We all know how slippery politicians can be when we try to pin them down to a commitment or ask them how something went wrong. Previous red-line, 'no-ifs-or-buts' commitments turn into 'aspirations that were not met'.
The master of this was Michael Howard in his famous not-answering-the-question with Jeremy Paxman. Whoever's fault it was, it certainly was not his.
Successive Ministers have learned the technique and adopt it instinctively.
The Coalition government blamed the previous Labour government for the recession as though the American sub-prime market had not existed, and we swallowed the lie. No wonder Ministers went on and on. They were high on the drug.
Under investment in schools, the NHS, transport, housing or employment were automatically blamed on others. Schools fail to perform? Blame the teachers and try to turn the schools into academies. The NHS waiting lists getting longer? Blame the doctors and adminstrators, and make them work harder. Housing failing to deliver? Blame the local councils for holding up planning applications. And so it went on.
The really easy person to blame was Europe, those supposedly faceless bureaucrats. It was always a soft option to ignore the fact that the UK government had agreed with the majority of environmental and other standards introduced by Brussels and to blame Europe. The public would never know the difference.
We reap what we sow. Successive governments have shrugged off responsibility for under-investment in our own country and shifted the blamed onto Europe wherever possible. Is it surprising, after such a narrative, that the public turned on the apparently easy targets and ignored the beam in the government's own eye: its complete lack of honesty over who was really to blame?
Sunday 31 July 2016
An artist responds
In the front of the programme for Kneehigh Theatre's summer programme - at the Asylum - the Artistic Director Mike Shepherd writes:
I write this in a state of shock and outrage at the duplicitous, Shakespearean shenanigans rattling Europe at the moment. It feels a much needed tonic to be embarking on another Asylum season.
Asylum: [a refuge, sanctuary, madhouse]
The deeper, wider meaning of the word 'asylum' has come sharply into focus in these troubling times. Our Asylum was always built to embrace and to celebrate 'one and all' ...
Well said, that man.
I write this in a state of shock and outrage at the duplicitous, Shakespearean shenanigans rattling Europe at the moment. It feels a much needed tonic to be embarking on another Asylum season.
Asylum: [a refuge, sanctuary, madhouse]
The deeper, wider meaning of the word 'asylum' has come sharply into focus in these troubling times. Our Asylum was always built to embrace and to celebrate 'one and all' ...
Well said, that man.
They had no plan ...
As we now all know, the Brexiteers had no plan. All they offered us with a series of conflicting visions of a land of economic milk and honey, supported by a series of lies.
Now the vote is completed, we are faced with a divided country and a statement that 'Brexit is Brexit' which sounds pretty threatening and nasty even if no one quite knows what it means. It is a pretty frightening basis for decision-making which affects the strategic future of the country and its 60m+ people.
An example of the quality of the Brexiteers planning is contained in an article (in the West Briton of 21 July) by George Eustace addressed to his constituents.
He starts with a call-out 'It is important to bring the country together', a phrase which we have heard often of late and is typical of the playground bully who, having 'won' says 'I won so to come together you have to agree with me.'
Precisely how should we come together, Mr Eustace? You and I disagree along a very clear fault line and nothing you can offer me - other than your resignation and a reversal of the vote - is going to get agreement from me.
His article goes on to say how delighted he is to have been re-appointed as Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment:
'I said during the EU referendum campaign that I hoped to be the first farming minister in more than 40 years to design a new national agriculture policy, starting from first principles ... my office can now become a vibrant hub of discussion with farmers, fisherman, scientists, ecologists and volunteers talking about how we can try new things and do better ... '
The man who was responsible for Agricultural Policy before the vote appears to have no more than a blank sheet of paper on what the future might look like. He gives us no indication of what needs to change or where, all he talks of is 'taking back control': a fine stirring phrase but to do what is not made clear.
So all those fishermen and farmers who backed Brexit voted on the basis of a vague hope that the Minister might have an idea what he was going to do. He clearly did not.
And what, one might ask, did he do about the EU Agriculture or Fisheries policies before the vote? Did he do anything to articulate what was wrong with them, gain active support from the UK industries involved and seek to effect change in the EU? Or did he just sit there bemoaning his lot and blaming 'faceless bureaucrats in Brussels'? I know which answer my money is on.
I hope they sell tickets to the 'vibrant hub of discussions'. I will be at the front of the queue as he attempts to explain to angry fishermen how the quotas are not changing and to farmers why their subsidies are going to be cut.
Could we, as a nation, really have been so stupid to fall for such vacuous stuff?
Now the vote is completed, we are faced with a divided country and a statement that 'Brexit is Brexit' which sounds pretty threatening and nasty even if no one quite knows what it means. It is a pretty frightening basis for decision-making which affects the strategic future of the country and its 60m+ people.
An example of the quality of the Brexiteers planning is contained in an article (in the West Briton of 21 July) by George Eustace addressed to his constituents.
He starts with a call-out 'It is important to bring the country together', a phrase which we have heard often of late and is typical of the playground bully who, having 'won' says 'I won so to come together you have to agree with me.'
Precisely how should we come together, Mr Eustace? You and I disagree along a very clear fault line and nothing you can offer me - other than your resignation and a reversal of the vote - is going to get agreement from me.
His article goes on to say how delighted he is to have been re-appointed as Minister of State for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment:
'I said during the EU referendum campaign that I hoped to be the first farming minister in more than 40 years to design a new national agriculture policy, starting from first principles ... my office can now become a vibrant hub of discussion with farmers, fisherman, scientists, ecologists and volunteers talking about how we can try new things and do better ... '
The man who was responsible for Agricultural Policy before the vote appears to have no more than a blank sheet of paper on what the future might look like. He gives us no indication of what needs to change or where, all he talks of is 'taking back control': a fine stirring phrase but to do what is not made clear.
So all those fishermen and farmers who backed Brexit voted on the basis of a vague hope that the Minister might have an idea what he was going to do. He clearly did not.
And what, one might ask, did he do about the EU Agriculture or Fisheries policies before the vote? Did he do anything to articulate what was wrong with them, gain active support from the UK industries involved and seek to effect change in the EU? Or did he just sit there bemoaning his lot and blaming 'faceless bureaucrats in Brussels'? I know which answer my money is on.
I hope they sell tickets to the 'vibrant hub of discussions'. I will be at the front of the queue as he attempts to explain to angry fishermen how the quotas are not changing and to farmers why their subsidies are going to be cut.
Could we, as a nation, really have been so stupid to fall for such vacuous stuff?
Wednesday 27 July 2016
The HS2 effect
News that Falmouth Coastguard is to undergo yet another 're-structure' (West Briton 23 July: a convenient date/time to release bad news just as people head off on their holidays) is defended as not having a major effect on the service.
The previous changes which threatened the entire Falmouth service were headed off a few years ago but the Brixham office closed. How much longer will Falmouth survive, I wonder.
Superfast broadband was installed in Cornwall so that we could compete more effectively in the modern commercial world. It was a boon for the MCA who have been able to use it to help centralise their services in the Solent area. For them the traffic is primarily one way: out of Cornwall to the South East.
The centralisation may have been made for sound business reasons but the result is a reduction in the number of skilled jobs around the country.
This is something that stoked people's fears in the Brexit referendum: the ability of the South East to suck in jobs, hollowing out the regions: precisely what the northern cities fear will happen with HS2.
The previous changes which threatened the entire Falmouth service were headed off a few years ago but the Brixham office closed. How much longer will Falmouth survive, I wonder.
Superfast broadband was installed in Cornwall so that we could compete more effectively in the modern commercial world. It was a boon for the MCA who have been able to use it to help centralise their services in the Solent area. For them the traffic is primarily one way: out of Cornwall to the South East.
The centralisation may have been made for sound business reasons but the result is a reduction in the number of skilled jobs around the country.
This is something that stoked people's fears in the Brexit referendum: the ability of the South East to suck in jobs, hollowing out the regions: precisely what the northern cities fear will happen with HS2.
Saturday 23 July 2016
Post-truth politics
The Queen of Hearts lives on. Verdict first, sentence later.
Katherine Viner, in The Guardian, highlights the perils of post-truth politics in which social media trumps (whoops!) facts. How 'facts' in the form of tweets and postings run away with themselves in the face of any evidence, egging us on to reinforce our prejudices and feeding our cognitive dissonance. This was a theme also covered by Ian Dunt.
'Of course there are WMD. I know they are there. If you cannot find them then you are failing.'
How true, although she discounts the added weight of the right-wing Tory press who so despise The Guardian and Independent as uncontrollable assets.
In the middle of the article she refers to the Media's Climate Change dilemma:
The Remain side’s worrying facts and worried experts were dismissed as “Project Fear” – and quickly neutralised by opposing “facts”: if 99 experts said the economy would crash and one disagreed, the BBC told us that each side had a different view of the situation. (This is a disastrous mistake that ends up obscuring truth, and echoes how some report climate change.)
How does one debate a subject like Climate Change responsibly when the odds are weighted like this. 99 seconds to one side and 1 second to the other?
Actually, in my book, the BBC did a pretty impressive job of displaying balance in the referendum campaign, causing me simply to throw cushions at the screen whenever a Brexiteer made one of their fatuous statements.
Katherine Viner, in The Guardian, highlights the perils of post-truth politics in which social media trumps (whoops!) facts. How 'facts' in the form of tweets and postings run away with themselves in the face of any evidence, egging us on to reinforce our prejudices and feeding our cognitive dissonance. This was a theme also covered by Ian Dunt.
'Of course there are WMD. I know they are there. If you cannot find them then you are failing.'
How true, although she discounts the added weight of the right-wing Tory press who so despise The Guardian and Independent as uncontrollable assets.
In the middle of the article she refers to the Media's Climate Change dilemma:
The Remain side’s worrying facts and worried experts were dismissed as “Project Fear” – and quickly neutralised by opposing “facts”: if 99 experts said the economy would crash and one disagreed, the BBC told us that each side had a different view of the situation. (This is a disastrous mistake that ends up obscuring truth, and echoes how some report climate change.)
How does one debate a subject like Climate Change responsibly when the odds are weighted like this. 99 seconds to one side and 1 second to the other?
Actually, in my book, the BBC did a pretty impressive job of displaying balance in the referendum campaign, causing me simply to throw cushions at the screen whenever a Brexiteer made one of their fatuous statements.
The war of the cultures ...
Another excellent article by Ian Dunt highlights the cultural tensions between Remainers and Brexiteers, asking why we Remainers are still in a daze.
The details seem so much smaller than the strength of feeling in the country. Why can't we just do what the Brexiters loudly insist, and accept it? Move on. Get with the programme.
It's because this was never about the EU. This was the culture war. It is the single greatest question of our lifetime, the one which defines this moment for the West: do we accept globalisation? Do we share goods and people and culture across the world, or do we retreat into our closed identities? Nativism versus globalism.
He goes on to quote some research which:
... suggests something remarkable is happening to us. Brexit appears to be redefining the British public politically. Everything is on its head. ...
It is hard not to argue with this. Where once the nation was split into left or right, it is now multi-dimensional, at its simplist: Left/Leave, Left/Remain, Right/Remain, Right/Leave. The research actually suggests six psychographic groups:
On one extreme are the two groups most open to immigration and multiculturalism - the Confident Multiculturalists and Mainstream Liberals. On the other extreme, the two groups most hostile to these ideas are Active Enmity and Latent Hostiles. In the middle are Immigrant Ambivalence and Culturally Concerned. As the names imply, they're worried about rapid social change and services, but they're open to being convinced.
Another reason we cannot simply 'get on with it' is because we are being asked to change our traditional roles.
For 41 years, Farage and Co have 'not accepted' the principle of being in the EU and have campaigned against it. Europhiles have not had to campaign as their view prevailed.
Now, the tables are turned. The Brexiteers are (allegedly) in the majority and have no idea how to run things: witness their lack of plan for the future and the rapid departure of the three leading figures. On the other side, the Europhiles are suddenly having to turn themselves into a campaigning body and yet have no idea how to do this, have no leading figure or party around whom they can cohere, and have access to no powerful channels of communication.
Who will be first to solve this conundrum and with what consequences?
The details seem so much smaller than the strength of feeling in the country. Why can't we just do what the Brexiters loudly insist, and accept it? Move on. Get with the programme.
It's because this was never about the EU. This was the culture war. It is the single greatest question of our lifetime, the one which defines this moment for the West: do we accept globalisation? Do we share goods and people and culture across the world, or do we retreat into our closed identities? Nativism versus globalism.
He goes on to quote some research which:
... suggests something remarkable is happening to us. Brexit appears to be redefining the British public politically. Everything is on its head. ...
It is hard not to argue with this. Where once the nation was split into left or right, it is now multi-dimensional, at its simplist: Left/Leave, Left/Remain, Right/Remain, Right/Leave. The research actually suggests six psychographic groups:
On one extreme are the two groups most open to immigration and multiculturalism - the Confident Multiculturalists and Mainstream Liberals. On the other extreme, the two groups most hostile to these ideas are Active Enmity and Latent Hostiles. In the middle are Immigrant Ambivalence and Culturally Concerned. As the names imply, they're worried about rapid social change and services, but they're open to being convinced.
Another reason we cannot simply 'get on with it' is because we are being asked to change our traditional roles.
For 41 years, Farage and Co have 'not accepted' the principle of being in the EU and have campaigned against it. Europhiles have not had to campaign as their view prevailed.
Now, the tables are turned. The Brexiteers are (allegedly) in the majority and have no idea how to run things: witness their lack of plan for the future and the rapid departure of the three leading figures. On the other side, the Europhiles are suddenly having to turn themselves into a campaigning body and yet have no idea how to do this, have no leading figure or party around whom they can cohere, and have access to no powerful channels of communication.
Who will be first to solve this conundrum and with what consequences?
Tuesday 19 July 2016
Dear Boris
It is almost impossible to think of a new thing to say about Boris Johnson who is sure to dominate the news for the foreseeable future, or until he makes such a massive boob that the PM has no choice but to sack him. We all know he is clever and that he craves attention, an unusual combination. The press have at last got an easy target.
His opening remarks to his European colleagues was typical of the man.
'The UK's exit from the EU does not mean it will be leaving Europe or "abandoning" its friends. But that in no sense means we are leaving Europe. We are not going to be in any way abandoning our leading role in European participation and co-operation of all kinds.'
What wonderful British arrogance. Not abandoning our friends? Hoping to continue to take a 'leading role' in 'European participation and co-operation' indeed. Like being a member of the EU perhaps?
How can the world survive without our wise advice, I wonder.
Only a Boris-like mind could believe that leaving the EU is not 'abandoning them': an odd choice of verb given its relation to rats leaving a ship.
'The message I'll be taking to our friends in the Council is that we have to give effect to the will of the people and leave the European Union.'
Thanks again, Boris. How very self-effacing and tactful of you not to mention that you led the campaign to leave the EU ...and how good of you not to mention that you lied all the way through the campaign spewing out 'facts' that had a lot to do with the way people voted ... and had no plan for the future.
You really should not be so modest.
When asked about his published criticisms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama he had the nerve to suggest that he had been 'quoted out of context'. So the remarks in articles written by him in a national newspaper were 'out of context'.
The gall of the man. Apologise. Go on. see if you can - and then apologise to the citizens of the UK for the mess you made of the referendum.
His opening remarks to his European colleagues was typical of the man.
'The UK's exit from the EU does not mean it will be leaving Europe or "abandoning" its friends. But that in no sense means we are leaving Europe. We are not going to be in any way abandoning our leading role in European participation and co-operation of all kinds.'
What wonderful British arrogance. Not abandoning our friends? Hoping to continue to take a 'leading role' in 'European participation and co-operation' indeed. Like being a member of the EU perhaps?
How can the world survive without our wise advice, I wonder.
Only a Boris-like mind could believe that leaving the EU is not 'abandoning them': an odd choice of verb given its relation to rats leaving a ship.
'The message I'll be taking to our friends in the Council is that we have to give effect to the will of the people and leave the European Union.'
Thanks again, Boris. How very self-effacing and tactful of you not to mention that you led the campaign to leave the EU ...and how good of you not to mention that you lied all the way through the campaign spewing out 'facts' that had a lot to do with the way people voted ... and had no plan for the future.
You really should not be so modest.
When asked about his published criticisms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama he had the nerve to suggest that he had been 'quoted out of context'. So the remarks in articles written by him in a national newspaper were 'out of context'.
The gall of the man. Apologise. Go on. see if you can - and then apologise to the citizens of the UK for the mess you made of the referendum.
Tuesday 12 July 2016
We don't know
There's a land of milk and honey,
Don't you know.
Where we'll all earn pots of money,
Don't you know.
Where we'll all be put in charge
And be peaceful (by and large),
And the climate will be sunny,
Don't you know.
Where this land is is a mystery,
Don't you know.
For the captain with its history,
Don't you know.
He has gone and done a runner
(Which is something of a bummer)
Leaving everything a mystery,
Don't you know.
For the captain's overboard,
The so and so.
And 'Of experts we are bored',
The so and so.
We have lost the leading lady
(Whose CV was slightly shady)
And the drunkard's on his sword,
This you know.
They have left us no directions,
Don't you know
So our route is speculation,
Don't you know.
But the compass is quite bust
And our satnav's full of rust
So our route's beyond detection,
Don't you know.
But our leader says 'Keep going,
'On we go.
'We can get there. Just keep rowing
'On we go.
'Though we don't know why or wherefore
'People asked us to, so therefore
'We must simply keep on going,
'Down below.'
Don't you know.
Where we'll all earn pots of money,
Don't you know.
Where we'll all be put in charge
And be peaceful (by and large),
And the climate will be sunny,
Don't you know.
Where this land is is a mystery,
Don't you know.
For the captain with its history,
Don't you know.
He has gone and done a runner
(Which is something of a bummer)
Leaving everything a mystery,
Don't you know.
For the captain's overboard,
The so and so.
And 'Of experts we are bored',
The so and so.
We have lost the leading lady
(Whose CV was slightly shady)
And the drunkard's on his sword,
This you know.
They have left us no directions,
Don't you know
So our route is speculation,
Don't you know.
But the compass is quite bust
And our satnav's full of rust
So our route's beyond detection,
Don't you know.
But our leader says 'Keep going,
'On we go.
'We can get there. Just keep rowing
'On we go.
'Though we don't know why or wherefore
'People asked us to, so therefore
'We must simply keep on going,
'Down below.'
Monday 11 July 2016
Giving democracy a bad name
Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst form of government except all the others. The Brexit result is showing just how bad it can be.
Three things caught my eye this week. The first was an article on the BBC website by the incomparable Mark Mardell entitled The new divide: hard or soft Brexit. He echoed David Cameron's line that the 52% 'must be respected' and that a further referendum on the subject would be to play into the hands of those Brexiteers who complained that 'politicians never listen'.
He defined 'hard Brexiteers' as those that are prepared to ride roughshod over all and sundry: 'We won and so we will send in our Article 50 letter as soon as possible. That will be irrevocable and will prevent the Remainers from holding anything up.' The 'soft' want to take a longer view and get some ducks in a row first. The Chilcot Report suggests their approach might be a wise move.
The second thing was the statement by Theresa May who said 'we are all Brexiteers now' as she launched her leadership campaign. (She is sounding like 'soft' compared to Leadsom's 'hard'.)
And lastly, a few senior statesmen (Tory of course) said that another referendum or election, or indeed a Scottish referendum, would be out the question.
To quote a former leader, 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
'No' because we should betray neither the 52% nor the 48%. That is the terrifying stupidity of the binary decision that we were offered and the narrowness of the result. The country is split and the wounds continue to bleed. To go ahead with Brexit would be as damaging to half the country - or potentially rather more than half - as not doing so. That is the rule of the bully and democracy was surely never meant to encourage that. If ever there was a time for finding a third way ...
No', we are not all Brexiteers now. Blindly to follow the mass when the referendum was as flawed as this one is to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War and the Bay of Pigs when 'group think' took over and reason was thrown to the wind in pursuit of 'political pressure'.
There is general agreement that the campaign information was misleading and in many places simply untrue. (It is customary to say 'on both sides' but I have yet to be told a major structural lie on the part of the Remain camp.)
The Electoral Commission's website says 'You must not use threats, intimidation, deception or fraud to persuade electors to vote for a particular outcome'. Do I have to give you a list of the 'misleading statements' in the campaign to justify deception, or even fraud. That may be another reason why the three leaders have run for cover as the lawyers sharpen their quills.
A vote to leave based on false promises, no matter what the margin, does not make the result morally sound or right. It is building on sand. To go ahead now would be to be like Tweedledum and Tweedledee having a battle 'because we are all dressed up' in armour. Come to think of it, that sort of thinking led to WWI.
Imagine a vote on a topic like 'Do you want a tax cut and free cake every Monday morning?' The result might be an almost unanimous 'Yes' - I feel sorry for those who are gluten-free - but that would not make the end result deliverable.
Similarly, consider a vote on capital punishment - the question we never dare ask - or a vote to send Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on a one-way trip to Mars. Both of these might yield a majority in favour but that would not make the result morally acceptable.
Imagine, then a vote which offered to remove all the perceived annoyances of life; economic prosperity, plenty of housing for all; an end queues for trains, buses, doctors' surgeries, hospital appointments; and which would save the country lots of money. What's not to like? The only small problem is that it is not deliverable. It is a pipe dream. If everyone voted for it, would it therefore be morally right? Would it be a result we 'should respect'?
Despite the fact that the criteria were not set out at the start, it would be crass to anyone not brought up with the UK's antiquated voting system, to allow the will of around 37% of the electorate to lead to a constitutional change of this magnitude. We cannot change the process but, under any circumstances, a majority of 50% (not 37%) of the total electorate or 66% (not 52%) of those voting might seem a much more reliable test of public opinion.
And finally, 'No' because some further vote has to be inevitable, if only by Parliament in agreeing to submit an Article 50 request.
Parliament is another form of democracy, invented in the days before we - or most of us - had access to the internet. It is a representative form of democracy with the MP representing us the voters (although don't get me started on proportional representation). The role of the MP is confused. At one level, we trust them to exercise their judgement on what is right - although they are generally told what to vote by the whips - at another we want them to vote for what we want: sometimes quite specifically.
Having a representative democracy has strengths. Almost no decision is black and white: there are implications. The world is full of trade-offs. MPs are well-placed to look at a question in the round. Yes, it can be irritating when they do not see things as clearly, and as simply, as campaigners would wish, but they are in a position to understand and allow for the trade-offs.
On matters like capital punishment, and surely, on matters as complex as our relationship with the EU, we should let them have the final say.
Individually we can take a pretty narrow view of broad questions. Some of the local and narrow-focused arguments that were floating around during the EU campaign suggest that the vote was influenced by some pretty weird issues.
My favourite was the view that we should vote out 'because the EU has stopped me buying my favourite anti-fouling paint'. There may, just may, be slightly wider issues to consider than anti-fouling, even if the UK (sorry Wales and England) parliament were to consider overturning this particular aspect of the environmental protection regulations at some point in the future. Talk about setting it up to fail.
Someone who was passionate about stopping migration, for instance, may not have understood the economic implications of continuing as we are vs stopping all migration. Losing the benefits of the EU single market may have looked of less interest than getting the right anti-fouling.
Parliament is in a unique position to take a broader view and for this reason, if for no other, must be given a vote. They will not be in an enviable position. If, as reported, the majority of MPs would like to remain then they set themselves up in opposition to the people's declared desire. On the other hand, they would be failing in their duty if they followed the masses and ignored the broader issues and, dare one say it, the advice of every informed source they have been funding for years. Thereby hangs a real dilemma for democracy.
To deny Scotland another chance, if we do file an Article 50 request, goes against democracy, however you define it. They have made their views clear: they want to remain. If the UK is allowed to have a vote to get out of the European Union then surely Scotland should be allowed a vote to get out of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And what is true for Scotland ...
Ian Hislop hit the nail on the head by encouraging those of us who still believe that leaving is the wrong answer, to keep on making the arguments to remain.
Mark Mardell's options are a false dilemma. The options are not hard or soft Brexit. They are hard, soft or no Brexit.
At the very least, we should reject a decision based on rhetoric and rubbish: a decision which deserves no respect. The default has to be the status quo but that is not to argue against some change.
We have opened Pandora's box by having one referendum as an exercise in consultative democracy. Now we must see it through using the same method otherwise 'democracy' will come to mean nothing. But next time, for heaven's sake let's get the question right.
It would be sensible to ban the gang of three from participating in a future campaign but I suspect that might stretch the idea of democracy a tiny bit too far.
Three things caught my eye this week. The first was an article on the BBC website by the incomparable Mark Mardell entitled The new divide: hard or soft Brexit. He echoed David Cameron's line that the 52% 'must be respected' and that a further referendum on the subject would be to play into the hands of those Brexiteers who complained that 'politicians never listen'.
He defined 'hard Brexiteers' as those that are prepared to ride roughshod over all and sundry: 'We won and so we will send in our Article 50 letter as soon as possible. That will be irrevocable and will prevent the Remainers from holding anything up.' The 'soft' want to take a longer view and get some ducks in a row first. The Chilcot Report suggests their approach might be a wise move.
The second thing was the statement by Theresa May who said 'we are all Brexiteers now' as she launched her leadership campaign. (She is sounding like 'soft' compared to Leadsom's 'hard'.)
And lastly, a few senior statesmen (Tory of course) said that another referendum or election, or indeed a Scottish referendum, would be out the question.
To quote a former leader, 'No', 'No' and 'No'.
'No' because we should betray neither the 52% nor the 48%. That is the terrifying stupidity of the binary decision that we were offered and the narrowness of the result. The country is split and the wounds continue to bleed. To go ahead with Brexit would be as damaging to half the country - or potentially rather more than half - as not doing so. That is the rule of the bully and democracy was surely never meant to encourage that. If ever there was a time for finding a third way ...
No', we are not all Brexiteers now. Blindly to follow the mass when the referendum was as flawed as this one is to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War and the Bay of Pigs when 'group think' took over and reason was thrown to the wind in pursuit of 'political pressure'.
There is general agreement that the campaign information was misleading and in many places simply untrue. (It is customary to say 'on both sides' but I have yet to be told a major structural lie on the part of the Remain camp.)
The Electoral Commission's website says 'You must not use threats, intimidation, deception or fraud to persuade electors to vote for a particular outcome'. Do I have to give you a list of the 'misleading statements' in the campaign to justify deception, or even fraud. That may be another reason why the three leaders have run for cover as the lawyers sharpen their quills.
A vote to leave based on false promises, no matter what the margin, does not make the result morally sound or right. It is building on sand. To go ahead now would be to be like Tweedledum and Tweedledee having a battle 'because we are all dressed up' in armour. Come to think of it, that sort of thinking led to WWI.
Imagine a vote on a topic like 'Do you want a tax cut and free cake every Monday morning?' The result might be an almost unanimous 'Yes' - I feel sorry for those who are gluten-free - but that would not make the end result deliverable.
Similarly, consider a vote on capital punishment - the question we never dare ask - or a vote to send Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on a one-way trip to Mars. Both of these might yield a majority in favour but that would not make the result morally acceptable.
Imagine, then a vote which offered to remove all the perceived annoyances of life; economic prosperity, plenty of housing for all; an end queues for trains, buses, doctors' surgeries, hospital appointments; and which would save the country lots of money. What's not to like? The only small problem is that it is not deliverable. It is a pipe dream. If everyone voted for it, would it therefore be morally right? Would it be a result we 'should respect'?
Despite the fact that the criteria were not set out at the start, it would be crass to anyone not brought up with the UK's antiquated voting system, to allow the will of around 37% of the electorate to lead to a constitutional change of this magnitude. We cannot change the process but, under any circumstances, a majority of 50% (not 37%) of the total electorate or 66% (not 52%) of those voting might seem a much more reliable test of public opinion.
And finally, 'No' because some further vote has to be inevitable, if only by Parliament in agreeing to submit an Article 50 request.
Parliament is another form of democracy, invented in the days before we - or most of us - had access to the internet. It is a representative form of democracy with the MP representing us the voters (although don't get me started on proportional representation). The role of the MP is confused. At one level, we trust them to exercise their judgement on what is right - although they are generally told what to vote by the whips - at another we want them to vote for what we want: sometimes quite specifically.
Having a representative democracy has strengths. Almost no decision is black and white: there are implications. The world is full of trade-offs. MPs are well-placed to look at a question in the round. Yes, it can be irritating when they do not see things as clearly, and as simply, as campaigners would wish, but they are in a position to understand and allow for the trade-offs.
On matters like capital punishment, and surely, on matters as complex as our relationship with the EU, we should let them have the final say.
Individually we can take a pretty narrow view of broad questions. Some of the local and narrow-focused arguments that were floating around during the EU campaign suggest that the vote was influenced by some pretty weird issues.
My favourite was the view that we should vote out 'because the EU has stopped me buying my favourite anti-fouling paint'. There may, just may, be slightly wider issues to consider than anti-fouling, even if the UK (sorry Wales and England) parliament were to consider overturning this particular aspect of the environmental protection regulations at some point in the future. Talk about setting it up to fail.
Someone who was passionate about stopping migration, for instance, may not have understood the economic implications of continuing as we are vs stopping all migration. Losing the benefits of the EU single market may have looked of less interest than getting the right anti-fouling.
Parliament is in a unique position to take a broader view and for this reason, if for no other, must be given a vote. They will not be in an enviable position. If, as reported, the majority of MPs would like to remain then they set themselves up in opposition to the people's declared desire. On the other hand, they would be failing in their duty if they followed the masses and ignored the broader issues and, dare one say it, the advice of every informed source they have been funding for years. Thereby hangs a real dilemma for democracy.
Ian Hislop hit the nail on the head by encouraging those of us who still believe that leaving is the wrong answer, to keep on making the arguments to remain.
Mark Mardell's options are a false dilemma. The options are not hard or soft Brexit. They are hard, soft or no Brexit.
At the very least, we should reject a decision based on rhetoric and rubbish: a decision which deserves no respect. The default has to be the status quo but that is not to argue against some change.
We have opened Pandora's box by having one referendum as an exercise in consultative democracy. Now we must see it through using the same method otherwise 'democracy' will come to mean nothing. But next time, for heaven's sake let's get the question right.
It would be sensible to ban the gang of three from participating in a future campaign but I suspect that might stretch the idea of democracy a tiny bit too far.
Saturday 9 July 2016
Another week of high drama
The headlong dash into the abyss has continued this week. In the maelstrom were a few ironic nuggets.
At the beginning of the week, the inside story of the Gove-Johnson was catalogued by BBC journalist Mark Mardell in a handy cut-out-and-keep list for budding dramatists. It dripped with blood, worthy of anything by Shakespeare.
Thereafter, politics moved from its first definition - 'activities associated with the governance of a country' - to its second: 'activities aimed at improving one's status or increasing power'. The transition was unseemly, littered with personal attacks and posturing.
Tory MPs were conducting their own savage campaign to find a pair of candidates to suggest to their membership. By the end of the week, Michael Heseltine had 'disembowelled' Michael Gove, to quote one journalist, putting a final stake through his chances in the leadership election. The last of the big three Brexit leaders was gone. Tories never value disloyalty.
Fox and Crabb had gone as well. We were left with an all-female shortlist of Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom (the last leading Brexiteer still standing?) which would be put to the ca 150,000 party faithful for them to choose our next Prime Minister.
At the other end of the corridor, Labour continued its wranglings with offers and counter-offers of mediation against a ominous backdrop of 'I shall not be moved' from Jeremy Corbyn. Angela Eagle collected sufficient support to launch a leadership challenge which will no doubt dominate the Labour news next week.
In the real world, the economy continued to stumble along, with the pound sinking ever lower. Journalists flew to their blogs and word-processors to churn out observations on the result. John Lichfield suggested that Britain was having a nervous breakdown and highlighted, yet again, Boris Johnson's role in creating the myth of Brussels bureaucrats.
He memorably reminded us that the Queen of Hearts' insistence that we should have 'sentence first - verdict afterwards'. How apt a description of what had happened with the referendum.
A new hero emerged at the European parliament in the person of Guy Verhofstadt, a former Prime Minister of Belgium. He came to prominence when he responded to Nigel Farage's appalling leaving speech by saying that he was looking forward to saving money in the EU budget when Farage left: his salary. He made two speeches - on 28 June and 5 July - to the Parliament, both articulate and great theatre.
As well as decrying the chaos in the Brexit camp in the way that only a critical friend can do, he challenged the EU to see the consequences of the vote as an earthquake which needed a response and not something that could be brushed aside with a 'business as usual' attitude. He must have been looking over his shoulder at some of the other countries, with active right wing parties.
The face of Donald Tusk as Verhofstadt laid into him for his inertia was a joy. (Did I spot one of valiant UKIP MEPs sitting with her back to Verhofstadt as he spoke?). Verhofstadt would agree with John Lichfield that the nervous breakdown was in full swing.
Our eyes were taken off the European question mid week when the Chilcot report was published. But our gaze swiftly returned to the main topic when Sam Coats Times drew attention to the parallels in a tweet: 'Chilcot begs government never again to embark on huge risky leaps of faith based on dodgy evidence and without solid planning.'
Dodgy evidence? A sexed-up dodgy dossier? That seems a generously mild summary of what the Leave campaign offered.
Special interest groups went into over-drive attacking Tony Blair with almost no realisation of the irony that they were accusing him of doing what the 'British people' had just done: decision first - analysis afterwards. The Queen of Hearts' dictum.
In discussions, the same questions came up time and again:
At the beginning of the week, the inside story of the Gove-Johnson was catalogued by BBC journalist Mark Mardell in a handy cut-out-and-keep list for budding dramatists. It dripped with blood, worthy of anything by Shakespeare.
Thereafter, politics moved from its first definition - 'activities associated with the governance of a country' - to its second: 'activities aimed at improving one's status or increasing power'. The transition was unseemly, littered with personal attacks and posturing.
Tory MPs were conducting their own savage campaign to find a pair of candidates to suggest to their membership. By the end of the week, Michael Heseltine had 'disembowelled' Michael Gove, to quote one journalist, putting a final stake through his chances in the leadership election. The last of the big three Brexit leaders was gone. Tories never value disloyalty.
Fox and Crabb had gone as well. We were left with an all-female shortlist of Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom (the last leading Brexiteer still standing?) which would be put to the ca 150,000 party faithful for them to choose our next Prime Minister.
At the other end of the corridor, Labour continued its wranglings with offers and counter-offers of mediation against a ominous backdrop of 'I shall not be moved' from Jeremy Corbyn. Angela Eagle collected sufficient support to launch a leadership challenge which will no doubt dominate the Labour news next week.
In the real world, the economy continued to stumble along, with the pound sinking ever lower. Journalists flew to their blogs and word-processors to churn out observations on the result. John Lichfield suggested that Britain was having a nervous breakdown and highlighted, yet again, Boris Johnson's role in creating the myth of Brussels bureaucrats.
He memorably reminded us that the Queen of Hearts' insistence that we should have 'sentence first - verdict afterwards'. How apt a description of what had happened with the referendum.
A new hero emerged at the European parliament in the person of Guy Verhofstadt, a former Prime Minister of Belgium. He came to prominence when he responded to Nigel Farage's appalling leaving speech by saying that he was looking forward to saving money in the EU budget when Farage left: his salary. He made two speeches - on 28 June and 5 July - to the Parliament, both articulate and great theatre.
As well as decrying the chaos in the Brexit camp in the way that only a critical friend can do, he challenged the EU to see the consequences of the vote as an earthquake which needed a response and not something that could be brushed aside with a 'business as usual' attitude. He must have been looking over his shoulder at some of the other countries, with active right wing parties.
The face of Donald Tusk as Verhofstadt laid into him for his inertia was a joy. (Did I spot one of valiant UKIP MEPs sitting with her back to Verhofstadt as he spoke?). Verhofstadt would agree with John Lichfield that the nervous breakdown was in full swing.
Our eyes were taken off the European question mid week when the Chilcot report was published. But our gaze swiftly returned to the main topic when Sam Coats Times drew attention to the parallels in a tweet: 'Chilcot begs government never again to embark on huge risky leaps of faith based on dodgy evidence and without solid planning.'
Dodgy evidence? A sexed-up dodgy dossier? That seems a generously mild summary of what the Leave campaign offered.
Special interest groups went into over-drive attacking Tony Blair with almost no realisation of the irony that they were accusing him of doing what the 'British people' had just done: decision first - analysis afterwards. The Queen of Hearts' dictum.
In discussions, the same questions came up time and again:
- How could we have been so stupid to have voted for something so ill-defined (and seemingly suicidal when looked at in detail)?
- How are we going to square the circle and actually implement the 'wish of the people'?
No answers were yet forthcoming but we could all rest assured that Oliver Letwin, whose contempt for the Civil Service is well-known, was gathering about him 'the brightest and the best' of them to work out how to achieve the second. It will take quite a team.
Here in Cornwall, the search went on for anyone who actually voted Leave and understood just how much money the county had been receiving from the EU each year: money that was highly unlikely to be forthcoming from a UK government. The total so far is 1.
Tuesday 5 July 2016
That was some week
Wow! The UK has certainly changed in the last week. Let's see if we can put it into perspective.
A year ago we had an election and, to their own surprise and the embarrassment of polling organisations, the Tories were elected by a slim majority. A few months later - the reasons for the timing are obscure - David Cameron decided to try and 'heal' the long-running underlying rift in the Tory party between those who believed in the EU and those that did not (John Major's 'Bastards'). He announced a referendum.
The campaign
In the first of his betrayals, Boris Johnson opted for 'Leave' and became its de facto leader, 'ably' supported by Michael Gove and Nigel Farage. From there things could only go downhill.
The campaign shocked, repelled and bored the country. Both sides were accused of launching personalised attacks. Both sides were accused of exaggeration. To every fact produced by Remain, Leave simply said 'Project Fear' and responded with fear campaigns of their own: that millions of Turks were about to 'invade our shores'. The figure of £350m per week was universally decried and yet remained central to Leave's campaign. 'Migration' took a poisonously central place in the narrative.
The Murdoch and Dacre press were solidly behind Leave making it almost impossible for any alternative view to get into the newspapers. The broadcast media did what they could but pride got the better of the protagonists and the leaders of the two sides never appeared in the same studio at the same time. Campaign leaders who did go into studios generally failed to articulate coherent visions on what the country might look like in the future and were harangued with details by audiences with deeply entrenched reasons for their viewpoints, often built on single issues.
The three lowest moments were probably:
The issues
As far as anyone can tell the issues that came to the fore were things like:
The outcome
The outcome of the vote was a combination of shock, surprise and horror amongst Remainers and delight amongst Brexiteers. It only took a moment's thought to realise that the country was now irrevocably split into almost equal parts and that the wounds ran very deep and were very painful. The British 'first past the post' system had yielded a binary result - allegedly 'advisory' - on an issue of major long-term consequence that ensured that half the nation would be dissatisfied whatever happened next.
The vote had been split by:
Was it all worth it? Revolutions like to throw all the cards in the air. Only time will tell whether they will come down into a coherent and economically successful model or whether different power groups will hijack them as they fall.
A year ago we had an election and, to their own surprise and the embarrassment of polling organisations, the Tories were elected by a slim majority. A few months later - the reasons for the timing are obscure - David Cameron decided to try and 'heal' the long-running underlying rift in the Tory party between those who believed in the EU and those that did not (John Major's 'Bastards'). He announced a referendum.
The campaign
In the first of his betrayals, Boris Johnson opted for 'Leave' and became its de facto leader, 'ably' supported by Michael Gove and Nigel Farage. From there things could only go downhill.
The campaign shocked, repelled and bored the country. Both sides were accused of launching personalised attacks. Both sides were accused of exaggeration. To every fact produced by Remain, Leave simply said 'Project Fear' and responded with fear campaigns of their own: that millions of Turks were about to 'invade our shores'. The figure of £350m per week was universally decried and yet remained central to Leave's campaign. 'Migration' took a poisonously central place in the narrative.
The Murdoch and Dacre press were solidly behind Leave making it almost impossible for any alternative view to get into the newspapers. The broadcast media did what they could but pride got the better of the protagonists and the leaders of the two sides never appeared in the same studio at the same time. Campaign leaders who did go into studios generally failed to articulate coherent visions on what the country might look like in the future and were harangued with details by audiences with deeply entrenched reasons for their viewpoints, often built on single issues.
The three lowest moments were probably:
- When Michael Gove dismissed all the 'warnings' of the multitude of companies, financial and scientific institutions, political friends and allies, think tanks and ... on the side of Remain with the idea that 'we have had enough of experts'. (So much for informed debate.)
- When George Osborne threatened (in his usual draculine way) an emergency budget immediately after the result with veiled threats of further cuts in everything
- When Nigel Farage appeared in front of a poster of poor refugees in Slovenia, artfully photo-shopped to removed any white faces. (It is surely hard to get lower than this.)
The issues
As far as anyone can tell the issues that came to the fore were things like:
- Sovereignty - the ability to take our own decisions and not be 'bossed around' by an 'unelected' Brussels, especially about ...
- Migration - which inevitably got confused between EU workers, refugees from places like Syria and economic migrants from the rest of the world
- Brussels bureaucrats - who were allegedly preventing us from doing all kinds of things we desperately wanted to do. When challenged for example, interviewees tended to get temporary amnesia or talked about straight bananas and the like. A telling statistic that the EU had no more civil servants than the city of Birmingham was conveniently over-looked
- The effects of globalisation - which allowed people in places like London to continue to party and pay themselves eye-watering salaries and bonuses while the rest of the country stagnated
- Austerity - parts of the country believed that they were really suffering from the government's economic policies. This was not helped by ...
- A series of domestic failings which were actually caused by long-term failings of our own governments but which it was convenient to blame on the EU and migrants, such as:
- The price and availability of houses
- The difficulties in the NHS - a national treasure - and the problems getting an appointment with a doctor or dentist, the lack of worthwhile jobs in some areas of the country
- Education where children were unable to get into their 'first choice' schools
- Transport with roads reaching gridlock and over-full trains
- A lack of trust in politicians in general ... enhanced by the lack of effective opposition to hold to account a government which seemed to have an uncanny knack of shooting itself in the foot without help from others
The referendum came at just the wrong time given the problems the EU was having in dealing with an influx of refugees and economic migrants - caused, in part by our encouragement of regime-change throughout the Muslim world.
For those that could begin to understand economics, a land of milk and honey was promised if only we left the 'dead hand' of the EU ...
The outcome of the vote was a combination of shock, surprise and horror amongst Remainers and delight amongst Brexiteers. It only took a moment's thought to realise that the country was now irrevocably split into almost equal parts and that the wounds ran very deep and were very painful. The British 'first past the post' system had yielded a binary result - allegedly 'advisory' - on an issue of major long-term consequence that ensured that half the nation would be dissatisfied whatever happened next.
The vote had been split by:
- Age - Young ('it is our future') had voted to remain; Older people ('we have the experience of years') had voted to leave
- Education - people with degrees who perhaps had most to benefit from a globalised world had voted to remain; those with lower levels of education had tended to vote to leave
- Geography - with the notable exception of Scotland, the shires and post-industrial areas had been keenest on leaving the EU; cities had mostly voted to remain
David Cameron resigned on the spot, simultaneously accepting responsibility for the campaign loss, unable or unwilling to face the prospect of trying to unite the country to leave the EU - a policy in which he did not believe - and checkmating Boris Johnson and the Leave campaign who now faced the poison pill of trying to heal a rift which was not simply Tory-deep but nation-deep and bleeding profusely. Conveniently, this bought time for things to cool down a bit and prevented hasty letters being sent to the EU.
George Osborne confirmed that an emergency budget would not be needed just yet and took time out to drop his manifesto commitment to get spending under control within the lifetime of the Parliament (Well, it was a 'good time for bad news').
Within days, Labour was also in freefall with Jeremy Corbyn being blamed for having been half-hearted in his support for the Remain campaign and for not showing sufficient leadership to win the general election that appeared to be looming well before the deadline of 2020. His shadow cabinet left the room one by one.
Within days, Labour was also in freefall with Jeremy Corbyn being blamed for having been half-hearted in his support for the Remain campaign and for not showing sufficient leadership to win the general election that appeared to be looming well before the deadline of 2020. His shadow cabinet left the room one by one.
Boris Johnson and and Michael Gove were having their own night of the long knives, fatally wounding each others' leadership ambitions. It is barely believable that neither of the two leaders of the campaign that had just 'won' a referendum was a credible candidate to fill the vacuum left by Cameron's resignation. It turned out that they simply had not expected to win. Supporters looked around for a heavyweight and experienced Brexiteer to take over.
To make matters worse, it emerged that the Leave campaign had no plan for winning: no strategy for what the UK might look like after the vote. Their whole campaign had not been based on a plan but on a series of disconnected 'what ifs?' They had simply winged it, making it up as they went along. Westminster also had no plan.
A series of racists outbursts confirmed that Pandora's box had been opened and that many had misunderstood or mis-interpreted the meaning of the referendum, expecting 'foreigners' to be sent home immediately. Safety pins appeared on people's lapels.
A series of petitions and campaigns started on social media, demanding another referendum 'not based on lies this time'. A general election was suggested. Marches and vigils were planned. Conversations between (former) friends were reduced to 'You lost: get over it' and 'Do you realise what your lot have done?' Buyer's remorse was reported on both sides although to different degrees.
Social media was awash with 'I told you so' messages including videos of both Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom saying that leaving the Eu would be a disaster/bring economic chaos. The internet has a long memory.
Meanwhile, the Scots started licking their lips at the thought of another independence referendum which would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, Across the sea, Northern Ireland went into shock at the prospect of either building a border with the Republic of becoming a part of the republic and thus achieving what the barrel of the gun had failed to achieve over many years.
Up and down the country, people started studying their own ancestry to find a grandparent born in an EU country.
In the world outside Westminster, the world reacted as one might expect. Confidence collapsed. Billions was wiped off shares. Investment plans were put on hold. Britain (sic) became a laughing stock and EU countries' minister lined up to send dire warnings about how difficult any negotiations would be and that these negotiations could only start once the UK had signed Article 50 which would be irrevocable. We had one chance to get it right.
There had to be some good news. Wales did splendidly in the European Cup football - England's performance having been beneath contempt - and England's rugby team had a series win whitewash against Australia in Australia. For once such news did nothing for national confidence and harmony. It needed more than that.
Where next?
Things are moving so fast that any prediction will be out of date by the time you read this.
Within weeks we will have a new Prime Minister who will be elected by and from within the Tory Party and who will probably be a 'Remainer'.
Despite having backed Remain, that PM will probably think they have a new mandate to negotiate a way out of the EU, a policy they did not believe in any more than David Cameron. Where this fits with the manifesto submitted to the electorate one year ago, is anyone's guess. Political parties are quick to say 'it was in our manifesto' when it is convenient but leaving the EU was not. Does the 'advisory' result trump the manifesto? Do we need a new election to validate a new manifesto? Do we need a general election to endorse a new PM?
We have all become experts on the meaning and definition of 'democracy', twisting it to suit our particular views. Parliament is meant to be a representative democracy and to have the last word on whether we should leave the EU or not. A majority of MPs were for Remain but will they hold the line given the referendum result, or will they 'give in to the will of the majority'?
The new PM will also have the unenviable task of healing the wounds of the referendum and re-uniting the country. This will not be an easy job given the polarisation of the question and the narrowness of the result. Many Remainers are in complete denial/rejection: others are saying 'well we have to get on with it' but not sounding convinced.
One of the less pleasant ironies of the result will be that two groups who were the most enthusiastic supporters of Brexit are likely to suffer most from its implications. A government struggling to set up new trading arrangements with other countries is unlikely to have spare funds to pour into deprived areas of the UK. Cornwall can whistle for its £60m pa. Older people may yet find their pensions are raided as the economy suffers in the maelstrom of re-alignment.
The right wing government we are likely to get is equally unlikely to devolve any power away from Westminster or be the slightest bit concerned about those 'shirkers' in the shires. The benefits will remain at the centre.
And we still do not know what the plan is, or what it might cost. That might be a good start for a serious, mature debate about the benefits of going or staying.
And so ...
At the end of a 'quiet week in politics' we have had a referendum that was not strictly necessary, that has divided the nation into two warring factions, that has brought down the Prime Minister, that has seen the departure of two of the three leaders of the 'winning' campaign, that has opened deep sores in the usually delicate series of compromises - checks and balances - that holds a nation together.
So, let's get this right: in a referendum that we did not need, and following a campaign characterised by lies, untruths and mis-understandings, we have voted narrowly to leave the EU for reasons which we do not yet understand and for which there is no plan.
If we still want access to the single market for our goods and services which will mean that we will almost certainly have to:
To make matters worse, it emerged that the Leave campaign had no plan for winning: no strategy for what the UK might look like after the vote. Their whole campaign had not been based on a plan but on a series of disconnected 'what ifs?' They had simply winged it, making it up as they went along. Westminster also had no plan.
A series of racists outbursts confirmed that Pandora's box had been opened and that many had misunderstood or mis-interpreted the meaning of the referendum, expecting 'foreigners' to be sent home immediately. Safety pins appeared on people's lapels.
A series of petitions and campaigns started on social media, demanding another referendum 'not based on lies this time'. A general election was suggested. Marches and vigils were planned. Conversations between (former) friends were reduced to 'You lost: get over it' and 'Do you realise what your lot have done?' Buyer's remorse was reported on both sides although to different degrees.
Social media was awash with 'I told you so' messages including videos of both Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom saying that leaving the Eu would be a disaster/bring economic chaos. The internet has a long memory.
Meanwhile, the Scots started licking their lips at the thought of another independence referendum which would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, Across the sea, Northern Ireland went into shock at the prospect of either building a border with the Republic of becoming a part of the republic and thus achieving what the barrel of the gun had failed to achieve over many years.
Up and down the country, people started studying their own ancestry to find a grandparent born in an EU country.
In the world outside Westminster, the world reacted as one might expect. Confidence collapsed. Billions was wiped off shares. Investment plans were put on hold. Britain (sic) became a laughing stock and EU countries' minister lined up to send dire warnings about how difficult any negotiations would be and that these negotiations could only start once the UK had signed Article 50 which would be irrevocable. We had one chance to get it right.
There had to be some good news. Wales did splendidly in the European Cup football - England's performance having been beneath contempt - and England's rugby team had a series win whitewash against Australia in Australia. For once such news did nothing for national confidence and harmony. It needed more than that.
Where next?
Things are moving so fast that any prediction will be out of date by the time you read this.
Within weeks we will have a new Prime Minister who will be elected by and from within the Tory Party and who will probably be a 'Remainer'.
Despite having backed Remain, that PM will probably think they have a new mandate to negotiate a way out of the EU, a policy they did not believe in any more than David Cameron. Where this fits with the manifesto submitted to the electorate one year ago, is anyone's guess. Political parties are quick to say 'it was in our manifesto' when it is convenient but leaving the EU was not. Does the 'advisory' result trump the manifesto? Do we need a new election to validate a new manifesto? Do we need a general election to endorse a new PM?
We have all become experts on the meaning and definition of 'democracy', twisting it to suit our particular views. Parliament is meant to be a representative democracy and to have the last word on whether we should leave the EU or not. A majority of MPs were for Remain but will they hold the line given the referendum result, or will they 'give in to the will of the majority'?
The new PM will also have the unenviable task of healing the wounds of the referendum and re-uniting the country. This will not be an easy job given the polarisation of the question and the narrowness of the result. Many Remainers are in complete denial/rejection: others are saying 'well we have to get on with it' but not sounding convinced.
One of the less pleasant ironies of the result will be that two groups who were the most enthusiastic supporters of Brexit are likely to suffer most from its implications. A government struggling to set up new trading arrangements with other countries is unlikely to have spare funds to pour into deprived areas of the UK. Cornwall can whistle for its £60m pa. Older people may yet find their pensions are raided as the economy suffers in the maelstrom of re-alignment.
The right wing government we are likely to get is equally unlikely to devolve any power away from Westminster or be the slightest bit concerned about those 'shirkers' in the shires. The benefits will remain at the centre.
And we still do not know what the plan is, or what it might cost. That might be a good start for a serious, mature debate about the benefits of going or staying.
And so ...
At the end of a 'quiet week in politics' we have had a referendum that was not strictly necessary, that has divided the nation into two warring factions, that has brought down the Prime Minister, that has seen the departure of two of the three leaders of the 'winning' campaign, that has opened deep sores in the usually delicate series of compromises - checks and balances - that holds a nation together.
So, let's get this right: in a referendum that we did not need, and following a campaign characterised by lies, untruths and mis-understandings, we have voted narrowly to leave the EU for reasons which we do not yet understand and for which there is no plan.
If we still want access to the single market for our goods and services which will mean that we will almost certainly have to:
- Accept freedom of movement for EU citizens
- Accept EU regulations on our goods and services
- Have to pay something to the EU (which is likely to be more than we pay already)
- Have no say in anything the EU decides
If we do not want access to the EU single market then we will face all sorts of tariff barriers but, oh joy, will be able to trade with places like India who are queuing up to do business with us (What have we got that they want and are you telling me that it is better to send our goods and services half way around the world rather than the short distance to Europe?).
We will not have £350m a week to put into the NHS.
If we ever want to re-apply to join the EU then we will have to pay the full fee (excluding Maggie's famous rebate) which may make the £350m look realistic, and adopt the Euro.
If we ever want to re-apply to join the EU then we will have to pay the full fee (excluding Maggie's famous rebate) which may make the £350m look realistic, and adopt the Euro.
But, we will be able to re-capture sovereignty. Well actually, we have done that already. We have used our sovereignty wisely. It might be one almighty cock-up but at least it was a cock-up of our own making and not one we could simply blame on Europe.
Perhaps we should have listened to our friends after all.
Was it all worth it? Revolutions like to throw all the cards in the air. Only time will tell whether they will come down into a coherent and economically successful model or whether different power groups will hijack them as they fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)