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.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
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.
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
For my grandchildren 1
Dear O, A, T and Z,
You may have noticed that Mummy and Daddy have not been very happy lately and have been muttering about something called 'politics'. Let me see if I can help explain it to you.
Grown-ups are funny beings, as you will discover one day, and do not always remember the stories that they were read at bedtime. Stories about people like Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby, tailors, pipers and big bad wolves. Sometimes they believe lies because they want to believe them, even if they know they are lies.
Now, once upon a time there was a far off country called, rather curiously, Us. Nearby was a country called equally strangely, Them. They did not seem to like each other much and had spent years and years fighting about the things that grown-ups fight about: land, money, goods and who was strongest. Wars were fought, crops were ruined, people starved, people were killed but still the countries kept on fighting, only pausing from time to time to make more weapons. Then they started again.
Now, after one particularly nasty war, a strange man arrived in Them and started whispering about how he could make the country bigger and stronger than anyone else. The poor people were feeling more than usually poor after the nasty war and listened to this man. Some said he was a sort of pied piper and followed him. It is funny how people follow pied pipers when things are hard. They seem to like simple messages.
Sadly, this pied piper led them into yet another war which Them lost. The strange man died in the fighting. Everyone was exhausted.
Then a clever man said 'This is very, very silly. We really cannot go on fighting like this. Why don't we make friends with each other and work together. We don't need more land any more than you do. We are tired. You are tired. If we promise not to fight you then will you promise not to fight us?'
It was rather like some of you when someone takes the toy you want to play with. You have learned that it is much better to share than to fight each other.
No one wanted another war and so the two countries agreed to work together. They took down the borders and started to share things.
Please don't put rubbish in that river' said people in Them. It flows into our country and we cannot swim where we want to.'
'Good idea', said the people in Us. 'Can we ask you not to light smokey fires because the wind blows the smoke into our eyes all the time.'
'OK', said the people of Them.
'I know', they both said, 'let's agree not to take too many fish from the lakes. That way there will be enough for both of us.'
It was not easy to start with but the two countries worked together on problems and began to enjoy it. Tomatoes grown in Them could be sold in Us while cabbages grown in Us could be sold in Them. People ate better and seemed happier. People from Them married people from Us and people from Us married people from Them. Both kingdoms still kept their kings and nobles who could spend more time worrying about things other than war and fighting. If problems arose, they could be solved once, not twice which saved time and money.
Now not far away was yet another country called Others. (They do have strange names, these countries, don't they?) Others was not nearly as fortunate as Us and Them. They were having a horrid time fighting dragons. The king was not liked by his subjects and all kinds of nasty bandits were attacking his kingdom. No one much wanted to live in Others and some of its people started travelling to Us and Them. Some even sailed across the sea in very small boats.
The people of Us and Them were very understanding and kind, taking in the people of Others. After all, they knew how horrid war could be.
Then, one day Chief Banker of Us looked into his piggy bank and found that there was not enough money to pay people properly. 'We have been having too many parties. We will have to stop building new houses and feeding the poor', he said.
'That is sad', people said 'we were just getting used to this life but we can survive for a bit on slightly less food if we must.'
'I am afraid you must.'
And they did. Everyone just got on with life. Us were still friends with Them, who were also having a difficult time. Everyone continued to share their problems, as before. It was hard but they were managing.
Many of the courtiers, who still had plenty of money, were less sensitive to the state of things. 'Ah', they said. 'if we carry on spending lots of money then the poor will benefit. We will buy things the poor make and that way they will earn some money and be able to buy food. Let's carry on spending.' And so they did.
Now, as you can imagine, this was not popular with the people of Us. Seeing the courtiers spending lots of money on grand parties felt very unfair. 'Why do we have to suffer when they are enjoying themselves?' They asked. No one answered them. They were not so sure they were enjoying the hard times.
And this is where our first fairy tale character arrived on the scene. Do you remember the Pied Piper of Hamelin? He played a tune on his flute which attracted lots of rats which were plaguing the town. Later he stole all the children of Hamelin as he felt he had not been paid properly.
Well, another Pied Piper turned up in Us and started playing his flute. 'You are suffering because of people from Others', he sang. 'It is the fault of people from Them', he said. 'We need to build a barrier to stop Them and Others getting into Us', he sang.
Now, you may have noticed that Mummy and Daddy like to have a drink of wine or beer sometimes. They sit down in the evening and start drinking. Doing this helps them to relax but it can dull their minds. Everything seems much simpler. It is rather like you feel when you sit in the hot tub: all warm and cosy.
Well this pied piper spent a lot of time in the pub, drinking with people. He would play his tune in front of them and the people, their brains dulled by beer, would listen and start singing his tune. 'He is a good man.' they would say, 'he says it like it is'. Encouraged by him, they sent a petition to the king asking for the borders with Them to be closed. 'The Pied Piper understands what we want', they said.
At first, the king ignored the petition but another strange man turned up: a tailor. Now there are several tailors in the stories we read you. This one was not the tailor who 'killed seven with one blow', although he was said to have a mighty sword and pen. This was the tailor who made the Emperor's new clothes.
He had a wonderful idea for some new clothes which would make the king look even more powerful. 'If I make the king look wonderful then he might make me Chief Minister and I can tell everyone what to do', he said.
He and the Pied Piper started working together. The Tailor started to prepare a new coat for the king, one that would make him look really powerful. Meanwhile lots of people were singing the Pied Piper's tune and demanding that Us stopped working with Them and asking for new barriers.
The Chief Minister was unimpressed and gathered all his wisest men together - including the Keeper of the Money, the Chief Astrologer, the Chief Judge, the Chief General - and asked them what they thought at the idea of putting up barriers and not working with Them.
'Nonsense', 'Crazy', 'Madness', they said. 'It will cost us more', 'Where will we get our tomatoes from?', 'What a waste of time', they said.
'Thank you', said the Chief Minister because he was well brought up. 'I shall also ask the Chief Minister of Them.'
He did, and he got the same response. 'We want to stay friends with you. We do not want barriers. Where will we get our cabbages from and where will you get your favourite tomatoes? We have solved other problems like rivers and smoke together, surely we can solve the problem of the people from Others in the same way.'
The Chief Minister went and talked to the people. 'If we build barriers then it may lead to war again. Is that what you want?' he asked.
'Don't be silly' said the Pied Piper and Tailor, 'Of course there will not be war.'
'What about all those delicious tomatoes we get from Them?' asked the Chief Minister.
'Oh, we will still be able to get them', said the pair.
'That will be a bit difficult if we have just put up barriers to Them. They may charge us much more for them. Oh, and what about my butler who is from Them; and my wife? What about people from Others. Do you not care about them at all? Do you know what it will cost to build barriers and provide an army to control them? What about people who want to travel and work in Them? And what about our rivers, and our smoke ...' Asked the Chief Minister who was losing his patience with the pair.
But no one was listening. 'The Pied Piper and Tailor have said that the king can have lovely new clothes and will be all-powerful. They say we will not have to worry about people from Them or Others. They say that there will be much more money. They say we will have all the food we need and there will be lots of parties, so we can be just like those nobles.'
You can guess the rest of the story. The king was paraded in his brand new 'clothes' and felt very good. Some of the people cheered hard. When a small boy pointed out that the king's clothes did not exist, people ignored him because they had not been brought up on fairy stories as you had. Why listen to him?' they said. 'He has cried "wolf" so often that we no longer believe him.'
Outside, in the deep dark wood, the wolf licked his lips. There would soon be rich pickings for him.
You may have noticed that Mummy and Daddy have not been very happy lately and have been muttering about something called 'politics'. Let me see if I can help explain it to you.
Grown-ups are funny beings, as you will discover one day, and do not always remember the stories that they were read at bedtime. Stories about people like Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby, tailors, pipers and big bad wolves. Sometimes they believe lies because they want to believe them, even if they know they are lies.
Now, once upon a time there was a far off country called, rather curiously, Us. Nearby was a country called equally strangely, Them. They did not seem to like each other much and had spent years and years fighting about the things that grown-ups fight about: land, money, goods and who was strongest. Wars were fought, crops were ruined, people starved, people were killed but still the countries kept on fighting, only pausing from time to time to make more weapons. Then they started again.
Now, after one particularly nasty war, a strange man arrived in Them and started whispering about how he could make the country bigger and stronger than anyone else. The poor people were feeling more than usually poor after the nasty war and listened to this man. Some said he was a sort of pied piper and followed him. It is funny how people follow pied pipers when things are hard. They seem to like simple messages.
Sadly, this pied piper led them into yet another war which Them lost. The strange man died in the fighting. Everyone was exhausted.
Then a clever man said 'This is very, very silly. We really cannot go on fighting like this. Why don't we make friends with each other and work together. We don't need more land any more than you do. We are tired. You are tired. If we promise not to fight you then will you promise not to fight us?'
It was rather like some of you when someone takes the toy you want to play with. You have learned that it is much better to share than to fight each other.
No one wanted another war and so the two countries agreed to work together. They took down the borders and started to share things.
Please don't put rubbish in that river' said people in Them. It flows into our country and we cannot swim where we want to.'
'Good idea', said the people in Us. 'Can we ask you not to light smokey fires because the wind blows the smoke into our eyes all the time.'
'OK', said the people of Them.
'I know', they both said, 'let's agree not to take too many fish from the lakes. That way there will be enough for both of us.'
It was not easy to start with but the two countries worked together on problems and began to enjoy it. Tomatoes grown in Them could be sold in Us while cabbages grown in Us could be sold in Them. People ate better and seemed happier. People from Them married people from Us and people from Us married people from Them. Both kingdoms still kept their kings and nobles who could spend more time worrying about things other than war and fighting. If problems arose, they could be solved once, not twice which saved time and money.
Now not far away was yet another country called Others. (They do have strange names, these countries, don't they?) Others was not nearly as fortunate as Us and Them. They were having a horrid time fighting dragons. The king was not liked by his subjects and all kinds of nasty bandits were attacking his kingdom. No one much wanted to live in Others and some of its people started travelling to Us and Them. Some even sailed across the sea in very small boats.
The people of Us and Them were very understanding and kind, taking in the people of Others. After all, they knew how horrid war could be.
Then, one day Chief Banker of Us looked into his piggy bank and found that there was not enough money to pay people properly. 'We have been having too many parties. We will have to stop building new houses and feeding the poor', he said.
'That is sad', people said 'we were just getting used to this life but we can survive for a bit on slightly less food if we must.'
'I am afraid you must.'
And they did. Everyone just got on with life. Us were still friends with Them, who were also having a difficult time. Everyone continued to share their problems, as before. It was hard but they were managing.
Many of the courtiers, who still had plenty of money, were less sensitive to the state of things. 'Ah', they said. 'if we carry on spending lots of money then the poor will benefit. We will buy things the poor make and that way they will earn some money and be able to buy food. Let's carry on spending.' And so they did.
Now, as you can imagine, this was not popular with the people of Us. Seeing the courtiers spending lots of money on grand parties felt very unfair. 'Why do we have to suffer when they are enjoying themselves?' They asked. No one answered them. They were not so sure they were enjoying the hard times.
And this is where our first fairy tale character arrived on the scene. Do you remember the Pied Piper of Hamelin? He played a tune on his flute which attracted lots of rats which were plaguing the town. Later he stole all the children of Hamelin as he felt he had not been paid properly.
Well, another Pied Piper turned up in Us and started playing his flute. 'You are suffering because of people from Others', he sang. 'It is the fault of people from Them', he said. 'We need to build a barrier to stop Them and Others getting into Us', he sang.
Now, you may have noticed that Mummy and Daddy like to have a drink of wine or beer sometimes. They sit down in the evening and start drinking. Doing this helps them to relax but it can dull their minds. Everything seems much simpler. It is rather like you feel when you sit in the hot tub: all warm and cosy.
Well this pied piper spent a lot of time in the pub, drinking with people. He would play his tune in front of them and the people, their brains dulled by beer, would listen and start singing his tune. 'He is a good man.' they would say, 'he says it like it is'. Encouraged by him, they sent a petition to the king asking for the borders with Them to be closed. 'The Pied Piper understands what we want', they said.
At first, the king ignored the petition but another strange man turned up: a tailor. Now there are several tailors in the stories we read you. This one was not the tailor who 'killed seven with one blow', although he was said to have a mighty sword and pen. This was the tailor who made the Emperor's new clothes.
He had a wonderful idea for some new clothes which would make the king look even more powerful. 'If I make the king look wonderful then he might make me Chief Minister and I can tell everyone what to do', he said.
He and the Pied Piper started working together. The Tailor started to prepare a new coat for the king, one that would make him look really powerful. Meanwhile lots of people were singing the Pied Piper's tune and demanding that Us stopped working with Them and asking for new barriers.
The Chief Minister was unimpressed and gathered all his wisest men together - including the Keeper of the Money, the Chief Astrologer, the Chief Judge, the Chief General - and asked them what they thought at the idea of putting up barriers and not working with Them.
'Nonsense', 'Crazy', 'Madness', they said. 'It will cost us more', 'Where will we get our tomatoes from?', 'What a waste of time', they said.
'Thank you', said the Chief Minister because he was well brought up. 'I shall also ask the Chief Minister of Them.'
He did, and he got the same response. 'We want to stay friends with you. We do not want barriers. Where will we get our cabbages from and where will you get your favourite tomatoes? We have solved other problems like rivers and smoke together, surely we can solve the problem of the people from Others in the same way.'
The Chief Minister went and talked to the people. 'If we build barriers then it may lead to war again. Is that what you want?' he asked.
'Don't be silly' said the Pied Piper and Tailor, 'Of course there will not be war.'
'What about all those delicious tomatoes we get from Them?' asked the Chief Minister.
'Oh, we will still be able to get them', said the pair.
'That will be a bit difficult if we have just put up barriers to Them. They may charge us much more for them. Oh, and what about my butler who is from Them; and my wife? What about people from Others. Do you not care about them at all? Do you know what it will cost to build barriers and provide an army to control them? What about people who want to travel and work in Them? And what about our rivers, and our smoke ...' Asked the Chief Minister who was losing his patience with the pair.
But no one was listening. 'The Pied Piper and Tailor have said that the king can have lovely new clothes and will be all-powerful. They say we will not have to worry about people from Them or Others. They say that there will be much more money. They say we will have all the food we need and there will be lots of parties, so we can be just like those nobles.'
You can guess the rest of the story. The king was paraded in his brand new 'clothes' and felt very good. Some of the people cheered hard. When a small boy pointed out that the king's clothes did not exist, people ignored him because they had not been brought up on fairy stories as you had. Why listen to him?' they said. 'He has cried "wolf" so often that we no longer believe him.'
Outside, in the deep dark wood, the wolf licked his lips. There would soon be rich pickings for him.
Saturday, 11 June 2016
Should we stay or should we go?
For the record, and to set my mind at rest that I have done something to persuade others of the best answer on a question of enormous importance to the UK’s place in the world, I am setting out some thoughts on why I voted as I did. They have nothing to do with fear and much to do with hope.
A rational review should weigh up alternatives. In practice we have been offered no clear alternatives. Instead, the campaign has been bitter and characterised by spin with responses coming in even before the original speeches have been made. Both sides have indulged in what the others call ‘Project Fear’. Remain has threatened economic meltdown, Brexit has conjured up an image of hordes of migrants swamping the country and created chimeras of European armies, a European superstate taking over Westminster, and the threat of Turkey joining the EU (What’s wrong with Turkey, I ask).
As to the future nature of the UK’s role in the world, Remain has been unable to offer anything significant beyond ‘more of the same’ while Brexit has offered … well, a pretty blank piece of paper with suggestions of trade partnerships similar to [insert name of country here – they have varied from week to week] and immigration systems like [insert name of another country here], none of which have stood up to close analysis.
Brexit’s big figure of £350m a week has lost all credibility and yet they persist with it. They probably like it because it sounds like a large amount when it is actually relatively minor compared with the sum total of government expenditure. They have offered to spend it many times over on the NHS or [insert your favourite project here]. Being slightly partial for a moment, it is hard to believe that Cornwall would get nearly as large a share of it from a Brexit government as it gets from the EU: a conclusion which seems to have escaped some of the residents of this county.
The debate is taking place in a poisonous and insecure environment. People throughout the world have lost trust in their political representatives and structures, and are still suffering the after-shocks of the financial crisis. Continuous growth has been replaced with economic stagnation except for a few who continue very visibly to flaunt their wealth. The relatively peaceful collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989 has been followed by the financial crash and the very unpleasant meltdown of much of the Islamic world in the Arab Spring, the latter aided and abetted by the West’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and ineptitude about Syria.
People are frightened and insecure. ‘We don’t trust Westminster’ has been coupled with ‘We don’t like the EU’ as symbols of power-hungry people who ‘don’t understand my needs’.
The rise of the Far Right across Europe, of the anti-establishment figures like Trump. Sanders and our very own Boris Johnson is a symptom of this insecurity. Demagogues stride across the political landscape, like snake-oil salesmen hoovering up disgruntled individuals who believe that their simplistic or blinkered approaches can solve all the problems of the world. They distance themselves from existing structures by claiming not to be ‘establishment figures’ but, as President Obama has pithily observed, experience counts for much. You would not get your airplane serviced by someone who had not been trained and had experience.
Protectionism has long been the refuge of those who feel under stress. ‘Withdraw our horns and start again and we can re-build things in the way we want.’ The problem is that the world does not stop to allow you time to catch up.
It may be counter-intuitive but there is never a more important time to work together than when you feel out of control. Partnership in crisis is like a helping hand, never forgotten. Working together in two World Wars healed centuries of distrust between the UK and France in a way that negotiations could never have achieved.
Sovereignty is at the core of the Brexit argument; ‘We want our country back’ scream their posters as though it had been taken away by a malicious parent. It has not. Partnership involves willingly ceding control over some things for the greater good.
To take a small example, we agreed to share fishing quotas in the interest of protecting fish stocks and to avoid the costs and hassles of trying to police arbitrary lines drawn on a moving ocean. If our fishermen chose to sell our quotas to others then this is our fault, not something that has been taken away from us. If the quotas are out of balance with fish stocks then this is not necessarily a reason to reject the whole idea, it is a reason to discuss ways of bringing them in line with a new reality. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
This analogy highlights one of the silliest aspects of the debate about sovereignty. The historic concept of a country has changed. The idea of nation states was a C19 concept and involved arbitrary lines drawn on a map reflecting past power struggles and languages. The fact that most of the borders of the UK happen to be easy to define is a convenient exception.
Anyone who has crossed a European border between two Schengen countries knows how absurd borders are. The land looks the same on both sides, water still flows downhill, the birds and bees do not notice them, roads cross them at will, land ownership can be fluid. They are administrative necessaries not ‘castle walls against infection and the hand of war’.
We now live in a global world where a company can be headquartered in Panama, run from California and occasionally pay tax in Ireland. It may add to the feeling that others are controlling our destiny but we cannot undo it. Our response, if a response is needed, should be to work together with others who have similar concerns, closing tax loopholes as fast as the companies find them, banding together to prevent exploitation and finding common solutions. I seem to be advocating partnership again: let’s think if there is a group with whom we can work.
What matters is people not countries. Countries exist as a way of managing society, not the reverse. There is no objective rule that says that Westminster should be where all decisions about my life should be made. Some might better be made in our village, some at county level, some in somewhere like Brussels, some at the UN. It is pretty unedifying hearing the Brexit view that it should be Westminster or nothing. This just echoes the individual power-mad ambitions of our leaders.
‘Subsidiarity’ was the word used in the discussions leading up to the Maastricht treaty which, it is worth remarking, was willingly signed by an elected Tory Prime Minister not known for her love of sharing power with anyone, with the support of our elected parliament and which was not imposed by the EU.
Every country in Europe retains the right to remain as a sovereign state. Talk of a European super-state is rubbish. Not a single European that I have ever met would allow their country to be swallowed into such a state. Like me, they retain a sentimental attachment to the cultures of their homeland but are happy to compromise – now there is a difficult word – at the margin for the greater good.
Has that margin moved too far? Has the EU become too centralist? One can debate this just as one can debate whether Westminster is best placed to dictate where houses should be built in Falmouth. The edges of power ever shift to and fro. If we feel things are encroaching beyond what we can bear then we should talk about it, not throw our toys out of the pram and walk away. How childish that would be.
Some of our politicians complain at the very existence of a European justice system. They would wouldn’t they. It does the UK no harm to have their views challenged every now and again. We have no monopoly on morality as we once thought we did. Grow up and accept genuine objective criticism.
I am sure that there is much wrong with the EU and its structures. We all know of things that seem manifestly absurd, and there are even more urban myths, but what is true of the EU is as true of Westminster and, I am sure, of any government. We elect Westminster politicians and feel they are out of touch and take bad decisions just as we elect MEPs and feel they do the same. This is a symptom of the time, especially as we now have social media to allow us to share our, often narrowly focused, views so easily.
When the history of the EU comes to be written, I think we will credit is with a range of significant achievements to which we are too close to appreciate at present. Its ability to knit together some of the major and recovering economies of post WWII Europe was a triumph. This created a partnership which meant that we no longer had to play a constant game of Diplomacy, establishing spheres of influence and constructing ever more complex mutual support pacts, maintaining standing armies facing our nearest neighbours.
Early on, the EU included Greece in its ranks, a decision which made little geographical sense but rescued the country from the threat of years of political dictatorship or communism.
Its performance after 1989, helping guide the countries of Central Europe towards democratic processes and integrating them into a wider European community, could only have happened if Europe had the financial and cultural stability to cope. This cost Europe real money just as it cost Germany to re-integrate its two parts into one country. It has also helped to harmonise employment laws in civilised ways. The whole is infinitely greater than the parts and something of which we should be proud.
Brexit’s call to ‘re-capture sovereignty’ means little more than ‘power for me’. By ‘taking back control’ we can ‘make Britain great again’ (cf Trump’s claim for the USA). Actually, I don’t want Britain to be ‘great again’ in the sense they mean it. History has passed us by. We no longer have an empire; we no longer rule the world; we no longer have the right to tell everyone what is what and expect our view to prevail – one of our great failings in dealing with the EU. We are just one leading country and that is fine by me.
Yes, I would like to live in a financially successful and settled country but I see no reason to try and make ourselves top dog. And I am dead certain that cutting ourselves off from partnerships, and in particular the economic might of the EU, would bring nothing but despair and affectionate laughter from our friends about the insularity of the British constantly trying to recapture past glories.
Which leads me to the economic arguments for staying in the EU. In the C19 we were manufacturing giants, exporting around the world, especially to our empire. Today, we have all but lost or sold our mass-manufacturing capability and focus on specialist products. Ours is a service economy. Outside the dubious industry of arms manufacturing, our major industry is financial services. To sell services you need to be at the heart of a market not looking in from outside. No one beats a path to your door. To imagine that pulling up the drawbridge to Europe would allow us to prosper is cloud-cuckoo land.
We have the benefit of using the world’s modern lingua franca and are a natural stepping stone into the world’s second largest economy. If we leave the EU then the EU’s financial centre will slide to Frankfurt. Foreign-owned manufacturers will have no problems moving plants to the mainland of Europe where staff costs will be lower.
No trade agreements are going to replace existing relationships and, as we have seen, Brexit’s ‘Norway’ argument slides into nothingness when looked at in depth: payments to trade and no say in decision-making. Put that in your sovereignty pipe.
The last major argument for leaving is the problem of migration and the fear that the UK will not be able to cope with large influxes of people ready and willing to take jobs that British people do not seem able or willing to take; that our services will collapse in a heap and that welfare costs will spiral as a consequence. It is ironic that, like it or not, we need migration to staff so many of those public services not least our hospitals.
People are undoubtedly on the move, lots of them. It would have helped if we had not bombed their homes and tinkered with their existing government structures but such considerations are in the past and we have to deal with the reality of the present. We live in an over-populated planet and, the lure of political and economic stability of ‘the west’ is a considerable attraction to the dispossessed and insecure: another back-handed compliment to the success of the EU.
We are never consistent. We can cry at the image of a dead boy on a beach, drowned when his migrant boat sank and yet complain at the sight of adult ‘foreigners’ picking ‘our’ daffodils. We can join a campaign to prevent the deportation of a family who have lived in the UK illegally for years because we believe they are being victimised, and yet adopt a bunker mentality at the sight of thousands trekking across frozen wastes or braving under-sized boats, following in that family’s footsteps to the ‘prosperous’ west.
Migration takes many forms from free-movement for EU citizens most of whom would much rather live in their own countries if they could find productive work there; to genuine refugees escaping conflict such as those poor Syrians; to economic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, escaping repressive regimes, ‘failed states’, failing agriculture under pressure from climate change, or religious persecution. All deserve our understanding.
To hear some politicians talking of the ‘influx’ of Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians from the EU as though the Vandals were at the door, is insulting and reflects an underlying elitist and racist view. They too are people. Many of us share their blood. They too have hopes and fears and are as European as we are. Why, some even revere St George as their patron saint. It is no more than fear of the ‘other’ identical to Trump’s view of Mexicans as drug-dealers and rapists (and probably Muslims, knowing the Donald’s grasp of facts).
There is no easy answer to migration: no easy measure of what level is realistic or ‘acceptable’. One thing is certain though: Cnut did not have the answer. We cannot hold back the tide by simply building ever-higher barriers and throwing the unwanted over the top. Those who argue for a cut in overseas aid are denying one of the few tools we have to correct injustices around the world and thus, eventually to un-fail those states or to create societies which are at ease with themselves in their home territories.
Brexit’s magic formulae for controlling immigration are as much insulting and unworkable nonsense as the suggestion of short-term permits unless someone was earning over £35k (well over double the average salary in Cornwall).
So where does this all lead me? I have found no merit in any of the arguments put up by the Brexit campaign. They offer me no coherent model for what our nation might look like in the future, and would almost certainly lead to the break-up of the partnership that we call the UK. All the public figures whose views I respect, and especially those who have no axe to grind or career to advance, agree that Remain is the answer. All the economic arguments point in the same direction. So both my head and my heart point in one direction.
The EU undoubtedly faces problems. Created in good times, it is struggling to deal with the twin shocks of the aftermath of the financial crash and migration but that is not a reason to walk away, it is a reason to work even more closely together to solve problems together. Our country too faces problems with a continued lack of trust in established structures, some generally unimpressive politicians and a population increasingly anxious about the future.
Two social memes have stood out amongst the plethora of postings about the referendum. The night club analogy describes the conversation in which protagonists stand around in a kebab shop asking whose idea it was to get out of the night club when they realise that it was a mistake to leave and they want to get back in. The second echoed Kennedy’s famous call in asking not what Europe can do for us but what we can do for Europe.
Both make their points neatly and concisely. The stupidity of stamping one’s foot and walking out into uncertainty only to realise the mistake afterwards, and the naïve and selfish expectation of getting out more than one puts in.
And then there is the obvious point made by so many: this is a referendum about the long-term nature of this country. It is about a vision of the future, not a simple election that can be reversed in five years’ time if ‘they’ make a hash of things. This is absolutely not the moment for a protest vote against the status quo, no matter how confused and insecure we feel.
To vote Remain is not, as Boris would have us believe, to show fear over hope, it is to show hope over fear. Hope that we can work within Europe and with our European partners to make the world a better place rather than pull up the drawbridge at fear of ‘Johnny foreigner’. Stuff talk of recapturing 'sovereignty'; it is humanity that matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)