, not be the best way to find those calmer waters ? He treated the serious concerns of the Opposition about the Prime Minister acting unlawfully with sanctimonious levity, dismissing them as "inflamed, inflated nonsense". This is the behaviour of a brute, not that of a responsible democrat. What true democrat would describe Parliament as "dead" because it won't allow the government to threaten the country ? How can it be democratic to simply expel MPs rather than compromising with them ?

Things got no better with the emergence of that childish hellspawn Michael Gove, who refused to apologise for the government acting unlawfully. That is an absurd and preposterous omission. Apologies don't make you more or less guilty, or even admit prior knowledge. Now there are many cases where the law deserves questioning and reform, but for government ministers not to apologise for breaking the law is for them to treat it with contempt. Those empowered to make the law must be the ones most keen to defend it : yes, one might conceivably violate it accidentally, but to offer no apology is to trample wantonly on a key foundation of government.

To the shock of all but the surprise of none, Boris Johnson himself behaved most despicably of the lot. The harsh language he used was inciting violence and death threats ? "Humbug", he said. Like the attorney general, he lamented Parliament's inability to compromise whilst openly dismissing the thing as a farce. He forgot utterly that it was his own actions that led to the loss of a Tory majority, because compromise is not on his agenda. If it was, he'd take the most uncompromising path of all - a No Deal Brexit - off the table immediately : threatening to cut one's wrists is not a sane negotiating strategy. And if he really wanted to make Parliament functional, he wouldn't have acted like the Incredible Sulk in the first place. Rather, his deliberately antagonistic behaviour is the very reason for his own failures, but of course, he simply blames everyone else for not jumping on the Boris bandwagon.

Brexiteers are like Flat Earthers claiming to have found rational proof of the edge of the world. Sure, they may like to claim the prestigious mantle of science, but their insincerity is staggering. Brexiteers like to claim that they're upholding the will of 17.4 million people, but they don't even try to compromise with the 48% who voted Remain. Instead they just insult them, treating the referendum as a mandate to do whatever they happen to think is the best course of action, regardless of the highly limited information on the ballot paper.

Let's not forget that Johnson previously played a general election as an option of last resort, but then decided it was a good idea to attack and insult his own MPs rather than finding common ground. Consequently he's begging for an election because he's in a trap of his own making. A second referendum ? No, that would be undemocratic (!), but a general election would be jolly nice, thanks. This is beyond ridiculous. He patently wants an election not because he wants to champion democracy, but merely as a pretence to claiming the mantle of democracy as his only viable route to power. Sure, all aspiring Prime Ministers have to seek office in this way. But few seek an election simply because they've lost a majority through their own incompetence (or possibly malice, it remains to be seen) and are trying to evade the law.

Attempting to paint this approach as a legitimate tactic to show how determined he is is absolute bullshit, and I say shame on the BBC for going there - and for not spotting the raging hypocrisy when Boris has the audacity to suggest that "tempers need to come down". And Boris is doubly insincere. When his sister says he's not the man she recognises, I believe her. The usually affable Boris does not look at all comfortable playing the honest villain. Indeed, for much of the first hour or so in Parliament he looked like a spent force. He's trying to follow someone else's playbook and he's ill equipped to do it. Amiability, humour, and charm are his natural weapons, not cruel invective and cold disdain.

It's clear that all this is an attempt to drive a wedge between Parliament and the people, but it should be equally clear that this is an incredibly dangerous move regardless of the motive or end goal. That Boris is an insincere villain doesn't change the effect of what he says and does. It doesn't change the damage it does to Parliament's reputation or the fear of MPs who have to endure death threats.

It must be said that this isn't traditional Tory behaviour at all. I'm not, and never will be, a Conservative, but there is a great deal of merit in their professed values of personal responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and personal freedom from undue government meddling. A respect for convention is a very British value, but no-one upholds this better than the traditional moderate Tories. Just how far the party - and the country as a whole - has fallen from its core principles and into the hands of the lunatic, despotic fringe remains to be seen. Thus far there has been shockingly little fightback from any moderate MPs the party still retains.

The silver lining in this dark cloud is, of course, that it's exactly the wrong way for Boris to get whatever he wants. The more he continues to treat his opponents with contempt, the more they will continue to frustrate his every action. The more he flaunts convention, the more unconventional will be their solutions to removing him.

But no-one should be fooled for an instant by these lame attempts by Brexiteers to paint themselves as champions of the people. They are not standing up for the poor oppressed masses. They are playing the masses for fools, perverting their interests only to further their own agenda. As Cicero put it :

There is nothing more disgusting than the sort of monstrosity which fictitiously assumes the name and guise of "the people".