Nick Cohen

This is a translation of an article I wrote for the Norwegian daily VG Never since the German attack on Norway in 1940 destroyed Neville Chamberlain’s premiership and brought Winston Churchill to power, has your country been so discussed in Britain. Supporters of Britain staying in the EU warn of Norway's 'fax democracy'. The 'leave' campaign denounce Norwegian politicians who tell us about the dangers of following the Norwegian example, as liars bought with EU gold. There has been propaganda from both sides, of course, but the sheer lack of substance behind the 'leave' campaign is stunning.  The right-wing politicians, who dominate the anti-European cause, want the British to take an extraordinarily important decision.

Danny Dorling is one of the warmest and most intelligent left wing intellectuals of our day; an egalitarian, who proposes radical and practical solutions. He is a worthy target, in other words. Oxford University’s professor of Geography has also produced  an essay entitled: ‘Why Corbyn’s moral clarity could propel him to Number 10.’ It is the most cowardly exposition of the left’s great illusion that I have read. More to the point, virtually every supporter of the new Labour leadership will believe it. He makes two claims: Corbyn and the far left are moral; and they can win power. Allow me to take them in reverse order. The assertion that Corbyn can win is not only far-fetched it is a balm to soothe niggling consciences.

I don’t know if 'Leave' supporters will win. With the young abstaining and the old voting in a low-turnout referendum, it is just about possible that they could. But it is already dismally clear how they will react if they lose: they won’t accept the result. Nigel Farage was proud to admit that he would be a bad loser. 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way,' he told the Mirror. 'If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.' The old-fashioned among you might have thought that in any electoral contest the side with the most votes wins. How out of touch you fuddy-duddies are.  It is not enough to win a majority of the vote anymore.

The right, as well as the left, is home to the kind of flaming conspiracy nut who, in Bertie Wooster’s words, make ‘strong men climb trees and pull them up after them’. In another life, the activists for Vote Leave might have joined the thousands of hollowed-eyed onanists who post abuse under newspaper articles from their parents’ spare rooms, or become columnists for the Mail; fringe figures, best ignored. But just as on the left of politics the fringe is becoming the mainstream, so on the right, brooding paranoids, who cannot face a hard fact or uncomfortable argument squarely, are moving in to take over the Conservative Party.

To say that the Labour party is in crisis because it is ‘too left-wing’ is to miss the point spectacularly. With eyes wide open, and all democratic procedures punctiliously observed, its members have chosen in their tens of thousands to endorse not ‘the left’, but an ugly simulacrum of left-wing politics. They have gone along with the type of left-winger who flourished in the long boom between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the great recession. The hypocrite who damns oppression, but only if it is committed by western countries. The pseudo-egalitarian who will condemn sexism and homophobia, but not the prejudices of favoured regimes and minorities. The fake anti-racist who will attack the ‘far right’ while echoing the fascist conspiracy theory.

No one does as much damage to a country as patriots who affect to love it the most. If you doubt me, ask yourself what is missing from the European debate. The virtue-signalling right flap their arms to semaphore their belief in restoring Britain's greatness. Yet they do not answer an obvious question: if leaving the EU is in our interests, why do none of our allies want us to do it? The original opponents of British entry to what was then the Common Market could point to Australia and New Zealand, who hated the idea of Britain turning its back on the EU. Even today, 40 years on, David Davis talks of Brexit as an 'opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.' Yet he cannot point to a single Commonwealth country who agrees with him.

When I was 18, I had my first tutorial on Anglo-Saxon history. I cannot remember the details but the don talked of the king of Mercia, or some such, marrying his daughter to the son of the king of Northumbria, or somewhere or other, because of the political advantages the union would bring the two crowns. The teenage Cohen listened appalled. 'You mean,' I cried, 'they didn’t love each other?' In a voice so acid, it might have burnt through the hull of a battleship, the don hissed: 'I do not subscribe to the Mills & Boon school of British history.' After that encounter, I stopped subscribing too. Views of the veracity of the man it appears will be our next prime minister fall into two camps.

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.

Europe has opened up an unbridgeable chasm in the Conservative party. Labour remains, near as dammit, united. On the EU referendum, an opposition accustomed to defeat has a rare chance of victory. Yet when Jeremy Corbyn makes the case for staying in he speaks without conviction. Like a man called into work on his day off, his weary expression and dispirited voice tell you he would rather be somewhere else. Tory MPs, so divided that it is hard to see how they can stay in the same party, unite in laughing at him. The Labour leadership and most of the unions seem unaware that this is a fight over the future of Britain. Their strange indifference may help the opponents of the EU prevail.

Europe has opened up an unbridgeable chasm in the Conservative party. Labour remains, near as dammit, united. On the EU referendum, an opposition accustomed to defeat has a rare chance of victory. Yet when Jeremy Corbyn makes the case for staying in he speaks without conviction. Like a man called into work on his day off, his weary expression and dispirited voice tell you he would rather be somewhere else. Tory MPs, so divided that it is hard to see how they can stay in the same party, unite in laughing at him. The Labour leadership and most of the unions seem unaware that this is a fight over the future of Britain. Their strange indifference may help the opponents of the EU prevail.

Rather rashly, Boris Johnson published The Churchill factor: How one man made history last year. It was without historical merit, or intellectual insight, but Johnson did not intend readers to learn about Churchill. The biography was not a Churchill biography but a Johnson campaign biography, where we were invited to see our  hero as Winston redux. Both ignored party discipline and conventional routes of advancement, after all. Both were great company. Churchill stayed in the wilderness for years making a fortune from journalism, and so has Johnson. Churchill was a man of principle and so is… Hold on. That doesn’t work. It doesn't work at all.

The Euston Manifesto appears a noble failure. It was clear in 2006 that the attempt to revive left-wing support for internationalism, democracy and universal human rights did not have a strong chance of success. Looking back a decade on, it seems doomed from the start. The tyrannical habits of mind it condemned were breaking out across the left in 2006. They are everywhere now. They define the Labour Party and most of what passes for intellectual left-wing life in the 21st century. To take the manifesto’s first statement of principle: the left should be ‘committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures’. An easy statement to agree with, I hear you say.

If a dirty mind is a perpetual feast, then a filthy mind is an open sewer. You see where the manure is coming from. More to the point, you know where it is going. When Galloway faced a challenge for the Bradford West seat from the Labour candidate, Naz Shah, he thought the best way to respond was to denounce a woman's tales of abuse. He reduced Shah’s forced marriage at the age 15, to a ‘slander of her own family, community and city’ and an appeal to ‘racist stereotypes'. When he declared Bradford an ‘Israel free-zone,’ Muslim and white anti-Semites paid attention.

  When Cecil Rhodes was drawing up his will his final dream was of British world domination.