So, Theresa May – and hopefully her WA – are now moving in to the rear view mirror.
I wrote a little while back about God’s plan for Brexit and my main sense is that, no matter what the decisions of individual actors, there is a larger picture going on, determining whether those decisions have any effect.
[Brief aside: I’m more and more persuaded that the EU is going to break down in the next few years (principally through a renewed financial/Euro crisis) and if it survives it will only do so on a radically reformed basis. It will either be a union – maybe a smaller union – propped up by German money, in which case there will be a ‘continuity EU’; or else there will be a new organisation inheriting elements of it. It’s the fact that the French have so many problems that makes me think it will be the latter.]
What is on my mind is the sense that so many actions being taken will not have the effect that is expected; indeed, I think they will often have precisely the opposite effect. In particular, there are lots of assumptions that whoever replaces Theresa May will occupy the post of Prime Minister for a good stretch of time. Consider this line of thought:
– it’s very unlikely that the Conservative Party will elect someone who rules out ‘no deal’ – indeed, I expect the Euro election results to be so bad for the Conservatives that those running for leader will each seek to ‘outFarage’ the others, and make an active embrace of ‘no deal’ as a realistic option a key part of their platform;
– there is a clear majority against no deal in Parliament;
– if we get to end September, with no movement from the EU on, eg, NI, along with lots of noises from Macron etc that ‘this can’t go on’, what will that majority do when they are facing the very real prospect of a no deal exit? in particular, what will the likes of Dominic Grieve do?
I would expect that, with the prospect of a no deal looming large at the end of October, as soon as Parliament reconvenes after the conferences, Jeremy Corbyn will submit a vote of no confidence. Enough MPs will vote for it – so the new Conservative leader will no longer be Prime Minister – they would probably be the last ever Conservative PM. (Would July – October be the shortest modern premiership I wonder?)
Once that happens there will then be lots of back-door politicking out of which either:
a) nobody else commands a majority – therefore an election, or
b) Corbyn (or possibly ANOther Labour person) cobbles together a cross-party coalition for the purposes of implementing a second referendum with Remain on the ballot paper (against what? don’t know, can’t guess) and forms a government on the basis of at least a one-year supply and confidence agreement with other groups (SNP, Libs, CHUK and pro-Remain Tories).
The EU will, in this situation, be cheering on the second referendum crowd from the sidelines, and I would expect them to be happy to provide an extension for that purpose. Unless Macron goes mad of course.
I’m guessing the latter, and this will absolutely enrage the voting public and catalyse a major shift in UK politics
(MPs will hide from the consequences for as long as they can – I can’t see them voting for a new GE if they can avoid it). A second referendum will be truly awful, but afterwards, whatever the outcome, there will be an epochal GE, out of which I expect to see two major parties remaining – TBP and whatever the Remain party turns into once we have left the EU (possibly an enlarged LibDem/Green alliance).
For what it’s worth, I’ll definitely be voting for the non-Boris candidate!
According to Walter Brueggemann the prophetic task begins with grief – with identifying grief and articulating it. This engenders solidarity with those who suffer, from which point (and only from which point) it becomes possible to speak the word of the Lord into the situation, articulating his ‘bias to the poor’ and criticising all those who maintain the status quo.
The status quo is best characterised, according to Brueggemann, with the phrase ‘the Royal Consciousness’ – these days we might say the establishment consensus, or the Westminster bubble. It represents the shared framework within which the political realm understands itself and its role in events. In Biblical terms it is Pharaoh, the man himself and all those whose role in the society depends upon the existing system carrying on in the accustomed manner: it represents the way they think, it is the ‘common sense’ of the powerful.
In this situation the prophet comes in and invites the people to imagine something different; to grieve; to say ‘this is not God’s will’; to denounce the Royal Consciousness; and to bring down the plagues upon the establishment before leading people to a promised land.
In our situation, who is playing what role in the prophetic drama?
Let us begin with the grief: millions of those who have felt excluded from the operations of society, whose communities have been broken by shocks both economic and social, chose to articulate their grief with a vote against the status quo.
A healthy society would have responded with a heart for inclusion, working to re-engage the excluded, to seek to protect communities, to bind up old wounds, to re-establish a genuine sense of national solidarity.
Instead, the Royal Consciousness has doubled down on its condemnation of those outside the consensus. Instead of requiring more bricks with less straw, the Pharaohs of today simply say that those who cried out with grief did not know what they were doing and are probably uncultured and immoral in any case.
It is very important to the Royal Consciousness that it can see itself as righteous and virtuous. Not many human beings outside of satanic circles can live with the sense that they have chosen to be evil, not even Hitler’s willing executioners. We all cover up the knowledge of our own sin with more or less substantial rationales and justifications for our behaviour. They are all illusions.
What the referendum represents, as a cry of grief, is a shattering of that illusion – for those that can accept a new reality. However, those who cannot cope with the illusion being shattered, who wish to retain their sense of being righteous and virtuous, have to strive all the more to eclipse and efface that cry of grief, to try and restore the status quo ante, to deny this new truth.
This is unsustainable. God is not in that process – God is with those who grieve, with those who have been excluded. God casts down the mighty from their thrones and raises up the poor and lowly. God calls up prophets to speak his Word of justice and solidarity into broken political contexts.
Who, today, in British society, is articulating the grief on behalf of the poor, giving a voice to those who were previously voiceless? Might it not be a man of unclean lips? The extent to which you consider such thing impossible might simply be an index of how captured you have been by the Royal Consciousness:
“Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
So, went with family to Rome for part-work/part-holiday trip. Rome was fascinating (more on that another time) but this is really about how disappointed we have been with the service from airbnb. We hit a problem with the host (the sort of problem that a hotel could have resolved in 5 minutes) but then hit a much more significant problem with airbnb. So this is by way of establishing a record. Lessons learned I guess.
Airbnb stipulates that the host must provide “bathroom towels available for the Guest’s use”.
When we arrived at the airbnb flat we had booked, we rapidly discovered that the towels provided were inadequate; that is, they were small and thin – imagine a large tea towel and you will get the idea. The image above is of a towel embedded in a coffee cup – a normal coffee cup, not a large one!
We arrived late at night on the 5th May; in the morning I contacted the host to raise the issue of the towels:
On 6th May – I sent a whatsapp message, ‘Hi – we can only find hand towels, are there any bath towels?’
On 7th May, after a bit of confusion, host says ‘I can bring them tomorrow Morning, very big, OK?’ I had a feeling I would need to use the airbnb site for communication, so on there I wrote ‘Just to clarify – and to confirm my whatsapp message – we only have handtowels not bathroom towels. It is essential that we are properly equipped. Please resolve this within the next 24 hours, thank you.’
On 8th May, in the evening, I wrote ‘Hi -, despite your promise yesterday that we would have towels this morning, they have not arrived. We are very sad and unhappy.’ To which the host responded, ‘Sam, you already have towels. You Just asked for bigger ones, so i think It’s not enough to be sad! Life Is beautiful. I Will be there within today, to give you the towels as promised.’
On 9th May, the host wrote ‘I’m very sorry but yesterday I had a problem, and I couldn’t bring you the towels… I will be there in the morning!’ (a pattern is emerging here…) and I wrote back ‘I shall take this up with airbnb :(‘
That was the last communication I had with the host – we were there for a further week after this. Airbnb itself, however, was not great. I left it 24 hours, to see if the threat of contacting airbnb would encourage the host to pull his finger out and deliver what he had agreed to deliver, but no go. So on the 10th May I contacted airbnb support. This didn’t get a response (and the message has now been removed from the airbnb site – hmm….)
I tried again, and I’ve now archived the conversation, so here it is – airbnb in italics
10 MAY 2019
Hi, I’m trying again as my other request for help hasn’t gotten anywhere. We have no bathroom towels for a ten night stay, and there are other issues (possibly legal ones) on which I need advice. Please help. Sam
? Thanks for your message — Airbnb Support will reply as soon as a specialist becomes available.
Thanks for reaching out to us regarding this issue. I’ve forwarded your inquiry to a member of my team who can better assist you. They’ll be getting in touch with you soon.
In the meantime, please feel free to respond to this message with any further questions or concerns.
Thank you for the quick reply. I don’t know what happened to my message yesterday!
11 MAY 2019
I am Patricia from Airbnb, the Trip Department, I am glad to assist you today.
I verified the message thread between you and your host and from what I can understand, you have towels at the listing, but you would like to have bigger ones.
As there are towels existing at the listing, it is the host decision if he can provide different types of towels and different sizes.
Let me know if there is something else I could help you with.
Hello Patricia, no reasonable person would consider the towels provided to be bathroom towels (bathroom towels being specified in the airbnb contract). I can send photos of them alongside the provided tea towels for comparison if you would like evidence. I would also like your comment on the fact that we arrived back in the flat to find an estate agent showing customers around the property; we had not been warned of this and our belongings were on open display. This is unacceptable. The host also charged us the tourist tax – please confirm that this was legitimate – and took photos of our passports, again, please confirm that this was in accordance with the law. Finally please comment on the two day delay between my registering my concern and airbnb engaging with me on this issue, and explain why I had to comment on Twitter before gaining a response. Thank you for your attention.
My name is Bre, a Case manager here at Airbnb. Before I continue, let me thank you for your participation in our Global Community as a guest! Airbnb is truly grateful you have chosen to travel with us!I am sure you have many rewarding experiences ahead of you!
Thank you for contacting us on Social Media regarding the troubles you’ve had with your host requesting larger towels to better accommodate you. I apologize if this matter has affected your Airbnb reservation. rest assured I will be helping provide a swift resolution.
I will be reaching out to your host in efforts to align with your ideal outcome to receive the requested towels. I will be in touch soon with an update regarding this. All I’d ask is your continued patience while I work to rectify this matter.
Thank you. Please also see my earlier message to your colleague Patricia; I would be grateful if you also addressed the questions that I asked of her. Sam
By the way, the request is not for larger towels simply as a preference, the request is that the contracted-for bathroom towels are actually provided. We are half way through our ten night stay.
12 MAY 2019
So, 3 days in and still no nearer a resolution. I am very disappointed with airbnb.
This is Bre again here with Airbnb. I hope this message finds you well. I tried giving you a call, but I was ubable to reach you. I apologize for the delayed response, I just spoke with your host today. He informed that he will be providing larger towels tomorrow to make your stay more accommodating.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Hello Bre, please review this dialogue. You have not answered the concerns that I raised at 17.38 on 9 May. Are we to understand that airbnb now consider the matter dealt with? We are 7 nights in to a ten night stay before the contract is fulfilled. This is not acceptable. Sam
I have taken some time to look at your previous correspondence with our support members. In regard to the tourism tax, this is common for hosts to be obligated to collect occupancy taxes in some areas that Airbnb currently does not remit the taxes on their behalf, While I am not a legal advisor, I am not authorized to determine if this is legal in the area, however we do encourage hosts to be in adherence with any local regulations.
I do apologize for the time it has taken to get your concerns addressed. We are currently in peak season and have received a high influx of cases from both guests and hosts which has contributed to the delay.
1. Do airbnb consider it acceptable for a host to invite an estate agent into the property (a self-contained flat) without warning the guest? 2. Is it acceptable for a host to take photos of identity documents? 3. Is there a way of contacting airbnb legally which is more reliable than this messaging service? A legal address that I could write to would be appreciated. Thank you. Sam
13 MAY 2019
Hello. Nearly 24 hours since my last message and airbnb have not responded. Nor have any towels arrived. I consider airbnb to be in breach of contract. Please advise me on how I can take this further. Thank you. Sam
15 MAY 2019
Thanks for reaching out to us regarding this issue. I’ve forwarded your inquiry to a member of my team who can better assist you. They’ll be getting in touch with you soon.
In the meantime, please feel free to respond to this message with any further questions or concerns.
This is LaNiece here with Airbnb, we apologize for the delayed response.
I am a case manager I have the pleasure of supporting you. If it is past your local time of 6pm during our communication is it okay if I call ?
I apologize for the inconvenience you may have experienced during this process.
You may respond to the message or email I send.
Good evening Sam
LaNiece here with Airbnb I just spoke to the host and asked him about the towels. He advised he left them at the front door entrance. Please let me know if they are there give me 30-45 min to respond to you I will wait your reply.
16 MAY 2019
LaNiece here I will close this tomorrow when I arrive in have a good night.
Hello LaNiece, there have been no towels for the duration of our ten night stay and we are now heading home. I am astonished that you think the service that airbnb have offered is sufficient. As I stated earlier, I need to be put in touch with someone who can deal with my case properly, rather than one more different person (I think I have now had four people dealing with me?) who simply begins from scratch each time (and believes the host!!). Please do not close this case, it is not resolved. Thank you.
17 MAY 2019
I personally did not state that this was resolved.
I asked and advised that I will follow up today. I did speak to the host, so I had to ask. Rather, the reservation has ended or not if the host out right lied about this to me I will be addressing and updating you. Consulting on how I can help with some sort of compensation. You should not have to beg for towles.
I do apologize for any confusion that was created with the message I sent last night.
Hi LaNiece – thank you so much for this message. There are lots of things I need to discuss about this with airbnb – please can I have your assurance that the case will not be closed until it is all resolved? I would be very grateful, thank you. And no, there were no bathroom towels provided – part of the problem is that there is disagreement over what counts as a ‘bathroom’ towel, but I am happy to provide further information and documentation on that. However, whilst that is an issue that could have been easily and simply resolved, I have since become very frustrated with airbnb’s customer support. If I can continue to deal just with one person – yourself – then I think we may be able to get somewhere. Thank you. Sam
18 MAY 2019
Hi LaNiece, just following up on this. I thought it would help if I set out my concerns more systematically, as we can then work out how to proceed with each element:
1. The ‘towels’ provided were not bathroom towels. Bathroom towels are specified in the contract, so I regard this as a breach of contract.
2. The host’s behaviour was a little odd. The most concerning thing was coming back to the flat on one occasion (early on) to find an estate agent showing a couple around the property. We had not been warned of this, and feel it to be an unacceptable violation of our privacy. We are also worried about the fact that he took photos of our passports.
3. Very early on the host offered to replace the towels (from 9th May I think – the message system should make it clear) which he did not do, despite promising this to both ourselves and to you as ‘official’ airbnb.
4. It proved very difficult to get hold of airbnb to try and resolve this issue. After not getting anywhere using the standard messaging system I resorted to using Twitter in order to gain your attention. This is not good.
5. I have found the airbnb support system less than good, mostly because of the repeated changes of ‘lead person’ for the case. I am very much hoping, LaNiece, that this chopping and changing has now come to an end!
6. Up to now we have really enjoyed using airbnb and have recommended it to others. We are concerned that our positive rating on airbnb may be affected by what the host says about us. We were very sure to leave the property in a good state (and have taken pictures as evidence to back that up) and would like to leave an honest review, but we do not wish to jeopardise our own continued use of airbnb. Please reassure us on that question.
I think that’s it. I look forward to hearing your response to my concerns 🙂
20 MAY 2019
Please reassure me that I have not been forgotten in the last 48 hours. Is it time for me to contact you on Twitter again? Sam
Ian Paul writes on his excellent blog about a Christian perspective on Brexit. I find what he writes insufficiently radical and so I thought I’d set out the ways in which I see a properly Christian understanding being brought to bear. Most specifically, I don’t see this analysis as something that a ‘well-meaning atheist’ could share in – and that is the point and revealing of the fundamental problem.
Point one: we are not in charge, God is. One of the most debilitating aspects of the Westminster bubble is the way it encourages a sense of self-sufficency and centrality, that ‘here is where the important things happen and are decided’. One way in which this is going to go ‘pop’ is when the EU chooses a no-deal exit (I give that about 60% chance at the moment) and Westminster suddenly realises that all these shenanigans were only one part of the equation. However, much more important is the Christian claim that God is present and active in our world, and that our calling is to find what he is doing and then get out of the way, to use Peterson’s language. This sense of something outside of our own preferences and choices, which has a greater authority and power than our own preferences and choices, is the principal thing that is missing in our conversation – that is, in our Christian conversations most of all.
Point two: we do not have to be afraid. There are standpoints on both sides of the Brexit divide which seem to be rooted in fear of what might happen. This is the corollary of point one – if everything rests upon our own choices then there is much greater pressure to get them right. If, however, we believe in a God who can always redeem our fallen choices then that pressure is relieved, and, I suspect, the odds of making the best choices increase. We are not to make decisions on the basis of fear, whether that be Project Fear itself or the fears about ‘losing’ Brexit on the Leave side.
Point three: communities, nations and multi-national states (the EU) are real things that are more than simply the sum of their parts. They are ‘principalities and powers’. Their reality is denied by the contemporary dominance of global capitalism, which seeks to minimise such inefficiencies, and therefore undermines them at every turn. Yet Christianity recognises that such things, whilst fallen, can also be redeemed, and calls us to work for such redemption. We need to be much more clear-sighted about the nature of the institutions with which we are dealing, and the ways in which power is being asserted against the vulnerable. Which leads to…
Point four: God has a bias to the poor, and we need to listen to the poor, for it is often through those who are small and of no account to the great and good through whom God speaks to us. It is a shocking thing that the bench of Bishops has no voice affirming the choice of the poor in our society; it is even more shocking that none see the plight of southern Europe as bringing in to question the moral legitimacy of the European polity. Such things do not necessarily entail Brexit – they do, however, require a more prophetic response that comfortable silence.
Point five: sometimes God calls us away from compromise towards radical and unpopular choices; sometimes those who are shepherds of the sheep are called upon to proclaim justice against the oppressor; sometimes what we most need is the Old Testament Heart. The Via Media is not always a virtue – sometimes, to adapt a saying by Mencken, “Every [Christian] must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” Metaphorically speaking, of course. And in love.
So: five elements of a radical Christian response. Read Stringfellow!!
I want to make a spiritual point about our present political debâcle, and I’m going to try very hard to make it in a non-contentious way, as it isn’t a particularly pro-Leave or pro-Remain point (it’s a pro-God point).
The other day we went up to Newnham early on a Friday morning to see the Severn bore, which was fascinating. I grew up on a tidal estuary, and have spent the last fifteen years on an island that gets cut off by high tides, so I am very familiar with tidal movements. Yet the bore was something surprisingly different.
What most struck me was the rapidity of change in the currents. Whilst waiting for the bore to arrive, I watched various surfers and canoeists paddling placidly downstream being propelled at a great pace by the river current. Once the bore had arrived, those very same people were being propelled at equally great pace in the opposite direction. Some particularly skilled people were able to ride the new currents and enjoy the process. Others were caught up and knocked off.
Which seems to be to be a good description of the present Westminster mess – although I am probably overstating the number of ‘particularly skilled people’ there. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Brexit, it is undoubtedly a massive political phenomenon that has radically changed the environment within which politicians work. Those who can adapt best to the new situation will be the ones that thrive in the coming years.
So why is this a pro-God point? Simply because when something this large happens, overwhelming the established consensus of the great and the good, then I think we need to use a larger language to describe it – a religious language – and to talk about ‘Acts of God’. If nothing else, it has at least shaken the confidence of our political class, and the cultivation of humility in the light of incompetence is a salutary and – potentially – spiritually beneficial thing.
I rather think that whoever is best able to navigate the new political currents stands to reap immense benefits – but such a person would need to have not just political nous but religious (spiritual/ currents) nous as well. It needs to be someone with the capacity to call upon God to lead us, rather than resting on human strength alone. I have no idea who that might be at the moment, so I’ll keep praying, for all of them, on all sides. Please do so too – they are so in need of our prayers!
This is an important question, from many different points of view. We need to consider who bakes the bricks from an economic perspective, from a practical and social justice perspective, from the perspective of gender roles and unconscious bias. The question of who bakes the bricks becomes all the more important when the people as a whole are asked to bake more bricks with less straw.
Yet at that sort of time, there might be a more urgent question than who bakes the bricks. There might be a calling from someone named Moses, or his brother Aaron, saying ‘set my people free’. There might be an almighty – even an Almighty – struggle going on between the establishment powers and the insurgent powers. The question of who bakes the bricks, which is an important question, might have to take second place to an even more important question, which is: where shall we bake the bricks?
Shall we bake the bricks in the promised land?
The people cry out for relief, for they struggle under the weight of oppression, and their existing leaders are comfortable with the status quo. So strange leaders come among them, who do not have impeccable credentials, one might even be a murderer. Yet the Lord is with them. They are aware that the Lord has decided to liberate his people, he has heard their crying unto Heaven and now look! He is doing a new thing.
Those who argue about the baking of bricks do not know what to make of this. They are trapped within the Royal Consciousness, and the world made by Pharaoh is the only world that they can conceive of. They cannot see the new thing that the Lord is doing. They do know what to do about bricks, though. So they concentrate their time on arguing about the production of bricks, for this too is an important question and it is important to get the right answer. Perhaps we can lead the Hebrews to a new place just outside the city walls, and continue to contribute to the baking of bricks from there? Would that be alright please, Mr Pharaoh?
Where shall we bake the bricks?
The church wrings its hands over Brexit, and seeks earnestly and sincerely for the overcoming of divisions and the reconciliation between estranged parties. If only we could be nicer then perhaps that nice Mr Pharaoh and that mostly nice (but a bit uncouth) Mr Moses can come together in a happy compromise…. Meanwhile the Lord Almighty changes the world and asks those who truly respond to His will to daub the frames of their doors with blood and to get ready to move at short notice.
We in the church have so many great and important questions to wrestle with, questions of justice and economy and sexuality and gender, and these truly are important questions. Yet sometimes what is most important is not to resolve questions such as these but rather to simply listen and pay attention and seek to discern what God is actually doing in a time such as this.
Were we to do this, were we to look up from our parochial concerns and truly take in the newly forming vision for our national life together then perhaps we might agree to not resolve the questions around the baking of bricks for a year or three in order to stride forward with faith into the wilderness, not turning to look behind.
The Church of England doesn’t have a functioning theology of the nation, and this is all the more problematic when questions of nationhood – of where we are to bake the bricks, of what sort of country it shall be wherein the baking of bricks shall be done – are so important. We fret ourselves into frenzied activity trying to show how relevant we are, yet the most relevant and timely claim upon our involvement is one that we are now so ill-equipped to handle. For it is not a question of who bakes the bricks. It is a question of ‘can you see what the Lord is doing?’ and ‘is this not a marvellous thing in your eyes?’
Hear the word of the Lord you peoples of the United Kingdom, for these dry bones shall live again. The Lord is going to destroy Pharaoh and all his works – we have only to stand aside and be still.
I ask because it seems that there is a consistent pattern of people seeking one outcome and by their actions precipitating precisely the opposite outcome.
It begins with David Cameron seeking to lance the boil of Conservative divisions over Europe by calling the EU referendum, the result of which has been to bring the Conservative party to the brink of a formal split.
It then moves to Gina Miller, who took the government to court, insisting that Parliament had to be involved in invoking the Article 50 procedure for leaving the EU. As a result of this, the departure from the EU is much more thoroughly embedded than if it had simply been a matter of government fiat.
Then there is Theresa May herself, who called an early general election when supremely ahead in the polls, but whose disastrous campaign leadership led to the elimination of her majority.
What of the ERG? By bringing about a no-confidence vote in her leadership, they have ensured that Theresa May is untouchable through the most crucial months of decision making.
What about Michael Gove’s stabbing of Boris Johnson? Might fit…
I just have this suspicion that when the tectonic plates of politics start to shift there is very little that individual actions can do to prevent a particular outcome. It’s rather like one stevedore on the dockside valiantly holding on to a rope whilst the cruise liner starts to motor in the opposite direction. Or…
So that is my musing about Brexit at the moment – there is nothing that can be done to stop it, there are far greater forces at work than we seem to be aware of, and God has a plan.
But what is really going to bake your noodle is that all the above is UK-centric. The envoys of the Commission are intent on punishing the UK and making an example of us, in order to ensure that the EU is strengthened and sustained on its path to becoming a single state.
Time to start counting the days until the existing EU has collapsed then. I give it less than three years.
A most interesting little snippet: people identify much more strongly with Leave or Remain than with traditional party affiliations, and this has surprising consequences. According to a recent survey only 9% of Leavers would object if their child married a Remainer, but 37% of Remainers would object if their child married a Leaver!
I would like to work towards a reconciliation between the two factions into which our country has been divided. Theologically, reconciliation is the fruit of forgiveness and repentance – forgiveness from the one who has been hurt, and repentance from the one who has done the hurting. Of course, at the moment there is not even agreement on what counts as ‘hurt’ – I think there are many things that count – so perhaps the priority is to ensure that there is a careful delineation of differences, so that we actually gain some clarity over what it is that divides us.
A good principle in argument is that criticisms of a position have most effect if you have first demonstrated that you understand that position in terms that the advocate of that position would accept as a true account. In other words, to criticise Remain requires Leavers to articulate the Remain position in such a way that Remainers say ‘yes, that is what we think’. This is best done in an iterative fashion – an attempt to articulate it is made by a Leaver, and the Remainer then comments yes or no to the various elements, the Leaver adapts the articulation in response, until there is agreement between both sides as to what the Remain position is.
So here goes…
The Remain position views the European Union as a force for good in the world. It sees the legacy of the repeated conflicts between European nations, most especially in the twentieth century, as a tragedy, and the development of the European Union as the foundation of peace in Europe that ensures that such conflicts do not recur. The enhanced friendship between nations that the European Union allows for is well expressed through the ability of all citizens within the Union to move freely between the members states of the Union. The Union upholds excellent standards in human rights, workers rights and environmental protection. In addition, the economic aspects of the Union underpin the wealth that we enjoy. To discard these benefits by Leaving is an act of financial folly and cultural self-harm that we will regret for decades. For Remain, being a member of the European Union is a significant part of their personal identity, and a source of pride.
I don’t see that as an exhaustive summary of the Remain position, but I hope I’ve captured the key points – and I invite any and all comments to enable that presentation to improve. It is not an ignoble position to hold, and there are many values within it that I would wish to affirm, especially the importance of friendship across national boundaries.
I would also invite those who wish to understand the Leave position to carry out a similar exercise, and to help that process I would like to recommend several books.
The first is Jonathan Haidt’s ‘The Righteous Mind’, subtitled ‘why good people disagree about religion and politics’. Haidt argues that those who hold to a more ‘progressive’ perspective – what we would call left wing – recognise two sources of moral value, those being care (do no harm to people) and fairness (treat people equally). In contrast, those who hold to a more conservative position also value three other sources of moral value, loyalty (do not betray your group), authority (respect for traditions) and sanctity (recognise what is holy and reject what is disgusting). The key element for the Remain/Leave dialogue is that the two sides give different weight to what it means to be British.
Which leads to the second recommendation, Linda Colley’s book ‘Britons’. This is a very readable work of historical analysis, that outlines how the British sense of national identity became formed against the ‘other’ of continental Europe, starting with the religious division against the papacy in Rome, but incorporating over time the wars with Napoleonic France and the traumas of the twentieth century. This book helps to understand what it is that Leavers are valuing with their loyalty, authority and sense of sanctity.
Bringing this perspective up to date is Matthew Goodwin’s and Roger Eatwell’s ‘National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy’. This analysis has been written after the Brexit vote and considers the way in which the wave of national populism can be found in many diverse countries, and why it is only going to get stronger over time. The analysis centres on what the authors call the “four D’s”: Distrust of the existing political class, Destruction of communities and patterns of life, the Deprivation that has followed economic disclocation, and the De-alignment from traditional political parties that is the result. I would particularly recommend this book to anyone who thinks that the vote for Brexit in 2016 was the accidental result of anything that happened during the three weeks of the referendum campaign.
Paul Lever was the British Ambassador to Germany, and he has written an excellent account of how Germany and the EU inter-relate: ‘Berlin Rules: Europe and the German Way’. I hadn’t appreciated quite how far German thinking had shaped the setting up of EU institutions, such that the Federal structure of Germany is replicated on a larger scale in the EU, and that the inevitable consequence of this is that the EU will become a single state with all that this implies, including a single army. The EU is a thoroughly Germanic project.
For a sharper sense of what this implies I strongly recommend a read of Yanis Varoufakis’ ‘Adults in the Room’, which is an account of Varoufakis’ short tenure as a finance minister in Greece, and the way in which a democratic vote in that country was overturned by the EU machinery on behalf of French and German banks. It is difficult to credit the European Union with any moral authority after reading this!
So far, reading these books will give a sense and understanding of a general Leave perspective. For an additional recommendation, which would help to understand my own specific point of view, I would recommend Joseph Tainter’s ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’, which analyses around a dozen different Empires in human history, seeking to account for why they collapsed. In brief, they collapse when a central authority takes more from subject territories than it returns in benefits. I believe that his analysis applies quite well to the European Union – and that the Union will therefore collapse before too long.
I hope that it is possible to pursue civilised conversations about the differences between the Leave and Remain perspectives (and I confess to have occasionally added more heat than light to the debate). We are one nation after all.
A year of huge change…
Having lived in Essex for almost all my life (and when not there, been principally in London/ South East) I have moved a long way away to the wonderful and beautiful Forest of Dean, close to the Welsh border (and closer to children), doing a new job split between two things that I would enjoy doing full time!
A great leap of faith, which seems to be working out so far. Funny that.
Good for the family too, though not without cost in terms of disruption and upheaval. Fortunately the new home, despite teething problems, should serve us well for the coming years, and it is lovely to be in a Diocese that takes seriously the potential that a non-functioning house has for causing stress and domestic damage.
I miss Mersea – people more than place – but both.
I lost the chance to be an ugly sister in Cinderella due to the move, and suspect that, re: Panto playing, there may be some time before it comes back, if it ever does.
Yet one of my best moments with the Mersea Island Players came with the Mersea Island Music Marathon, which, for so many reasons, will be a life-time memory. I knew in my bones that I was leaving Mersea at that point, which made the finale all the more moving.
A slightly disappointing Greenbelt, where I became even more conscious of not quite fitting in – yet I remain a committed Angel, and I shall continue going each year – not least as it will now be a much more important opportunity to catch up with friends.
I’ve kept the newspaper article going, not without some misgivings. I chose a style – was led to choose a style – many years ago, which is more deliberately controversial and provocative than I think I am in person. I will seek to change that this year. I’m pondering much about scapegoating (Girardian) and what is happening over Brexit. I think I will continue to become more politically engaged, although I don’t know what form that will take.
Had some lovely sailing, but not enough, and we wait to see what will happen with the boat, whether we will use it often enough to make it worthwhile to keep it or whether to sell it – and if we keep it, where to keep it! It’s good to have an excuse to go back to Mersea of course.
Have had to take an intermission (pause) for my doctoral studies, due to the move, but am keen to get fully back on top of that. It’s not going to be what I thought it was going to be, but I think it will still be worthwhile and fun.
I have enjoyed my new motorbike greatly, and plan to get through the main test in the early part of 2019 and to upgrade, almost certainly to a Deauville 650.
Lost some close colleagues and friends in the year, but also saw wonderful colleague ordained to the priesthood. I feel like Mersea is in good hands (not just his).
Have started to read a lot more – brain is generally ‘waking up’ again after too many years of being both ill-used and dis-used, but that time has not been a total loss, as other parts of me have grown.
I always re-read these annual summaries each time I do a new one. Seems like I don’t change much! I’m happier than I’ve been for many years though. God is good.
In all the chaos that currently passes for a government at this moment in time, one outcome that is becoming more probable than not – although still a very long way from being certain – is that of a second referendum on the question of Brexit. Mrs May has made such a dog’s breakfast of her Brexit strategy that very few alternative courses of action offer the remotest possibility of being successfully implemented. Hence there is a sense that our political class might show their utter lack of testicular fortitude and capacity for leadership by throwing the next decision on Brexit on to the shoulders of the voters. “Here, we can’t cope with this – you do something!”
There are so many aspects to the question of a second referendum, and so many potential dangers, but my own view on whether this might be a healthy way forward for our country resolves down to a simple issue: what question will be put to the voters? After all, the plea for a ‘People’s vote’ – because those who voted in the 2016 referendum don’t count as people – begs so many issues.
To reduce those complexities to a simple consideration, the question might be either a re-run of the first one, with a view to gaining a different result, or, alternatively, it might be a choice between Mrs May’s ‘deal’ and ‘no deal’. I believe that to pursue the first course would be catastrophic; the second might just enable us to heal as a community, and to move forward.
To address the latter first: if the question is about what sort of Brexit to pursue, then there is a clear and binary choice that can be presented to voters, which has integrity and continuity with everything that has happened up to this point. Mrs May can continue to advocate her deal as the best of all possible deals (which might be true) and those who see it as a mare’s nest of capitulation and incompetence will be liberated to argue for a much cleaner and simpler alternative of a ‘no deal’ (whilst also being open about the non-trivial costs that would likely follow such a choice).
I would see that sort of second referendum as being healthy – it would bring all our contentious disputes to a single point of decision but would also, and this is most essential, respect the integrity of the first referendum, and thus, by implication, respect all those who voted in the first referendum, including so many who had never voted before.
However, in clear contrast with that, if the second referendum is simply a re-run of the first one then the opposite applies. Let us remember that more people voted for Leave in that referendum than have ever voted for anything else in our history. To have that vote, and that decision, put to one side for reasons of administrative convenience at best would be a disastrous breach of trust. It would not solve any problems; rather, it would entrench and exacerbate all of our present disputes.
If the second referendum is simply a repeat of the first, then we are looking at a constitutional coup d’état: an issue which was, through Parliament, put to the people with a clear promise that the decision would then be implemented – that decision of the empowered people would then be overturned, along with the results of the last general election (most elected on manifesto promises to implement the referendum result) and the expressed will of the House of Commons (the votes to withdraw from the EU).
In no other realm of public activity would we accept the overturning of such a vote. Here some clarity is important. People might argue – rightly – that we overturn previous votes all the time, not least when there is a change of government following a General Election. The crucial distinction which so often seems to be missed in public discussion around a second referendum is that, in all these other contexts, the decision of the first vote is implemented before there is a second vote. So MPs are voted into office, and then take office, and subsequent votes are taken on that basis. So, with a referendum about Brexit, if the vote does not proceed from the basis that we are to leave the EU then we are looking at a major breakdown in our moral, democratic and constitutional norms.
If any second referendum contains ‘Remain’ in any shape or form as a potential option, then I believe that the only possible path which might preserve our social fabric is a widespread boycott of such a referendum, thus depriving it of political legitimacy, and affirming the legitimacy of the first referendum. To take part in such a second referendum would mean that we were, by so doing, lending that endeavour authority. We would be saying that we accepted the basis on which the question was being offered. To do so would be like saying, after a general election, that the successful MP in a constituency cannot take office until there is another election to confirm that person in office.
Such a path is inconsistent with the best of who we are. There may well be a time when it is right to put rejoining the EU to the people of the United Kingdom, at which point those in favour of such a path can argue clearly and openly for the federal future that joining the EU means – such clear and open advocacy for the federal future was, after all, notably absent from the earlier referendum on membership of the European Economic Community, and has still never gained the approval of the UK. Yet to get to that point with any integrity, and with any chance of keeping the peace of our society, it has to be done subsequent to our leaving the European Union. That is what was voted for, and that is what has to be implemented.
I very much hope that we are not presented with a second referendum which contains the possibility of nullifying the first. If we are, however, the way forward seems clear for all those who are concerned about the catastrophic damage such a strategy would cause to our society. We need to be ready to boycott the betrayal of Brexit.