Much emotional energy is being expended on issues raised by the referendum outcome. Most of this hot air is unhelpful, exaggerated and often misleading. There are real doubts about where the country goes next and the sooner we get down to planning, the sooner the air will cool.
The British government wants us to believe several impossible things so that we will vote to remain. Deceit fills the pages of the government website. Perhaps, for the sake of future negotiations should Brexit happen, they have to show that they did their best to prevent it, at whatever cost to their integrity.
Will Britain be worse off and, if so, for how long if we leave the EU. Despite the fears wound up by the Remain campaign and David Cameron, among others, we don’t truly know. Experts build into their models the assumptions that give them the outcome they wish to predict. They don’t declare their assumptions so we can’t tell if their models are any good.
The obsession with enforced conformity is not the path to harmony and mutual benefit. The EU is the wrong project to unify and pacify a fractious Europe, it can only do so by suffocation. Two questions remain unanswered: ‘To whom are you accountable?’ and ‘How do we get rid of you?’ because the only honest answers are: ‘no one’ and ‘you can’t’.
As we get closer to the vote, both economics and politics are wobbling and the risks and uncertainties of staying in the EU are becoming increasingly evident.
This post links to a recent article in the Express, which points up the uncertainties that the Remain case chooses to ignore.
A briefing paper from the National Archives shows that we have been lied to about the loss of our sovereignty from the beginning.
Farmers Weekly canvassed the views of farmers and found that 58% are in favour of Brexit. The NFU, representing big business, reports differently.
The original motivation for setting up the EU is no longer pressing. Now it is believed that economic, political and social development can only be achieved from the top down. In the longer term the EU may collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies.
The EU was designed to resist reform. The prime motivation – not always well disguised – is to create a super-state that can manage its peoples without heeding their views.
In democratic systems leaders who disappoint are replaced. An immovable political system founded in a static ideology will slide from incompetence to irrelevance, and possibly worse.
Left to ourselves we might elect the likes of Mussolini and Hitler: to spare us the risk and the consequences of such decisions national parliaments are left as the ghost of democracy, providing a Punch and Judy show to placate the masses.
The EU is founded in the belief that political authority has to be centralised to be effective; democracy is untidy and cannot deliver the goods without paternal management.
There are some, but the deep flaws count for more. Much of what has been achieved could have been achieved through democratic collaboration.