Brexit (2)

More Brexit talk tonight.   On the one hand the pessimists think that a fear of the consequences of mass migration, the demagoguery of the Murdoch press and the repulsive opportunism of Boris Johnson will bring about our departure from the European Union, producing ten years of chaos in which we have to negotiate trading terms with our former, now implacably hostile European partners.   On the other hand, the moderate optimists think that a natural conservatism and caution about the consequences of exit, combined with a recognition of the benefits of European subsidies, particularly to farmers, the support of the Labour party for European protection of workers’ rights and a guarded admiration for the way in which David Cameron has renegotiated the terms of membership, will bring about a narrow, polling booth victory.


5 thoughts on “Brexit (2)

  1. Jane says:

    I hope you are correct Charles. It would be tragic to leave the EU and it would not stop migrants landing on our shores and may make cooperation more difficult. The debate is about so much more.

  2. Nice new photograph, Charles.

    I’m definitely in the second group. Although the EU has got a great deal hopelessly wrong (the CAP, the Fisheries policy, the over-hasty expansion in order to to bring in economies that have nothing in common, the six month Presidency that means that it’s impossible for the Parliament to do anything useful or imaginative) it has, nevertheless created stability and peace in Europe, and has bought thousands and thousands of jobs to the UK (British car manufacturing which was on its knees twenty years ago is nor prospering thanks to EU grants securing Japanese investment).

    Sadly Cameron has been stampeded into being focussed on the movement of Labour and Immigration rather than the agenda above which REALLY needs reform …….. But it would be folly, and a return to the past, to leave.

  3. Edward Chaney says:

    Oh deah (again)… While you focus upon a fight between two old Etonians (‘the repulsive opportunism of Boris Johnson’? or is he merely/also more intelligent and historically informed?), you don’t seem to acknowledge that once the European project became a political one we should have had nothing more to do with its decreasingly democratic trajectory. Regarding Syria (and a lot besides) Cameron and Francois Hollande are fools compared to which Putin looks like a genius. They also happen to be wrong and he is right, both pragmatically and, in the end, morally (in choosing the lesser of a dozen or more evils, pragmatism and morality often coincide). Underlying most of this we have a cultural problem. Listening to and watching the news this morning I was struck by the banality of the BBC, patronizingly focusing upon personalities, food and football, compared with the relative sophistication of Al Jazeera, which sponsored a wide-ranging debate about the issues which will really determine our futures; above all as you at least hint with reference to ‘mass migration’, the fall-out of our folly in promoting ‘regime change’ and proxy wars in countries we know all too little about…

    • Dear Edward, As you know I agree that our intervention in Syria has been a catastrophe, which was easily predictable. I will send you a link to an intervention by the former American ambassador on a television programme which says as much very clearly. Charles

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s