The vote came following a motion from the Labour party, which stated that it is “parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union,” adding that there “should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered.”
And this was supplemented by a Government amendment:
parliament “recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”
There was some media quibbling about whether this meant the Government would or should publish a full plan and expose it to Commons scrutiny and vote. Overall, the effect was that the Remainers lost heart and could find barely a Remainer MP to interview. The motion also sidelined the ongoing Supreme Court hearing, which some of the media had hoped would force the Government to seek a Commons vote before triggering Article 50: naturally, MPs would see the light and vote to reject, they hoped.
So what remains for Remainer organs like the Guardian?
Two items today might indicate the direction of commentary on the long dying of the light:
First,in a flight to the familiar ground of the personal, a story about the social divisions brought about by Brexit told sad stories of family arguments that are still not fully resolved. Overwhelmingly, the accounts were provided by Remainers, and overwhelmingly the stories told of the stubborn, patronising, selfish racist views of the Brexit-supporting families. No need to 'balance' or moderate or even question vox pop pieces.
Then a bit of cultural sneering from Rafael Behr. Predicting fruther attacks form Brexiteers next year, Behr announces the need for a Great Struggle over the emotional dimensions of nationalism. He explains that, basically, Brexiteers have the wrong sorts of (vulgar) emotions:
Nationalists do not have a monopoly on patriotism, but they always claim one. The distinction is important. Patriotism is an emotional attachment to one’s country, expressed as pride in belonging to a discrete cultural community.It can be justified or irrational; gentle or aggressive; nuanced or crude; passionate or fond.
He goes on to explain that he is fully patriotic in this nicer sense:
The strongest surge of patriotic feeling I had in 2016 was in response to the death of Victoria Wood. Her ear for the inflections of the language, exploring contours of class and regional identity, and her gift for communicating that insight with self-deprecating humour were quintessentially British. She made me feel lucky to be British, so I could be in on the joke.
And ends with:
Brexit is as dull and soulless as the EU institutions it opposes. As a referendum campaign it struck a chord. As a process it is without music or poetry or any of the cultural depth on which nation-building depends. As a vehicle for the assertion of British exceptionalism it is exceptionally joyless: the creation of uncreative politicians who have nothing special to offer but belief in their own specialness. The more their mediocrity is exposed, the harder they will try to bolster their cause with appeals to patriotic duty.....But there is also a patriotism of nonconformity that cannot be bullied into allegiance. It is not the flag-waving, oath-swearing kind of patriotism, but it is no less indigenous to these islands. Its anthems might not be rousing, but they are more fun. How do we assert this gentler version of British greatness?
No comments:
Post a Comment