The one substantive observation Ellis seems to make is that, "the trolls who once hailed Booker as the one who would prepare the way for a new beginning are turning on him as a traitor to the cause", a phenomenon he seems to regard as unsurprising.
Such is the dominance of these rightly named "trolls" on the Booker comments that they have become a singularly unpleasant place to be. Any attempt to confront their prejudices is bound to fail as, having been put in their place, they return the following week, with exactly the same assertions they had used previously, seasoned by unrestrained (and unmoderated) ad hominem
They appear also to be given some sustenance by the Sunday Telegraph
letters column which for several weeks now, has entertained hostile letters, usually on the familiar lines that "Booker is wrong".
If nothing else, this change in demeanour by the tiny minority of readers who actually comment online on the Booker column illustrates the tendency of such readers to seek from their favoured websites confirmation of their prejudices.
Many of them have names known to us, people with their own agendas, often Ukip activists. Their strident and persistent attacks on dissenting voices ensure they have the comments to themselves, where they set up shop, roundly to condemn Booker each week. Rarely though do we see any of them on the comments for EUReferendum.com, where they might get more robust handling.
The essence of the commentary, though, is that it betrays people who are not very bright. Mostly, as the saying goes, they are several bananas short of a bunch, confining themselves to a limited repertoire of mantras, tediously repeated at every opportunity.
Not one shows any sign of understanding the central concept of Flexcit
and, while many are quick to condemn the Single Market, the idea that we should organise a measured withdrawal, to minimise economic damage, is way beyond their paygrade. Anything short of immediate, unconditional withdrawal is regarded as evidence of "remainer" sympathies.
When it comes to weird, though, even Ellis pales into insignificance compared with Iain Martin
. On his way to sneering at the Observer
in what he laughingly calls "quality journalism", he comments on the "case of Christopher Booker" which he asserts is "most strange".
"Booker was, along with his associates, a robust voice for leaving the EU for many years", he says. Now he writes it will be a disaster because we are leaving the customs union and because NO-ONE WILL LISTEN TO HIM AND HIS FRIENDS, or something".
The capitals are from Martin, who then goes on to say: "Let's face it. There is a strand in the Eurosceptic movement that liked being a minority interest. There is a similarity there with music fans who like showing their alleged superiority by being into an obscure act. What they hate most is when other people start buying the records of their hitherto little-known favourites".
That is the other element of the Booker critique – the poverty of intellect that drives writers to close in on themselves and address personal issues.
The politics of Brexit are to Martin what red and green are to someone who is profoundly colour blind. He has no comprehension, not the slightest glimmer of understanding of the subject matter of which Booker writes.
And that, ultimately will be the tragedy of Brexit. Here is a fascinating, complex issue which, potentially, is set to re-energise politics – but at huge risk, imposing burdens on politicians that they are ill-equipped to deal with. But, to anything other than black and white, without not even the nuances of shades of grey, these people are blind.
Decades of immersing themselves in personality politics has atrophied their brains, leaving them with nothing of interest to say.