A thought on the election: the power of 3 words

Quite a few years ago, I went to a training session on communication for churches. In one section, they discussed mission statements. All too often church mission statements on noticeboards are lengthy paragraphs of how the church will worship more faithfully, care more lovingly, serve the community and several more laudable and Christian aims.

The problem with that, according to our speaker is that few remember or even read them to the end. They may be a useful reference document for a church council, but they won't galvanise a vision. What was needed was something more concise, and the examples he gave were perestroika and rainbow nation. In the Soviet Union as it crumbled, and in South Africa emerging from apartheid, very simple phrases or even a single word captured the aspirations of a nation and even entered the language of other countries. Looking back we can analyse and suggest they may not have achieved what they hoped for, but at the time they were very effective.

At the 2016 referendum, the Leave campaign coined "take back control", and in this election Boris Johnson and his cohorts kept saying "get Brexit done". Both phrases beg all kinds of questions, fail to stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny, and can get dismissed as empty. The point that was missed by those who mocked was that people remembered 3 words, and they meant that the focus came back again and again to the issue each campaign wanted dead centre, and kept attention away from more awkward questions or more nuanced arguments.

The remain campaign had no such equivalent phrase to counter the brexiters in 2016. In the election campaign, Labour's take on Brexit was complicated and had changed over the previous months, meaning the campaign could only come up with adding the derivative phrase "get Brexit sorted" as part of a much longer explanation.

A three-word phrase can be dismissed as a vacuous slogan, but Dominic Cummings and his team understood that the detail isn't important at impact. You can deal with that later - get the phrase in people's heads and the fewer words the better.

We probably won't have a General Election again  until 2024, but whenever it comes, don't underestimate the power of 3 words.

Brexit Tales 4: The Christian with the Tract

It would have been either 1982 or 1983 whilst I was a student. I walked past this bloke in Oxford and he pushed a leaflet into my hand - maybe he could sniff out Christians, or just spotted my bad clothes. I stuffed it into my coat pocket and thought no more about it for a couple of days, as those sorts of tracts are usually pretty awful - especially theologically and presentationally.

Some time the following week I must have been bored, as I found the leaflet in my pocket and took a look. The details are a bit hazy now, but I do remember clearly that it was very agitated about the EEC and the UN. The issue with the EEC was something to do with it having [then] 9 members states, which correlated with something about judgment or the end. Meanwhile the UN was seen as a step towards world government, which would apparently usher in all manner of evil (rather than a more peaceful world).

As is often the case with these kinds of tracts, it was all based on verses from Revelation. The approach is usually to try and find some kind of correlation between events, people or numbers in that book and see it as proof of some forthcoming significant moment. Over the years I've had a few circular letters that have long screeds of apocalyptic stuff sent to me as a vicar. This was an early encounter.

Since then it has intrigued me that a certain kind of Christianity has continued to have a hostile view of the EU in keeping with the man with the tract. I'll come back to broader-based Christian views of brexit in a future post; the opposition I'm talking about here comes from a very particular kind of spirituality which sees secular organisations not just as neutral or non-religious, but as actively hostile and even in the hands of evil. as such it can all get a bit conspiracy-theory in its most extreme forms.

Last summer I attended a course at a Christian conference centre. Another group of women from some kind of pentecostal/charismatic network were using nearby rooms, and it was a hot summer's day so the windows were open. One of our group overheard them earnestly praying that "these evil men won't thwart God's will for brexit". We concluded that dialogue in the bar later would probably not be fruitful. More recently I came across the website of another preacher of a similar theological ilk describing brexit as a miracle from God that will enable revival. I couldn't help thinking that it was all a long way from why many Anglicans voted leave (I promise I will come back to that!)

Anyway back to tract man. There was an address on the leaflet - some kind of PO Box if I remember right. So out of curiosity (and I was a Christian Union rep after all) I wrote him a reply, challenging some of the points politely, quoting the odd Bible verse and asking a few questions. The letter was returned - the address didn't exist. The EEC grew in number and became the EU with 28 members. Maybe tract man has another leaflet that can tell us what 28 (or 27) signifies.

Hang on. 27= 3 x 9. Suspicious, eh?

Brexit Tales 3: The North York Moors Railway

You probably weren't expecting that. Let me explain.

At the end of February half-term I had a day off. It was a lovely sunny day, so as trains were running, I went up to Pickering and took a journey on the North York Moors Railway all the way to Grosmont. It's a wonderful little place, complete with a picturesque station and a special Coop all of its own

As there was plenty of time, I decided to walk the Rail Trail back to Goathland and then catch the final train to Pickering from there. It's a decent length walk, but it follows the original tramway, built by George Stephenson that was replaced by the current railway. As a result it's a nice wide path, mainly flat, apart from quite a long, steady incline into Gothland itself.

Near the start of the walk, I noticed this sign

Full noticeboard

Then I spotted that the bottom of the sign had this (sorry about the quality)

The EU bit

It turns out that EU funding helped to make the Rail Trail happen. This small, fading label is the only evidence and reminder that that was the case (unless you download the linked leaflet and read the smaller print.) And all over the UK, I suspect that there are plenty of other projects and developments where we are completely unaware that EU money made it happen, as we aren't always very good at signposting it. A key part of debunking the £350 million a week on the side of the bus was the fact that a lot of EU funding flows back - including the "Thatcher rebate", payments for agriculture etc, funding research, Erasmus student scholarships, and funding for regional development.

Now at this point if any enthusiastic supporters of brexit have got this far, they might raise the fact that this funding is not completely under the control of the UK government. Let's be clear - that is true. In fact, I would suggest that is an advantage. A government of whatever political persuasion will always be susceptible to the temptation to be more generous to certain areas than others out of political concerns. Not exactly buying votes, but it helps. If the strategic allocation decision is taken further away, based on criteria agreed by all member states, then it has a much better chance of being free from party political bias.

Back in the 1980s, I was in Durham, and I remember people talking about how European funding provided significant funds for the North East as it lost its traditional industries. In the aftermath of the miners' strike and then pit closures, it meant that interest and initiative was taken, even though business parks and restoring the landscape couldn't bring back those traditional jobs. Similarly, Wales has received substantial funds. I looked it up: £3.8bn between 2007-2020 via European Structural Funds investment, helping support employment, training and research, £957m between 2014-2020 via the Rural Development Programme, supporting businesses, farmers and communities and £200m a year Common Agricultural Policy, helping 16,000 Welsh farms. Likewise, Cornwall has also had substantial EU regional funding. The sad irony is that these regions generally voted leave in substantial numbers.

Leave voters might say at this point that as the UK government won't be paying into the EU, it can do its own grants. However, we have yet to see enough political commitment to do so (and just at the moment it's hard to see who is in charge anyway!) The UK government did announce a "Stronger Towns Fund", but we have yet to see detail about the "Shared Prosperity Fund". What is clear is that the latter would need to send a lot more money to Cornwall, if it is to match what was scheduled to come from the EU. It looks like brexit will redistribute funds around the country, and the likelihood is that Eastern England and the South West will lose out.

Some of these changes might be desirable, but I'm not an expert so I don't know. What I do know is that when we voted in the referendum in June 2016, nearly all of us had no idea what impact our vote might have on the regional development funding our area would receive. If only we'd paid more attention to those little logos when we saw them, we might have asked more questions before we cast our vote.

Brexit Tales 2: Talking To Bob

Bob is in his 90s, but he was just too young to be called up during World War 2, which he remembers clearly. He left school at 14 (they lowered the age during WW2) and he worked at Chilwell Ordnance Depot, which was one of the largest in the UK during the war. He remembers an air raid which failed to hit the depot, but left holes in the road. He greatly admired Churchill for saving the country, despite all of the risks. What may surprise you is that Bob voted remain.

I knew he had voted to stay in the EEC at the previous ballot in the 1970s, but I didn't know if he had changed his mind.  It turns out that he and I bucked the trend of our respective generations - especially in the Midlands. Since then we have had a number of conversations about it, and I found it fascinating to hear his reasons for voting the way he did.

One significant factor for him was that the European Union bound together the destinies of old enemies, which was one of the driving forces behind the foundation of the community in the first place. I remember seeing an interview with John Major where he described the change in his party after the 1992 election. A lot of older MPs retired, who had seen active service in the war, and the new intake had no such experience and many were more Eurosceptic. The older MPs had regarded the sacrifices involved in being committed to the European Union as a price worth paying for never seeing conflict in Europe such as they had lived through. I sensed that Bob felt the same way - after all his own father had been in the trenches of World War 1.

Another thing he remembers well is the era of post-war austerity. Working at an electronics company, and also having radio as a hobby, he remembers the problems and paperwork involved in obtaining imported items. Import controls limited what could come in, and in what quantity. Britain was faced with repaying loans from the USA, and money was tight. It also gave the United States a lot of influence over the UK in that period. I recently read a book called 1946 by Victor Sebestyen, which describes the events of that year and their long-term impact. In a chapter on the UK, he describes how pressure from the US accelerated the decolonisation process, and may even have meant that the withdrawals were done in a more disordered rush than they otherwise might. 

Bob remembers the Suez crisis, when the UK and France acted as if they were still superpowers and rapidly discovered that they weren't. US pressure, through the threat of withdrawing finance, led to the rather humiliating climb-down by the UK that followed. Britain had to face the fact that it was no longer in a position to act in the world without reference to its much bigger ally. As Harry Truman's Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, put it: "Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role."

So Britain effectively had a choice either to become increasingly under the sway of the US, or to grow economically closer to Europe. As Bob pointed out, we have spent the last 45 years moving in one direction, so what sense can there be in uprooting all of that. All of the alternative possibilities we might have pursued instead of the EEC are now gone. It's not like we can go back to the end of the 1960s and have another go with the Commonwealth or the USA as if nothing has happened since.

The other key point Bob made was that the government has been completely consumed by brexit since the referendum. He feels that there were so many other things they could have been sorting out, which have been slowed or even put on hold. As we talked we even wondered if some of the very grievances that prompted some people to vote leave could have been dealt with, had the government been free to get on with addressing them. Either way, brexit seemed an unnecessary waste of a huge amount of money, staffing and energy, when so many other problems are before us.

So he voted remain. How do I know? Bob is my dad.

Brexit Tales: The Woman In The Shop

A lot of the chatter about Brexit online is pretty acrimonious, and much of it confused. At the moment, the Speaker appears to be a villain or a hero, depending who you listen to. Brexiteers and remainers alike have been praising or criticising him, and quite a lot of people are just confused.

So, I thought I'd just tell a few stories of my encounters with people instead.

It was a few weeks ago, and there had been some rumblings about the Irish backstop in the news. On a day off, so not visibly a vicar, I popped in to a local shop to pick up one or two things for lunch. As I came to the till, I heard an animated conversation between a woman paying for her shopping and the person on the till. As my stuff was checked through, the following conversation took place:

"Dictating to us...", said the woman, looking at me with an expression that invited me to join in.

It's important to note at this point that even when incognito, a vicar has to take care in how they express themselves. The person you're talking to might be at your next wedding/funeral/baptism and it helps if you're on reasonable terms.

"What's this you're talking about?", I said, buying time and checking that it was really the EU they were discussing.

"The EU. It's a dictatorship!", she said.

I decided to try the probing approach. "That's a strong word to use."

"Well it is."

The remainer in me stirred slightly. I had no desire to antagonise the woman, but I didn't want her leaving the shop assuming I agreed with her. So I came up with a question

"Can I just ask in what ways the EU has dictated your life? I'm not very aware of it personally."

There was a brief pause.

"Retail", she said.

"Retail?"

"Yes. Retail."

At this point I realised I needed to bring the conversation to a peaceful close, which didn't leave her feeling got at, or me feeling I had misrepresented myself. I was also ready for my lunch.

"I see. I guess it's worth remembering our government supported a lot of the regulations we have, and my bet is that they'll keep most of them after we leave the EU. Anyway, I reckon it's out of our hands and we just have to wait and see."

This seemed to gain some consensus with the woman and the assistant, so I said a cheery goodbye and left.


Afterwards I reflected on this conversation. I may be doing the woman a disservice, but my hunch was that EU retail regulations weren't the main cause of her antagonism towards the European Union. But she clearly felt something very strongly, and the focus of that anger and frustration was the EU. I could have told her that only a modest percentage of UK regulations that came into force since 1997 were EU related, and of those only a tiny number were opposed by the UK. I could have pointed out that it's thanks to the EU that we know what contains palm oil, if that's a thing you're bothered about. I could have gone on at some length, but it wouldn't have served any useful purpose.

However, I don't think her grievance was about the mandatory labelling of aspartame. What it illustrated to me was how the leave vote tapped in to a sense of grievance, which was completely underestimated by the remain campaign. The so-called "project fear" did nothing to address or assuage that feeling; in fact it probably made it worse.

But here's my question: if and when the UK leaves the EU, and we get past the initial period of chaos and economic turbulence, will people like the woman in the shop actually feel they have a better life? Will they feel more empowered and connected to politicians? Will their local services be substantially improved? Will their retail be liberated? And if they are not, who will they blame?

Musings about a People's Vote

The Prime Minister is busily trying to keep her deal for the UK to leave the EU on the road as I type this, but it looks increasingly like she will fail. One possibility that seemed unlikely at one time, but is a real possibility now is that there could be a further referendum to ask the people to decide between options that Parliament cannot resolve. 

I've been interested in the fierce reactions such a proposal has produced, and a few thoughts occurs to me:

1. There is no point re-running the 2016 vote. The current mess arises from the fact that the option to leave was left so open to interpretation. Any further vote should be on whether to pursue specific proposals. My own view is that deal / no deal / remain should be those 3 choices with a 1,2 preference vote. 

2. I find it intriguing that brexiteers are so hostile to such a vote, as many of their comments seem to assume that options for leaving the EU would lose. If leaving is the "will of the people", surely that would triumph - in whatever version.

3. The warnings of civil unrest from brexiteers shows that they assume that those who voted leave both fear losing such a vote and this would result in a violent reaction. I think such warnings risk generating the very action they purport to warn about. It also assumes that remain/soft brexit supporters are, by comparison, peaceful should their hopes be thwarted. 

4. A second vote is deemed undemocratic. I've always thought that's a rather odd thing to say about giving people a vote. I agree that re-running the previous vote would look like trying until you get the result you want. However, a fresh public vote to resolve our MPs' impasse in Parliament may end up being the only available solution other than chaotically crashing out of the EU unprepared, and with no functioning government.

My previous posts will leave no-one in any doubt that I still believe that the UK should remain in the EU, but I'm not holding out any hopes that the 2016 result will be reversed. Attitudes have hardened, and although some polls suggest remain might win such a new poll, it would need a clear majority to persuade any government to change course. The question remains as to who will govern us when the House of Commons and the government in power are so divided.

Politics has gone strange

This week has witnessed some strange goings-on in British politics. Brexit is, of course, dominating the political agenda for the UK government. Rivalries, splits and dissatisfaction have come out into the open and the Prime Minister seems to have held on to her job primarily because no-one really wants to contemplate the alternative.

For the first time that I can remember, supporters of Brexit on the right of politics started openly talking about the need for government spending to increase to prepare for a possible hard Brexit or even no deal. This was noteworthy for two reasons:

(a) Brexit was portrayed by its advocates as financially beneficial to the UK during the referendum and its aftermath. We know the £350 million per week was bogus, but there has been a continued narrative that Brexit would be good for Britain. However, it was already starting to look costly, as the devaluation of the pound had its impact on the costs of procurement for the NHS and the MoD. Now there is an admission that it will cost.

(b) Those on the political right are not usually very keen on increasing public spending. Indeed they are usually looking for cuts in spending to fund tax cuts. But in this case, even people like John Redwood were ready to spend big, and complaining that Hammond wasn't.

Meanwhile the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sticking to the cautious Treasury financial forecasts and stated his reluctance to spend on resources that shouldn't be necessary, were a tariff-free deal successfully negotiated.

This had a remarkable effect. The right-wing Brexit supporting tabloid press and the right of the Conservative party openly criticised their own Chancellor of the Exchequer for not being prepared to spend more public money. This was fuelled, of course, by the fact the Hammond was a strong supporter of remaining in the EU in the referendum, and they suspect he's still wanting to be a saboteur. For those of us who are not Conservatives, it's a bewildering and extraordinary spectacle.

It's obviously left Mr Hammond somewhat rattled. He's reported today as referring to EU negotiators as "the enemy", but later tweeted that it was a poor choice of words and was much more conciliatory.

None of this has been very edifying, and the clock continues to tick towards March 2019. As I have openly said all along, I would much prefer that we stayed in the EU, and that is what I would vote for again, given the opportunity. However, if we must leave, then chaos helps no-one. The poorest and most vulnerable members of our society need the best deal we can get in the circumstances, for they will pay the price if it all goes badly wrong. The signs are not promising. I hope I'm mistaken.

Immigration

As a nation we are now in the thick of the process to negotiate the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union. Personally I still believe our nation's best future would be to remain a member, but I accept the odds of that happening are slim, despite the fact that the cost and complexity of brexit is now becoming abundantly clear. Questions fill the news about the 'divorce' bill, the Irish border, as well as the many new institutions we will need to replace the European ones we are leaving.

Our government (or at least most of the cabinet) seems to be committed to a 'hard' brexit - leaving the customs union and single market. This is despite the free trade area having been seen by a previous generation of Conservatives (including Margaret Thatcher) as a major achievement of the EU. The decision to leave the single market is a political decision, based on the assumption that the key reason for people voting 'leave' was immigration, and that it can't be controlled by staying in.

So I thought it would be interesting to revisit the issue of immigration to check the facts. Concerns about immigration are often dismissed as xenophobia or racism. There is no doubt people with those prejudices strongly object to immigration, and tabloids have done much to encourage very negative views of those who have come to our country for work or refuge. 

Personally I'm not convinced all of the 51.9% who voted 'leave' did so for concerns about immigration. Several left-leaning friends of mine voted that way for very different reasons. But the issue needs to be addressed in the current context, so I thought it would be more useful and interesting to look at the facts, as far as that is possible, and see what conclusion could be drawn. Is immigration uncontrolled, and is that the EU's fault?

Just before the June 2016 referendum, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published statistics which fed into the brexit debate. You can find the official data here. It showed the net long-term migration figure to be 333,000. A concern regularly raised was that this level was seen as unsustainable in the medium and long term, and the blame was laid at the feet of the EU, as free movement is part of the deal for being in the single market.

I learned a few things from the report:

1. The net migration figure is the difference between those coming into the country to stay and those leaving to live abroad. That means even if the figures balanced, there would still be immigration, assuming other people were still emigrating. Xenophobes and racists would still have to encounter new people from other countries in their communities, even at a net figure of zero. [Nigel Farage wanted a net figure in the 10s of thousands].
2. The figures are estimates, not actually recorded entries and departures.
3. Net migration from the EU was 184,000, non-EU was 188,000. totalling 372,000. Net migration of British citizens was -39,000, making the total 333,000. 
4. Long-term immigration for study was 167,000. Overseas students pay substantial university fees, and make a significant contribution to the economy.
5. Immigration from the EU (270,000) and immigration from outside the EU (277,000) are very similar. We'll come back to EU immigration, but the UK has full control over non-EU immigration and could stop it tomorrow. However, that would impact our relationships with the US, China, Canada, Australia, India etc. (Future trade deals may require the UK to be more generous with visas for these countries). The EU therefore contributes about 50% of total immigration, and about half of that comes from the original western European member states, such as Ireland, France and Germany.

The other thing I learned, which was remarkably low-key in the referendum debate was that EU immigration is not completely unrestricted as the Dailys Mail, Express, etc would suggest. After 3 months, an EU citizen in another EU country who is not working has to fulfil certain criteria, or they can be requested to leave or even deported. The UK has never implemented measures to register people to track this (including during Theresa May's time as Home Secretary). Ironically, the UK may need systems to track EU migration in future so that exceptions for free movement of labour can be made for certain professions under whatever new rules will apply.

On that latter point, it's becoming clear that the UK will continue to need workers from overseas - skilled and unskilled. Unemployment is the lowest it has been since the mid-1970s, so the crude prejudice often stated as "they are taking our jobs" just doesn't hold water. However, it may well be the case that to find work, UK-born people will need to retrain and move area - not always easy, especially with national variations in house prices. Meanwhile employers ranging from the NHS to car companies, from builders to fruit and vegetable farmers still rely on migrant workers for the foreseeable future. 

None of this has even begun to address the very real need of refugees and asylum seekers. The rhetoric would suggest this is a large figure, but for the period in this report, it was 41,563. For comparison that's less than half the figure for 2002. Even the politicians with the most benign view of immigration tend to focus on what the UK gets out of it - skills, economic activity, etc. However, the other dimension is that there are people who need somewhere to go and to live. No country has limitless capacity, but we can all play our part in offering compassion, hospitality and refuge. And if politicians are frightened of this flow of people becoming overwhelming, then their task is to build peace, provide generous aid and development budgets, and challenge all the other wealthier countries of the globe to take their share of the responsibility and burden.

I grew up in an era when older relatives said things along the lines of "Enoch Powell was right" and various degrees of racist terms were openly used in conversations everywhere. I still remember taking someone on when I was a teenager because they had described their doctor as "Indian, [pause] but he was good." We'll need to set aside the important question of which specific nation from the subcontinent the doctor actually came from (the speaker didn't know). The note of surprise that this fully qualified doctor was perfectly able to do his job revealed all about that person's prejudices with regard to Asian heritage medical professionals. 

In my lifetime, I've seen those prejudices expressed less and less, although I have always suspected that plenty lurked under the surface of white British society. In the turmoil of the last year or so politically, they seem to be alive and thriving, and surfacing in political discourse. It is too much to hope that xenophobia and even racism won't infect debates about immigration policy - social media is already full of that poison. However, I can still hope that politicians might be brave enough ignore those shrill and sometimes angry voices, and might instead weigh carefully what it means to be an open, free and generous spirited nation in our world today.

For an analysis of the most current migration figures, see BBC Reality Check for a breakdown of EU / non-EU migration and the reasons people come to the UK.

So, Brexit, how is it going?

Mike has secured an exclusive interview with Brexit, to try and get some insight into the process triggered by the vote on June 23.

MP: So, Brexit, how is it going?

Brexit: To be honest, I'm a bit confused.

MP: Why is that?

Brexit: Well, I know more people voted for me than didn't, so that's why I'm here.

MP: Actually only 37.4% of the electorate voted for you. That's just over 62% opposed or couldn't be bothered to vote.

Brexit: Yes, OK, but within the rules set before the referendum, the vote to leave won.

MP: Indeed it did. I didn't vote for you, but please don't rush off in a, er...Brexit.

Brexit: No - it's OK. I want to remain to talk, if you pardon the irony of me using that word. My problem is that I don't know who I am.

MP: Well Mrs May says 'Brexit means Brexit', so what's your issue?

Brexit: Well that's no more use than saying Mike means Mike. What sort of Mike? Mike Tyson? Mike Phelan? Mike Myers or even... Mike Peatman?

MP: Yes - I see your problem.

Brexit: I could be all kinds of Brexit, but I don't know which one. I could be a really hard Brexit - you know, the one that says he doesn't want any of this EU nonsense at all. No single market, no freedom of movement, negotiate all your own trade deals, and take the economic hit.

MP: But I sense you're a bit scared of that?

Brexit: It does get the Daily Express excited, which is always a bit embarrassing when you're in my position. And it also tends to attract the sort of people who just want to bash foreigners at the first opportunity, especially ones who don't have English as their first language. People just voted to leave the EU, the ballot paper didn't mention that nasty stuff.

MP: Very true. So what are the alternatives?

Brexit: I could be a Norwegian Brexit.

MP: Sounds like Monty Python's dead parrot sketch.

Brexit: No that was the Norwegian Blue - the one that was pining for the fjords. Anyway you're distracting me. I hope you're not trying to remain by the back door.

MP: Not at all - I'm trying to remain through the front door. But I want to understand you, so please continue.

Brexit: Well with Norway, it's a bit like pay and play golf. You pay a sub to take part, but you don't have all the obligations of being a member.

MP: You'd still have to wear funny clothes.

Brexit: Well there are still rules to keep, but you wouldn't be so tied in to things. You avoid having to go to the AGM and the dreadful dinner dance.

MP: There is a plus side to that, I suppose. You don't seem convinced.

Brexit: Well, I would get a lot of hassle from the Dailys Mail and Express, and some would say it would make it hardly worth leaving the EU. All the paperwork, but no power to change it.

MP: What about Scotland and Northern Ireland? They didn't vote for you.

Brexit: That's another thing. When I accepted this job, I was told this was a simple task. But they're adding all sorts of things to my job description without any vote - in Parliament or a referendum. I'm being accused of triggering another Scottish independence referendum, and I could reignite trouble in Ireland, if they have to reinstate a solid border. And the pound's sliding, and Gibraltar is scared for its future. And now I'm being blamed for proposals to register foreign workers, passports at childbirth and xenophobic violence. I never intended all of this - all Brexit should mean is...

MP: ...Brexit?

Brexit: ..leave the EU.

MP: You sound like a Remain voter.

Brexit: I'm just saying be careful what you wish for.

The trouble with referendums

As a nation we're only just absorbing the full importance of the recent referendum on EU membership. In a previous blog post before the vote, I suggested what a win for brexit would mean for the ensuing negotiations:

"Our future will be in the hands of a yet unknown Prime Minister and Chancellor, working with an unknown budget, under unknown market conditions, taking an unknown proposal for a trade deal, with unknown conditions about fees and movement of people."

That looks about right, so what went so wrong for David Cameron & Co, such that it came to this? I've been musing about the whole idea of holding a referendum at all, and I've come to a few conclusions. I'm not suggesting a re-run of what we have just had, as you can't re-write history, and the way the vote was framed would contain the same flaws. However, I think there were lessons from previous votes, as well as this one.

A referendum is not an election

In a general election, each party has a manifesto, with pledges and commitments as to what they would do, should they win the vote. We know politicians lie, exaggerate and wriggle out of commitments, but they can be held accountable at the next election. If you don't think that works, remember that the Lib Dems suffered badly at the last election for a) being in the coalition at all, and b) promising to abolish tuition fees and failing - even though other pledges were acted upon.

A referendum has no such accountability. It's a single vote, and if promises are made around that vote, that is not the same. In the recent vote, they were being made by people who didn't have the power to put them into action, and who appear to have had no intention to do so. For example, Iain Duncan Smith is now denying he ever promised to spend £350 million on the NHS, despite riding on the bus that said precisely that.

Keep the question as closed as possible. Avoid open questions.

Connected to that is how open-ended the option to leave the EU actually was. If you voted to leave, that new status of "not in the EU" was completely undefined. To some extent that accounts for the diversity of people who supported it, ranging from extreme right groups through to traditional socialists. The problem was that when people voted leave, they couldn't know what they were voting for, only what they were against. The turmoil we are now seeing is the inevitable fall-out from such an open-ended change.

Contrast that with the referendum on the alternative vote system. It was a simple choice: stay as we are, or use this new system. There was a debate, and no doubt some politicians saying things with varying amounts of credibility, but the choice was pretty straightforward. It couldn't acquire a whole set of other agendas and promises.

Constitutional matters are more complex, but it can be done. The 1979 Scottish devolution vote had a set of legislation in place that needed ratifying by referendum before it became law. I don't suppose for a minute that everyone read the full plan, but it was available, had they wished to do so, and so there was a document campaigners could quote to verify their claims. Likewise in the recent Scottish independence referendum, the White Paper was available, although the issues were even more far-reaching and complex.

Consider what level of support will legitimise the result

There has been a referendum in Britain where the option that got the most votes didn't happen. It was the 1979 Scottish devolution vote I mentioned earlier. 51.6% of the vote supported the legislation, but before the poll took place, a threshold was set, stating that a 'yes' vote would only be valid if 40% of the eligible voters supported it. On a 64% turnout, it meant only 32.9% of the Scottish electorate had actually voted 'yes', and it was not taken forward. It ended SNP support for the Labour government and led to an election. For comparison, the equivalent figure for the recent EU poll was that 37.47% of the electorate supported 'Leave'. But then, as I noted a while ago, 24.3% of the electorate gave the Conservatives an overall majority at the last election.

The reason for thresholds is to be sure that there is a critical mass of people supporting change from the status quo. In the Church of England, major decisions, such as the ordination of women to the priesthood vote in 1992 required 2/3 of each of the houses of General Synod to approve. Even then, there was major division and discord for years to come. Likewise, many clubs and societies set a threshold for change in rules and constitution. Looking back, David Cameron may wish he had done the same with this vote, given how relatively close it was.

A Post-Referendum hymn

Strictly speaking, not a full hymn - just a verse.

Whatever the result is tomorrow, there are going to be a lot of upset people around. At Church we recently sang the hymn "For the healing of the nations" and it struck me that an extra verse would be helpful.

Here's my attempt:

For the healing of our nation,
Lord, we pray with heart and mind.
Following such deep division,
May we peace and friendship find.
Help us banish bitter feuding,
Discovering the deeper ties that bind.

In the unlikely event of anyone wanting to use this, please feel free. Anyone else got a new song for Sunday?

Brexit: who would take the decisions, and what would they want to do next?

After Brexit, we will...

Sound familiar? There do seem to be a lot of promises flying around, and also a lot of unsubstantiated suggestions. Had another leaflet this morning saying the mythical £350 million per week paid to the EU could (notice the word carefully) be spent on the NHS. Of course, by putting that figure on his bus, Boris Johnson forgot his beloved Mrs Thatcher's rebate, let alone the money that flows back to farms, Universities, deprived areas of the UK, research and development, etc. If all went well, there would be less than half of that in practise. And it's worth noting that Johnson, Gove, Duncan-Smith and Farage have all made proposals in the past that undermine the core principles of the NHS.

Ok you've heard all that a hundred times, so I'll stop there. But before you switch off, note that it isn't a promise to spend more on the NHS, and that much money wouldn't be available anyway, even if everything went really well. A lot of commitments have been made by the brexit team, but they haven't come from anyone who currently hold the relevant office to put them into practise, so are they worth anything?

That prompted a few questions, so here they are:

1) After a Brexit, who will be in charge?

I've seen a lot of promises from politicians on both sides of the argument. The difference is that if brexit won, it is assumed David Cameron would stand down soon after. Everything would then be in limbo while the Conservative Party has a leadership election. The smart money is on Boris Johnson winning in such an instance, but that's not guaranteed. If he did, he would then have to manage a divided party and a generally 'remain' parliament in order to proceed with leaving the EU.

2) Who would be the new Chancellor of the Exchequer? They and the new PM would have to navigate the complex process of exit, and handle the budgetary consequences.

If Article 50 is activated, Britain has 2 years to negotiate its exit. At the end of that, the aforementioned EU payments to farms, fishing, etc would need to end. We wouldn't necessarily need a crisis budget, but we'd need a Budget to reallocate money to those areas, which will gobble up a large part of the EU subs we gain by no longer being a member. There are also payments to the private sector in research grants, so a decision would be needed about honouring them or not.

That money would then need to be distributed, so that means setting up a UK process for claims, assessment, grant-making, appeals, etc. In other words we would need a bureaucracy of our own, which costs additional money to set up and run. Would the new Prime Minister and Chancellor have sufficient political will to ensure that is done, and done quickly? The alternative is hardship in rural and fishing communities, and a shrinking of research in universities and companies.

Meanwhile, market conditions may mean the tax take is down, spending is rising and the room to make the grants is more restricted.

3) What would the negotiating position of the UK be for future trade relationships?

A lot has been written about the deals that Norway and Switzerland have with the EU. It's well documented elsewhere that a similar deal for the UK would require a fee (using up more of the money reallocated from EU subs) and freedom of movement. The 'Leave' campaign has put a lot of emphasis on the cost of the EU and the problems of free movement, so it would be weird if they suddenly embraced a deal that addressed neither of their key concerns, and left us with no say as to how the single market worked. So what would the UK be pitching for? The answers have tended to be a selection of suggestions, rather than a specific plan. That doesn't inspire confidence.

Remaining in the EU has its uncertainties, but we have a reasonable idea what they are. Furthermore, we could always revisit the question of our continuing membership at a future date if significant questions couldn't be resolved through the usual negotiating processes.

Leaving has a finality about it. And it also carries more profound uncertainties. Our future will be in the hands of a yet unknown Prime Minister and Chancellor, working with an unknown budget, under unknown market conditions, taking an unknown proposal for a trade deal, with unknown conditions about fees and movement of people.

The problem of selling 'Remain'

Someone asked a question on Facebook the other day: what would we gain by voting remain? It had a nice rhyming vibe to it, and it highlighted a key problem for people (like me) who want to persuade the floating voter to choose to vote for the United Kingdom to Remain in the European Union.

In fact it highlighted several problems. Let me explain.

It's hard to make the choice to continue as we are sound very exciting. Although Brexit campaigners are trying to scare us about what staying might do, Remain is, by its nature, the 'stay as you are' option. Choosing to leave sounds like action, remain can sound complacent. Flouncing out of a room is much more memorable and eye-catching than staying put. Remaining, for me, is the right option, but it just doesn't sound very, well, active.

It also doesn't sound like we gain anything; we simply retain what we have. It's a problem with the way the question has been formulated. "Recommit to active participation in Europe" sounds much more exciting, but it won't be on the ballot paper.

Try this as an analogy. Shall I choose to remain a member of the AA, or shall I choose to exit? If I remain, I don't gain anything. I continue to pay my subs and I carry on getting roadside assistance, a few discount offers, and some marketing email just like I did before. In the brave new world of AAexit, I am a membership fee better off each year, and I have the added excitement of whether I will actually get home (which could prove more expensive, but I don't know for sure). Remaining won't gain me anything in an obvious way, but it would get me started or home, and protects me from worse fates and bigger bills.

I'm not suggesting the EU membership is simply an insurance scheme for the UK. It's simply the problem of selling 'remain' that I'm trying to illustrate.

There's a second problem, and that's the word "we". Who are "we"? Does it actually mean "I", or does it mean close family, friends, locality, community, town, region or nation? In the context I came across the question, it seemed to mean either just the person or them and their household. I'm not especially interested in the impact on me - I am concerned about a choice that might slow down the economy, which always hits the poor most. Fear of brexit made the pound and stock market lose ground. The real thing is very likely to see a bigger reaction. That will mean even more austerity for longer to deal with the widening deficit. I am certainly seeing plenty of the effects of current austerity here in Morecambe, and I fear what further cuts could do.

What do we gain from remain? Wrong question. It's better to reflect on the benefits the EU has already given us, from cleaner beaches and concerted action on the environment, to better workers rights and an open and collaborative relationship with nations we had been in conflict with for centuries previously. You might not gain much by voting to keep that, but it's a lot to lose for our communities and our nation if you vote the other way.

EU Referendum: Are we asking the right questions?

The public discussion around the forthcoming referendum has been pretty disappointing, noisy, full of hyperbole and, as Ian Hislop noted on a recent episode of Have I Got News For You, at times has degenerated into someone from each side saying the other is a bit like Hitler.

This referendum (and recent elections) have vented a lot of steam on which choice would mean we are 'better off'. That got me thinking about what a Christian analysis of that question might look like.

First of all, what do we mean by 'better off'? Do we mean that voting this way or that will result in personal financial gain? For me that is a very inadequate assessment of the value of a choice. At the risk of sounding holier-than-thou, I think most people would acknowledge there are are things in life worth more than money. What if a choice that left me with the same, or even less money, led to a fairer or more just society? What about human rights, freedom, the environment, personal well-being etc? From a faith-based point of view, focussing purely on material (and especially financial) satisfaction is a wholly inadequate account of human flourishing.

Even if we restrict the debate to finance, the question we are left with is who is going to be financially better off? Economists and politicians are on the air a lot debating the effects on economic growth in the short and long term of staying in vs. leaving the EU. History would suggest that if our economy suffers significant decline, it's likely to hit the poorest and most vulnerable. However, when the economy has grown, concern has grown about the widening gap between the least and most affluent, and that the economic benefits of growth have disproportionately gone to the wealthy. How does our discussion about 'better off' relate to a Christian understanding of concern for the poor.

Even if we can identify which voting choice will bring the most growth, will it enrich the lives of those who most need it? That will depend on our own government's domestic policies and priorities, and the people at the helm of the Conservative Party, and hence the government until 2020 may well be decided by the outcome of this vote (unless 2/3 of MPs vote to dissolve Parliament early).

And I am also concerned that the economic discussion seems to have been limited to the impact of choices and policy simply for the UK (or even England). What impact might the decision we are taking have on the wider world, especially the poorest in the developing world? Will remain or leave be the choice that opens up the best opportunities for the peoples of our world who most need them? Where do our global neighbours feature in the debate?

In Luke's gospel, at the start of his public ministry, Jesus is recorded as reading this in the synagogue:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.” (Luke 4:18-19)

Would it be too much to ask to have some thoughtful engagement with some of those issues? I fear I already know the answer.

The EU Referendum: Should I [vote] stay or should I go?

Dave, George, Nigel, Boris, Beaky, Mick and Titch. Ok I made up the last 3 for the sake of the joke. I wonder who you believe and which way you will vote? I'm going to vote to stay in the EU and play a positive part in shaping it into a fairer and more effective community of nations. However, it's not an easy question to settle, despite the simplistic slogans that abound on both sides.

We're being bombarded with exaggerated statistics and threats about migrants, threats to jobs, the cost of staying in, the cost of leaving. There's plenty of rhetoric about wanting our country back, some xenophobia and sadly not a little racism. Little short of civil war seems to be raging in the Conservative Party, and the referendum result will define the careers of a lot of Conservative politicians (and possibly others).

You can get some sanity. The BBC and Channel 4 news both have useful fact-checker sections that analyse the claims, and give a rather more balanced take on what might really happen. For example, the £18.8 billion we are supposed to be paying the EU turns out to be nearer £6bn when you take into account rebate, support for farming etc., and support for non-governmental organisations. You can see the Channel 4 analysis here.

The level of emotion the issue raises, particularly from those who advocate Brexit, is fascinating. I'm intrigued as to why it evokes such passion and even anger. It seems to touch a raw nationalist nerve. Of course, if the UK does remain, it could always consider leaving in the future; if we leave, it's almost certainly a final decision. That makes this vote one of the most important ones for decades.

The polls are rather inconclusive. There seems to be a narrow majority in favour of staying in the EU, but a lot of people are still saying they don't know. To muddy the waters further, younger voters are much more likely to vote to remain in the EU, but are less likely to vote at all.  Many younger people may not even be registered to vote, since changes were made in the way registration takes place. If you don't get a poll card soon, go to https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote You could change history!

Woven through the whole debate so far, is the internal conflict in the Conservative Party. There are, of course, Eurosceptics in other parties, but this issue has plagued the Tories for years. From my uninformed viewpoint, the vote looks like an attempt by the Prime Minister to deal with his party's Brexit advocates once and for all, and to secure the leadership succession for someone from his own perspective. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson is clearly using his new-found zeal for the Brexit case to make his pitch to be a future leader, should the vote go his way.

Independence
The hippy in me rather likes the idea of everyone working together, and removing the things that separate us. That will already distance me from those who wave the flag more passionately than I do (unless it's football, when I share the despair of England fans everywhere). 'Britain needs to be free to make its own decisions', say the Brexit team. For them it would free from our shackles, and we would regain control of our national life and not be "ruled by Brussels".

It sounds rousing, but is it true? It invokes an idea of sovereignty that doesn't actually tally with reality. The UK is signed up to many international treaties, including the EU ones. Membership of the UN and NATO are obvious and large commitments, but there are many more. Treaties can either be honoured or ignored - that is our sovereign right as a nation. However, decisions on complying with a treaty or not can change the course of history. Who, in 1839, when signing the Treaty of London could have foreseen it would be the reason Britain would declare war on Germany in 1914? Treaties hold a nation accountable to other nations for their actions, and can have enormous consequences. So we are never completely independent, and in or out of the EU, the UK will still have to take into account all kinds of treaties and trade agreements and abide by their conditions.

Before the UK was in the EU, the Suez crisis showed that Britain was far from fully independent, even though it still had considerable military capability. The United States forced British and French withdrawal by using its economic power. Was the UK really that independent before it entered the EEC, and how realistic are the hopes of those who want us to leave now? Would we end up depending more heavily on other large economies, having to comply with their policies and wishes? Membership of the EU means the UK has a say in decisions and votes in its committees, councils and parliament. Leaving could leave us powerless to influence larger nations, economies or even corporations.

And why shouldn't our government participate in a community where we are mutually accountable? European nations which were once been dictatorships, are now stable democracies within the union. The notion of international law is often perceived in Britain as a way of civilising parts of the world that have suffered under dictatorships, and a way of bringing tyrants to account. But it works two ways, and there may come a time when that accountability protects our freedoms too.

Economics
The Brexit campaign makes a lot of the UK's contribution to the EU, which I referred to earlier. Whatever figure you go with, the debate really starts when you try and assess whether staying in is actually worth that contribution. The EU is a key trade partner for the UK, and vice versa. EU countries won't want to lose the UK as a market, but surely we have to assume there will be some loss of privileges for leaving the club. Some point to Norway as an example of a thriving non-EU country. Norway contributes in order to have EU market access, and has to abide by EU regulations to sell products. The UK would have to negotiate a deal, and if successful, pay the fee and follow the rules, with no say as to how they are formulated.

I doubt there would be immediate economic meltdown, and some of the George Osborne's predictions about Brexit need careful scrutiny. Many think the pound is likely to sink in value, at least initially, but other effects may take time. We do know that investment in the UK by large manufacturers, like Nissan, were encouraged by the fact that the UK was within the EU single market. Cars could be exported from the UK to mainland Europe, without facing the same barriers as vehicles from Japan. Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. won't shut the shop immediately, but decisions about future investments would have to take into account whether or not the UK was still in the EU, or at least in a trade agreement with good access to EU markets.

Of course, not all benefits of EU membership have been about trade figures. The EU took on Microsoft about anti-competitive practices, following complaints from competitors. It resulted in huge fines and a change of practice by Microsoft. When dealing with corporations that have turnovers larger than small countries, it sometimes needs an agency the size of the EU to be effective. Mobile roaming charges are another example of where the EU is changing the market.

In the end, if you really want 'out', you'll take the economic hit, and if you really want 'in', the membership fee will seem reasonable for the benefits received.

Democracy
People supporting Brexit are a diverse bunch. They range from some on the extreme right, such as Britain First and the EDL through to those on the left who follow in the footsteps of Tony Benn, who advocated leaving at the last referendum. The right play up patriotism and fear of the foreigner; the left tend to highlight the way that the EU can favour business interests over the democratic will of the people. For example, the Greek government weren't allowed to implement the policies that got them elected, due to the financial restraints imposed by the EU.

So what is the democratic accountability of the EU? Of course the answer is that it is complex. We elect MEPs, we appoint a share of officials, and our elected leaders participate in councils, conferences and negotiations. There is accountability, but it's not straightforward, and it's also not as clear as it would be in a genuine united states of Europe.

Having said that, our own elected government still passes the vast majority of legislation that affects us, and has a vote or veto on many issues. And, as I covered earlier under Independence, our nation is accountable to other nations (who we didn't elect) for all kinds of issues, from human rights to using CFCs in aerosols. And if the Greek situation concerns us, remember that the IMF would impose all kinds of economic restrictions on the UK, if crisis hit, as it did in 1976, forcing chancellor Healey to change the UK government's economic policy. Many would argue that staying in the EU makes such a crisis less likely, and as the UK is not part of the Eurozone, the European Central bank doesn't have the same power over the UK as it had over Greece.

Conclusion - stay in and play an active part.
We have to be honest and say that we can't know what the consequences of leaving will be. We can be a little more confident about what staying might involve, but even there it's uncertain. Attitudes are changing in Europe to migration, nationalism and more. However, the EU holds 28 nations with a history of conflict together in a unique community.

It is far from perfect, and many issues need to be addressed and resolved. We know that's possible - even Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall can get policy changed (which is more than Nigel Farage managed in 14 years on the Fisheries Committee). I want my country to be in there, challenging and shaping it to be fair, just, and a community that not only benefits its members, but also the poorest parts of our world. Withdrawal would mean retreating into a more isolated way of understanding ourselves as a nation, take away our place at the table, and has the potential to threaten the livelihoods of us all.

Oh, and by the way, there aren't 26,911 words of EU regulations on the sale of cabbages. In fact, there aren't any.