If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
[Mick Jones]
The referendum to remain in or to leave the European Union (EURef) dominates the mainstream British media as much as news of a successful consequence of royal copulation. The competing cornucopias of enthusiastic protagonists of persuasion gurn at the public from the TV and newspapers, and the Westminster bubble-entrenched media offers pseudo-nuanced comments that pretend to analyse but fail to do so, limply. The density and volume of the torrent of EURef public discussion is inversely proportional to its accuracy, its relevance and its usefulness. We are all stuck in a lift with Noel Edmonds where he is singing an endless Coldplay medley.
Leave?
The Leave gang is full of panderers of despair including the ubiquitous Nigel Farage – without the EU and foreigners to whinge about he would be void of purpose, George Galloway, who always recognises a spurious opportunity to keep himself visible, Tory leadership contender Boris Johnson, and some other Tory MPs who think being a bit UKIP is a vote winner. The predominant tactics used by outists are a depiction of the EU as an affront to an imagined British sovereignty alongside antagonism to the “otherness” of foreigners, infused with greater or lesser dollops of barely-concealed racism. The latter aspect of the campaign is most evident in its juxtaposition and deliberate mixing of migrants and “terrorists.” It differs not from the language and focus used by UKIP and BNP in recent years. That is the problem with the Leave campaign: It’s most visible figures are odious bigots.
There are valid reasons for questioning Britain being inside the EU. Brendan O’Neill highlights the anti-democratic structure and processes of the EU, O’Neill on EU – a view shared by many socialists who may not be as wedded to democracy as O’Neill – but the exposure of the ultra-elitist structure of the EU is unlikely to receive much airtime.
Remain?
The breadth of political scope of the most visible Remain promoters is greater than that of Leave. However, this scope can be loosely divided into two sectors:
1) The defenders of international accessibility for financial gangsters, particularly those who operate in the City of London – this sector led, obviously, by David Cameron, and
2) The crumb-graspers who view the EU as a dampener on the Tories’ continuous lurching further and further toward unfettered corporate fascism – this sector includes Labour, SNP and trades’ unions.
Curiously, the presented economic arguments from the first sector for staying in the EU are often repeated by the proponents of exiting, revealing both the creative nature of the arguments and the ignorance of what would be the economic consequences of leaving or of staying. Cameron is keen to emphasise that a vote to remain will not stop him and his government from executing further attacks on migrants and on benefits because he acquired a “deal” with the other EU members.
The second sector focuses on claiming how EU laws, regulations and court rulings can restrict the harmful excesses of the gangsters’ gimps in the Tory government and adds a few woolly comments about cross-border business as embellishment. The pleas for help to the undemocratic elite in the EU are as pathetic as the thank you letters sent to the House of Lords whenever that relic of feudal times dares to slow down the passing of a Tory bill through parliament.
Conscientious Abstention?
There is a third option. A valid perspective is to say that whether in or out of Europe the lawmakers are still in thrall to international financial gangsters. The choice to not vote can be an active decision; it is not necessarily due to apathy. But, one prediction about the EURef that can be trusted is that a low voter turnout will favour Leave because those who are undecided or unsure are more likely, if they vote, to choose the status quo – Remain. Therefore, abstaining almost equates to voting to leave the EU.
Toss A Coin?
As good a choice as any other. But, pound or Euro?
ducksoap 