32 Britain The EconomistSeptember 14th 2019
T
he mostpowerful tool at the political journalist’s disposal is
the lunch invitation. You take a senior politician out to an ex-
pensive restaurant in the hope that good food and hot gossip will
loosen the ministerial tongue. This was easier in the days when
politicians frequently drank at lunch—and some drank a lot—but
remains a stock-in-trade even in these abstemious times.
This columnist recently tried a revolutionary tactic: having
lunch with real people rather than politicos. His companions were
a small group of Leavers one day and a slightly larger group of Re-
mainers two days later. The first lunch took place in a riverside pub
on the border of the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency, in
London’s commuter belt (Bagehot paid). The second took place in a
comfortable kitchen in Vauxhall, in the inner-London gentrifica-
tion belt (Bagehot sponged). There was nothing scientific about
any of this lunching—the groups were assembled on the basis of
chance acquaintance rather than psephological profiling. But the
encounters nevertheless suggest answers to two pressing ques-
tions: how are the tribes organising themselves? And why do they
feel so strongly about Brexit?
The groups had some striking things in common. They have
both been radicalised by the European question. For the Leavers,
radicalisation began with the Maastricht debates of the early
1990s. For the Remainers, it started with the referendum of 2016.
Both groups are now super-charged. One Leaver says he is return-
ing to referendum mode and working “24/7”. A Remainer says he is
in Parliament Square “all the time”, despite having a full-time job.
Engagement with Brexit has coincided with disengagement
from established politics. The Leavers have all quit the Conserva-
tive Party, largely because of its dithering over Europe, but also be-
cause David Cameron severed the party from its roots. All but one
of the Remainers have left the Labour Party, because of the rise of
Jeremy Corbyn and his “ill-disguised support for Brexit”. Abandon-
ment has been hastened by the fact that their local mps are batting
for the other side. Kate Hoey, Vauxhall’s Labour mp, is a Leaver,
while Philip Hammond, Weybridge’s mp, backed Remain and is a
leading Tory rebel.
Both groups have little time for mainstream media—not just
because it is biased (pro-Leave or pro-Remain, according to whereyou stand), but also because it is unnecessary. Modern technology
means you can do it all yourself. Members of both groups con-
stantly share articles that catch their attention. They pore over of-
ficial reports, forwarding them approvingly if they agree with
them or with forensic comments if they don’t. They also create
their own media. The Remainers have recently posted a series of
videos designed to highlight the practical pitfalls of leaving.
The biggest similarity between the groups is that they are both
very upset. “I’m not political,” says one Brexiteer, “I’m just angry.”
The Remainers reject the word “angry” and highlight other emo-
tions: “determined”, “bereaved”, “panic-stricken”, “scared”. “I feel
upended,” says one. “Everything I am is being challenged.” What is
it about the European issue that arouses such strong emotions in
people who are enjoying such enviable lives?
For the Leavers, the most emotive subject is democracy. They
say they became involved in Brexit politics because they worried
that the European Union was a fundamentally anti-democratic
project, determined to hand power to unelected elites and reduce
Parliament to the status of a borough council. Their involvement
was deepened when the elites decided to subvert the result of the
referendum by watering it down (Theresa May’s strategy) or re-
versing it completely (via a “People’s Vote”). The Remainers have
broken the fundamental principle of losers’ consent.
For the Remainers, the most emotive issue is deceit. They think
the Leavers lied their way to victory by putting inflated numbers
on the side of a bus and feeding misleading ads into Facebook.
There is a lot of talk about Vladimir Putin and “malign external in-
fluences”. They also believe that a bigger lie is involved. A cabal of
ultra-Thatcherites is using Brexit to tear up the social contract and
turn Britain into a “us-style dog-eat-dog dystopia”.Full English Brexit
But again there are striking similarities in what motivates Leavers
and Remainers. One regards control. The Leavers think that you
need to assert sovereignty in order to regain control of your desti-
ny. Weybridge has suffered serious shortages of doctors, school
places and housing because of an influx of eastern Europeans
which, thanks to free movement, the country cannot control. The
Remainers think you need to be able to pool sovereignty into a
larger entity in order to combat global companies, particularly
American internet giants.
The second similarity is a vision of England. For most of the
people gathered in the pub or around the kitchen table, the issue is
not so much Europe as Britain. The Leavers think that a country
which pioneered parliamentary government and individual rights
is becoming a “slave state to the eu” (they repeatedly point out that
the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede, in their constituency).
The Remainers think that a country which embodied the princi-
ples of humanity and generosity in the post-war welfare state is
being vandalised. “Our sense of what it is to be British—fair play,
decency, compassion for the poor—is being challenged.”
The existence of groups like these across the country makes the
result of the next election unusually hard to predict. Both tribes
are much more interested in Brexit than in anything else. Both are
self-organising entities with their own networks and newsfeeds.
And both are adamantine in their commitment. The Leavers are
perhaps the wildest card in an election of wild cards. They have
time on their hands, thanks to retirement, and sophisticated na-
tional networks, thanks to Silicon Valley. The youth-obsessed me-
dia ignores the power of these greying activists at its peril. 7Bagehot When two tribes go to lunch
Despite being locked in conflict, Leavers and Remainers have some striking things in common