Why?

Yesterday I spent quite a bit of time banging on about why I was angry about Thursday's referendum, which basically boiled down to the fact that I thought it should never have been held in the first place.  But I also said that for most of my life I had never really given any thought to the EEC/EU at all.  Yesterday I discussed what I was angry about.  Today I hope to look at the reasons why.

I certainly have to confess that at certain times in my life I have felt irritation at things which either came from Brussels or at least were purported to have come from there.  Many of these absurdities turn out to have been inventions of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson from his time as The Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Brussels.  His propensity to make stuff up had already got him sacked from The Times and remember 'the leopard doesn't change his shorts'. 
Nevertheless I did have a sense that the EU in all its manifestations was a bit top heavy and bureaucratic and that I was probably paying for it in some way. The irritations I felt towards the EU however paled into insignificance when compared to those I felt with regard to the actions of our own government here in Westminster.  Governments of different hues have been responsible for the bombing and killing of countless people, many of them strangely in oil-rich areas of the world.  Taxes have been levied; cuts have been made; assets have been sold off; banks have been propped up;  expenses have been fiddled;  I could go on but I hope you get the picture.  And not once have I felt that I have had any say in these actions or any ability to stop them, slow them down, or even make those carrying them out explain clearly why they think they are a good thing.  Such is the nature of our democracy, which might come as a bit of a shock to all those voters who think they've 'GOT THERE COUNTRIE BACK.'

Democracy is a flawed system, and ours, despite Faragic rhetoric, is far from perfect, possibly far from democratic.  I doubt the ancient Athenians would recognise it. I have spent many fruitless (as it turns out) hours on social media patiently explaining how the EU is democratic as well, to those who claim that ALL ARE LAWS ARE INPOSED BY EUROPEAN DICKTATERS.  This was an absurd position.  I could see that the EU set-up was far from perfect, that there could have been more accountability and certainly more transparency.  

The EU needs to be reformed.  In my mind there is no question about that but now we will have no say in how that is done.  It may be that it will lurch to the right and collapse in a sea of nationalistic hubris.  It may carry on much as it has done for quite a while now.  I may fall under a bus tomorrow.  The future is unknowable and even the bookies can't predict it.  Actually, because of cuts to rural bus services here I would have to go and actively seek out a bus in order to fall under it, so that is probably less likely than either of the others.

If we start from the premise that we are not happy with the top-heavy bureaucratic leviathan that is the EU then there are certain actions we can take to do something about it.  Or at least there were, but let's ignore that for a moment and talk hypothetically.  We could seek to reform it from within or we could decide to leave.  

That is our first binary choice.  In or out.  But the situation is much more nuanced than that.  Within both choices there are different approaches that could be taken.  If we decide to leave, do we leave and cut off all ties with the EU and rely on trading with the rest of the world? Do we remain part of the EEA? Do we join up with Norway as one Facebook poster suggested although what Norway would gain from that I cannot quite imagine.  This list is not exhaustive but it gives us an idea of what might be possible.  

On the remain side it seems to me that there are two approaches to reforming the EU.  The Anglocentric approach and the Pan-European approach.  The first was attempted by David Cameron, who went round all the leaders of the member states, trying to persuade them that we in Britain were a special case (I hesitate on the grounds of good taste of categorising that as the 'special-needs' approach, but what the hell) and this despite the fact that we already receive a substantial rebate on our contributions for reasons which completely baffle me.  This approach failed.  The other members didn't seem moved by our special needs, and let's be honest, we don't actually have any.  We are a wealthy country who are part of a club, some of whose members are quite poor. We should pay more than them, it's that sort of club.  

The other approach is that put forward by Jeremy Corbyn as part of his Remain campaign.  If parties across Europe who want change within the EU were to join together and work for that reform it might have some chance of success. Much has already been said and written about Corbyn's contribution to the referendum campaign.  He was criticised for being too low key, despite touring extensively round the country putting forward his take on the vote. What those critics really mean is that he wasn't willing to stand side by side with Cameron, the man who every Wednesday bullies and ridicules him across the floor of the House of Commons. A man whose take on the referendum was to tell us how passionate he was about membership (so much passion, so little substance), what a great deal he had brought to the table and how well the economy was doing under his and Gideon's guidance.  I totally support Corbyn for taking that stance.  He appears to be a man of principle in a bathtub of opportunists.  

Cameron invoked Project Fear.  And he was right.  As Tim Farron said yesterday 'Project fear has become project fact'.  The pound had fallen, the markets have tumbled... just like he said they would. 

And that is why I am so angry about the result.  Those who persuaded a majority to vote leave have put our future and more specially the future of our children and grandchildren at risk.  They demonised immigrants and called up the spirits of bogeymen and promised to MAKE BRITEN GREAT AGANE (with a nod to Nigel Molesworth there).  

In the short term this economic volatility will make little difference to the 'vote in pen' voters, who do not own shares and have not grasped that falling markets may affect their pensions and falling sterling will make their European holidays more expensive.  Moreover they look at their own lives and see precious few signs of the burgeoning economy of which Cameron boasts, and which seems to me to be built entirely on the fact that house prices in the capital are rising.  They see increased migration, particularly to deprived areas where rents are cheaper, creating added pressure on public services which have already been slashed to to the bone by austerity cuts and make a causal link.  That link may not exist but it has been used by those in the leave campaign to garner votes with promises to curb immigration, promises which they almost certainly won't be able to keep, and which I will look at tomorrow.  It is not those voters with whom I am angry.  I am disappointed that they voted for us to leave.  It is the leaders of the out campaign who anger me most. From Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson who saw this as an opportunity to become leader of his party and thus PM to Murdoch the Maleficent and his plan to take over the world. They used prevarication as a political tool in a most despicable way, and all of us now have to suffer the consequences.

Just now I have some dry stone walling which demands my attention so I will leave and return tomorrow with more musings from the foothills.  

Love Tim. xx