Binary Bollocks: the level of political debate in this country (and elsewhere) has become pathetic,
So far during the course of the EU Referendum when people have asked me which way I’m likely to vote, I’ve said I instinctively leaned towards out, but hadn’t made my mind up 100%. As the weeks have gone on, I’ve been pulled slowly back to the centre of the argument, and that got me thinking.
I spoke with a colleague the other day, who said that the UK had become a very ugly place in the last few weeks, and I had to agree. Even notwithstanding the appalling death of Jo Cox, the level of political grandstanding, threat-making, scaremongering, baiting, dog-whistle politics and just plain bullshit has been truly wlatsome.
I mean, let’s take a look at some of the recent gems that our beloved politicians have festooned upon us:
Nigel Farage unveiling a poster of, presumably, Syrian refugees, traipsing along the road, with the words “Breaking Point” screaming out. Now, current immigration policy is far from perfect, but targeting the people who have an actual need of relocation is pretty revolting.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer threatening to call an Emergency Budget the day after the result is announced and put taxes up if we vote out. Has there been such an astonishing example of kamikaze politics? It’s the equivalent of the school bully saying, “Do my homework for me or I’ll fucking rush you.” And that’s before considering the fact that there are at least 57 Tory MPs and the entire opposition benches, all of whom will vote against the idiotic and vindictive Osborne.
The Prime Minister inches from declaring that Europe will descend into war if we leave. Utter, copper-bottomed bollocks.
The unedifying sight of Labour MP Neil Coyle trying to make political capital out of a colleague’s murder only hours after it happened. If ever there was a snapshot of the bottom-feeding opportunism that characterizes modern politics, this is it. Shame on him.
How has it come to this?
I believe the answer lies not in the political battlelines that characterize this particular argument: economics, immigration, fishing, control, sovereignty, etc etc, but in the nature of the referendum itself as a political device.
The simple, binary “Yes / No” configuration is as pure an enabler for division as you’re likely to see. Pick a side. Us and them. You’re either with us, or against us. It’s literally a war of words. And it’s pathetic, unedifying, and damaging. To take a step away from Europe, we can see something similar in the USA. A binary political party system has enabled two spectacularly unpopular and ghastly candidates for POTUS emerge in 2016. This is what happens when you only have two choices: you really have no choice at all, because nuance goes out the window. Everything becomes reduced down to the starkest, basest terms, the lowest common denominator, until you just get a “yes / no” stance for everything. Gun control, abortion, tuition fees, immigration, healthcare. All of these hugely complex issues have boiled down to “yes / no” in America. It’s playground-level stuff. And pretty much all of us: supposedly intelligent, reasoned, thoughtful citizens and observers, fall into this trap.
The reason that western democracies have been historically successful in exporting parliamentary democracy, freedom of expressions, science and technological advancement, progressive policies, and the (broad) improvement in the quality of human life over the last 150 years is because they have indulged a marketplace of ideas. A place where notions, concepts and arguments are thrashed out, compared and debated rationally by great thinkers, publics servants, writers, industrialists, academics and the like. Things which required collaboration, compromise, negotiation and an acknowledgement of nuance and tone and shade.
All of this is out the window in this referendum, where both sides are just involved in a scaremongering shouting match.
With respect to the EU itself, I found myself in the rather embarrassing position of being agreement with the Prime Minister earlier in the year. I thought the EU was worth persevering with, but it needed very deep and profound reform. In my line of work I see the direct benefits and application of EC funding, research and collaboration. I work with UK businesses to ensure they are able to take a slice of that cake, and how to make the most of it. There is a lot of good that it does, and the ease with which we can collaborate and put our noggins together with our European colleagues (and competitors) is a wonderful thing. On the other side, the EU itself is intractable, and at the Council level is unnervingly undemocratic. That a central court can run roughshod over national laws developed in the idiosyncratic national interest should worry us all. I also get very twitchy about the strategic direction of the EU. If it continues upon Jean Monnet’s initial course, it will lead to a United States of Europe. There are many reasons why this would not be a good thing, but probably best saved for another post. But the words of the key players involved in the strategic steer of the EU should fill any freeborn citizen with more than an air of disquiet. Lord Mandelson said a few years back that “the EU Constitution… cannot be held hostage to democratic voting.” He also said “…the democratic experiment in Europe has failed. We must now move on to the post-democratic society.” Ted Heath said “We should frankly recognise this surrender of sovereignty and its purpose.” Compare this to the words of the great Tony Benn, who said, “I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that when people vote in an election they must be entitled to know that the party for which they vote, if it has a majority, will be able to enact laws under which they will be governed.”
So it was that David Cameron’s paper-thin “reform” consisted of limiting slowing the rate of payment of child benefit to EU migrants. This was hailed as the greatest political victory since, well… let’s just say that the image that came to my mind was of Neville Chamberlain stepping off a plane with certain scrap of paper in his hand.
So, since our Prime Minister rolled over like a two-dollar rent boy, we’ve all been sucked into this hateful, back-biting, fiction-creating, scaremongering, name-calling maelstrom which shames us all.
And it’s the fact that there are only two options on the ballot paper which brings this on. I’m convinced a bit of gradation, a bit of degree, to the argument would have resulted in a much more reasoned and dignified argument. But there isn’t, so it won’t, and here we are.
I despair of this horrid, nasty little campaign. And I know I’ll have to live with the consequences, whatever the result. But that doesn’t mean I have to play by its rules. And that’s why, for the first time in my life, I’m abstaining from voting.
