Home United States USA — Japan The Adventure of Daniel Hannan and the Princes in the Tower Don't...

The Adventure of Daniel Hannan and the Princes in the Tower Don't write off Jeremy Corbyn 2.0 – his relaunch has the potential to win


NewsHubSince Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy…
Daniel Hannan, as I’ve noted in the past, has an awkward habit of deleting his tweets. Often, by a strange coincidence, it’s the more embarrassing proclamations that vanish into the ether – no explanation, no, “Apologies, friends, I buggered that up didn’t I?” The tweet simply vanishes as if it had never been tweeted.
I’ve taken, then, to screenshot-ing some of the best morsels, just in case they’re not there the next time I look. Here’s one now:
Funny thing about that tweet is that Danny Boy has not, at time of writing, deleted it. Despite the fact he was tricked into embarrassing himself by a mean-spirited Remoaner, it’s still sitting there on the internet looking for all the world like its author is not crippled with embarrassment at the fact he could have been such a dunderhead as to write it. Two things are wrong with it, one relatively small, the other so huge as to be all encompassing.
The small one lies in the choice of monarchs. Not all of them are unreasonable: Henry VIII famously broke with the Catholic Church in his search for a divorce, an heir, and a quick bonk with Anne Boleyn. Since that meant an end to the period in which the English crown was answerable to a higher authority in the form of the Pope, we’ve already been treated to umpteen “Britain’s first Brexit” articles, and they’re not soon likely to stop – all this, despite the fact the big man liked to go around telling people he was also the King of France.
Similarly England spent much of the reign of his daughter trying to avoid being swallowed by the Spanish Empire, so it’s probably fair to suggest that Elizabeth I wasn’t a big fan of European integration either. George V, though, was closely related to – indeed, shared a face with – half the other head of states in Europe during his time on the planet, so what he’s doing there is anybody’s guess.
The truly vexing inclusion, though, is Edward V. Is Daniel Hannan really saying that a boy king who reigned for 79 days and was murdered by a wicked uncle at the age of 12 had serious concerns about the European project? Was it the damage that the Combined Agricultural Policy wrought on developing world farmers that Edward was brooding about in his tower? The money wasted on repeatedly moving the European Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg? What?
@JonnElledge To be fair, if you’d ask the Princes in the Tower if they wanted to leave or remain, I’d bet they’d vote leave.
— Chris Cook (@xtophercook) December 29, 2016
Okay let’s be charitable and assume it’s a typo, presumably for another of Henry’s kids Edward VI. (It certainly wasn’t Edward III who spent much of his reign trying to get into Europe, by kicking off an endless war with France.) But the bigger problem here lies not in the specifics of Daniel’s answer, but in the fact he bothered to answer at all. The entire exercise is entirely ludicrous. It’s like asking for Theresa May’s position on the dissolution of the monasteries, or Jeremy Hunt’s proposals for tackling the Black Death.
The question is an ahistorical nonsense – not just because the European Union was invented in the late 20th century to deal with problems specific to a particular time, but because it misunderstands how England’s role in Europe has evolved over the centuries.
For the first five hundred years or so after the Conquest, the nations of the British Isles were a key part of a western European political system that included France and the Low countries. Until it lost Calais in 1558, indeed, the English Crown generally held territory in France.
The idea that the United Kingdom, as the state became, was with Europe but not of it – that its destiny lay on the high seas, not the continent – is a notion that’s core to Eurosceptic mythology, but one which didn’t emerge until the imperial era. Exactly when I’m not sure (unlike certain Conservative MEPs I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance, which is what makes us better than the animals and egg avatars). However you count it, though, the period between then and 1973 must make up a minority of England’s history as a nation. For most of its history, the idea that the England was somehow not properly “European” would have seemed crazy.
Actually, there was one major European project which a king of both England and Scotland kept us out of, a policy decision confirmed by his successors. That project was a key plank of French foreign policy, grew to encompass more far flung countries like Sweden, and was launched largely to prevent the Germans from getting above themselves. It was the Thirty Years War.
But is James I & VI on Hannan’s list? Is he b*llocks.
A Fabian Society report at the start of 2017 determined that Labour had no chance of winning the next election. Combining the issues of Brexit, Scotland and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed unpopularity, the report suggested the Labour party was pretty much finished as a singular political entity. It would be better, the report concluded, for the party to join with other forces across the United Kingdom to take the fight to the Tories.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
This week saw Corbyn’s response to the challenge. He relaunched himself as a populist force for progressive good. There were some early signs that Corbyn stands prepared to adapt to this new role. The first example came in an unlikely form – online banter between the leader of the opposition and TV pundit Piers Morgan. Though some were quick to brush it off as a cheap tactic, it was one of the first posts I’ve seen that was shared both by the Westminster political bubble and my old classmates from back home.
Reaching beyond the political class is perhaps the biggest test that Corbyn faces, in his attempt to win the trust of the country at large. An ability to reach out to the “great ignored” would reap more than just a general election victory – it would create a sea change in British politics. Though Corbyn’s supporters are mocked for talking about those who don’t vote, a plan to entice these people to turn up on polling day offers a genuine chance to reverse the Fabian Society’s prediction. Football banter will not achieve this alone, but a plan to engage with those across the political divide on common-sense issues should certainly be explored.
Corbyn’s support for a “maximum wage cap” also sparked a long overdue debate surrounding pay inequality. Though a spokesman later confirmed that the “wage cap” was but one potential proposal, the theme of fairness in pay will surely stand as a central point for Corbyn’s populist relaunch.

Continue reading...