United Kingdom

Soph0571

(9,685 posts) Tue Sep 18, 2018, 07:51 AM Sep 2018

1066, Hitler, the Corn Laws... Why are Brexiteers the basic bitches of history?

Why are top Brexiteers’ references to history always so… basic?

Boris Johnson, writing in his Telegraph column today, referred to 1066 – surely the cheapest novelty mug in the giftshop of English history.

“If Chequers were adopted it would mean that for the first time since 1066,” he writes, “our leaders were deliberately acquiescing in foreign rule.”

This is, of course, wrong.
-------------
The main problem is the sheer basicness of the reference. Why do these Brexiteers only ever have sub-GCSE historical references to wheel out? Less than three months ago, as another example, Jacob Rees-Mogg was warning Theresa May that reneging on her Brexit promise would lead to the same fate of Conservative prime minister Robert Peel when he repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

This was also wrong. History absolved Peel’s decision to put country above party – something Rees-Mogg and other Corn Law-warning Brexiteers appear to have overlooked.

[link:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/1066-hitler-corn-laws-why-are-brexiteers-basic-bitches-history|

Facts? We don't need no basic facts - as long as we have revisionism ...

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1066, Hitler, the Corn Laws... Why are Brexiteers the basic bitches of history? (Original Post) Soph0571 Sep 2018 OP

Like so many who like to flash their classical education at the drop of a top hat, Denzil_DC Sep 2018 #1

Excellent read. Thanks! geardaddy Sep 2018 #2

One could also mention the choice of the German Hanoverians as heirs to the throne, in preference to LeftishBrit Sep 2018 #3

Robert Peel? LeftishBrit Sep 2018 #4

If Rees-Smugg had been round in the 1840's T_i_B Sep 2018 #5

Denzil_DC

(7,242 posts)

1. Like so many who like to flash their classical education at the drop of a top hat,

Reply to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2018, 08:21 AM

Sep 2018

aside from the valid objections outlined in the article, Johnson's statement's historically illiterate on any number of other levels, not least because the British state didn't even exist pre-1066 - so he'd need to define "our leaders" in a particularly tortuous, and plain wrong, way for his claim to make any sense - and is a relatively recent formation in the grand sweep of history.

geardaddy

(24,931 posts)

2. Excellent read. Thanks!

Reply to Soph0571 (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2018, 10:42 AM

Sep 2018

LeftishBrit

(41,205 posts)

3. One could also mention the choice of the German Hanoverians as heirs to the throne, in preference to

Reply to Soph0571 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2018, 11:12 AM

Sep 2018

the Stuarts.

George 1 was regarded by many Scots as just 'a wee wee German lairdie'; and, at least at the time of his accession, spoke little or no English.

LeftishBrit

(41,205 posts)

4. Robert Peel?

Reply to Soph0571 (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2018, 11:49 AM

Sep 2018

Rees-Smugg's aversion to liberal Conservatives seems to be consistent at any rate! He'd have been on the right of his party even in early Victorian times!

T_i_B

(14,738 posts)

5. If Rees-Smugg had been round in the 1840's

Reply to LeftishBrit (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 19, 2018, 03:53 PM

Sep 2018

He and his ERG colleagues would have been the biggest defenders of the corn laws. Very depressing to see how fashionable protectionism is at present.

The split in the Tories over the corn laws lead a number of Peelites to move to the Liberal Party over time, including of course a certain W.E. Gladstone, who is still venerated by many liberals to this day.

Reply to this discussion