question everything
WELCOME TO THE EU REFERENDUM CIRCUS
You might argue that a referendum is the jewel in the democratic crown; what could be more democratic than the people deciding what’s best for them? But that’s not how democracy works. In a democratic society we vote for a government whose job it is to decide on policy and to implement laws and systems that both protect and benefit society.
'What government in their right mind would give that power to the people, and what person in their right mind would want to be part of such a society?'
What government in their right mind would give that power to the people, and what person in their right mind would want to be part of such a society? Governments only allow this to happen when it suits their purpose, otherwise it would be a given that a referendum on legalising drugs would no doubt lead to us all smoking dope and mainlining crack cocaine by the end of the year. The government are given this power to protect us, not only from ourselves, but also from all the other lunatics out there who might be lurking in dark corners. Whether or not they can be trusted to wield that power with truth, intelligence and dexterity is a different question; and one that is, unfortunately for all of us, easy to answer based on this debate.
​
Direct democracy is not democratic
Direct democracy is smoke screen democracy, not only is it a cop out but also a brilliant way of absolving responsibility; a responsibility that is the government’s job to bear. Who amongst us has the credentials to be able to make a decision on the EU? Not me for sure; the closest I ever come to making an important European based decision is deciding whether or not to use the bidet every time I visit the lavatory. But the government do have the credentials, (or should have…) and that’s the point. They have countless economic, financial and trade experts to call on and have had over 43 years’ worth of experience in dealing with the EU. They are involved in EU law on a daily basis and directly involved in how those laws affect us in Britain. So why aren’t they making the decision that they are, if not legally bound, duty bound to make? It’s politics. (1)
​
This is not an election
First off it’s important to point out that voting in this referendum has nothing to do with what colour underpants you prefer to wear; it’s not party specific. The Conservatives are badly split on it, Labour and the Lib Dems mostly in favour and UKIP dead against. So if nothing else if you voted ‘in’ you would be pissing the Conservatives and Nigel Farage off big time, which in itself is no bad thing. (2)
The other important points to bear in mind are: firstly, this is not an election, so we will not have the opportunity to revisit the decision in 5 years’ time if we don’t like the outcome. There’s no going back; once the decision is made we’re stuck with it. And secondly, they are not giving you this option because it doesn’t matter what the result is either way – nothing could be further from the truth; this is the most important political decision you will ever make.
​
Why we’re having this referendum now
This isn’t the first time we’ve had a referendum on Europe. The first was in 1975 after Labour won the election following our ascension to the EEC (as it was then) under the Conservatives in 1973. Funnily enough one of the main concerns that led to that referendum wasn’t immigration, but the fear of emigration, and how it might affect the UK if our workers were to leave in their droves. But essentially a referendum under a Conservative government could have happened at any time over the last 30 years.
Generally speaking Labour have softened their approach to Europe as time has gone on, whereas the Conservatives have always been divided on the EU; it’s been a canker sore eating away at the party for decades.
Cameron, as with many previous Conservative Premiers, had hoped to diffuse the internal warfare over Europe with help from his Lib Dem coalition partners. But as public resentment, caused by the influx of European migrants to the country in the early 2000s, grew he knew he was in trouble.
This was closely followed by the rise of UKIP and Farage leading a party that was reportedly representing 15% of the electorate (surely Mr. Cameron knows not to trust opinion polls doesn’t he?) With a re-election bearing down on them the Conservatives needed something to help quell the anti-EU feeling that Farage was whipping up. He knew UKIP couldn’t win, but they could syphon off enough votes to hand victory to Labour.
Enter the referendum, a strategy designed to help Conservative MPs deal with the electorate’s anger over the EU, and in particular, over immigration.
'The Conservatives have always been divided on the EU; it’s been a canker sore eating away at the party for decades'.
God does not play dice
Einstein was wrong as it happens, but what is certainly true is that Prime Ministers shouldn’t play dice – especially when they are betting on the country’s future. Of course Cameron never actually expected to win the 2015 election so he thought it was a gamble worth taking. He reckoned that under another coalition government the plans would be scrapped and he’d come out of it with a couple of scratches and maybe a pair of bruised knees (based on his porcine exploits at Oxford that wouldn’t be the first time then..) but he reckoned wrong. The Conservatives, to everyone’s surprise, won with a majority and now he had to face up to the stark reality of what a referendum might mean for Britain.
Many of those close to Cameron, including the Chancellor George Osbourne, warned him not to go ahead with the pledge back in 2013 as it was likely to have disastrous unintended consequences. He ignored them and in doing so he has consigned us all to an uncertain future. (3)
​
Accountability
Much has been written over the last month about accountability within the EU, and I will discuss that in another section, but it pales into insignificance with regard to what’s happening here. The main driving force behind this referendum isn’t based on any real dissatisfaction with the EU. Yes, there are problems; bureaucracy and control will always be a concern for a country that considers itself to be a sovereign nation. But those aren’t the issues, instead the entire focus of this debate is on immigration. Of course freedom of trade is part of that discussion too, as in any event, the two are linked because of our current arrangement with the Single Market. But whereas most experts agree that, from a trade perspective, we shouldn’t even consider leaving the EU, the spectre of immigration constantly comes back to haunt the debate.
On this basis Farage et al are telling you that if we get out of the EU we can control it. But at what cost to the economy? It’s a circular discussion. The argument is a compelling and emotive one, especially for some people, but takes on an entirely different complexion when you understand that the EU isn’t to blame for our immigration problem at all; our government is.
'The very idea that we should give back control to a government that not only caused the problem in the first, but also sustained it for their own ends, is preposterous. It’s like putting a drunk in charge of a brewery - 650 drunks to be more precise.'
The Blair immigration time bomb
Back in 2004 when the Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU Britain had an option to impose a ‘transitional period’ whereby migration from the East would be limited. In Britain, the Blair government decided that uncontrolled emigration from Eastern Europe would benefit the UK economy. In other words, this was not a problem created by the EU, it was created by our own government. The EU offered us a way out but our government refused it. (4) The problem has subsequently been compounded by successive governments who have failed to deal with it ever since. Consequently, despite promising controls on immigration, migrant numbers have increased to record levels; and here we are.
​
This referendum has therefore been orchestrated on the premise of a lie – and what a whopper it is. Sure there are concerns about the EU but the vast majority of MPs across all parties don’t want Britain to leave Europe and they certainly don’t want this referendum.
On the one hand, the Conservatives have painted themselves into a corner by gambling on the result of the general election and losing. And on the other, you have the BREXIT campaigners telling you that immigration is an EU issue when the problem was actually caused by our own government! It’s a comedy of errors that any troop of clowns would be proud of, and it would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
The very idea that we should give back control to a government that not only caused the problem in the first, but also sustained it for their own ends, is preposterous. It’s like putting a drunk in charge of a brewery - 650 drunks to be more precise.
​
Summary
The government are absolving their responsibility to govern and shifting the accountability of whatever may happen onto you and I. If we vote ‘in’ and the economy, for whatever reason goes down the pan, it’s our fault not theirs; if we vote ‘out’ and everything goes tits up, it’s our fault not theirs. Because our economy now has such intricate and far reaching ties to the EU anything that goes wrong will just be blamed on our vote in the referendum. It'll be a stick that they'll always be able to pull out to hit us with.
But apart from that, the mere premise that the British government can be trusted with immigration is beyond laughable given the truth behind their actions over the last 15 years. A period where we have seen non-EU migration (the migrants the government can control) rise, in excess of EU migration, to around 200,000 a year. (5) But it gets worse...
No country, in the history of the European Union, has ever left; so we are talking about uncharted waters here. As such, all bets are off, because there is simply no way of gauging what all the repercussions might be.
Immigration is a sensitive and complicated political issue but it’s not an isolated problem that can be resolved by downing the snake oil BREXIT campaigners are hawking out of the back of their bus. Like our own physiology, the European Union is a holistic, connected system and every part of it affects every other. On this basis one can’t simply make a decision based on one factor without accounting for what the repercussions might be elsewhere.
Many experts believe that leaving the EU could have the knock on effect of handicapping our trade with Europe - and those that suggest otherwise have been making calculations on the back of a fag packet based on projections regarding something that hasn’t happened yet. (6)
.
It's like trying to cure a headache by drilling a hole in your head; not only is it likely to increase the pain but there's a good chance you'll lose control of your bladder and your motor functions too.
​
But perhaps the most compelling point (that no-one really seems to be talking about) is that views from BREXIT campaigners are conflicting; on the one side you have a view that is centred on stopping immigration, which has a natural tendency to make lucrative trade arrangements more difficult to negotiate - and on the other you have those that want Britain to throw open the doors wider to Global trade without boundaries which, if you research this, means that even excluding EU migration it has to allow the freer movement of workers and citizens.
​
In other words if BREXIT don’t know what they want to achieve how can they achieve it?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Sources:
2 - http://civitas.org.uk/content/files/CIT.3.EU-Political-Parties.pdf
5 - http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk
6 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/will-brexit-damage-trade-eu-referendum-vote-leave-a7062201.html
Copyright: GAG 2016 all right reserved – no part of the content of this website, text or images can be used, duplicated or broadcast without prior authorisation.