Unnecessary sneering from the Economist

You may have heard that the UK has introduced its own 'Magnitsky' sanctions, i.e. sanctions targetted at named individuals alleged by the UK government to have been complicit in serious wrongdoing. The UK's list includes 20 Saudi Arabian officials said to be involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, for example. People on the list can have their assets frozen and be barred from entering the country.

I was interested to see how The Economist covered this story. This is what it said:

"Magnitsky legislation is a fulfilment of a manifesto pledge and Mr Raab, who has been calling for such an act since 2012, has achieved a rare political feat: delivering something he genuinely believes in."

Come on. This is cynical, sneery and unworthy of the paper, and I don't need to say why.

But what I thought was particularly strange about the comment was the context. As the article itself says, there is an EU/Brexit angle on this:

"Britain’s sanctions regime has until now worked through the UN or EU. Brexit allows the country to fashion its own rules. Indeed, the first piece of Brexit-related legislation passed by Parliament was the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act ... "

One might have thought that the biggest British political fact of recent years - Brexit - is a good example of the political feat of delivering something that many politicians genuinely believe in. And one might have thought that this story of the Magnitsky sanctions would be an example of why some politicians do believe in Brexit - the power of Britain to fashion its own future, to make its own way in the world, etc etc. But The Economist continues to be incapable of seeing Brexit this way. 

I appreciate that the thinking and writing classes consider Brexit to be a Bad Idea. But I do find it odd that they can bring up the value of sticking to one's beliefs and delivering on them, and do so in a Brexit-related context, and not see the connection.