It was always about votes. It was always about power. The only control they wished to retain was their control over us.
We only had a referendum about EU membership because of a Tory election promise. The promise was only made because Tories needed to stop people voting UKIP in their marginal seats. We got a referendum because David Cameron wanted to stay in power, he wanted those UKIP votes.
A decision whether to remain in the EU was always too nuanced and important to be trusted to the public: until it started to cost the Conservative Party votes.
It was never about what’s best for us, only what was good for them. It was about votes then and it is about votes now. Labour can’t properly oppose Brexit because some of its key constituencies voted for it. They’re scared, they should be. Should this turn out to be the catastrofuck that most of us expect we will remember who stood up for what’s best for the UK.
It was never about what’s best for us. We were so deeply entrenched in the EU that it was difficult for politicians to explain what benefits we got, particularly if they were trying to claim credit/votes for those benefits. The EU were also a too convenient scapegoat, a distant powerful force who could be blamed when stuff wasn’t working. Don’t blame us, it’s all their fault.
Now the protagonists are scattered to the wind. Still they re-surface to poke the wasps nest before disappearing again. Shit-stirrer supreme Boris Johnson got the f—k out of Dodge when he failed to have any influence. He only has any impact by being an agitator. Calculated remarks about Muslim women keep him front of mind and firmly positioned as a right-wing poster boy, jocular Etonian for hire, good old Boris, one of the (rich) boys. He wants that Tommy Robinson sheen for his next assault on the leadership.
|Pawel Czerwinski, unsplash|
Illogical and unreasonable
It never made sense to leave. Boris himself said as much before he lumped his lot in with the Brexit Brigade. An opportunist to the last, don’t expect anything to restrict him from holding a position that furthers his interests.
Ignoring the broadcast media’s over-reliance on ‘balance’ there were some simple arguments that would have destroyed the ‘leave’ argument in an instant. For example, how can one country fare better solo than in an alliance of twenty-eight? What magical thinking imagines that 1 vs 27 can prevail? When we’re looking for our new, improved trade deals what is it that we exclusively produce that is required by all the other countries of the world. What unicorn horns have we got in our back pockets that can’t be found elsewhere at half the price? We don’t even own the bulk of our infrastructure, we don’t own our utilities – a hostile foreign power could turn off the lights in an instant. Who will come to our aid when we’ve so resolutely strived to isolate ourselves?
Collaboration has been a key word in communications and industry for quite a while now. If you’re going to stand alone you’d better be occupying a position of strength. Without invoking some misplaced notion of 2nd world war supremacy (or the idea that we won it alone) I’ve yet to hear where our strengths lie. We’ve all heard plenty of lies though.