In it he speculates that the language used to describe the two sides in the EU referendum might have had some bearing on the actual result. His particular focus is the use of the romantic, buccaneering, portmanteau word 'Brexiteers', which (he said) could have been 'quietly significant' in winning it for the Brexiteers.
He notes the battle between 'Brexiteers' and the less-romantic-sounding 'Brexiters' in certain media outlets (making his old employer, the Guardian, sound far less partisan than its right-wing rivals in the process):
Even before the FT issued its style note on the matter [counselling against the use of 'Brexiteers'], you could divine a newspaper’s position on the referendum from its choice of collective noun. In the Guardian Brexiteer and Brexiter appeared roughly the same number of times between the start of the year and the referendum. In the Telegraph Brexiteers outnumbered Brexiters almost four to one. And in the Mail, it was six to one.
Wonder what it was at Newsnight?
The comments below his piece don't sound very impressed. The top-rated one begins, "It's amusing to watch Remainers like Ian Katz contrive ever more bizarre explanations for their failure to win the referendum."