@stonemuse Thank you for taking so much time to consider that tweet thread on trade. I am sorry that the burden of taking on such complex arguments seems to fall only on your shoulders.
I have tweeted back to him to ask why he takes that step of subtracting the US, and not having a Middle East category. Let's see if he replies. My take would be 1) he is one of many sceptics that we will manage a big replacement deal with the US while Trump is POTUS, and 2) I wonder what else in the ME is significant? Dubai? What do we actually export to Dubai? And how big is it or other UAE countries really? As we know from the World Cup discussions, Qatar has a pop. of only 2m, of which many are semi-slave immigrants.
Some points in answer to some of yours:
The UK most certainly exports a lot to the EU, even if it is decreasing. But these sales do not happen because of the Single Market – they would have happened anyway.
That is a most sweeping statement. Take where I live. It's true that Tesco, Next and M&S all arrived in the Czech Republic before the country joined the EU and the single market. However M&S only with a franchise initially. That all changed around 2008, and three years ago, they started trucking in fresh food, to the delight not only of watercress eaters like me, but a lot of middle class Czechs who despair of the other chains. It is a huge success. However they have put their expansion plans on hold because of Brexit. They already have to charge a premium of around 10% and tariffs would just put the price barrier so high the Czechs would stop buying ( a former M&S Czech guy has set up a kind of Czech M&S food chain).
Meanwhile there are strong and persistent rumours that Tesco are pulling out of Central Europe completely. They have put their property portfolio here into a separate company, which I am told is a sure sign. To what extent Brexit is a factor, we will only know from the CEO, Dave Lewis, once it is announced. But he is ex Unilever and those guys know the value of the Single Market.
When we leave, we will still have to comply with EU rules and standards. So what? We have to do that wherever we export by complying with local rules, regulations and standards.
I am not sure many hard Brexiteers are as sanguine as you are on this. That is one of their excuses for leaving the Single Market. Those pesky EU rules.
Finally, once again you point to UK-EU trade falling. To which I say again, why is a significant factor not the sluggish eurozone recovery after the crisis? Now that those economies are recovering, British exports to them would recover too (were it not for our self-inflicted uncertainty - see my M&S point above). The issue can be understood by considering an established big British international brand. I struggled to think of one, but let's try it with Gordons Gin (or any British rival brand). Let's assume that they have seen sales falling in the EU since 2008, because people cut back on premium spirits in hard times. Now, that sector in the EU is resurgent. Diageo also considers expansion in China. However, in the EU drinkers already know Gordons. In China they don't, and they won't be able to tell the difference with the knock-offs. The marketing costs as % of sales will be much higher in China. It is always more profitable to sell in markets where your brands are established and well liked. So you do not want to chuck away those markets - the markets of the EU - just because Dr Liam Fox, who has never held a senior marketing position except of himself - claims he is going to do some great deal with China or India (as yet entirely without visible progress)
I cannot see there being a second referendum under any circumstances.
Me neither, far too democratic. Nor can I see how a vote in principle for or against the deal in Parliament would work, especially as there is no sign there will be a complete deal by 2019 anyway. Sure
@Southbank has frequently used that phrase, and presumably had them in mind when he wrote (my emphasis in bold)
"And unfortunately in the process it comes across as despising ordinary people who voted for Brexit and painting them as stupid and gullible. Is the idea, do you think, that if you insult people for long enought they will change their minds?"
Thread going well. It's been virtually all Remainers for two pages, except for one Brexiter who's just said 'I give up'
To be fair as a remainer I have nothing but respect for the way @stonemuse has handled himself and his views on this thread and the others. I enjoy reading his posts and I look forward to his response. I would like to think most of us on this thread agree his posts are constructive and polite
hear, hear.
And @stonemuse is right, there is a lot to absorb in that thread. It's reasonable for him to consider whether there is other data which might at the very least suggest a less dark outcome than the author concludes. And he didn't ask me to set him this homework.
The trade issue is really important. Can we really cut better deals on our own, compared to if we stay in the EU; or in the single market? Increasingly I think the evidence is stacking up that we cannot, but if anyone can put a counter-argument, @stonemuse can. Especially as @Dippenhall has given up and started blaming everything on the "liberal elite", while admitting he doesn't really know what it is. Poor. I don't think he would chuck around phrases like "flat back four" or "false nine" on the relevant threads without being quite clear what they mean.
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
On a point of information, assuming stonemuse's figures are correct (he claims to have sourced them previously so I will believe they are accurate to some degree) and our export figures have been growing faster for the rest of the world than the EU, doesn't this imply that the Brexiter claim that the EU harms our ability to grow our trade with the rest of the world is false and in fact the growth of our exports to ROW between 2005 and 2015 has been helped, not hindered as part of the largest and most desirable market in the world, which is exactly what all of our largest trading partners told us in the run up to the referendum?
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
I might have got this wrong, as I don't buy into the 'elite' argument myself, but I think the point people are making is not that they think most remainers are part of the elite, but that they are guided and influenced by the elite.
As I say, I could have totally the wrong end of the stick, as I think worryingly far more people are influenced by our gutter press, it makes me so sad inside knowing The f****** Sun is the highest selling newspaper in the UK, even when I was a kid doing my paper round I only read Striker.
And before people start feeling relieved that Robert Peston has defined himself as one of the LME..let's take a look at a very similar "media" person. Liam Halligan. Both from North West London, but unlike Peston, he went to a posh school. So, is Halligan as metropolitan as Peston? Yep. "Elite"? Well if Peston is a benchmark, then deffo yes, even more so. Which leaves "liberal". Halligan deffo isn't liberal. Indeed his links to Russia trouble me.
So in fact the whole elite thing is completely bogus, Brexit all comes down to your political and social worldview.
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
I'd also like to see this analysis Southbank keeps going on about. I posted the source of the most comprehensive analysis post referendum of the make-up of Leavers and Remainers and nowhere does it indicate there is an elite element to the Remain vote, nor that Remainers do not believe in popular sovereignty. He has still yet to identify the characteristics of who he believes makes up the elite apart from his belief that the elite overwhelmingly voted to remain. Generally speaking, the below groups voted to remain:
Educated people Young to middle aged people Non-whites Residents of large cities The Scots The Northern Irish Left-wingers Full time workers Part time workers Mortgage holders Private renters
That much has been shown by analysis and vote spread.
If we also look at those who were publicly in favour of remain, most economists, industry leaders, job creators and heads of our largest exporters were in that make up.
Southbank can keep believing that this elite he's so petrified of were the remainers and their goals and objectives run contra to the interests of the downtrodden masses who represent true British values. But there is no evidence whatsoever to justify his paranoia.
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow. I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
Relaxed ? I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory.
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
We can speculate about future trade deals, freedom of movement, the Irish Border, who owns the C.D.s etc, etc, but breaking the whole brexit thing down to its basics is like this. You are a member of a Bowls/Golf/snooker club with 27 members and decided you want to leave. You pay your subscription and tell the other 27 that you believe you could get a better game elsewhere, BUT you still wish to play on a day of your choosing, with or against the members of your choosing, and you do not wish to pay your subscript or abide by the club rules. When they tell you to bugger off you accuse them of being unreasonable.
Pontificate, speculate and guess all you like about a trade deal but my contact (as previously posted) at the very top of this government and involved said that if we did not get a trade deal "We would be fucked".
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow. I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
I’m not too sure about better politicians emerging in due course seeing as we have another 5 years of the Tories, propped up by the DUP. Not saying Labour or whoever would do any better but the negotiations are gonna be on the Tories up to leaving and after. They’re all over the shop and internally they can’t work out what they want as a party, let alone for a nation
Relaxed ? I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
We’ve been massively underprepared. You only have to listen to David Davis answer certain questions, he hasn’t a clue how to go about this for a multitude of reasons, be that us thinking we could tackle our trading relationship first, internal politics in the Tory party or plain right arrogance and an assumption that undoing 40 years of statutes, laws, directives and regulations could be done in 2 years, the way we’ve gone about it.
our contributions to the EU have been positive on a number of levels, but I believe solidarity within the remaining EU States is more important to them than our relationship with us. If that means they have to cut their nose off to spite their face a bit, then so be it. The EU will dig their heels in to protect the institution. Whether that’s right or wrong or silly or even unfair and they are making an example of us, then quite frankly, who cares. We left. I see the negotiations as a bit like me going to my boss and asking for a pay rise. I contribute to my work and do a number of things well, but if he doesn’t want to pay me more, then who am I to say ‘oh you should be paying me more, I can’t believe we’re not going to discuss it.’
It’s a bit of a crude analogy I grant you, but the nuclear option is I quit, a bit like we could leave without a deal. Bad for my boss because he might lose a good worker, bad for me because I could leave without another job to go to. Who knows. As you say I think there will be a deal, but what that looks like will probably disappoint most on remain and leave
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory. Agree but these are tit for tat on both sides and we could go back and forth all day pulling out stupid comments from our government as well
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
might have helped if May hadn’t have carried out her vanity project by calling a general election this summer. The EU had to stop and wait for her stupidity
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
I might have got this wrong, as I don't buy into the 'elite' argument myself, but I think the point people are making is not that they think most remainers are part of the elite, but that they are guided and influenced by the elite.
As I say, I could have totally the wrong end of the stick, as I think worryingly far more people are influenced by our gutter press, it makes me so sad inside knowing The f****** Sun is the highest selling newspaper in the UK, even when I was a kid doing my paper round I only read Striker.
Quite right on your first point. Prague and others consistently try to put words in my mouth. My point is that the elites are mainly Remainers, not that all Remainers are part of the elite. This matters because the elites are increasingly opposed to popular sovereignty and use explicitly anti-democratic arguments to justify their opposition. (Arguments that have been used throughout history by the way, that the working class were too uneducated to be given the vote or that woman were too emotional to be given the vote.) The elites have their hands on the levers of power and are using that power to sabotage Brexit in ways I outlined in my last post.
Apologies if these two worrying organisations have been scrutinised on here but I am far more concerned about them than imagined future disasters. Legatum Institute and the new Institute for Free Trade
Legatum Institute https://www.li.com/about/about-the-legatum-institute Allegedly funded by an offshore billionnaire. Baroness Stroud took it over before the referendum and promoted individuals from what must be the wierdest Christian sect on earth - Evangelicals for Brexit - such as Tim Montgomerie, founder of the Conservative Christian fellowship, who sits on the board. Tim and former M PDavid Burrowes told believers that voting leave was a Christian duty. ''From Old Testament Israel to Pentecost and the future New Jerusalem, distinct nationhood and self-determination is seen as a blessing from God'' Matthew Elliot, who some of you might know as Chief Executive of Vote Leave, was recruited to the board by Stroud. He promoted, along with the shameful Dominic Cummings (Vote Leave campaign director), a group called 'Christians4Britain'. When they thought notrue christian would buy their cause they recruited Guardian columnist, (vicar) Giles Fraser. Vicar Giles said, ''the laity and other clergy need to persuade people of the value of being a BeLeaver''
Set up to advise the Government on how to navigate Brexit by Hard Brexit Dan Hannan MEP, it claims to be non-partisan! This westminster think tank refuses to declare who is funding it. It's advisory board consists of Michael Howard, Jorge Quiroga (ex vice President of Bolivia), Tony Abbott (ex Australian Prime Minister) and Jose Maria Aznar, (former Spanish PM who is a director of Murdoch's NewCorp.)
These right wing think tanks and their members and funders are probably the people most likely to gain from the post Brexit economic changes the UK is facing. Why are the press not hounding these influential behind the scenes organisations instead of stirring up hypothetical fears of post Brexit armageddon?
The no deal option has gained in attraction to the brexiters, not because it would be better than a 'bad deal', not even because it is a negotiating tactic, but because a no deal option is what will happen due to the UK being unable to negotiate any deal because the UK basically doesn't have a clue what it wants or what it is doing, or what the answers to the reasonable EU questions actually are. The UK will be the kid who slumps into their arms on the desk because the maths is too hard, and they accept they will fail the exam. When questioned the kid simply says 'I don't care'.
Hi @Imissthepeanutman . I respect your concerns, even though I don't live in the UK permanently any more (and I will come back to that). I think it was @Addickted and @Covered End who forced me to confront that fact of life, way before the actual vote, and I was grateful for their robust arguments that helped me to get there. In short, when I started my new life in CZ, the week after our return to the Valley, the UK population was 54m. It is now 65m, and as you say, it is a very small place. I understand that pressure on the NHS, schools, transport, and the care system, can be traced to this factor.
I would be very interested to know if your son's girlfriend has said anything about the referendum and the impact on her, and her plans. I too have a Czech friend who has moved to the UK to work in the care sector. She is, it is fair to say, worried, and will probably return soon. There are only 45,000 Czechs in the UK according to official figures.
I took the opportunity to discuss this with my sons girlfriend last night. She is very happy here and really is not concerned by Brexit and doesn't feel any less 'at home' because of the referendum result. Her parents lived through difficult times in the past and she feels a sense of freedom by being here. All of her friends will be staying some of whom come from Slovakia and Romania. She knows of one couple who are going back to Czech but that is related to child care which will be easier with their parents in Czech.
I don't think we can read too much into this. My son has tried to learn czech and become exasperated with it and given up. As a consequence there is no prospect of him going to live and work in the Czech republic. Her parents came over last year and speak no english whatsoever and in this regard I think language is a big factor. My wife and I will actually be going to Prague next March.
In terms of UK politics I feel very lost. I have always in the past voted Liberal Democrat. The 2010 Coalition and tuition fees did it for me. I think Nick Clegg and Vince Cable should have tested that Coalition earlier. Labour have some good policies such as Regional Investment banks etc but are simply being false in the level of general taxation required to fund their manifesto commitments. They may well collect tax from the Super rich and Amazons of this world but the honest answer to fund a decent NHS police etc is probably a base level of paye tax at 25% plus. Whenever the Lib Dems have proposed proper funding of the NHS with hypothecated tax they get worse election results. We as a nation seem to want everything as long as someone else pays.
And in terms of my earlier inclusion of population growth stats I really feel uncomfortable with 70/75 million population. What infrastructure will we need? How long has it taken to get any progress on an additional runway at Heathrow. In terms of the South East we must be looking at a 5 lane M25. More new towns and probably house building extending out to the M25.
As I worked all my career in the Pensions Sector and the last 20 or so years focussed on closing down 200 Final Salary Schemes for the Employers that no longer wanted to fund for future service accruals I was fully aware that there are these various long term demographic issues that we are just not addressing. Its quite depressing at times.
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU. We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum. The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
I might have got this wrong, as I don't buy into the 'elite' argument myself, but I think the point people are making is not that they think most remainers are part of the elite, but that they are guided and influenced by the elite.
As I say, I could have totally the wrong end of the stick, as I think worryingly far more people are influenced by our gutter press, it makes me so sad inside knowing The f****** Sun is the highest selling newspaper in the UK, even when I was a kid doing my paper round I only read Striker.
Quite right on your first point. Prague and others consistently try to put words in my mouth. My point is that the elites are mainly Remainers, not that all Remainers are part of the elite. This matters because the elites are increasingly opposed to popular sovereignty and use explicitly anti-democratic arguments to justify their opposition. (Arguments that have been used throughout history by the way, that the working class were too uneducated to be given the vote or that woman were too emotional to be given the vote.) The elites have their hands on the levers of power and are using that power to sabotage Brexit in ways I outlined in my last post.
Until you define who you consider the elite to be your posts are just complete gibberish. From my point of view, the elites are the ones who control the balance of power in this country. Those are the newspaper and media magnates (Murdoch, the Barclays), the upper class who own most of the country's assets (the donors of the Tory and UKIP parties, almost all are Leavers) and the Etonian/privately educated, Oxbridge politxal class who have sewn up our democratic institutions (Boris Johnson, JRM, Gove etc.). They are all Leavers and they used their money, power and influence to put out the lies and propaganda that fooled enough people into voting Leave. That isn't democratic, that is a subversion of democracy and anyone who actually cares about democracy should recognise how illegitate the referendum result was. That's not my own opinion by the way but the opinion of the electoral regulators and independent observers who widely condemned the vote as corrupted by the lack of rules surrounding what campaigners could and could not do and it was not fought on fair and free grounds.
Anyone who whinges as much as you about elites and democracy must be able to recognise that a non-binding referendum where the rich and powerful were able to use their money and influence to their unfair advantage in a way that would normally be forbidden under normal election rules is suspectible to anti-democratic issues. Or since the rich and powerful you defend got you the result you wanted you don't care about corruption so long as it fits your political biases and agenda.
metropolitan elite noun [ C, + sing/pl verb ] UK /met.rəˌpɒl.ɪ.tən eˈliːt/ /met.rəˌpɑː.lə.tən ɪˈliːt/ a group of people who live in large cities and have education, money, and other advantages, who are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people living in other places: Only the out of touch metropolitan elite could regard the attack on our rural life and the desperate plight of our farmers as a source of amusement.
metropolitan elite noun [ C, + sing/pl verb ] UK /met.rəˌpɒl.ɪ.tən eˈliːt/ /met.rəˌpɑː.lə.tən ɪˈliːt/ a group of people who live in large cities and have education, money, and other advantages, who are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people living in other places: Only the out of touch metropolitan elite could regard the attack on our rural life and the desperate plight of our farmers as a source of amusement.
I don't think voters had a problem with the metropolitan elite if they were willing to line up like sheep behind Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage or JRM, the very embodiment of out of touch elites. I do not put any stock in the argument that leave voters were, in general, voting to leave to stick two fingers up at the establishment. They did it because they genuinely thought that the EU was bad for the UK (immigration, jobs, straight bananas, red tape etc.).
OK, here we go again...Johnson, Gove, Redwood, Hannan, Farage, Grayling , Patterson, the rather sinister hedge fund manager Aaron Banks the dodgy "media" types mentioned in @A-R-T-H-U-R excellent post above? Check them out on Wiki...
In political terms the charge towards Brexit has been led by the Tories. Now which party can we reasonably say has always represented the elite?
@stonemuse .....In your reply to Prague a couple of pages back you you stated you believe in Free Trade. Yet you support the UK leaving the largest Free Trade area ever created. Is this not a contradiction?
You also stated you are opposed to governments interfering in trade between countries and you are concerned about tariffs harming economic growth of developing countries.
A simple google search will allow anyone to see the massive amount of monetary aid that the EU provides to developing countries. It amounts to more than 50% of the total aid given to these countries.
Another simple google search will allow anyone to see the evidence of the many EU fair trade policies that ensure many developing countries get fair and sustainable prices for their produce. Are you opposed to these fair trade policies? Even though they are examples of governments interfering in the price of goods traded between countries?
metropolitan elite noun [ C, + sing/pl verb ] UK /met.rəˌpɒl.ɪ.tən eˈliːt/ /met.rəˌpɑː.lə.tən ɪˈliːt/ a group of people who live in large cities and have education, money, and other advantages, who are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people living in other places: Only the out of touch metropolitan elite could regard the attack on our rural life and the desperate plight of our farmers as a source of amusement.
I don't think voters had a problem with the metropolitan elite if they were willing to line up like sheep behind Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage Corbyn and all but 47 Labour MP's who supported Article 50, especially Labour MP's Graham Stringer, Kelvin Hopkins, and Roger Godsiff, and of course the largest individual donor to the Labour Party, John Mills or JRM, the very embodiment of out of touch elites. I do not put any stock in the argument that leave voters were, in general, voting to leave to stick two fingers up at the establishment. They did it because they genuinely thought that the EU was bad for the UK (immigration, jobs, straight bananas, red tape etc.).
Given that the Brexit bill has been further delayed in the Commons and will be very hard to force through the Lords; and that Theresa May has, apparently, delayed any discussion in Cabinet of post-Brexit trade deals until 2018; and the fact that there has still not been "sufficient progress" on the Brexit talks with the EU, which will go on until at least December; and that the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far; and that we are therefore in the worst-possible position with regards to negotiating an exit and a deal...
...does anyone still believe that Brexit is going to be a success?
Yep - can't wait. I can't say I expected the EU27 to be falling over themselves to get us out.
Interesting that the "divorce bill" is a sticking point, yet meanwhile at the EIB:
Under the statutes of the EIB, its shareholders can only be member states of the EU. However, it had been hoped by many in senior positions in the bank that “rational thinking” would lead to an amendment to the rule book to allow the UK to stay. (The Guardian)
So, if rational thinking is going to be introduced (in a place), then perhaps elsewhere, the parties concerned in Brexit can get a move on and sort it out.
the EU27 have already started preparing their negotiating plans for the deal, meaning the UK will be as under-prepared for the deal negotiation as we have been for the Brexit talks so far
It's up to the 27 round the table as much as it is the UK to sort out the terms - we are leaving them, not vice versa, so they need to be more prepared than us (IMO).
Guy is married to the same girl for 40 years. Decides to leave her right now and look for a better option. Guy has the phone numbers for Nicole Sherzinger, Taylor Swift, Rachel Riley etc, but they could be wrong and even then - the ladies may not answer. A year later he talks to wife about the divorce bill - she says you can't have my Wham CD's and I want half the house and both the cats. Guy thinks - Phew, I thought I was gonna get the Wham CD's but half the house has skinted me and I miss the cats. In time - the guy rents the house next door with Sherzinger, Swift and Riley - sees cats over garden fence, and buys his own CD's.
It's interesting that you say you still think it's going to be a success, but haven't given a specific reason why. Is there anything that's happening that makes you still think that?
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow. I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
Relaxed ? I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory.
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
Hi @Valiantphil thanks for replying. (A lot of people from either side of the debate disappear, rather than answer difficult questions - so, hats off!)
I totally agree with you that there doesn't appear to be any concrete reason why it will be a success. That's a big and honest admission on your part and something I have believed since day one (whenever that was). And it's also very honest of you to admit you're relying on blind "faith". I agree that we tend to make the best of every situation that is thrown our way and that this should continue. (It's obviously very irritating that this situation is so painfully self-inflicted).
Did Juncker really say "the English language is losing importance due to Brexit"? I hadn't heard that he has said that, but I can easily imagine him saying so. Because, after all, it's true, isn't it? There are 24 official languages in the EU. If we leave, there will only be two countries where English is an official language: Ireland and Malta (where it's not the primary language). So, what's inaccurate about Juncker's statement, considering the population of citizens from English language countries is diminishing from 70m to 5m? (Or, put another way, English is spoken as a first language by 13% of the EU population; if we leave, that will become 0.73%. Isn't it fair to say that if English speakers diminish by that much, the conclusion would be that it's losing its importance?) You might not like Juncker, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong. Particularly when it's demonstrably right.
OK, here we go again...Johnson, Gove, Redwood, Hannan, Farage, Grayling , Patterson, the rather sinister hedge fund manager Aaron Banks the dodgy "media" types mentioned in @A-R-T-H-U-R excellent post above? Check them out on Wiki...
In political terms the charge towards Brexit has been led by the Tories. Now which party can we reasonably say has always represented the elite?
I'm sorry but it's farcical to suggest a political elite is exclusively Tory.
A cursory check shows the following Labour paragons of the socialist ideal who are all worth way over a million and who are clearly part of the ''Labour Party left wing elite'' as seen by by Labour MP John Mann. Wealthy Labour members of Mr Corbyn’s inner circle include his chief aide Seumas Milne, shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn and shadow justice secretary Lord Faulkner (£17.5m mansion). Shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, and shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry, Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, lying Tony Blair (with his £8.6m mansion in Westminster and many many millions (obviously not important unless you are a Tory) and power and (unbelievable) continuing political influence), former business secretary Lord Mandelson (with an £8m home in Regent’s Park) former Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer.
Incidentally a quick look at Mann pre referendum is interesting He suggested of the EU, that; ''It's fundamentally undemocratic in the way it's set up. And because of the mass movements of people that's now coming to be it's downfall. It's imploding as an organisation and in my view that's why we're better to get out.”
Mr Mann joined many many Labour MPs by backing Brexit and said: “I don't want a country that's got 10 million more people living in it.
“I don't want the urbanisation that will create, I don't want the loss of quality of life that I think that will result in.
“Therefore it's better that we are able to control and choose the numbers coming into the country and the jobs that people are doing.”
The former trade union worker attacked the “absurdity” of Britain’s current immigration system, which favours EU nationals over non-EU nationals.
Mr Mann publicly accused influential ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone (and still suspended member of the party) of being a ‘Nazi apologist’ amid Labour’s anti-Semitism row, said he constantly faced a “battle” to get doctors from countries such as India into hospitals in his constituency.
Last week on LBC he said, ''The Three Strongest Brexit Supporters Here Are Me, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. But we are the majority amongst Labour voters, not amongst my parliamentary colleagues, certainly not amongst Momentum supporters.''
Lets not forget, or airbrush out from our rants, that Labour veteran Dennis Skinner joined the Leave camp along with Kate Hoey, Frank Field and Graham Stringer.
...Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory...
I can't comment on the second one, but can see how it could look a little self-contradictory, at least when taken out of context. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the first comment though. Barnier may well be jumping the gun in saying 'is losing' but I can see in a very real sense how it is possible, if not likely that the English language could lose some of its importance as a result of Brexit.
Twice in my life I have been lucky enough to represent the UK in meetings at Eurostat in Luxembourg. I (obviously) wasn't the regular representative, but was considered good enough to take on the Roger Daltry role. The first time I went, it was a duel language meeting held jointly in English and French (I understand that once upon a time they were in French). Facilities were there for other languages and several translators sat at the side translating the meeting into other EU lingos via headsets that were worn by other delegates. When I went back a second time, the meeting itself wasn't any smaller, but things had changed quite drastically. The meeting was run entirely in English, there were no official translators at the side. It had been made clear in the invitation that the organisors expected all business to be conducted in English. If anyone wanted translation services they were expected to fund their own. They didn't. Instead the delegates had all been selected on the grounds that they could speak English. At the time it seemed as if English had finally established it'd dominance over le français. But ask yourself, why should that continue? Brexit will mean that there are no countries in the EU where the official language is English. Only the Irish will have a vested interest in continuing to hold meetings in English. If we aren't a part of things, it leaves the door open for other languages to re- assert their position.
@stonemuse .....In your reply to Prague a couple of pages back you you stated you believe in Free Trade. Yet you support the UK leaving the largest Free Trade area ever created. Is this not a contradiction?
You also stated you are opposed to governments interfering in trade between countries and you are concerned about tariffs harming economic growth of developing countries.
A simple google search will allow anyone to see the massive amount of monetary aid that the EU provides to developing countries. It amounts to more than 50% of the total aid given to these countries.
Another simple google search will allow anyone to see the evidence of the many EU fair trade policies that ensure many developing countries get fair and sustainable prices for their produce. Are you opposed to these fair trade policies? Even though they are examples of governments interfering in the price of goods traded between countries?
It’s a free trade area for members.
Will revert in more detail when I get a chance later in the week.
Already spent far too long on this on Saturday when I should have been working .... coincidentally on a trade seminar presentation.
OK, here we go again...Johnson, Gove, Redwood, Hannan, Farage, Grayling , Patterson, the rather sinister hedge fund manager Aaron Banks the dodgy "media" types mentioned in @A-R-T-H-U-R excellent post above? Check them out on Wiki...
In political terms the charge towards Brexit has been led by the Tories. Now which party can we reasonably say has always represented the elite?
Did I say the elite are remainers?
I linked a book that I knew some would find interesting and gave a dictionary definition because the question was still open.
Interesting article in Guardian this summer - extracts below (word limit forced editing!) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/20/metropolitan-elite-britains-new-pariah-class The metropolitan elite: Britain’s new pariah class The ‘metropolitan elite’ has become the catch-all term of abuse against Westminster politicians and diverse voices. But is it a real explosion of rage against a broken system, or an easy way to spread intolerance?
What is a metropolitan? Who is in the metropolitan elite? While plainly you can be a member of an elite without being metropolitan, is it possible to be a “metropolitan” without being in the “elite”? (Not really; the metropole doesn’t really want you unless you have money.) What marks you out as a metropolitan, and is there any chance that you could slough it off?
The Labour party has now lost two of its potential leaders to the curse of the metropolitan – Chuka Umunna stood down as a result of press intrusion, the greatest extent of which so far to emerge is a piece in the Daily Mail about the fact that he’s a member of a club with eel-skin walls (this is about as metropolitan elite as you get). Tristram Hunt didn’t have to stand down, having failed to find enough support in the first place, owing to his perceived membership of this clique.
The Labour MPs David Lammy and Simon Danczuk have both been vocal in the past, and more so since the loss of the election, about the real source of the party’s problems; Danczuk said last June that the party had been “hijacked” by the metropolitan elite. “I’ve been the one who’s banging on about this,” he says equably, “this north London elite dominating the Labour party. Ed Miliband captured that perfectly; unhealthily for Labour, in my opinion. They’re too politically correct, they have an idealised view of what working people like or think is important. I often think they see working people as being concerned primarily about economic issues, so they talk about redistribution, but they forget or don’t understand the cultural aspects of working people’s lives.”
Lammy, who said something similar in 2013, – “The Labour party can’t just be the party of Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill” – picks up this point about politicians, their orthodoxy and vocabulary. “They all live in London, they live in certain areas, they go to the same restaurants, they go to the same dinner parties, they all know each other. The lines feel rehearsed because they’re positions that have been maintained really since these kids were being tutored to pass their verbal reasoning at 11 or 13+. And actually, most people don’t have those codes of behaviour.
An orthodoxy, a way of talking about things, binds the elite, but there is, of course, more than that – an additional something that makes some individuals scream “metropolitan” while others don’t, an extra dimension that means there is always more packed into this term than wealth and geography. For the sake of Labour’s beating heart, not to mention that of the Conservatives (it may be a little too late for the Lib Dems), we really need to nail down what it means; at least so the ones who can’t avoid the label can own it.
The charge of “metropolitan elitism” from the left vibrates with anger at Labour’s economic liberalism – it is an explosion of rage at these urbane know-alls who love immigration because it makes plumbing cheaper, but never think about what it does to communities where plumbing used to be a really good job. The same charge, from the right, relates more to social liberalism – a resentment of these moneyed cliques in which bohemianism has triumphed, and people who ought to be big and small “c” conservatives are now campaigning in favour of gay marriage and tolerating all kinds of previously insurmountable differences.
But if the term itself is incredibly loose, that doesn’t mean we don’t understand it. Roberts cites the MP Dan Jarvis, who disappointed many in the Labour party by declining to stand for the leadership. “If you look at the weight he was getting behind him, he’s not part of the metropolitan elite.” Why not? “I don’t know. Ex-army.” Is it the real-ness of the armed forces that protects Jarvis from the taint of urbaneness? Could it be that easy, and does it have to be that hard?
There is a relationship between our “metropolitan elite” and the “liberal elite” of American politics, a spectre that grew from the start of the century and was most pithily summarised by the US columnist Dave Barry in 2004: “Godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving leftwing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts.” David Graeber, an American who teaches anthropology at LSE and was one of the originators of the Occupy movement, describes a subtle cultural difference in the area of leftie elitism: “The anti-intellectualism here is interesting. In America, there is much more of a sense that if you’re from a working-class background, you can’t really become a part of the cultural elite, hence the resentment of those guys. They hate the cultural elite much more than the economic one; you can imagine getting rich, but you know your kid is never going to be opera critic of the New York Times. Here, there is a working-class resentment of working-class people who did get ahead, which you don’t get so much in the US.”
Presidents in the US have to affect a non-Harvard image, whether by wearing cowboy boots or hamming up an accent, but you can be a rich, highly educated Democrat without betraying the roots of the party. The Labour party, by contrast, was set up to represent people who weren’t of the establishment, yet has been colonised by the establishment: it now falls upon its leaders to affect authenticity and glottal stops, play down the PPE degree and play up the football allegiance, to overcome this minor impediment that their understanding of hardship is entirely theoretical. I sometimes think, even though “metropolitan elite” is often code for anti-intellectualism, the biggest anti-intellectuals in all of this are the politicians themselves, who think that presenting a credible ordinariness means never seeming too clever or too educated. The early pioneers of the Labour movement would, I like to think (hard to check), have said that learning was the last thing anyone needed to be embarrassed about.
The meaning of “metropolitan elite” is not fixed. It will change in the mouth of whoever says it, and it will take on the shape of the person to whom, for whatever combination of reasons, it is thrown at and sticks. But the anger is real: parliament, as the last century understood it, represented the people to the state. Parliament now represents the state to the people. And maybe “metropolitan” is a way to say that, and to give it a face.
Comments
I have tweeted back to him to ask why he takes that step of subtracting the US, and not having a Middle East category. Let's see if he replies. My take would be 1) he is one of many sceptics that we will manage a big replacement deal with the US while Trump is POTUS, and 2) I wonder what else in the ME is significant? Dubai? What do we actually export to Dubai? And how big is it or other UAE countries really? As we know from the World Cup discussions, Qatar has a pop. of only 2m, of which many are semi-slave immigrants.
Some points in answer to some of yours:
The UK most certainly exports a lot to the EU, even if it is decreasing. But these sales do not happen because of the Single Market – they would have happened anyway.
That is a most sweeping statement. Take where I live. It's true that Tesco, Next and M&S all arrived in the Czech Republic before the country joined the EU and the single market. However M&S only with a franchise initially. That all changed around 2008, and three years ago, they started trucking in fresh food, to the delight not only of watercress eaters like me, but a lot of middle class Czechs who despair of the other chains. It is a huge success. However they have put their expansion plans on hold because of Brexit. They already have to charge a premium of around 10% and tariffs would just put the price barrier so high the Czechs would stop buying ( a former M&S Czech guy has set up a kind of Czech M&S food chain).
Meanwhile there are strong and persistent rumours that Tesco are pulling out of Central Europe completely. They have put their property portfolio here into a separate company, which I am told is a sure sign. To what extent Brexit is a factor, we will only know from the CEO, Dave Lewis, once it is announced. But he is ex Unilever and those guys know the value of the Single Market.
When we leave, we will still have to comply with EU rules and standards. So what? We have to do that wherever we export by complying with local rules, regulations and standards.
I am not sure many hard Brexiteers are as sanguine as you are on this. That is one of their excuses for leaving the Single Market. Those pesky EU rules.
Finally, once again you point to UK-EU trade falling. To which I say again, why is a significant factor not the sluggish eurozone recovery after the crisis? Now that those economies are recovering, British exports to them would recover too (were it not for our self-inflicted uncertainty - see my M&S point above). The issue can be understood by considering an established big British international brand. I struggled to think of one, but let's try it with Gordons Gin (or any British rival brand). Let's assume that they have seen sales falling in the EU since 2008, because people cut back on premium spirits in hard times. Now, that sector in the EU is resurgent. Diageo also considers expansion in China. However, in the EU drinkers already know Gordons. In China they don't, and they won't be able to tell the difference with the knock-offs. The marketing costs as % of sales will be much higher in China. It is always more profitable to sell in markets where your brands are established and well liked. So you do not want to chuck away those markets - the markets of the EU - just because Dr Liam Fox, who has never held a senior marketing position except of himself - claims he is going to do some great deal with China or India (as yet entirely without visible progress)
Also, I don't understand why anyone would be relaxed about our negotiating position on the post-Brexit deal being so woefully under-prepared than our negotiating partner's. If we do leave the EU, we will need a deal. Why would it be acceptable for us to be less well prepared than the organisation with whom we want to agree that deal?
In the final analysis, what separates Leavers and Remainers is not about trade or economics. Leavers believe in popular sovereignty and Remainers do not. Remainers like Prague are upset because they are identified with the majority of the business, media and political elite who want us to Remain. It is not a comfortable place to be on the side of the powerful against the rest, I can understand that, but it does not change the facts. The elite in the UK does not want to leave the EU.
We have a government run predominantly by Leavers that is crippled by indecision and is leading us nowhere. It has been reduced to begging the EU for help against the popular sovereignty of the British people as expressed in the Referendum.
The EU has no incentive to help or to offer good terms. There is a good chance that the indecisiveness of the UK government will lead to a breakdown very soon in the whole process.
What is "popular sovereignty"? How does the averag Joe wake up and feel that, in his daily life he has lost whatever it is?
Your portrayal of my position is incorrect. I have no problem being identified with the positions of people like say, Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP) re Brexit, not least because in a tiny way his various businesses have been among my clients for the last 24 years. My problem is the preposterous idea that at least 16 million of us Remainers are all "elite". And the unspoken but clearly visible narrative that we are alright Jack and we do not care about the "plight" of the "disenchanted" Brexiteers, all at least 17 million of them. This narrative is as insulting to me and many others as it is for Brexiteers on here to occasionally be called stupid, I am sick and tired of it, and I am going to call it out whenever I come across it.
As I say, I could have totally the wrong end of the stick, as I think worryingly far more people are influenced by our gutter press, it makes me so sad inside knowing The f****** Sun is the highest selling newspaper in the UK, even when I was a kid doing my paper round I only read Striker.
So in fact the whole elite thing is completely bogus, Brexit all comes down to your political and social worldview.
Educated people
Young to middle aged people
Non-whites
Residents of large cities
The Scots
The Northern Irish
Left-wingers
Full time workers
Part time workers
Mortgage holders
Private renters
That much has been shown by analysis and vote spread.
If we also look at those who were publicly in favour of remain, most economists, industry leaders, job creators and heads of our largest exporters were in that make up.
Southbank can keep believing that this elite he's so petrified of were the remainers and their goals and objectives run contra to the interests of the downtrodden masses who represent true British values. But there is no evidence whatsoever to justify his paranoia.
There are so many "unknowns" about Brexit as a whole and it seems that we either fall into the "scared of the unknown certainties" OR "excited by unknown opportunities" I think this pretty much defines the Stay or Leave camps (post referendum).
Right from the start, the UK Gov was saying that we won't be "revealing our hand" before we get to the negotiating table - and yes, this could also be taken to mean that we have no idea what we are going to ask for/refuse to allow.
I don't believe there is any concrete reason why it will be a success, but my faith is in the UK as a nation to deal with post-Brexit issues as they arise. Yes - for this we need sturdy politicians, and frankly we could do with better than we have at present, but I believe that better politicians will emerge in due course.
Relaxed ?
I am a bit of a cynic generally when it comes to governments, and I don't believe that we are as under-prepared as we make out. Of course I could be badly wrong, but a major trading partner and chunky contributor to the EU budget is walking away, at a time when the poorer of the 27 are worried about funding and one of the major pillars (Spain) is fracturing. If I was Pres of the EU, I would be looking to make Brexit as painless as possible for the UK, and developing a stable ongoing relationship. IMO There will be a deal, but we want to make the 27 think that we will leave without a deal if nothing can be agreed in time.
Quotes like these are unhelpful to the process:
Juncker: (The English language is losing importance due to Brexit).
Barnier: ("The British Minister of Defence will no longer be able to sit on the Council of Defence Ministers and London will leave the European Defence Agency / EU-wide police force (Europol)...........Nevertheless, the union of 27 and the UK will have to join forces to deal with common threats as the safety of our fellow citizens is not being marketed).
The first quote is bizarre and the second is self-contradictory.
The 27 and UK should be talking all day everyday and sorting it out - as they should have been doing since June 2016.
You are a member of a Bowls/Golf/snooker club with 27 members and decided you want to leave.
You pay your subscription and tell the other 27 that you believe you could get a better game elsewhere, BUT you still wish to play on a day of your choosing, with or against the members of your choosing, and you do not wish to pay your subscript or abide by the club rules.
When they tell you to bugger off you accuse them of being unreasonable.
Pontificate, speculate and guess all you like about a trade deal but my contact (as previously posted) at the very top of this government and involved said that if we did not get a trade deal "We would be fucked".
This matters because the elites are increasingly opposed to popular sovereignty and use explicitly anti-democratic arguments to justify their opposition. (Arguments that have been used throughout history by the way, that the working class were too uneducated to be given the vote or that woman were too emotional to be given the vote.) The elites have their hands on the levers of power and are using that power to sabotage Brexit in ways I outlined in my last post.
Legatum Institute and the new Institute for Free Trade
Legatum Institute
https://www.li.com/about/about-the-legatum-institute
Allegedly funded by an offshore billionnaire.
Baroness Stroud took it over before the referendum and promoted individuals from what must be the wierdest Christian sect on earth - Evangelicals for Brexit - such as Tim Montgomerie, founder of the Conservative Christian fellowship, who sits on the board. Tim and former M PDavid Burrowes told believers that voting leave was a Christian duty.
''From Old Testament Israel to Pentecost and the future New Jerusalem, distinct nationhood and self-determination is seen as a blessing from God''
Matthew Elliot, who some of you might know as Chief Executive of Vote Leave, was recruited to the board by Stroud. He promoted, along with the shameful Dominic Cummings (Vote Leave campaign director), a group called 'Christians4Britain'. When they thought notrue christian would buy their cause they recruited Guardian columnist, (vicar) Giles Fraser. Vicar Giles said, ''the laity and other clergy need to persuade people of the value of being a BeLeaver''
PS Vote Leave gave an astonishing £625,000 to a student to run the 'BeLeave' Facebook page and Twitter account.
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/vote-leave-gives-fashion-student-darren-grimes-625000-brexit-eu-referendum-beleave-a7169601.html
More worrying is the Institute for Free Trade
http://www.ifreetrade.org/about
Set up to advise the Government on how to navigate Brexit by Hard Brexit Dan Hannan MEP, it claims to be non-partisan! This westminster think tank refuses to declare who is funding it.
It's advisory board consists of Michael Howard, Jorge Quiroga (ex vice President of Bolivia), Tony Abbott (ex Australian Prime Minister) and Jose Maria Aznar, (former Spanish PM who is a director of Murdoch's NewCorp.)
These right wing think tanks and their members and funders are probably the people most likely to gain from the post Brexit economic changes the UK is facing. Why are the press not hounding these influential behind the scenes organisations instead of stirring up hypothetical fears of post Brexit armageddon?
The UK will be the kid who slumps into their arms on the desk because the maths is too hard, and they accept they will fail the exam. When questioned the kid simply says 'I don't care'.
Hi @Imissthepeanutman . I respect your concerns, even though I don't live in the UK permanently any more (and I will come back to that). I think it was @Addickted and @Covered End who forced me to confront that fact of life, way before the actual vote, and I was grateful for their robust arguments that helped me to get there. In short, when I started my new life in CZ, the week after our return to the Valley, the UK population was 54m. It is now 65m, and as you say, it is a very small place. I understand that pressure on the NHS, schools, transport, and the care system, can be traced to this factor.
I would be very interested to know if your son's girlfriend has said anything about the referendum and the impact on her, and her plans. I too have a Czech friend who has moved to the UK to work in the care sector. She is, it is fair to say, worried, and will probably return soon. There are only 45,000 Czechs in the UK according to official figures.
Hi @PragueAddick
I took the opportunity to discuss this with my sons girlfriend last night. She is very happy here and really is not concerned by Brexit and doesn't feel any less 'at home' because of the referendum result. Her parents lived through difficult times in the past and she feels a sense of freedom by being here. All of her friends will be staying some of whom come from Slovakia and Romania. She knows of one couple who are going back to Czech but that is related to child care which will be easier with their parents in Czech.
I don't think we can read too much into this. My son has tried to learn czech and become exasperated with it and given up. As a consequence there is no prospect of him going to live and work in the Czech republic. Her parents came over last year and speak no english whatsoever and in this regard I think language is a big factor. My wife and I will actually be going to Prague next March.
In terms of UK politics I feel very lost. I have always in the past voted Liberal Democrat. The 2010 Coalition and tuition fees did it for me. I think Nick Clegg and Vince Cable should have tested that Coalition earlier. Labour have some good policies such as Regional Investment banks etc but are simply being false in the level of general taxation required to fund their manifesto commitments. They may well collect tax from the Super rich and Amazons of this world but the honest answer to fund a decent NHS police etc is probably a base level of paye tax at 25% plus. Whenever the Lib Dems have proposed proper funding of the NHS with hypothecated tax they get worse election results. We as a nation seem to want everything as long as someone else pays.
And in terms of my earlier inclusion of population growth stats I really feel uncomfortable with 70/75 million population. What infrastructure will we need? How long has it taken to get any progress on an additional runway at Heathrow. In terms of the South East we must be looking at a 5 lane M25. More new towns and probably house building extending out to the M25.
As I worked all my career in the Pensions Sector and the last 20 or so years focussed on closing down 200 Final Salary Schemes for the Employers that no longer wanted to fund for future service accruals I was fully aware that there are these various long term demographic issues that we are just not addressing. Its quite depressing at times.
Anyone who whinges as much as you about elites and democracy must be able to recognise that a non-binding referendum where the rich and powerful were able to use their money and influence to their unfair advantage in a way that would normally be forbidden under normal election rules is suspectible to anti-democratic issues. Or since the rich and powerful you defend got you the result you wanted you don't care about corruption so long as it fits your political biases and agenda.
metropolitan elite
noun [ C, + sing/pl verb ] UK /met.rəˌpɒl.ɪ.tən eˈliːt/ /met.rəˌpɑː.lə.tən ɪˈliːt/
a group of people who live in large cities and have education, money, and other advantages, who are seen as not understanding the problems and views of ordinary people living in other places:
Only the out of touch metropolitan elite could regard the attack on our rural life and the desperate plight of our farmers as a source of amusement.
Nah sorry guys, most "elite" are Remainers???
OK, here we go again...Johnson, Gove, Redwood, Hannan, Farage, Grayling , Patterson, the rather sinister hedge fund manager Aaron Banks the dodgy "media" types mentioned in @A-R-T-H-U-R excellent post above? Check them out on Wiki...
In political terms the charge towards Brexit has been led by the Tories. Now which party can we reasonably say has always represented the elite?
You also stated you are opposed to governments interfering in trade between countries and you are concerned about tariffs harming economic growth of developing countries.
A simple google search will allow anyone to see the massive amount of monetary aid that the EU provides to developing countries. It amounts to more than 50% of the total aid given to these countries.
Another simple google search will allow anyone to see the evidence of the many EU fair trade policies that ensure many developing countries get fair and sustainable prices for their produce. Are you opposed to these fair trade policies? Even though they are examples of governments interfering in the price of goods traded between countries?
I totally agree with you that there doesn't appear to be any concrete reason why it will be a success. That's a big and honest admission on your part and something I have believed since day one (whenever that was). And it's also very honest of you to admit you're relying on blind "faith". I agree that we tend to make the best of every situation that is thrown our way and that this should continue. (It's obviously very irritating that this situation is so painfully self-inflicted).
Did Juncker really say "the English language is losing importance due to Brexit"? I hadn't heard that he has said that, but I can easily imagine him saying so. Because, after all, it's true, isn't it? There are 24 official languages in the EU. If we leave, there will only be two countries where English is an official language: Ireland and Malta (where it's not the primary language). So, what's inaccurate about Juncker's statement, considering the population of citizens from English language countries is diminishing from 70m to 5m? (Or, put another way, English is spoken as a first language by 13% of the EU population; if we leave, that will become 0.73%. Isn't it fair to say that if English speakers diminish by that much, the conclusion would be that it's losing its importance?) You might not like Juncker, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong. Particularly when it's demonstrably right.
A cursory check shows the following Labour paragons of the socialist ideal who are all worth way over a million and who are clearly part of the ''Labour Party left wing elite'' as seen by by Labour MP John Mann.
Wealthy Labour members of Mr Corbyn’s inner circle include his chief aide Seumas Milne, shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn and shadow justice secretary Lord Faulkner (£17.5m mansion). Shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, and shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry, Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, lying Tony Blair (with his £8.6m mansion in Westminster and many many millions (obviously not important unless you are a Tory) and power and (unbelievable) continuing political influence), former business secretary Lord Mandelson (with an £8m home in Regent’s Park) former Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer.
Incidentally a quick look at Mann pre referendum is interesting
He suggested of the EU, that;
''It's fundamentally undemocratic in the way it's set up.
And because of the mass movements of people that's now coming to be it's downfall.
It's imploding as an organisation and in my view that's why we're better to get out.”
Mr Mann joined many many Labour MPs by backing Brexit and said: “I don't want a country that's got 10 million more people living in it.
“I don't want the urbanisation that will create, I don't want the loss of quality of life that I think that will result in.
“Therefore it's better that we are able to control and choose the numbers coming into the country and the jobs that people are doing.”
The former trade union worker attacked the “absurdity” of Britain’s current immigration system, which favours EU nationals over non-EU nationals.
Mr Mann publicly accused influential ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone (and still suspended member of the party) of being a ‘Nazi apologist’ amid Labour’s anti-Semitism row, said he constantly faced a “battle” to get doctors from countries such as India into hospitals in his constituency.
Last week on LBC he said, ''The Three Strongest Brexit Supporters Here Are Me, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. But we are the majority amongst Labour voters, not amongst my parliamentary colleagues, certainly not amongst Momentum supporters.''
Lets not forget, or airbrush out from our rants, that Labour veteran Dennis Skinner joined the Leave camp along with Kate Hoey, Frank Field and Graham Stringer.
Twice in my life I have been lucky enough to represent the UK in meetings at Eurostat in Luxembourg. I (obviously) wasn't the regular representative, but was considered good enough to take on the Roger Daltry role. The first time I went, it was a duel language meeting held jointly in English and French (I understand that once upon a time they were in French). Facilities were there for other languages and several translators sat at the side translating the meeting into other EU lingos via headsets that were worn by other delegates. When I went back a second time, the meeting itself wasn't any smaller, but things had changed quite drastically. The meeting was run entirely in English, there were no official translators at the side. It had been made clear in the invitation that the organisors expected all business to be conducted in English. If anyone wanted translation services they were expected to fund their own. They didn't. Instead the delegates had all been selected on the grounds that they could speak English. At the time it seemed as if English had finally established it'd dominance over le français. But ask yourself, why should that continue? Brexit will mean that there are no countries in the EU where the official language is English. Only the Irish will have a vested interest in continuing to hold meetings in English. If we aren't a part of things, it leaves the door open for other languages to re- assert their position.
Will revert in more detail when I get a chance later in the week.
Already spent far too long on this on Saturday when I should have been working .... coincidentally on a trade seminar presentation.
I linked a book that I knew some would find interesting and gave a dictionary definition because the question was still open.
Just being helpful mate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/20/metropolitan-elite-britains-new-pariah-class
The metropolitan elite: Britain’s new pariah class
The ‘metropolitan elite’ has become the catch-all term of abuse against Westminster politicians and diverse voices. But is it a real explosion of rage against a broken system, or an easy way to spread intolerance?
What is a metropolitan? Who is in the metropolitan elite? While plainly you can be a member of an elite without being metropolitan, is it possible to be a “metropolitan” without being in the “elite”? (Not really; the metropole doesn’t really want you unless you have money.) What marks you out as a metropolitan, and is there any chance that you could slough it off?
The Labour party has now lost two of its potential leaders to the curse of the metropolitan – Chuka Umunna stood down as a result of press intrusion, the greatest extent of which so far to emerge is a piece in the Daily Mail about the fact that he’s a member of a club with eel-skin walls (this is about as metropolitan elite as you get). Tristram Hunt didn’t have to stand down, having failed to find enough support in the first place, owing to his perceived membership of this clique.
The Labour MPs David Lammy and Simon Danczuk have both been vocal in the past, and more so since the loss of the election, about the real source of the party’s problems; Danczuk said last June that the party had been “hijacked” by the metropolitan elite. “I’ve been the one who’s banging on about this,” he says equably, “this north London elite dominating the Labour party. Ed Miliband captured that perfectly; unhealthily for Labour, in my opinion. They’re too politically correct, they have an idealised view of what working people like or think is important. I often think they see working people as being concerned primarily about economic issues, so they talk about redistribution, but they forget or don’t understand the cultural aspects of working people’s lives.”
Lammy, who said something similar in 2013, – “The Labour party can’t just be the party of Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill” – picks up this point about politicians, their orthodoxy and vocabulary. “They all live in London, they live in certain areas, they go to the same restaurants, they go to the same dinner parties, they all know each other. The lines feel rehearsed because they’re positions that have been maintained really since these kids were being tutored to pass their verbal reasoning at 11 or 13+. And actually, most people don’t have those codes of behaviour.
An orthodoxy, a way of talking about things, binds the elite, but there is, of course, more than that – an additional something that makes some individuals scream “metropolitan” while others don’t, an extra dimension that means there is always more packed into this term than wealth and geography. For the sake of Labour’s beating heart, not to mention that of the Conservatives (it may be a little too late for the Lib Dems), we really need to nail down what it means; at least so the ones who can’t avoid the label can own it.
The charge of “metropolitan elitism” from the left vibrates with anger at Labour’s economic liberalism – it is an explosion of rage at these urbane know-alls who love immigration because it makes plumbing cheaper, but never think about what it does to communities where plumbing used to be a really good job. The same charge, from the right, relates more to social liberalism – a resentment of these moneyed cliques in which bohemianism has triumphed, and people who ought to be big and small “c” conservatives are now campaigning in favour of gay marriage and tolerating all kinds of previously insurmountable differences.
But if the term itself is incredibly loose, that doesn’t mean we don’t understand it. Roberts cites the MP Dan Jarvis, who disappointed many in the Labour party by declining to stand for the leadership. “If you look at the weight he was getting behind him, he’s not part of the metropolitan elite.” Why not? “I don’t know. Ex-army.” Is it the real-ness of the armed forces that protects Jarvis from the taint of urbaneness? Could it be that easy, and does it have to be that hard?
There is a relationship between our “metropolitan elite” and the “liberal elite” of American politics, a spectre that grew from the start of the century and was most pithily summarised by the US columnist Dave Barry in 2004: “Godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving leftwing communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts.” David Graeber, an American who teaches anthropology at LSE and was one of the originators of the Occupy movement, describes a subtle cultural difference in the area of leftie elitism: “The anti-intellectualism here is interesting. In America, there is much more of a sense that if you’re from a working-class background, you can’t really become a part of the cultural elite, hence the resentment of those guys. They hate the cultural elite much more than the economic one; you can imagine getting rich, but you know your kid is never going to be opera critic of the New York Times. Here, there is a working-class resentment of working-class people who did get ahead, which you don’t get so much in the US.”
Presidents in the US have to affect a non-Harvard image, whether by wearing cowboy boots or hamming up an accent, but you can be a rich, highly educated Democrat without betraying the roots of the party. The Labour party, by contrast, was set up to represent people who weren’t of the establishment, yet has been colonised by the establishment: it now falls upon its leaders to affect authenticity and glottal stops, play down the PPE degree and play up the football allegiance, to overcome this minor impediment that their understanding of hardship is entirely theoretical. I sometimes think, even though “metropolitan elite” is often code for anti-intellectualism, the biggest anti-intellectuals in all of this are the politicians themselves, who think that presenting a credible ordinariness means never seeming too clever or too educated. The early pioneers of the Labour movement would, I like to think (hard to check), have said that learning was the last thing anyone needed to be embarrassed about.
The meaning of “metropolitan elite” is not fixed. It will change in the mouth of whoever says it, and it will take on the shape of the person to whom, for whatever combination of reasons, it is thrown at and sticks. But the anger is real: parliament, as the last century understood it, represented the people to the state. Parliament now represents the state to the people. And maybe “metropolitan” is a way to say that, and to give it a face.