I'm not particularly affronted by this argument and the ACCUSES in the headline suggests a much tougher criticism than the points entail.
However, the argument Nandy is making - what we've seen of it anyway - is pretty weak on its own terms.
Patriotism - proper patriotism, giving a shout about your country, rather than just jingoism - depends on a realistic assessment of what it can do, alongside a story of what it stands for.
Britain is a an upper-to-medium-sized power. Somewhere around the bottom of the top tier of countries, or the very top of the medium tier. It outperforms on culture, finance and defence.
After the war, we were a central part of creating an international rules based order in Bretton Woods, the UN, the GATT. The EU came from that project.
We disproportionately influenced the EU as a member. And through it, the world. It also allowed us to operate as a bridge between the US and Europe.
Turning 'the world' and 'the EU' into a binary opposition just seems to me a bit facile and fundamentally false. An acceptance of the Brexiter framing.
I'll listen to the speech with interest. But the parts put out to the press don't seems to me to have much intellectual substance to them.
Final version of speech much more impressive than the quotes sent out beforehand. Really encouraging to see Nandy make the case for free movement and a soft Brexit.
