1/ The leftist critique of empire, namely that it was a thoroughly bad thing, misses the target. To hit the political right we need to point out that the empire failed, that it collapsed, that its defeat was total and humiliating.
2/ The humiliation and pain of loss of empire was hidden under the lie that it was a graceful withdrawal. And the failure to psychologically process that crushing defeat means that England cannot shake off the dead skin of imperialism, and move on to a realistic new identity.
3/ England as a nation spent around 250 years subsumed in Britain and Empire. It re-emerged angry and empty as a result of rejection and defeat. Its very existence is defined by a loss and humiliation that its partisans can accept physically but not emotionally.
Some folk are saying WW2 finished the empire. I'd say that it merely hastened it. It was only because the UK had already lost its economic predominance that it could not take advantage of victory as it had done in 1815. Britain had been in relative economic decline since 1850.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now and again I argue that Brexit is, in part, a result of a mostly English failure to accept the humiliation of the collapse of empire. So many English cling to an imperialist mentality, even while inwardly seething at the absence of empire. Imperialists without an empire - sad!
An empire doesn't disappear gracefully or voluntarily. An empire collapses because of defeat and rejection. The collapse of the British empire was a humiliating defeat, but it was dressed up as a graceful withdrawal. So the English never faced up to the pain and humiliation.
So rather than the English working through the pain and loss of defeat and finding a new identity, many of them hid the pain inside themselves, where it has become a kind of malign festering abscess filled with loss, grief, pain, anger and rage.
"Brexit is a con, a trick, a swindle, a fraud, a deception that will hurt most of those people it promised to help."
Imagine Labour had spent 4 years speaking out as clearly, honestly and courageously as David Lammy in 2019. Would we have Brexit? I think not!
People tend to assume that a section of the white working class are unshakeable attached to Brexit. But is it so surprising that they have backed Brexit when Labour have absolutely failed to denounce it, leaving resistance to a motley crew of relatively marginal political actors?
Is it surprising that a pro-Brexit political view has predominated in part of the population when for over 4 years Labour has abandoned the fight and allowed the hard and far-right to all but monopolise the debate?
1/ English nationalism is angry, vacuous, and uncaring. It makes up for its lack of positive content through antagonism to the other - to all those whether foreign or English who don't fit the angry white native stereotype. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2/ English nationalism was born late, not out of enthusiasm or pride, but out of the pain, humiliation and loss of status caused by the collapse of empire and the Celtic rejection of English supremacy. So English nationalism is negative, angry and empty.
3/ The English nationalists are angry because the only England they know and want, is the one they cannot have, of white English imperialism. They want the feeling and status of imperialism without an empire. It's impossible, and so they rage.
1/ Alistair Campbell @campbellclaret is entirely right that Labour has let the Brexit right get into their heads. In spite of Corbyn & hopelessly inept Labour and LibDem campaigns 2nd referendum parties gained a clear majority of the popular vote in 2019. theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/we…
2/ Had Starmer been leading Labour and had it conducted a reasonable campaign then it might have boosted its vote by 4-6% at the Tories' expense, putting it at around 37% vs the Tories on 38.5%.
3/ Had Labour and the LibDems cooperated in key seats - much easier with Starmer as Labour leader than Corbyn who was toxic to the moderate Tory voters the LibDems needed to capture we would almost certainly have had another hung Parliament & quite possibly Starmer in Number 10.
Brexit was built on the politics of fear. Fear destroys rational thinking, & elicits primitive emotions which drive people to identify an enemy, and seek safety in a tribe behind strong defences. The tax-dodging Brexit billionaire press then told people that the EU was the enemy.
Having said that, a fear-inciting propaganda only works when people already feel insecure and uneasy. Many of the main Brexit backing areas are suffering from post-industrial decline and the crumbling of communities and social structures. People feel neglected.
Those, white native folk feel that in our rush to end discrimination against minorities they have been ignored, while the economic and social world their families inhabited for generations disintegrates leaving them adrift in a new alien reality.
My big worry is that after many months of silence on Brexit, voting for a deal will be a signal that Starmer intends to turn a blind eye to Brexit after January 1st, no matter how severe the consequences. Everything will be subordinated to winning back the red wall.
Once Brexit is in the bag the enthusiasm behind it will deflate very fast Support for Brexit was always about being against something. Many people will lose enthusiasm, a smaller number will cease to support it altogether. Meanwhile anger against Brexit may well increase.