I think that if two events have best summed up the EU referendum debate for me, the first was Eddie Izzard talking over the top of Nigel Farage on Question Time, and being told to shut up.
And the second was Bob Geldof drowning out Nigel Farage with a loudhailer in the Battle of the Thames.
What they both shared was a propensity to talk over people they disagreed with, or to shout them down. But isn’t that what Political Correctness all about: preventing debate, by shouting people down?
As for the late Jo Cox, here’s Pete North (son of EUreferendum’s Richard North, I believe):
If you were going to pick a target for a red mist moment, this would be she. She and others like her are the precise reason we are even having this referendum. So much as been done in the name of that agenda without our consent.
People like her have almost total control of the agenda from the UN level, down through the EU and inside Wesminster. And while superficially charming and very successful and likable, beneath the veneer lies zealotry that believes the ends justify the means. She has sailed through the ranks of the establishment because she is a mirror image of it. If you want to know why there is such a massive gulf between the people and the politics, she, my friends, is where to start looking. Who she is, what she stands for, and how she got where she was.
These are the people how have tripled our energy bills and these are the people who have plastered the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels, and signed away our autonomy not just to the EU but to absolutely insane global targets. These are the people we most need rid of, though be it by the vote and not the bullet. They are not of us and they do not represent us.
Although he doesn’t mention it (nobody ever does, do they?), one of those “absolutely insane global targets” is a “smoke-free” planet on which everybody has stopped smoking.
But then, these people are “progressives”, and they know which way history is going. So what happens when history doesn’t go in the direction foreseen? We get headlines like this:
European history hovers close to reverse gear
European history may be about to go into reverse.
If Britain votes to leave the European Union, it will likely start a process of fragmentation of the political and security structures on which the post-World War Two and post-Cold War European order was built.
How wonderful! History has a reverse gear!
The Progressive vision is of an inexorable historical process leading ever onwards and upwards. The True Progressive not only knows which way history is going, but also – according to Marx – he can act as its midwife:
And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society — it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.
Therein lies the entire madness of our time. Far too many people believe that “laws of motion”, as ineluctable as any set out by Isaac Newton, are carrying us relentlessly towards a future that will be fully globalised, carbon-neutral, and smoke-free. Resistance is futile. It can’t be stopped.
…But there may be a reverse gear.