Was Orwell a Brexiteer — or a Remainer?
Of all the writers of the 20th century, George Orwell is probably the most revered. In the January issue of Prospect magazine, alan Johnson, the former labour Home Secretary, wrote an article in praise of him, saying that ‘his impact on my politics has been more profound than that of any writer, or, for that matter, politician’.
Coming across Orwell’s writings as a schoolboy, it struck Johnson that ‘he certainly seemed unlike anyone I knew in the slums of North Kensington, but I somehow felt that he was on our side’.
authors and politicians of all shades continue to want Orwell (pictured) on their side, and it is easy to see why: he wrote with crystal clarity, had an everinquisitive moral seriousness, and was alert to the iniquity of totalitarianism at a time when so many of his contemporaries were happy to rub along with it. ‘He was a kind of saint,’ wrote V.S. Pritchett upon Orwell’s death in 1950, a view with which most people would agree.
Nearly 70 years on, politicians of all shades are convinced that, if Orwell were still alive, he would undoubtedly take their side. last week, the prominent Remainer lord adonis roped Orwell’s satirical masterpiece animal farm into the Brexit debate.
‘The besuited pigs who take control of Mr Jones’ Manor farm, and start walking on their hind legs and smoking cigars, remind me of farage, Rees-Mogg and the populist double-breasted Brexiteers, not Barnier or the serious-minded officials I have met in the European Commission,’ he argued.
He added that Orwell’s essay on weasel words, Politics and The English language, was ‘vital to understanding Brexit: the use of “strong words” — like “deep and special partnership” — to “give solidity to mere wind” ’.
Predictably, the Brexiteers refused to take this analysis lying down. They are just as sure that Orwell would agree with them.
‘Keep his name out of your mouth,’ replied one tweeter. ‘an unelected lord trying to overthrow a democratic vote in the name of democracy is the definition of Orwellian.’ another wrote: ‘Orwell would have seen the EU for what it is. an unelected bunch of pigs dictating to us from their trough.’
In turn, Remainers pointed to a 1947 essay, Toward European Unity, in which Orwell suggested that a united Europe was the only way to avoid another war: ‘Democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area,’ he wrote. ‘But the only area in which it could be made to work, in any near future, is Western Europe.’
Well, he may well have said that, the Brexiteers argued back, but he said much else besides. ‘I reckon that for George Orwell, as for me, democracy trumps everything,’ wrote one Brexiteer, convinced that Orwell would have been shocked by the drive towards a federal Europe, in which ‘fewer and fewer of our laws will be made by our elected legislators’.
and so it goes on. for me, it only goes to show the futility of trying to guess the stance any historical figure would take on any of the issues confronting us today.
a similar argument goes on between the many admirers of Winston Churchill, with each side wanting him for their own. The Brexiteers point out that he once said: ‘If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.’
THaT may be so, reply the Remainers, but he also argued for a ‘United States of Europe’, and said that ‘if well and truly built’ it would ‘be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause’.
Being a Remainer, Churchill’s grandson, the doughty Nicholas Soames, instinctively feels that his grandfather would be on his side. But, unlike so many others, he also recognises the ultimate absurdity involved in trying to second-guess the dead.
‘But how can I tell? How can I possibly tell?’ asked Soames. ‘I think we have to say it’s one of the great unknowns. What do you think Henry VIII would have thought of it?’