Who are we?

Yesterday's Budget from Philip Hammond is dismaying - £3bn allocated to pay for Brexit. Even as spending on the NHS, schools and other public services is kept tight, he can nevertheless find £3bn to pay for this absurd project. And it's not just £3bn - that's on top of the rumoured £40bn which may, or may not, be the final cost of the divorce settlement. So that's £43bn then. Or maybe more – who knows?

And still, we don't know why. Running through the tired pseudo-arguments, one in particular jars today - the idea of “getting our sovereignty back”. Never mind that we never lost it (as confirmed by The Government's own white paper earlier in the year). Some Brexit-champions still like to reiterate how we'll be able to make our own laws again. (The obvious has been pointed out repeatedly – that we will continue to be bound by EU regulation just so long as we want to sell anything to EU members.)

But it's another aspect of this that is so striking just now and it concerns the making of new laws in the UK. There have been 2 extraordinary votes in the House of Commons in recent days in respect of proposed ammendments to the Repeal Bill itself. Last week, MPs voted to remove the recognition of animal-sentience. Under EU law, for the last twenty years, animals have been recognised as being capable of feeling emotions and pain. But from April 2019, in Britain, they will revert to being objects. Treat them how you like. Maybe this will make it easier to justify hunting foxes – it's all just a bit of fun after all. Maybe it will mean we don't need to fuss so much about the idea of eating chlorine-washed chicken from the USA. Maybe it just means we have to stop talking to our pet dogs and cats and kidding ourselves that they respond to love. Or pain. Or anger. Or play. Nope – it's all in the imagination. They are non-sentient beings. Or, at least, they will be. Never mind how they seem today - they've been given their orders; sixteen months to drop the pretence that they can perceive sensation or feeling.

This vote on animal rights was disturbing and left many reeling at its implications. But then on Tuesday, the government voted not to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights after Brexit. That one is about us. The people. Not content with stripping our pets of their rights, they've taken our's too. Dignity rights such as the prohibition of torture and eugenics. Freedom rights concerning privacy and religion. Equality rights such as prohibiting discrimination on grounds of disability or sexual orientation. Solidarity rights including workers' rights and access to health care. Justice rights such as presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. There are many more besides – these examples simply give a flavour of what's involved. ALL of this, our elected government has actively decided to dump under the umbrella of Brexit and “taking back control”.

So this is the brave new world where “we” get to make our own laws. The very law that marks the changeover is notable for its regressive nature and the scope for potential misuse and danger is immense. Is this really what the population at large wanted? I simply refuse to believe it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Who can find a single citizen who voted to have their own right to a free trial removed or to make themselves a legitimate target for discrimination or torture.

And that's when I realised that the problem with “We will be able to make our own laws” is in the “we”. Who is “we?” A glib answer would be “all of us”, but of course in a democracy there is never 100% agreement on anything. So it can only mean whoever is in power at the time. “We” is utterly transient. And as a result of the archaic First Past the Post system of voting in the UK, “we”, it turns out, never reflects the will of most of us.

NEVER.

The percentage of the electorate who voted for the governing party hovers around 30%. Look back at General Election results for the past 40 years - in that time the highest mandate would be in 2010, when adding together the Conservative and Liberal Democrat share of the vote you end up with 38% of the electorate supporting the coalition. Before that, the next highest was 33% in 1992 when John Major could claim that one in three people supported him. That's as good as it gets. In 2005, Tony Blair won his third election with the support of just 21% of the electorate – barely one in five. Our current Tory Government was imposed on us by 29% of the electorate. And now, they get to make “our” laws for 5 years.

So, by definition, “We will make our own laws” actually means allowing a small group of people who were literally outnumbered at the ballot box to write our laws. 

And if you are unfortunate enough to live in a “safe” seat where the incumbent is not your party of choice, you are effectively disenchfranchised for life. The “we” of the law-makers most certainly and permanently excludes you.

And that, my friends, is how we end up with a Government that can brazenly take away our rights and those of our furry friends. All while bleating (sorry) on about the Will of the People.

And to add to the insult, they will take £43bn of our own money away from public services to do it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brexit Apathy

“The death of democracy...will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” These words of Robert M Hutchins seem rather pertinent to our current situation. Every day I ask myself again whether it's time to “let it go” and accept Brexit. And every time I ask that question, two big issues rise up to block the way. The first is the unbelievably cavalier way in which the individuals most affected by this are being treated – the EU nationals who live in the UK and the UK nationals who live in other EU countries. We have, as the saying goes, thrown them under a bus. And when you consider the stir caused this week by CCTV footage of a London jogger doing exactly that to a woman on the pavement, it brings home what a shocking analogy it is. As long as the politicians insist on playing games of chess with real peoples' lives, there will be millions of us who dig in our heels and say “unacceptable”. The second big stumbling block to accepting the out...
Read more

Windrush - twig or branch?

I can't stop thinking about the so-called Windrush scandal. I say so-called, because I think there's a danger that we have got hold of the wrong end of the stick if this is 'only' about the Windrush generation. Or rather, we have grabbed firmly on to the twig, but if we run with that, it will snap away, leaving the main branch, the bigger point, unmoved. Don't get me wrong - the Windrush scandal is certainly shocking. The way individuals have been treated correlates with my definition of criminal. But these individual cases are but twigs from a thicker branch of systemic hostility to "the other". If we allow ourselves to be focused on individual cases, we allow Theresa May and the Government and, in fact, ourselves, off the hook. If the concern is that person A is deported in error, an apology can be made, decisions reversed and even, potentially, compensation made. And there the story dies, with no hint of "lessons having been lear...
Read more

Brexit - Secret Option Number Three

There's talk of riots if Brexit doesn't go ahead. It's hard to know whether this is a serious possibility – a proposed protest at the Supreme Court in December was hastily cancelled at the last minute when barely a few dozen showed any interest. But let's just for a moment assume it is a real and credible possibility. The prevailing narrative over-simplifies the choice – implement the result of the referendum or don't. Implement it and cause certain impoverishment to our nation. Ignore it, and risk riots and undermining the cause of democracy. But why is our vision so narrow? What if there is a secret option number three? There are five Ws that help us get to the bottom of a story – What? When? Who? Where? And Why? The first four are essentially fact-based and are in themselves often rather dull. They are answered easily enough with regard to the referendum result. The interesting question is the last one – “why”. And over a year later, we are still no clearer...
Read more