Are arguments against Brexit beginning to emerge?

At last the arguments in favour of remaining in the EU and of finding ways in which to minimise the damage of Britain’s senseless, self-inflicted blow (Economist) look as though they are beginning to emerge.

Far too many Remainers are using the phrase 'when we leave the EU' in their speeches, rather as though there was an inevitability about it. We would not send a person to prison after a trial based on such lies and flimsy evidence, and any sentence would be easily over-turned on appeal. Are we really going to change the whole strategic direction of the country without an appeal? I could live with 'if we leave the EU', for now.

If you are in any doubt about the lies then see Richard Corbett's useful blog list. As a Labout MEP he is in a position to know something about the reality of the EU.

Chuka Umunna has suggested that the three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davis) cannot be let off the hook for their referendum promises (Independent). Since the three of them are now in pole position to turn their dreams into a proposal - not, one hopes a reality - then their trial may yet come, provided Parliament has the guts to test them under fire. A second referendum might be needed, if only to satisfy the general public that they had had their say: but this time with a proper question, or series of questions.

A C Grayling has set out the philosophical reasons as to why Parliament should have the final say in whether to trigger Article 50 or not. It remains to be seen whether MPs will do as they should in a representative democracy and use their skill and judgement to consider the big picture and what is best for the country as a whole; or whether they will crumple under the thought of de-selection and give in to the so-called will of the [misinformed and gulled] majority.

The Lords appear to be stirring themselves up to cause trouble which is encouraging but they were quickly slapped down by the PM with a repeat of her 'We are going to make a success of Brexit' line. Sod, the vote: could someone ask her why she is even considering Brexit given the quality of the evidence in front of her?

What we really need is someone, or some party around whom we can all cohere. The Labour Party is in turmoil, the Lib Dems are unable to get their voices heard and only the Guardian and Independent seem to be leading the charge at the moment. They are being reviled by the Brexiteers for their pains. The Express and Mail seem dedicated to 'hard Brexit', the Sun is worrying about the colour of our passports and, as one might expect, the Star is more interested in well-endowed girls in 'celebrity' television programmes.

Releases from both sides attempt to demonstrate the collapse or non-collapse of the financial market 'post Brexit' to make their case, as though we had already left. We have not left. We are simply living with a black hole of uncertainty which is understandably giving everyone the jitters.

An excellent piece by John Lanchester in the London Review of Books sets out the economic implications very clearly. Brexit will achieve the objectives of limiting migration but we are all going to be poorer and the poorest and oldest - the groups who were most likely to vote to Leave - are going to suffer the most. Classical Greek justice perhaps but not a happy result in the long term.

My present hero is the ever-perceptive, intelligent and articulate Alastair Campbell. Love him or hate him he knows how to phrase an argument. He wrote a cracking piece for the NewEuropean, an infinitely better version of a piece I had been pondering, and followed it up with a plug on his blog.

As Alastair says, we have no idea what people were actually voting for when they voted to Leave. Politicians are picking the Brexit narrative to suit their own agendas. We owe it to ourselves to be clear as to which particular problem we are solving.

And Nick Clegg is stirring himself to challenge the 'Brexit Government' with a series of questions about the future. If anyone knows how easy or difficult to know about trade negotiations, then it is he since he was an EU trade negotiator in his past. His first move was to correct some naivety of David Davis' about the nature of the EU, hardly reassuring given that DD is of the three Brexiteers.

We still need a strong, senior, informed and credible figurehead to lead the charge against Brexit. I guess no one wishes to step forward for fear of being labelled, and dismissed, as an establishment figure. Come on one of you.

As things stand, I can see us heading for one of those awful British compromises which gives everyone a little of what they want and ends up with a dog's dinner. We will probably try and half-solve five problems at the same time while jumping off the high board without knowing what is below. The Norwegian model, which is already heading for the reject pile, seems to me to be a good example of the worst of both worlds.

Informed opinion is increasingly suggesting that Article 50 is a long way off as we do need to get our ducks in a row first. But who has ever cared about informed opinion when political manouvering is involved?

The blame game

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?