I thought it time to make some comments as we approach the referendum vote that may or may not lead to the UK sticking two fingers up at Johnny foreigner once again and once more fortifying the old white cliffs for the sake of good old Albion.

Here we go;

 

I do not like referendums

The Scottish in/out one was the same; it reduced great complexity down to a simple binary seductive question. We elect governments to govern. Referendums are the means by which governments abdicate responsibility. I hate the way they divide people, often along narrow sectarian grounds. I hate the fact that all sorts of things that really matter are obscured behind the fog they create.

 

Any question has two answers, any answer has a reply, any statistic has a contradiction

We learn nothing from the so called debate, apart from the futility of the debate itself. Therefore what drives our vote will almost certainly NOT be reasoned reflection after a careful examination of the facts. We will decide based on narrow totemic issues that arise from our own prejudices and associations.

 

Immigration is all about inequality, not border controls

Speaking of totemic issues, this one may well be the clincher in this referendum. On the one hand we hear that we need immigrants in the UK; they are by far a net contributor to our economy. On the other hand the fear and resentment that they create (aided and abetted by the politics of hate and by certain newspapers) means that this debate has nothing to do with economics. It is obvious to anyone however that what drives immigration is rampant inequality. Yes war and famine may create mass movements but the real engine is the fact that we in the west have far more than we need and do not want to share it with the poor south. Brexit ignores the issues and focuses instead on blaming the victim. It all makes me feel ill.

 

In or out, nothing that matters will change very much

The debate about national sovereignty and democracy makes much of the fact that here in this island we need to be in control of our own fate, our own destiny. But of course, we are NOT. Power is wielded by the powerful and this will not change. The poor will remain poor and those who are privileged will continue to pamper themselves at the expense of the rest. When we talk about leaving Europe in order to ‘make our own decisions’, I find myself wondering WHO will make our own decisions? At a time when political power is ever more concentrated in the hands of those who are from a tiny section of society. At a time too when even success in theatre, in comedy, in rock music is related to the wealth of your parents. The bourgeoisie control not just the means of production, but even the means of distraction.

 

The questions that matter are not being asked

In the wake of global recession, what have we learned? What has been our response? Who have been the winners and who have been the losers? What about the environment? What about enforced inequality? Are we simply retreating ever more into our little enclaves of security and adopting a ‘me-first-and-mine’ mentality, and the rest can just go hang? The EU debate is at best irrelevant to these questions, and at worst is distracting, destructive and confusing.

 

There is a crucial difference between Internationalism and Globalism

The real power in Europe is held by Globalised corporations, whose motivation is to maintain an unequal status quo in order to maximise profits. Much of the debate we hear about Europe is focused on whether British companies will be able to make more or less money in or out of the European union. Yet we all know that capital is global. Lest I sound naive, I know that the complexities of our economy can mean that small shifts in things like ‘confidence’ can result in company closures and redundancies, but let us not kid ourselves that globalised corporations care much for borders, no matter how elastic. The City of London will not be diminished, and yet in its shadow, we are all reduced to nothing more than consumer units.

Internationalism on the other hand is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and peoples, and whose ideological roots can be traced to both socialism and liberalism. It grew in the wake of world wars and offered the prospect that we humans might aspire to something greater than just narrow self interest. Internationalism has known many failures throughout the cold war. It has been used to justify all sorts of political and economic expediencies (such as the Gulf war for example) but it remains an ideal that appeals to the best in us.

The EU has roots in both Globalisation and Internationalism. I am repelled by the former and remain hopeful about the latter.

 

Small is beautiful, but connectedness is strength

The UK is a small place full of smaller places. Scotland is a smaller place, full of even smaller places. If we are serious of democracy, we have to be able to make real decisions at a local level. But equally, we have to be able to look outwards and seek to share and co-operate. We have to see the benefits that come from fair trade and intellectual/cultural exchanges with the other. Both these things are worth striving for. Neither of them are gifted by staying in or coming out.

 

Beware who you share a platform with

There has been a lot of this recently; people united across the political spectrum because of their support for one side of the debate or the other. The process demands this. But if one thing above all will influence my vote it is the sight of Gove and Boris moon-facing me with another dire warning about European interference about the bentness of our bananas.

 

All institutions are flawed

European ones are, so are those in the UK. All are formed by compromise between the powers and interests that they seek to mitigate. Sometimes they carry the circumstances of their formation within their DNA longer than might be regarded as useful, and so all have to be subject to constant reform if they are to remain relevant. The bigger they are, the harder this reform is however and the further this is from the lives of real people.

 

WWJV? (What would Jesus vote?)

He would be too busy caring for the poor and broken. He would probably be looking after refugees.