Reader TTS

In politics, no less than in everyday life, the most culpable are the quickest to venture criticism of others. Take the example of those Remainers who equate the ‘populism’ of the Brexit

vote with ‘fascism’: back in the summer, Tony Blair claimed that ‘comparisons with the 1930s no longer seem far-fetched’. But the truth is that just the same charge can be levelled, much

more convincingly, against the cause of Remain. So many decades on, it is easy to forget what actually defined pre-war ‘fascism’. Its fundamental tenet, in each and every country, was a

profound rejection of the existing political order. Fascists argued that established forms of governmental rule, no matter how traditional, deserved to be swept away by a more authoritarian

system that would resolve the new crises – notably mass unemployment and other perceived forms of ‘national decline’ – that had emerged after the calamities of the First World War. Beyond

this starting point, different fascist groups took different directions. Some advocated far left collectivist economics, others were more xenophobic or blatantly anti-Semitic. For example,

Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Union of Fascists in 1932, argued that, at a time when unemployment was continuing to surge, Britain needed a new political system, “organised with the

authority and power which a Fascist movement could obtain”, because the existing order only turned its members into ‘windbags’ and prevented effective action. Above all, he continued,

political power was monopolised by the elderly, an ‘old gang’, at the expense of a younger generation that had sacrificed itself in the trenches of northern France. Alarmingly, such radical,

rejectionist views have acquired a new lease of life in the wake of the 2016 referendum vote. This is not because of the cause of national independence, which is intended to restore a

traditional British institution, parliament, has been undermined and sidelined by a radical new European order. It is because respect for the existing political order is undermined by the

refusal of Remainers to respect the referendum result. Look closely at what the high priests of Remain have said and you will find a contempt for 17.4 million Brexiteers and their

“stupidity”. Sometimes such contempt surges out: remember the blatantly racist remark that Lord Kerr made two years ago, when he claimed Britain needs intelligent migrants to come to the UK

because ‘native’ Britons are ‘so bloody stupid’. Talk to many Remainers and you will find that many say that the referendum should never have been held. This comes perilously close to

undermining our whole democratic order. It is akin to saying that ordinary people cannot be trusted to cast their votes in parliamentary elections. If they make the wrong choice, then they

need to be re-educated and told to vote again until they make the right one. The wrong choice is deemed invalid because it supposedly manifests the views of one specific but illegitimate

interest group – such as the older age groups, who have been blamed for the 2016 referendum result in the same way that Mosley also blamed them for Britain’s misfortunes after 1918.

Remainers have exposed their anti-democratic leanings in other ways. The Tory MP Anna Soubry, have called for a “government of national unity” to steer the country through its current

“crisis”. But such a suggestion would only appeal to someone of an anti-democratic mindset: because such a “government of national unity” transcends party politics, it renders a general

election unnecessary, just as it was supposed to during the national emergencies of 1931 and 1940. The Remainer cause shares more common ground with fascism than it realises, but it also

inadvertently undermines the democratic order in other ways. It gives legitimacy to extremist organisations, of all persuasions, that openly condemn democracy. Most obviously, if Parliament

is seen to be obstructing the will of the people then it will undermine public confidence in politicians and ‘democracy’. The 2016 referendum was the product of parliamentary legislation and

sold to the British people as a “once in a generation” decision. Why bother to vote if you win but don’t get what you voted for? And by refusing to accept its outcome and demanding a second

referendum, Remainers also undermine the validity of each and every election. Why not rerun the mid-term elections in America, or the last general election? By doing so they undermine

public trust in democracy amongst ordinary people who will fail to see the point in casting a vote if the outcome is in perpetual dispute. Remainers should be careful when they make these

facile accusations about ‘populism’ and what it means. In questioning the wisdom of democracy, they stray closer to fascism than they realise.