Anti-immigrant parties, often with roots in fascist and neo-Nazi organisations, have encroached on the mainstream in pretty much every European country. Ultra-nationalists are the main opposition in Germany; in Austria they are in coalition government. Democracy in Poland and Hungary has been twisted out of shape by authoritarian regimes that suffocate political opposition, vilify dissent and foment racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and antisemitism...This emergent league of xenophobes is bound by few taboos, but it does not seek to dismantle the EU.[Why -- because] illiberal causes are better advanced from within the union, because leaving the club is a fast-track to diminished influence. (A point well illustrated by the UK experience.)
Hang on though -- isn't the EU a bastion of liberal rights, the only hope in an insane world? Not if it is itself captured by loonies, it seems:
Next week’s elections to the European parliament are likely to boost the profile of radical nationalists. They don’t need to achieve spectacular breakthroughs to have an impact. It is sufficient to instil panic in moderate parties, which then mimic the populists’ rhetoric and co-opt parts of their agenda....In many countries “Europe” is defined, explicitly or in coded terms, as a white Christian entity with values that are undermined by Muslim interlopers
So:
It gets harder to sell “remain” as an antidote to the politics of Nigel Farage when so many EU countries are incubating their own virulent strains of Faragism. For the same reason, leavers crave success for any movement that undermines the EU’s moral authority....Eurosceptic Tories will breathlessly narrate the results as a tale of surging anti-Brussels revolution across the continent. The walls are coming down, they will cry. All the more reason to get out quick.
But:
The reality is likely to be less dramatic. Conventional European politics has not been abolished. Social democrats, liberals and moderate conservatives will still probably dominate the European parliament. ... There is no denying a sinister pattern of resurgent nationalism across Europe, but it is neither accurate nor helpful to depict it in fatalistic terms, as if the continent inevitably cycles through harrowing darkness every few generations and, tragically, it is now our turn. It is also misleading to view the challenge exclusively as a crisis for EU institutions. [so the impact discussed above is not likely to be significant after all? Why should we worry then?]
Because we must not encourage Brexiteers:
That is how Brexiteers would like it to be framed. It plays to a self-mythologising view of Britain as a place of innate moderation, immune to the kind of ideological excesses found among cold-hearted Germans and hot-blooded Italians.
The headlibne emphasises the major point -- that Brexiteer analysis is just wrong.
Delivering Brexit won’t quell the forces of nationalism, as Eurosceptics might hope
It is wrong not for any of the usual reasons, but because it apparently thinks that Brexit will quell European nationalism, despite what was said above about 'craving success' for such movements! could be a Gurdudnida typo/subediting cockup of course -- perhaps it was supposed to read 'Brexit won't fuel the forces of nationalism', or 'as Europhiles might hope'?
We need to refresh the view of Brexiteers as beyond the pale before proceeding. One thing can be agreed:
There is an undeclared boundary between vulgar, shaven-headed nationalism and a genteel, tweedy kind; between the Ukip that Farage feels he must disown and the Brexit party he has founded instead. In terms of the underlying prejudices, the distinction is less clear. [less clear to Gurdian writers that is]
Overall, as usual, we alone can draw solemn lessons from history:
Two lessons from history are relevant here. First, giving aggressive nationalists everything they want has never succeeded in quelling nationalism. Second, Britain has never avoided entanglement in European crises [a very polite way to put it] , although it has often been tempted to try. The European project, conceived in the 20th century as a vehicle for the elimination of conflict between nations [nothing to do with neo-liberalism of course] , is facing twin threats: the rise of chauvinist, authoritarian forces within its borders, and extraordinary political sponsorship of that agenda by a US president who prefers the company of despots to that of democrats....[why don't we join a customs union with the USA and reform it from within?]
There is still a gap from that position to the argument that therefore we should remain in the EC dominated EU, but the symbolic struggle is the thing? Forget confusing specific political argument -- let's go for virtue- signalling :
In that light, the strategic and moral choice [ah yes] facing every British politician is whether to be allied with the wreckers of liberal Europe or with the resistance.
The Gudina offers further hope for resisters everywhere in its fashion pages:
The pinstripe suit used to be all about power. It’s time to reclaim it
Notorious devotees include Nigel Farage and Gordon Gekko-style bankers, but the fabric is finding a new life as part of the fashionable man’s wardrobe.
But, as with so many other things, Farage is very much out of step. In recent years, the pinstripe has been reclaimed from stuffy devotees such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Gordon Gekko-style financiers and dictators such as Kim Jong-un. “Pinstripe is the fabric that refuses to die,” says Charlie Baker-Collingwood, founder of Henry Herbert tailors. “We used to sell lots of pinstripe in the 80s...The cloth has reinvented itself since then, though. People shouldn’t be afraid of its business or even rightwing connotations – you can even pair it with trainers.
Perhaps Gurdina resisters might borrow a tip from 'The fighter Conor McGregor', who
had a custom pinstripe made for his match against Floyd Mayweather, with the stripes spelling out “Fuck you” in a very tailored provocation of his opponent.
Nothing vulgar or shaven-headed about that!
No comments:
Post a Comment