"And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing good by evill." - John Milton, Areopagitica
Today, remembering the EU referendum campaign, it is difficult to 'know' whether your vote was that of a good or evil person; whether the campaigns and actions of those campaigning were good or evil. It is certainly true, though, that there is a binary opposition by which we can measure the goodness or evilness of those actions. This means that "the good, bad and ugly" were inevitable pre-requisites of a decision of truly momentous ramifications.
Momentum was 'had' by both sides of the debate. It changed when the emotions changed, or when the perceived "Reason" changed. But what startles nearly everyone - not least the proud [and therefore sometimes overconfident] Remainians" - is how divisive the campaign was; just how out-of-hand it became. Most incredibly, this ended up being used to create momentum for the Leavers. Had Cameron lesson-learnt Milton, especially Book Nine of Paradise Lost and Areopegitica, he would have known his own Fall was inevitable when UKIP arose.
For Cameron was a coward for caving in to Farage; and he would've been awfully hubristic to strike him down at once. Cameron should've known this much: that reacting to the whim of Farage by offering a referendum would prove him weak (and that this would be used by Farage), while standing up to him would have been hubristic.
The Seeds of Destruction were sewn not only in the Conservative Party of Government. In Milton's battle of liberty, Eve was seduced by Satan because she had already refuted Adam's belief that Eden was "luxurious by restraint": and ever since Thatcher and Major, Britain was seduced by Farage (as well as by BoGove) because it had hated the prosperous restraint which it enjoyed in the EU. It is perhaps ironic, then, that Cameron's campaign ended up being perceived as being hubristic even when he did cave into Farage's Carriage.
Cameron held power for many years, until his emotional but self-inflicted resignation. How do we reflect upon his campaign? And what of his heir-apparent, the usually politic George Osborne? Surprisingly, he became "nakedly political," as Christian May pointed out in City AM. Sir Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon already argued that theirs was a dual-premiership; and together they forewarned a "DIY recession." They tried to bully voters together, too; Cameron later warned state pensions would be hit, while Mr Osborne earlier earmarked a loss of £4,300 per household in the event of Brexit. As May (no, not Mother Theresa) also pointed out, "some of the economic forecasting... has been part of a concerted effort to stoke fear." This was a great disservice to Great Britain and to themselves.
And their reign - from the beginning of the Coalition, through their "strong economy" campaign in 2015, to the doom-mongering just past - was built upon failure and restraint. Indeed they saw the thorns among the roses in The Rose Garden.
The most apparently powerful figures have been swept away by those without power. In Webster's White Devil - a play which presaged the British Civil War - Lodovico is "banishèd." But the difference between Lodovico and disenfranchised Brits is that the latter have successfully made "Italian cut-works" of Cam-Borne. They may too have cut their own wealth in pieces by Leaving their own paradigm: The EU. And another character, Flamineo, is asked by his mother "What - because we are poor shall we be vicious" - so the question of our own real-politic Play is: did DIY Dave and George have the means with which to " [save themselves] from the galleys or the gallows?"
The disenfranchised working class and oldies, who were promised a vision of "change" and "control," are posed a further question. It is this: did you fight for control and individual sovereignty only to hand the keys to to another group or elite? There will be an unelected Conservative Prime Minister, though the MPs who "represent them" are still popularly elected; and yet Labour has been branded "out of touch" by a former rank-and-file Secretary (Kate Hoey), who offered such a vision. So both major parties - the Government and Opposition - have been torn apart. A foreboding sense of heartbreak and existential questioning can already be felt.
Do not doubt that leading members of either side fought in the gutters. As I reported on my FreudWord Blog, Gove said at one point of the referendum that "I am not going to change my hairdresser, I am not going to change David Cameron" - but came out with his gun at the ready. He and Boris offered a so-called 'alternative government', which would've bruised Cameron's ego. Farage, we know, was dogmatic behind his laughing exterior. Sadly Dan Hodges was right: 'Gove and Boris have gone rogue, so... You've got to shoot to kill, Dave,' he warned in the Daily Mail.
Milton himself believed that human reason and liberty had to be tested. It seems our own collective mind has been; but he thought there was "No more talk" because Britain had traded a baby-Parliament under Cromwell's Republican Experiment for no Parliament and an authoritative monarchy. British people voted for control, but what individual powers have they been granted? And, even if this is to come, how representative is the sovereign democracy for which they voted?
It is well known that Cameron felt one of (if not the) greatest "disobedience" came from his friend and former adviser, Steve Hilton. Apparently - and who would doubt it? - he and Cameron were told that the Party couldn't possibly cut immigration as the latter promised; and Hilton indeed saw the restraint rather than the luxury of Free Movement. How poetic is it that Mr Hilton is the man who argued for a radical restructuring of Whitehall and national governance but wasn't able to then, and who is arguing for a "More Human" world now?
Hilton was not alone in his principled campaign. A senior party adviser and old friend of Cameron explained privately that the PM is a decent man with decent views; though political ambition overruled his campaign, I think the comment is true. Chris Grayling was perhaps the most notable of all: a staunch Eurosceptic, he is a cabinet minister who dealt diplomatically and politely with each and every opponent.
And the murder of Jo Cox highlighted just how evil some actions are. Her death, at the hands of a Far-Right loner who had seen an expert the evening before, was contrasted by her husband's memory of how Jo "met the world with love." Such an emotional and humane interview underlined an event that resonated in the heart of any decent person. We certainly knew good by evil then.
Not too many months ago, Jeremy Corbyn stood up at the Labour Party Conference to call for "kinder politics" - a "political earthquake" in which people "don't take what you're given." How naive and hypocritical? White Devil indeed! The chief executive of Suffolk Chambers of Commerce more recently quipped, "We live in an era of important D-words: deficit, debt and now devolution" and added that "devolution should all be about another D-word: delivery." I'd suggest that, for all the postmodern attempts to include and cohere, Britain has shown itself to be bewildered by individual disenfranchisement. We have now met evil again, but from what source do we think the franchise derives? And is that necessarily from a good place?
