EU REFERENDUM – MY FINAL STATEMENT

So, in about 24 hours (depending on when you read this for the first time) the Polling Stations across the UK will be closed and the people will have exercised their right of democracy to cast their votes in the EU Referendum.

Since the date of the referendum was announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday 20^th February after his return from a summit with a deal on Britain’s future role within the European Union (EU), my eyes have been opened to so many things in the intervening 124 days; yes, it’s been that long.

You all know that I can’t cast my own vote.  I’ve been in Spain for longer than the 15 year limit.  I don’t agree with that rule and I’m at a loss to understand why the British government didn’t allow an amendment to the Referendum Bill.  It would’ve meant changing the vital clause by one or two words, would’ve stopped expensive legal challenges and, probably would’ve given the government many more votes for the Remain camp in the process.  Someone will be kicking someone somewhere if the final result is decided by less than a million votes.   We shall know when we’re having our breakfast on Friday morning!

You will know if you’ve been following my posts on Facebook (I make no apology for the amount of them.  I have to read many of yours that I have no interest in! :-) ) that all I have tried to do is to supply and link to information and some backgrounds notes, to expose a lie or two with the facts and figures on BOTH sides of the debate, and to help people who might not have the time or the interest to research to come to their own decisions in this once in a generation event, rather than get propaganda from sensationalist newspapers and TV media outlets with their own differing agendas.

With the odd exceptions among my Facebook friends, you have tolerated, contributed and discussed with the – more or less - utmost of respect for each other’s views and opinions.  Those that took the decision to unfriend me is their loss and says more about them than it does what I and others were writing.

Where my eyes have been well and truly opened over the past four months has been the level of debate across social media.  Rabid dogs would’ve been more courteous to a cat compared to the vile, contemptible, vicious and repulsive words I’ve read.  I haven’t escaped such noxious comments either...and all because my view or opinion, always expressed in the most courteous way, differed from these hateful and intolerant trolls.  I was often left ashamed to think that these were fellow British people.  My plight wasn’t often helped when these people discovered that I lived in Spain.  “Keep your opinions to yourself.  What’s it got to do with you living in your villa?” was possibly the kindest that I would feel happy printing here.

I place the blame for this firmly at the feet of the mainstream media, print, internet and TV, who have pursued their own agendas for many years and in the process have severely poisoned the minds of people who in reality probably had nothing between their ears in the first place.  My recent posting which exposed the workings of Boris Johnson during his time as a journalist proved this, when the newspapers allegedly refused to print anything positive about the EU.  I’m not surprised. The following quote is taken from an article in the wake of the murder of Jo Cox MP and the much criticised poster unveiled by Nigel Farage, but could very easily apply to the media in general:  

When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

When you shout BREAKING POINT over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

Stir up debate, exaggerate the truth, get people arguing, light the blue touch paper and then walk away not taking any of the blame for the consequences.

For a while, it’s been the Daily Mail that is always associated with the politics of hate.  The one newspaper you daren’t admit you read.  Compared to the Daily Express (especially the online version) the Mail is an angel and a Saint.  Since the start of the EU Referendum campaign, they have posted a conveyor belt of “news” on social media based on hearsay, allegations, suppositions and interpretations which have done nothing other than feed the appetite of hate they have themselves slowly drip fed over the months and years attacking both the EU and politicians – David Cameron in particular.  It has been relenting. The public comments both on their online version and the Facebook postings are jam packed full of the vultures baying for blood who have believed every single word this increasingly pathetic excuse of a rag prints. They really could convince their readership that the Earth was flat, and don’t you dare try to prove it otherwise with facts or a picture taken by Tim Peake from space.  You are attacked from all sides quicker than flies attack a dog turd on a summer’s day, and any comment against their policy is often removed post haste. 

I’ve followed both sides of the debate on social media and if I had to be totally honest, it’s about a 90% / 10% split.  Not on the main question itself, but in favour of the Leave camp in respect of the foul, abusive language and personal attacks employed toward those who disagree with them.  They have without doubt been xenophobic and racist to an incredible degree with an unbelievable arrogance and intolerance to anyone with an opposite viewpoint, and unable to respond when they are bombarded with real facts.  Of course, the above doesn’t apply to everyone who supports Leave, many who can justify their position with a passionate and reasoned argument without needing to resort to toxic language.  But they are few and far between.

This unbelievable arrogance also encompasses the current worrying trend to dismiss any advice or recommendations or opinions of “experts”.  I’ve seen a lack of trust in anything uttered or explained by experts and politicians alike.  ‘They must all be in it together or in someone’s pay’, according to this group of people I’ve christened BREXPERTS!  Know-it-all people that base everything they quote and “know” on what they’ve read from other Brexperts or they’ve heard from someone.  It’s obvious that none of them have taken the time to research what is put in front of them for themselves.  I’ve certainly found that my regular postings to these Brexperts of “Could you kindly direct me to the source of this claim?” are greeted with silence OR abuse.  Never with an answer!  The latest has been only this afternoon with someone claiming on Twitter that Sir Bobby Charlton has come out in favour of Leave with the comment: “Put that in your pipe Beckham!”  Banter to some, perhaps. Truth, that is believed, to many others, who don’t look beyond the headlines.

The strange political bedfellows that this EU Referendum has brought together will itself have their consequences whatever the result on Friday morning.  That will be the subject of a future blog.

My final words on this debate are aimed at people that live in, own a property in, or visit Spain for their holidays.  Whatever the result of the Referendum on Friday morning, I will respect that result as the will of the people.  The British people will suffer the consequences of that result whichever way it goes.  BUT, woe betide anyone with the Spanish connections I’ve just mentioned that are sympathetic with or vote to Leave that MIGHT or COULD be affected in a few years time and comes to me to complain about this, that or the other.  I won’t listen.  I WILL walk away from you.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  No knowledge is even more so.

A LESSON IN DEMOCRACY

UK OR THE EU – A LESSON IN DEMOCRACY

This is the first in a series of three blogs over the next week or so connected with the forthcoming EU Referendum on Thursday 23 June.  I begin with democracy.

One of the most often used phrases when people complain about the European Union (EU) and equally used as one of the reasons for wanting to leave is the “unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, dictators with thousands of bureaucrats” running our lives from Brussels.  Those using such language tend to end their rant with: “..and take back control and run our own country.”

You will note in this blog that I won’t be favouring one system from the other.  What I am attempting to do is to highlight just one or two examples that are often forgotten about in the current debate.  Words in yellow are deliberate.....

I’ll begin by explaining how the EU Commission and the European Parliament works alongside some of the other institutions often mentioned.

The European Parliament is made up of 751 directly elected MEPs representing some 375 million eligible voters in 28 different countries.  Based on the population of the member countries, Germany have the most representation with 96 MEPs, Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg and Estonia have the least with six, while the UK has 73.  All MEPs are elected by a proportional representation system.

The 28 commissioners making up the European Commission (in effect the Cabinet of the EU) are appointed by the Prime Ministers or Presidents of the 28 member countries.  The body as a whole has to be approved by the MEPs.  As an aside, those European countries that have Prime Ministers are individuals not themselves directly elected by the electorate but heads of their respective political parties thanks to the votes of party members.

The European Council is made up of the 28 leaders of the 28 member countries who choose the head of the European Commission and must also approve the members of the European Commission.

The Council of Ministers is made up of one representative of each of the 28 member countries specialising in a particular area of policy.  For example, the Council of Ministers for Defence would currently see UK Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, as part of that council.

The European Court of Justice (not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights), formed back in 1951, is now made up of 28 judges each nominated by the 28 member states.  

All the above institutions of the EU are backed up with the support of approximately 42,000 civil servants.

Let’s compare the above organisation with the UK Government.

Currently, the UK House of Commons is made up of 650 directly elected MPs representing some 45 million eligible voters.  All MPs are elected by a first-past-the-post system.  At the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won 330 seats with 36% of the national vote whereas UKIP won 1 seat with 12.7% and the SNP won 56 seats with 4.7%. 

The British Prime Minister appoints the 21 Cabinet Ministers and the approximately 100 junior ministers.

The Speaker of the House of Commons – officially the senior commoner in the land - is elected by MPs.

Every member of the House of Lords is unelected and appointed.  There are approximately 700 Life Peers and 26 Bishops. Following the House of Lords Act 1999, the number of hereditary peers was reduced to a limit of 90.  When an hereditary peer dies creating a vacancy, their replacement is elected by the remaining unelected members of the hereditary peerage.

These appointed and unelected members of the House of Lords can and do amend and block legislation passed by the elected MPs in the House of Commons.

Each UK government department has at least one appointed Minister of State that is a member of the House of Lords.  These ministers take decisions and formulate the law of the land in the form of Bills and Acts of Parliament. 

Once any Bill has secured its Third Reading, it then passes to the unelected and hereditary Head of State for formal approval – The Royal Assent.

Each UK government department has an appointed Permanent Secretary (every department has a Sir Humphrey Appleby) who has made it to the top of their chosen profession in a career they applied to join.  According to 2015 figures from the annual Whitehall Report the Civil Service is made up of 406,000 people.  Those in the Executive Officer grade and higher are responsible for creating and formulating policy and to offer advice to ministers.

The UK currently has 12 Justices of the UK Supreme Court and 109 High Court Judges, all appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. To quote the official Government page, Judicial Accountability and Independence, “...The truth is that the judiciary is accountable, but in a different manner. The reason for this difference is a fundamental feature of our constitution going to the very heart of our democracy. The difference stems from the need to ensure that judges are impartial and independent of central and local government and from pressures from the media, companies, and pressure groups while exercising their judicial functions. That need is also reflected in the constitutions of all democratic countries. The extent to which the judiciary in England and Wales are accountable, how they are accountable, and why there is a need for judges to be completely independent from Government and other powerful groups, are difficult questions.”

The word bureaucratic is defined as: “Relating to a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.”

Every single word above is a fact. The following is a commentary about those facts.

In the current EU Referendum debate, there are a significant number of people wanting to Remain in the EU that support either a more democratic and elected House of Lords – or even its total abolishment.  Equally, there are many who wish to Leave the EU, citing the “dictators and unelected and undemocratic bureaucracy” as a principal reason but are more than content to keep an unreformed House of Lords and other institutions listed above.

Read the facts again and decide for yourself which organisation is the most democratic, accountable or bureaucratic or are they much of a muchness?

At the end of the day, perhaps British people simply prefer to be governed by “their own” unelected bureaucrats.