I accept it may take an effort to imagine Charles Moore dressed in a recyclable hemp skirt and organic cotton kimono, his body adorned with the bangles, tattoos and piercings of a genderqueer National Union of Students diversity officer.
But you should try. No, really, you should. Students are not the only ones who lock themselves in safe spaces and no-platform all who disturb their doltish peace with argument. The poor dears of the Eurosceptic right are every bit as precious.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Moore, of this parish, found the courage to overcome the subaltern status a hierarchical society has imposed on him, and bring us a survivor’s testimony on behalf of himself and all his friends.
Opponents of Britain remaining in the EU were open-minded and thoughtful – even if he did say so himself. The ‘in’ campaigners, by contrast, were ‘bigots’; an elite of ‘well-connected, powerful, pompous people’, so prejudiced they could not make the effort to understand the views of their Eurosceptic victims.
‘Check your privilege!’ Moore all but cried.
The most persuasive argument for staying in is that it would be at best futile and at worst dangerous to leave. We must have free trade with the single market. But to get it, we would still have to pay money to the EU, accept immigration from the EU and go along with its regulations, as Norway does. Leave and we gain nothing, and risk allowing hostile European powers to work, unchecked, against our interests.
That’s it. That is the case for remaining which the ‘outers’ must take on.
Writing in the Mail last week, Iain Duncan Smith showed no desire to take it or any other argument on. Instead, he was shocked that David Cameron, a supporter of Britain staying in the EU, was deploying arguments in support of Britain staying in the EU. It wasn’t fair.
Duncan Smith did not attempt to explain why the Prime Minister was wrong. He did not say what, precisely, Britain’s relationship with the EU would be if the ‘out’ campaign had its way. Instead, he complained that ‘out’ campaigners were the victims of ‘spin, smears and threats’. It had never occurred to him that his opponents might challenge him to level with the electorate. When they did, he could do nothing but whine and bluster.
‘He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that,’ said John Stuart Mill. You must be able to understand and refute your opponents before you can claim victory.
The Eurosceptics don’t know it because they have spent a decade locked in a safe space without communication with the world beyond; a place to adapt the useful definition of the American Advocates for Youth campaign: where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or challenged.
If you doubt me, consider the lamentable performance of Boris Johnson, formerly of this parish, on the Marr programme on Sunday. He could not answer questions that were not so much hard as obvious to anyone who did not spend their life in the company of right-wingers.
Now, truly Eurosceptic readers may object that Johnson does not believe that Britain should leave the EU. He is only pretending to disagree with David Cameron to further his career. Maybe that’s right, but it nevertheless is a sign of the weakness of the ‘out’ campaign that it could not even provide Johnson with a script that would allow him to put on a decent show.
The lack of conviction became embarrassingly apparent once the interview was over. Toby Young, also of this parish, went on the BBC’s Sunday Politics, which is hosted by Andrew Neil, who is of this parish too, since you asked. Andrew Marr, who I had always thought to be the most timid of interviewers, was rude to Johnson or ‘Boris’ as Young insisted on calling him. He interrupted him, the appalled Young continued. He insisted that Johnson answer questions. When Johnson said that no City bankers were worried about Britain leaving the EU, Marr had the nerve to quote by name bankers who had gone on the record saying just that.
Johnson himself complained of BBC bias – always the dying cry of the defeated interviewee. Young warned that Marr’s lèse majesté would foster the sense of ‘grievance’ on the right.
Oh grievance is it now? Not argument. Not answers. Just hurt feelings and right-wing righteous resentment against anyone who refuses to ‘respect’ their beliefs.
Apparently so. The diarist Steerpike – of this parish too, of course – devoted a whole piece on these pages to discussing accusations that Marr was guilty of ‘bias’. In an attempt to darn the holes in this threadbare claim Steerpike resorted to the lowest trick of the desperate journalist, and quoted protesting Leave campaigners on Twitter. Apparently, the hashtag #Marrmustfall will soon be trending across the Home Counties.
Neither Young nor Steerpike nor anyone else stopped to think that Boris Johnson wants to be Prime Minister. What chance has he of standing up to Vladimir Putin if he can’t even stand up to Andrew Marr?
As I work for The Spectator too, I need to pause here and add a few hugs and air kisses. I must declare in public what has been obvious to all who have seen us in private that I love Fraser Nelson with a passion that borders on the homoerotic. Steerpike is a fine diarist when he/she gets off Twitter. Toby Young is my colleague and comrade. Andrew Neil is my inspiration. And despite all the naysayers, I remain convinced that someday someone will find Charles Moore a proper job.
But can you not see what is wrong with you? Do you not understand that for years you have shut yourself up in a Tory safe space? It has been a warm and reassuring place to hibernate, I am sure, with nothing but the sound of back-slapping to disturb you. Everyone has agreed with everyone else. You have never had to doubt. Never had to admit that critics may have a point that needs answering.
As a way of passing the time, I’m sure it has been pleasant. As an approach to politics and journalism, however, it has been a disaster. Because you have never been challenged, you have never had to come up with a common line, or indeed, any line, on what Britain should do next. Unconvincing though he was, at least Alex Salmond had an answer to the question ‘what currency would an independent Scotland use?’
You have nothing.
And perhaps the rest of us should not be surprised. A neurotic insistence on ‘respect’ characterises our culture. It deems argument an offence and treats debate as if it were a grievous bodily harm. Political divisions offer no protection. On the Eurosceptic right as much as the student left, the only response to contrary opinion is to scream ‘that’s soooo unfair’.
Comments