No Middle Way in this referendum

When I started this blog, I decided I would concentrate mostly on what was in front of me, in the moment. I felt this would not only help me in my own development but might even be of interest to my army of readers (er..that should read "small platoon" and thank you again for even bothering to read it.) So it wouldn't be political. "Old men ought to be explorers," says TS Eliot, and I wanted to explore the reality in front of me, in the present moment, applying to it what I am learning from Buddhism and elsewhere. I shall carry on doing so, usually.

But there are things about the EU referendum that run with my usual preoccupations, so I'll divert a bit from What the Water Says. This won't, I promise, be partisan about the outcome, so here goes.

Whatever you think of the referendum campaign outcome it has been a bitter, divisive process. We could have had a period of calm and factual exploration of what the EU is and does, of what our position might be outside it, or inside it with whatever changes might have been possible. 

Many of us didn't know much about the EU, and were wide open to crude and over-simplified sloganising from either side. And now it's too late, lots of people have apparently been Googling "what is the EU?" After they have voted to leave it or stay in it. FFS as the internet has it.

This was a very complex matter, arguably not well suited to a simple yes/no referendum. Early on, both sides tried to frighten us into agreeing with them. Half-truths and lies were told, and behind it all was the screaming hysteria of "news"papers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. 

Impossible to govern? But we have been governed, and continue to be governed, for better or worse.

What, all of them? From anywhere? To anywhere?

Politics in a democracy has to be divisive to some degree, of course. We have to divide along our political and social opinions, our differences, our prejudices, our efforts at rational investigation and thought, our so-called gut feelings. These differences take us towards conclusions which separate us, for a while, and to a degree. 

And then we carry on with ordinary living, after the election is over. Nothing wrong with lively, even heated, disagreement. "Damn braces, bless relaxes," to say it again. But it's an underlying tolerance and a sense of moderation that enables us to do so productively. 

So why does this referendum process and its outcome feel oddly and unpleasantly different? Why does my heart sink a bit (or a lot) when I find an old friend voting for The Other Side about EU membership, when normally I don't much care if he supports a different political party?

Polarization is my simple, and probably simplistic, answer. The drive to make opponents into The Other, into people who must be not merely opposed, but discredited. It's still carrying on now, over a week after the vote. 

For example: young people are blaming old people for the higher proportion of "out" votes, and all sorts of resentments and fears are swirling to the surface. "We" - old people - have stolen "their" futures, taken all the benefits, we're living on golden pensions. 

Illogical nonsense. "We" were fortunate with our education grants, more generous state benefits etc (though very many of us do not have golden pensions, and live in or close to poverty - I recognise my own good fortune in this area.) 

"We" have been pointing out that a considerably higher proportion of "us" voted in the referendum than young people did. And many of "us" are deeply disturbed by what has happened, what it might mean for our young people - my young people, children and grandchildren.

"We" might also point out that had today's young been offered what we were offered, they would, of course, have taken it. They probably wouldn't have worried that maybe future generations would have to pick up the tab.

See what I mean? What a futile argument, what pointless justifications. That's what happens when you polarize the public around an artificially simple decision.

That seems to me the basis of the nastiness. Leaving or staying in the EU isn't a simple matter, to be decided by a small margin of votes on a simple question. It is the artificial simplicity of the referendum question that enabled political leaders to crudify opponents' arguments, create the Other, attack each other in a startlingly irresponsible and unpleasant way.

It was the casual assumption that we all knew enough to make a sensibly-informed decision, either way, that helped crudify the debate.

The Other - hence the irritating "" I used around we and us in describing the useless age-group polarization. Lump people together, describe them in reductively simple terms, create scapegoats, crawl offensive messages about them on walls... 

We could have followed a middle way in the arguments about Europe. We didn't have to do this, like this. 

Referenda are a crude and dangerous tool; Hitler used them at least twice, I believe. A pseudo-democratic process when carried out in a culture manipulated by skilled and ruthless opinion formers and media power-brokers - and self-seeking irresponsible politicians.

To finish, and I'll be partisan now: whatever you voted, can you or anyone deny that this was launched on us to try to deal with the long-running divide in the Conservative Party and the threat to it from UKIP? 

A gamble that went wrong between members of a political elite has resulted in a dreadful increase in people - citizens, my fellow countrymen and women, visitors -  being insulted and harassed in the street. 

One woman reported that someone said to her "go back to Africa." She said she was puzzled, as well as shocked, and replied "But I've never been to Africa."

It's make you laugh if it didn't make you cry.