So what then of the moral panic now surrounding Brexit? The ranks of cosmopolitan liberals who are screaming that this is the end of everything?
Is this panic not evidence that "good people" need to strive to stay as close as possible to the EU? Not at all. A major power centre has been challenged and almost by definition power centres have some control over the public narrative.
For decades EU apologists have wielded their immense budget and nomination powers to promote people with the "right" attitude and projects with the "right" purpose.
Simultaneously a highly skewed PR narrative has been dished out so incessantly (complimentary of unaware taxpayers) that numerous voters now confuse this narrative with the truth.
This is why so many EU apologists genuinely seem to perceive the EU as a force for everything worthwhile, and every EU-critic as either dumb, a xenophobic throwback or misled by the PR-narrative of the other side....
The liberal hysteria over Brexit shows exactly why we need to leave
Mark Broli
22 July 2016
The Telegraph
Losers: The Vote Leave battle bus is rebranded by Greenpeace members outside Parliament as part of a protest against leaving the EU Credit: Jack Taylor/Getty
Most leaders start out by promising to heal the political rifts of the day. Few deliver.
President Obama can arguably be used as a warning example. Due to his faithfulness to the narrative of the progressive metropolitan elite, he has certainly appealed to his political tribe.
However, he has failed miserably in reaching out to those doubting that his yes-we-can idealism actually delivers results. To no small degree Trumpism can be seen as a counter-reaction not only to this failure but to armchair do-gooders who talk down to voters despite little or no real-life experience.
David Cameron has been better at reaching out. Far more grounded, he promised a referendum over an issue that had notoriously put numerous voters at odds with the establishment.
This promise helped him to a sensational victory in the 2015 general election.
Just as sensationally, he lost the referendum after losing his nerve and choosing to side unequivocally with the EU apologists, despite having been refused everything of substance during the referendum negotiations.
The lesson for the new government? After too many disappointments voters no longer put faith only in eloquent words.
Results are now needed and for good reason numerous voters have lost patience with an EU project which is now working well only in the heads of its apologists.
In practice it is failing in every way: democratically, economically and as a source of European stability.
So what then of the moral panic now surrounding Brexit? The ranks of cosmopolitan liberals who are screaming that this is the end of everything?
Is this panic not evidence that "good people" need to strive to stay as close as possible to the EU? Not at all. A major power centre has been challenged and almost by definition power centres have some control over the public narrative.
For decades EU apologists have wielded their immense budget and nomination powers to promote people with the "right" attitude and projects with the "right" purpose.
Simultaneously a highly skewed PR narrative has been dished out so incessantly (complimentary of unaware taxpayers) that numerous voters now confuse this narrative with the truth.
This is why so many EU apologists genuinely seem to perceive the EU as a force for everything worthwhile, and every EU-critic as either dumb, a xenophobic throwback or misled by the PR-narrative of the other side.
Add to this the greatly underestimated element of narcissism among those making themselves heard. Few voters have time to penetrate the ins and outs of the political issues of the day, meaning much of the debate will come across as fuzzy.
However, few want to jump into the same bed as the "baddies". The latter explains why so many metropolitan trendsetters compete to signal righteousness by simply backing the political norms in vogue (in the capital); louder than others when attempting to dress up a lack of independent thought as an act of bravery.
This is perfectly illustrated by the attitude of some Bremainers: those who clearly relish moral posturing but cannot be bothered to really find out why more than 17 million Brits voted to leave the EU.
Should the indignation of these people be allowed to guide the future course of the country? Absolutely. By concluding that the EU is exercising far too much (emotional) control over far too many voters.
This is worth bearing in mind during the Brexit negotiations. When these are initiated, the new government will be hammered by a fresh wave of one-eyed EU apologist bullying from EU public servants, French diplomats, numerous "experts" within the EU web of vested interests, UK civil servants (subtly) as well as thousands of social media narcissists conditioned to treat every EU criticism as outrageous.
Meaning just about everyone who has predicted that Armageddon will follow a Brexit. Still, now as always in the history of much-needed reform, moving forward means ignoring the misguided pomposity and prophecies of the establishment status quo champions.
The stakes could hardly be higher. If Theresa May does not hold her nerve, and gives in by diluting the mandate for a clear break, the current period of political stalemate and economic limbo will continue.
The rift between the establishment and the people will not be healed, which means a British version of Trumpism is finally likely to gain ground also in Westminster. However, if she does stay the course mandated by voters, she can lead not only the UK but Europe out of its current period of idealist megaproject misery.
The splendid irony is that bunow finally dismantling the EU, Europe could at long last (re)create the free trade and live-and-let-live international framework that the European project was supposed to be about.
Mark Brolin is the author of “A State of Independence: Why the EU is the Problem not the Solution”
The liberal hysteria over Brexit shows exactly why we need to leave
Is this panic not evidence that "good people" need to strive to stay as close as possible to the EU? Not at all. A major power centre has been challenged and almost by definition power centres have some control over the public narrative.
For decades EU apologists have wielded their immense budget and nomination powers to promote people with the "right" attitude and projects with the "right" purpose.
Simultaneously a highly skewed PR narrative has been dished out so incessantly (complimentary of unaware taxpayers) that numerous voters now confuse this narrative with the truth.
This is why so many EU apologists genuinely seem to perceive the EU as a force for everything worthwhile, and every EU-critic as either dumb, a xenophobic throwback or misled by the PR-narrative of the other side....
The liberal hysteria over Brexit shows exactly why we need to leave
Mark Broli
22 July 2016
The Telegraph
Losers: The Vote Leave battle bus is rebranded by Greenpeace members outside Parliament as part of a protest against leaving the EU Credit: Jack Taylor/Getty
Most leaders start out by promising to heal the political rifts of the day. Few deliver.
President Obama can arguably be used as a warning example. Due to his faithfulness to the narrative of the progressive metropolitan elite, he has certainly appealed to his political tribe.
However, he has failed miserably in reaching out to those doubting that his yes-we-can idealism actually delivers results. To no small degree Trumpism can be seen as a counter-reaction not only to this failure but to armchair do-gooders who talk down to voters despite little or no real-life experience.
David Cameron has been better at reaching out. Far more grounded, he promised a referendum over an issue that had notoriously put numerous voters at odds with the establishment.
This promise helped him to a sensational victory in the 2015 general election.
Just as sensationally, he lost the referendum after losing his nerve and choosing to side unequivocally with the EU apologists, despite having been refused everything of substance during the referendum negotiations.
The lesson for the new government? After too many disappointments voters no longer put faith only in eloquent words.
Results are now needed and for good reason numerous voters have lost patience with an EU project which is now working well only in the heads of its apologists.
In practice it is failing in every way: democratically, economically and as a source of European stability.
So what then of the moral panic now surrounding Brexit? The ranks of cosmopolitan liberals who are screaming that this is the end of everything?
Is this panic not evidence that "good people" need to strive to stay as close as possible to the EU? Not at all. A major power centre has been challenged and almost by definition power centres have some control over the public narrative.
For decades EU apologists have wielded their immense budget and nomination powers to promote people with the "right" attitude and projects with the "right" purpose.
Simultaneously a highly skewed PR narrative has been dished out so incessantly (complimentary of unaware taxpayers) that numerous voters now confuse this narrative with the truth.
This is why so many EU apologists genuinely seem to perceive the EU as a force for everything worthwhile, and every EU-critic as either dumb, a xenophobic throwback or misled by the PR-narrative of the other side.
Add to this the greatly underestimated element of narcissism among those making themselves heard. Few voters have time to penetrate the ins and outs of the political issues of the day, meaning much of the debate will come across as fuzzy.
However, few want to jump into the same bed as the "baddies". The latter explains why so many metropolitan trendsetters compete to signal righteousness by simply backing the political norms in vogue (in the capital); louder than others when attempting to dress up a lack of independent thought as an act of bravery.
This is perfectly illustrated by the attitude of some Bremainers: those who clearly relish moral posturing but cannot be bothered to really find out why more than 17 million Brits voted to leave the EU.
Should the indignation of these people be allowed to guide the future course of the country? Absolutely. By concluding that the EU is exercising far too much (emotional) control over far too many voters.
This is worth bearing in mind during the Brexit negotiations. When these are initiated, the new government will be hammered by a fresh wave of one-eyed EU apologist bullying from EU public servants, French diplomats, numerous "experts" within the EU web of vested interests, UK civil servants (subtly) as well as thousands of social media narcissists conditioned to treat every EU criticism as outrageous.
Meaning just about everyone who has predicted that Armageddon will follow a Brexit. Still, now as always in the history of much-needed reform, moving forward means ignoring the misguided pomposity and prophecies of the establishment status quo champions.
The stakes could hardly be higher. If Theresa May does not hold her nerve, and gives in by diluting the mandate for a clear break, the current period of political stalemate and economic limbo will continue.
The rift between the establishment and the people will not be healed, which means a British version of Trumpism is finally likely to gain ground also in Westminster. However, if she does stay the course mandated by voters, she can lead not only the UK but Europe out of its current period of idealist megaproject misery.
The splendid irony is that bunow finally dismantling the EU, Europe could at long last (re)create the free trade and live-and-let-live international framework that the European project was supposed to be about.
Mark Brolin is the author of “A State of Independence: Why the EU is the Problem not the Solution”
The liberal hysteria over Brexit shows exactly why we need to leave