>*Chris Grey…*
>
>Imagine an alternative history of Brexit. In it, everything happens as it has in reality, except for one difference: after all the painful negotiations, the Withdrawal Agreement is finally signed by the EU and the UK, and it is legally binding both parties under international law – but immediately afterwards key figures in the EU start saying some extraordinary things.
Of course, this analogy only works if you assume the people making the argument for the UK’s behaviour are themselves arguing in good faith. They are not. They’re not even trying to make a case, as they know full well that the UK government’s position is indefensible. Rather, they’re manufacturing a plausible hook on which they can hang the emotional arguments on which their position depends. They need something officially sounding to act as a frame on which to hang the nationalist outrage, the instinctive hatred for this alien, foreign government. It doesn’t matter that it is built on legal fictions, or depends on a total lack of awareness of the other’s position. The entire point is that the audience they have in mind is primed to never consider the others’ point of view, let alone their interests, regardless of the situation.
In their view, the UK does not need the moral high ground, let alone legal cover for its actions, because against an enemy everything is allowable. It’s the morality of the hooligan, not of the courthouse. The morality of any action depends not on an ethical framework but on whether its our side or theirs that is doing it. Reasonable arguments, whether through analogies or thought experiments, are pointless, if the other side is not arguing in good faith and is developing their case specifically for an audience that never will either.
“The EU would be excoriated for its dishonesty and its contempt for international law.”
No, it probably wouldn’t. The likes of Chris Grey would find a way to do the opposite.
3 comments
>*Chris Grey…*
>
>Imagine an alternative history of Brexit. In it, everything happens as it has in reality, except for one difference: after all the painful negotiations, the Withdrawal Agreement is finally signed by the EU and the UK, and it is legally binding both parties under international law – but immediately afterwards key figures in the EU start saying some extraordinary things.
Of course, this analogy only works if you assume the people making the argument for the UK’s behaviour are themselves arguing in good faith. They are not. They’re not even trying to make a case, as they know full well that the UK government’s position is indefensible. Rather, they’re manufacturing a plausible hook on which they can hang the emotional arguments on which their position depends. They need something officially sounding to act as a frame on which to hang the nationalist outrage, the instinctive hatred for this alien, foreign government. It doesn’t matter that it is built on legal fictions, or depends on a total lack of awareness of the other’s position. The entire point is that the audience they have in mind is primed to never consider the others’ point of view, let alone their interests, regardless of the situation.
In their view, the UK does not need the moral high ground, let alone legal cover for its actions, because against an enemy everything is allowable. It’s the morality of the hooligan, not of the courthouse. The morality of any action depends not on an ethical framework but on whether its our side or theirs that is doing it. Reasonable arguments, whether through analogies or thought experiments, are pointless, if the other side is not arguing in good faith and is developing their case specifically for an audience that never will either.
“The EU would be excoriated for its dishonesty and its contempt for international law.”
No, it probably wouldn’t. The likes of Chris Grey would find a way to do the opposite.