How they’re affecting the United Kingdom. Why. And what’s to be done.
A short 🧵 /1.
🔻Sincere phantasmagorism
To be sincere is neither to be right nor, necessarily, admirable.
So it is with Brexiters seized by a phantasm of 21st C global British ‘greatness’.
A cocktail of supposed unique British virtue, 1870s Empire & 16th C piracy. Purest, toxic fantasy. /2.
🔻Cruel cynicism
You’ve got to laugh at the 0.01%, angry a ‘Brexit dividend’ of slashed taxes & regulations could now end up as more of both.
But it’s far from funny. Greedy, cruel, wealthy ‘libertarians’ are attempting to shatter government & society. They’re still at it. /3.
🔻Failed rationalism
Internal, logical consistency is no more correct, in the real world, if assumptions are faulty, than is logical inconsistency.
Brexiter rationalists see part of an important truth: the world is changing. But they make false assumptions … /4.
… about the extent & nature of UK agency in confronting those changes.
They fail (or refuse) to appreciate that the US is indispensable to all its allies’ prosperity & security for any foreseeable future, while the EU, similarly, remains an indispensable pillar … /5.
… of that very US global system on which we all rely. And that, given the UK’s significant economic size & geographic location, no one is going to give it the merest hint of a free ride.
Even were ‘rationalist’ Brexiters’ logic not so often faulty (‘cakeism’ is … /6.
… at root as much a logical as a political fallacy, for example) their ponderously assembled visions of Westphalian-style sovereign beasts roaming free on the 21st C geopolitical savannah, would remain no less divorced from reality than … /7.
… the lizard-infested, Rothschilld-manipulated Buckingham Palace of David Icke’s fevered imagination. /8.
Still, Brexit ‘rationalists’ (vanishingly few, in truth) make an effort. They’re just really bad at it.
The phantasmagorists are … well, no one’s quite sure, least of all them.
And the cynics are exactly what you’d expect, but 100x more dangerous. If let off the leash. /9.
So, what’s to be done? In the UK. Also elsewhere: the influence of the cynics & the failed rationalists is to be found in many countries. Even the phantasmagorists, in some places, although without the peculiar British flavour (others are available). /10.
It’s a most dangerous time.
Whoever you are, whatever your occupation, you either …
FIGHT & organise for what’s right
REFUSE to accept what’s wrong
EXPOSE corruption & lies
EXPLAIN the truth whenever & wherever you have the chance
… or you’re part of the problem. /11. End
P.S. ‘Lexit’ is a flavour of failed rationalism. Some supporters make a fair case that greater competition & budget (a bit) freedoms could allow better domestic economic & social policies. But: in truth, benefits only accrue if the elephants (EU etc.) allow. Why would they?
P.P.S. These ‘faces of Brexit’ are those of the ‘thinkers’ & ‘leaders’.
The millions of Leave voters’ fundamental motivations are well documented. There’s only slight, & for the most part accidental, overlap with the ‘leaders’’ agendas. Whichever ‘face of Brexit’ you choose.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Donald Trump saying “Ukraine is finished” once again, starkly, highlights the question of what the world’s first & only (with the possible exception of Britain), & still remaining, hyper power would do geopolitically under his leadership.
But it isn’t just about Trump.
A 🧵/1.
I’ll be unashamedly Eurocentric.
There’s a broader & deeper story, of course. But Europe is a vital part of it.
The decision the USA has to make, as it did in the 1940s, & repeatedly at intervals after that, is whether it cares about Europe, & if so how much of it, & why. /2.
Does that include all of western Europe? Does it extend to central Europe? And eastern Europe? If so, should Ukraine be part of what the USA cares about (in the 40s that didn’t really play a role, given Ukraine’s status within the USSR)? And if so, how much of Ukraine? /3.
Brexit ripped us out of our $19 trillion GDP domestic market & reduced us to one a 6th of it, thumped our economy, fractured the UK, threw our governance into chaos, & generated perilous geopolitical effects.
And (if you mean it seriously) wildly naive about what actually takes place, legally (although you’d say “in my opinion this is unconstitutional”: good luck!) in the USA.
Still, if we just look at England/UK: yes, there are many concerns. /1.
I never said or, I hope, implied (to a fair, reasonable reader) that there weren’t.
For example (not the subject of my already long 🧵which focused on the way criminal incitement & freedom of expression relate) I personally deeply dislike revocation of citizenship. /2.
But you know that’s a thing in the USA as well, including for natural born citizens.
Involuntary self-revocation (in the guise of “voluntary relinquishment”) of citizenship sounds about as Kafkaesque as it gets.
But there it is, lurking malignantly in the Land of the Free. /3.
Twitter’s full of people trumpeting near zero understanding of English law or of the convictions in respect of the violence of the last 10 days or so.
Nor does the US 1st Amendment mean what many (often Americans) seem to think.
Frustrated? Maybe this will be some use.
A🧵/1.
“Incitement” was an offence under English common law pretty much forever.
In 2008 the Serious Crime Act 2007 replaced common law “incitement” with statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime.
Incitement in respect of specific statutory offences remains. /2.
“Assisting” means roughly what you probably think it does. But, for clarity, it doesn’t require direct presence at the scene of the crime being “assisted”, or actions which are themselves part of that crime: if they assist the commission of it, that’s a criminal act itself. /3.
I’m not sure we yet know the whole truth about these men’s possible involvement, potentially as inciters to or participants in violence or even terrorism.
There are legitimate questions.
A 🧵/1.
To be guilty of terrorism in England, you don’t have to be physically present (see CPS guidance ⬇️). Similar considerations apply to some other crimes relevant to the current violent disorder.
“I was only tweeting” or “I was just asking questions” are far from safe defences. /2.
For the likes of Mr Musk or Mr Farage one might think their respective, prominent positions could protect them from criminal charges and severe consequences.
One might.
If one thought the AG, DPP, courts, police etc in England to be corrupt, weak or both.