The Importance Of Dubito

The Importance Of Dubito (I Doubt)

Everyone, at least everyone who's been through a sixth-form school programme, knows or should know the French philosopher Descartes' famous proposition “I think therefore I am” (“cogito ergo sum” if you are OK with the Latin). In fact that is not logically complete as a proposition, but never mind that; what is important is that it is not the entirety of what Descartes said. His full proposition was “dubito ergo cogito ergo sum”, “I doubt therefore I think therefore I am”. What's so important? That the first step is to doubt, question.

Why is this relevant now? Because, like it or not, we Brits are engaged now, and will be for some months at least ahead of us, in a propaganda war about Brexit. What is acknowledged as the first casualty in any war, particularly a propaganda one? The truth. So what should we do? We need our “dubito”; whatever we think we read, hear, see, from any source, we need to doubt, to question it. Sorry about that but we are going to have to think, and think hard, for ourselves.

The point occurred to me because I came across a story in one of the tabloids about a Romanian refugee family in London, beggars all, living under some road bridge and swigging vodka (vodka ice, to be precise). The established facts are that the peasant family came to England expecting a land of milk and honey, found that was very far from the case and want to go back but can't afford the fare. So what's the newspaper story? The story offered is that here's a family of Romanian immigrants, in London because of the EU open borders policy, making a living through begging and doing well enough to be able to afford vodka (ice); i.e. not just managing to feed their kids and get by on crusts of bread. The story struck me because I immediately thought of an alternative version.

I've no idea whether this is true but it fits the known facts equally well. The Editor of a tabloid with an agenda of immigrant bashing needs another headline story. The existence of the Romanian family under the road bridge has already been reported and is known. So he says to one of his reporters: “Go find this family, buy a bottle of vodka (ice), and give it to them. You can say 'Welcome to England' or whatever to explain the gift. Get them drinking it and take a photo and, bingo, I've got my headline story.”

As I've said, I've no idea whether this is the true story but it could as well be as the published story. So what do we conclude? We can only conclude, if we are thinking straight, that we don't really know. We don't know the truth because that's not what the newspaper considers relevant here; as I've said, that's the first casualty in our propaganda war. That's not very helpful but it does suggest a way forward. The first thing to ask in this propaganda war is what is the political agenda of the newspaper, TV station or whatever reporting the story. Because you can bet there is a slant on it, maybe even a total fabrication, and the slant will be in favour of their political agenda. Allow for that and ask yourself what facts, if any, can be established and what other possible explanations/interpretations of the story there could be. That's all you can do but, above all, do not simply accept what you read or hear as fact from any source without questioning it.

Remember……..dubito, dubito, dubito. And THINK.

More Reflection

More Reflection

I have been angry about the referendum result but I am now finding the situation more and more hilarious. Is it possible, just possible, that Lewis Carroll had a premonition about Brexit when he wrote Alice In Wonderland, but decided to tone down the fantasy a bit? Curioser and curioser doesn't come close to getting it.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has just announced that there will inevitably have to be higher taxes and public spending cuts (more than those already planned, that is). Never mind what happened to that chimerical £350 million, he was quite definite, even a little smug about it. Has any Chancellor, ever in history before, anywhere in the world in a democrary, announced both increased taxes and spending cuts at the same time, being definite about it (and possibly a little smug)? I think we have a world first record there. What's more, this was voted for by the electorate; surely another history-making world first. If Leave voters weren't quite sure what they were voting for when they voted, they do now.

It doesn't stop there, not by any means. It turns out that the areas that voted Leave most solidly are those most dependent economically on the EU. In effect, voters voted solidly for job losses. In France, Francois Hollande must be green with envy and tearing his hair (not that we Brits would mind that, of course). What wouldn't he give for a majority who would vote for job losses (and higher taxes and public spending cuts)! He's facing strikes and outright rebellion when he tries to tinker even mildly with the labout laws. I think we're going to need extra security around abattoirs come December to deal with hordes of turkeys beating on the gates and demanding to have their heads cut off for Christmas.

Don't go away yet; I haven't finished. I think we can reasonably guess that many of the Leave voters may feel they have been conned. There is to be new government leadership shortly; guess who the candidates will be? Who else can it be but the conmen? The UK being a democracy, there will be a vote at some stage and the conned electorate will be invited to vote for the conmen. You couldn't make it up!

As a very minor footnote I played boules this afternoon and was ribbed by my French friends about the England vs Iceland football debacle. I tried to persuade them that England had lost deliberately, to make the next round easier for our French friends. They didn't believe me. I don't know why; I'm sure I would have been believed in England.

Reflection

Time For Reflection

David Cameron's refusal to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome has allowed time for reflection. Some EU leaders are calling for immediate negotiations but they are powerless to impose them. Yes, the UK does still have a good measure of independence. So, let's reflect.

It is becoming clearer by the day that the UK is now in some form of cloud cuckoo land. Nobody has any clear idea about what may happen in the near future; anyone can make claims and predictions and no one can refute them because there is little or no hard information to back any of them. We really are in uncharted waters; so let's have a look at how we got there and what little we do know from the sketchy outline charts that we have.

The EU referendum was promised by David Cameron before the last general election as a sop to the right-wing of his party and to appeal to the populist vote. How ironic then that populism is exactly what has caused his resignation. What happened in the run up to the referendum can be summed up by paraphrasing Winston Churchill: never before was so much done by so few to misinform so many. The touted savings on leaving the EU, the trumpeted £350 million per week paid to the EU (it's actually £163 million nett, but never mind the odd £100 million) is now conveniently being disowned by Nigel Farage and never was going to be a total saving anyway. The absolute conflict between control of borders and a trade agreement with the EU, which now splits the MPs in favour of leaving the EU completely in two (half want border control, half want a trade agreement), was never explained to the electorate. Allow free movement of labour or 40% of your exports face tariff barriers. It's as simple as that; the rules of the common market (unique market, actually, is its official name) state that. If a Labour party leader such as Corbyn had blythly stated he would spend an extra £350 million on the NHS with no hard evidence to back it, who would have believed him, who would not have asked where the money would come from? What happened to people's brains? How did all this go unexplained?

Well, few ever took the possibility of a vote for exit seriously. Most of Europe certainly didn't; they thought it was a peculiarly British side-show for peculiarly British reasons. It turns out that many voters in the UK who voted Leave took the same view; their cries of anguish in letters to newspapers and TV interviews that”we never thought we would actually leave” are everywhere. This was all just a fun exercise to play around with; so why bother with hard information? So the political powers in favour of Remain did little, certainly nowhere near enough. The Leave campaigners were free to proclaim emotive ambitions such as more democracy, control and independence (and more money), always populist vote-getters, to their hearts' content.

There is a known problem with referenda, which is why we almost never have them. Given single issues to vote on, a majority of any populace will be inclined to vote for the impossible. Asked to vote for lower or higher taxes, who wouldn't vote for the former? Asked then to vote for better or worse public services, who wouldn't vote for the former too. So you can easily win referenda, the problem is all about how you deliver, the fact that so often you can't.

And then the result came in……...A problem with such grand ambitions as greater democracy etc, that have so much appeal and trip so easily off the tongue, is that they need a known solid agenda behind them, strategies, actions to be taken that will achieve them, actions that can be seen to be possible and to deliver. Everyone knows this, as these kinds of questions are always posed about pre-general election promises made by politicians: how are you going to do it? The answers are known as a political manifesto, which parties publish before a general election. So where are the answers, the political manifesto for Brexit? It turns out they don't exist, at least as far as anyone knows. For the first time in living memory the UK voted en masse for a pig in a poke. Farage and Johnson are thus far remarkably quiet on the subject. In fact both are doing a good impression of having got themselves into a situation that they have no idea what to do with. They have dangled the vision of a promised land in front of voters and the voters have gone for it. But where exactly is it in our uncharted waters? Er, well, it's uncharted actually. But Columbus, looking for a northern sea route to India and China did find America (more or less); you never know your luck. Anyway, it's all just a fun game.

Except that it isn't. It happens to be just the most important decision the UK has had to take about its future in decades, based on about as much good information as Columbus had when he set off for India and China (yes, India and China, not America).

It now looks as though the UK may, just may, have made an awful mistake, conceivably the greatest mistake in its recent history for not just ourselves but also our progeny. Rather than just stick with a situation we all grumble about, but might reasonably hope to improve gradually, we've chosen to sail into uncharted waters, with progeny on board. If, in our short period of reflection, we decide this is indeed a huge mistake, what can we do?

By a supreme irony of ironies, the answer could just have been supplied by the Leave campaign. Nigel Farage, anticipating rejection in this fun exercise, had already stated that he would demand a second referendum if the result was within about 4%. It was. An eager Leave follower accordingly put up a website displaying a petition to Parliament for a second referendum. He said it attracted no interest before the referendum result. It has now though. Some two million people and counting have signed it within 48 hours, asking Parliament for a second referendum; all of them Remainers. If you realise that, for whatever reason, you've voted for the impossible or even a shot in the dark, what else would you do? Parliament of course decides but……….if you are in a situation that you've no idea what to do about and you are offered a possible way out, why not take it?

Friends' Reaction

My French and other European friends here reacted much as I did: with stupefaction. Britons have a reputation abroad for eccentrcity but not for outright stupidity. They simply could not believe that the UK could be so stupid. There is xenophobia here, of course, but never on such a gigantic scale. All the people I know here, rather than jeer or give me the cold shoulder, have expressed deep sympathy and continued support: they want me in France even if the UK doesn't want to be in Europe.

Black Friday

Black Friday

So the Brexit voters have won, certainly for the moment and maybe forever. Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome will be invoked to start the UK's exit process. The Article is unclear on whether the exit process, once started, can be stopped and reversed but that remains the one straw for people like myself to clutch at. Maybe……….if the terms of exit prove unacceptable even to a right-wing Conservative Britain, just maybe the UK can still stay in the EU. Much may depend on whether the remaining 27 EU countries want to retain the UK enough to try last-ditch persuasion or whether they simply can't be bothered any more.

I find it ironic that, to claims of more democracy, populism, the big weakness of democracy, has won. Who really has won? Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, obviously, and the tabloid comics such as The Sun, The Express, The Star and The Mail. Oh, and Donald Trump and Sarah Palin from the USA have expressed their approval. By their friends shall ye know them.  Above all, xenophobia has won.

Who has lost? Just about everybody else, in the near future. The UK just got smaller in importance on the world stage and may even get physically smaller if Scotland springs a new referendum and votes to leave the UK. Less probably, but possibly, Northern Ireland may just vote to merge with its southern half in order to stay in the EU. Still less likely, but possible, are moves already taking place for London to declare itself an independent city.

The UK economy loses, with growth forecasts from the major economic bodies all downgraded, the FTSE 100 down 8% and the pound at its lowest for more than a decade. Private sector employment in the UK must suffer too, as foreign-owned multinationals move their UK-based operations serving Europe into EU countries. The CEO of JP Morgan is on the record, about a week ago, as pointing out it employs some 3500-4000 people in London to service the European market. If the UK voted Leave, he said, that operation would have to be moved to Europe. How many staff would need to be retained to service just the UK market? Friend Steve commented, on learning that Sunderland, with its Nissan car plant employing thousands making cars for Europe, had voted Leave: “It must be the first time that turkeys have voted for Christmas”.

Another irony is that, with even more austerity and cuts looming, a new army of civil servants will be required for, among other things, increased border controls with quite probably no different terms for entry, to negotiate EU exit terms and to negotiate separate trade agreements with some 100 countries which are currently covered by EU agreements. I wonder how that lot are going to be paid for? Increased spending on the NHS……..Where is Boris Johnson going to get his promised £350 million?

Europe also loses. Chaos will threaten for a time. The overbearing interventionist bureaucracy in Brussels will now certainly be overhauled, if only to avoid demands for referenda in other countries. But the EU will survive; the political will for that is too great for it not to. The result is likely to be a much looser Union, quite probably a two-tier Europe with countries all having opt-out clauses for any central legislation they find unpalatable. Probably the power of the Commission will be curtailed and that of the elected European Parliament increased. In fact, exactly my worst-case scenario, the EU we always wanted with us outside it.

The EU also retains some strengths, in particular its bargaining position with the UK. It's opening position will certainly be that everything remains the same except that the UK has no say in its future legislation. But the UK will have to accept that legislation and pay (significant) amounts to the EU. That is the case with Norway and Switzerland, the other European countries outside the EU with which it has trade agreements. I have previously pointed out that the immigration situation remains the same, in or out; open movement of labour will have to be maintained. That also is a condition of other EU trade agreements. The alternative to agreeing to these conditions? No trade agreement. Some 40% of British exports go to the EU and will then have to find other markets somewhere in the world or suffer a tariff barrier. Cheaper than China, India? England is, and always has been, a nation that lives off its exports; it has few natural resources. It imports, makes and trades. Imports will cost more (devalued pound) and exports will hit tariffs. A stronger economic Britain?

I have one economic hope. It is that the rising cost of living (through weaker pound and imports), rising unemployment (as pointed out) and increased public sector costs will hit home early, in time for this decision to be reversed. Otherwise I can forsee only economic misery for the UK. Whether those who voted Leave in the belief that Britain will be stronger are right remains to be seen. The financial markets can't see it, which is why they called the referendum result wrongly; they didn't think Britain would vote for economic suicide. And if this is simply the result of some people being irritated by annoying legislative details or thinking there are too many Polish plumbers in their locality (a situation that won't change, as pointed out) then this decision will indeed be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

What about little old me? I shall try for French citizenship, for which I qualify in principle. So goodbye Little Britain. I knew you when you were a country of which I could be proud to be a citizen.

Recipes

Recipes

I had some Dutch and French friends around to eat a few days ago and served up my version of Poulet Bonne Femme, or chicken with bacon and onion. They all enjoyed it and asked for the recipe and I said I'd post it so it's below. We talked food more generally and they were interested in my recipe for trout so that is below too.

First, poulet bonne femme. Chop up some bacon onion and garlic; I allow about two thin rashers of bacon per person and a couple of medium-sized onions and 4-5 cloves of garlic for four people but it's essentially as you wish. You can optionally add some mushrooms if you want. Fry these up in some oil (I use olive oil) to slightly brown the bacon and soften the rest. Then sprinkle on some flour to soak up the oil, keep fryng for 30 seconds or so to “cook” the flour and then add chicken stock and scrape off any material stuck to the bottom of the pan into the sauce. The result should be a slightly thick sauce. Chop up a leek or two and add to the pan with pieces of skinless chicken breast, large or small as you wish. Continue cooking on a low heat until chicken is done. The heat needs to be low and the contents will need occasional stirring as a thickish sauce can easily stick and burn. Otherwise this dish is easy. I serve it with small potatoes and a green vegetable of some sort; I'll put the lot in the same pot if quantities/number if guests allows.

Now the trout. This really couldn't be simpler. Clean the trout, if you bought them whole, and cut off the head and tail. Allow a whole fish or half a fish per person according to size. Slice up a lemon and some fresh ginger and put 2-3 slices of each in each trout and then seal each trout in aluminium foil. Place on a tray in the oven and cook for 20 minutes in a medium heat. Then grind up some fresh ginger (quantity to taste) and add to butter and lemon juice in a small dish and place in a microwave for a few seconds until the butter melts; this makes a sauce in a small jug. Serve with rice and either mangetout peas or a green vegetable of your choice and people can pour the sauce over as they wish.

Voilà, as we say here. Neither dish is difficult or arduous to make and both have been very well appreciated here when I have served them to friends.

English Conversation

The English conversation classes of my friend Steve and I finished this week for the summer; we plan to restart at the end of September. The current participants took Steve and I, and Steve's wife Jo, out for a meal to thank us for the classes and that was greatly appreciated. What Steve and I have found gratifying also is that the regular participants seem to have formed a social group, making new friends for themselves along the way.

The participants have made significant progress over the past year so Steve and I will have to think hard about what we do when we restart. We have already moved on from Steve and I doing sketches and having the class learn new vocabulary and expressions and to simply throwing the class a subject and getting them to discuss it. But we are running out of topics to discuss. Pronunciation still needs attention, and particularly the tonic accent which has no place in French, and probably more work is needed on dealing with specific situations. Anyway we'll have to think over the summer and come up with a suitable formula for September.

Fruitful Times

We are now at the time of the year I love best, not simply because the flowers are all at their best but because the local fruit is too. There are still quite a lot of strawberries to be had and to add to them there are local cherries, apricots, peaches, nectarines and melons. All ripe, juicy and full of flavour. With the sun beating down and village summer festivities about to begin, what more could anyone want except………….fingers crossed, it's the 23rd?

Eu Referendum: Final Word

EU Referendum: Playing The Game

One of the things that strikes me with respect to EU-UK relations is that we don't understand the game that is being played. And I am a football fan. I remember, as an 11-12 year-old, that the Hungarians came to Wembley to play England, who had never been beaten on home soil, and slaughtered us 6-3. They simply played in a different and much more effective way ( I won't go into details). So we had to learn (about how to play OUR game). I think UK-EU relations are directly analogous.

The EU issues directives which piss us off, in England and in France (and maybe many other countries). So what happens? In the UK we implement the directives and get pissed off. In France, they ignore the directives. So what happens then? France gets fined multi-million euros, which France is never going to pay. So what happens then? Nothing. Is the EU going to expel France for not paying the fine? Dream on; the fine is a fantasy. France does what it wants. So why doesn't the UK do the same? Because it doesn't understand the game that it is being played. The UK thinks the game is being played the UK way; and it is not. Most of the the reasons the UK is pissed off with Europe simply don't apply in other EU countries because they are playing a game that has different rules. Why shouldn't the UK understand the rules; they are not that difficult to understand? Because, presumably, someone gains by not doing so. Newspaper headlines (and sales), political power/axes to grind, personal gain; who knows?

Take Schengen (open borders) for example. The EU decrees that borders within the EU should be open. So, in the face of the current influx of large numbers of refugees, Hungary, Austria et al create long fences and implement border controls, all against EU rules. Buggar the EU rules. What will be the reprisals for them? Nothing. What does the UK do? It whinges and makes this a reason why the UK should leave the EU. It's no such thing; the UK can simply implement whatever controls it wants, if it wants. On the other hand it can complain that this is a reason for leaving the EU, if it wants.

So what is really going on here, what is the game and what are its rules? I think the real game in the UK is the contest for the leadership of the Conservative party; for the contestants, the future of the UK is a side issue. I don't think, for the Conservative party contestants, there are any rules; it's gloves off. Cameron versus Boris or who you will. That is why there is so little good information on the alternatives; the major contestants don't care about trustworthy information, they simply want personal power. What I find abhorrent, even obscene, is that anyone can trumpet future UK glory for reasons of purely personal power gain, knowing full well that in doing so they play dice with Britain's future and the future of all future British people. Playing the game, in my view, should mean so much more.

As very much a footnote, if you want to see what the economic powers think of the economic impact of the EU referendum result, look at what has happened to the value of the pound against other currencies as the Brexit vote has increased in polls over the last few weeks. It has sunk to multi-year lows. A new economically powerful Britain? Dream on.

Muhammad Ali Et Al

Muhammad Ali

Everybody now is paying tribute to Muhammad Ali and I would like to add my own. Boxing is not a sport I particularly like but Ali seemed somehow to take the brutality out of it. At a time when heavyweight boxers were generally stationary behemoths, slugging it out in more or less the same place until one fell over, he really did “flit like a butterfly”. It seemed at the time a totally new approach to heavywieght boxing,

Ali also endowed all of us with a battery of brilliant quotes. My all-time favourite is when he entered a restaurant in the Amercian south, Alabama I believe, and was told “we don't serve niggers here”. To which he apparently replied: “That's OK, I don't eat them”. I also love his quote: “Live every day as though you think it is going to be your last because one day you will be right”.

Apart from being supreme in his sport he was a great showman but one who never sold out. Changing his name from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali, whatever you think of that, was never going to win him more friends or sponsorship in the USA. He did it because he believed in doing it, whatever the consequences for him personally.

Alice In Wonderland

I've decided that the UK EU referendum has to be classified as an Alice in Wonderland happening, or maybe a part of cloud cuckoo land, but it is not alone. Donald Trump's election campaign in the USA strikes me as another. The thought of the most powerful nation on Earth being run by Trump appals me. They couldn't, could they? Above all not at a time when Russia's Putin is wandering the globe like a malevolent delinquent, spoiling for a fight. I can find solace only in the fact that the same thought also appals all my Amercian friends; I just hope that there are enough of their ilk to stop that happening. Not that the UK is short of its own clowns seeking power rather than a circus ring in which to perform, Farage and Johnson being names that come immediately to mind. Where now are the statesmen of stature that we once used to have, the Bevans, the Churchills, even the Macmillans and the Wilsons? It is definitely becoming an Alice in Wonderland world. “Chop off their heads!”; they were never connected to any brains anyway.

Life After Death

A stray thought that cropped up out of conversation with Daniel over dinner this evening (and something of an Alice in Wonderland one): if anyone could definitively prove that there was no life after death they might just be doing the greatest service to man. Think about it. No more martyrs; what would be the point? No more twenty virgins; even then, it can't take that long to devirginise 20 of them and then what are you going to do for the rest of eternity? No more accepting suffering in this world with the prospect of being rewarded in the next; alleviate it. Religions could still have their gods to worship, just no eternal life; sorry about that.  What would you do differently?

Well you might, just might, get on with making life in this world more pleasant, not for future reward, but simply because life more pleasant is better than life less pleasant, collectively. That's not hard to agree with. And as for reasons for helping others, that already gives a lot of satisfaction to many people, so why not? And as for the real bastards of this world, well we've got them anyway so that wouldn't change but they could be seen simply not as sinners (who will pay for it hereafter) but as making life less pleasant for the rest of us; so maybe we'd do something more about them. Just a thought, an Alice in Wonderland thought.

(Can't think of a theorem at the moment but I'm working on it.)

The EU Referendum Again

The EU Referendum Again

“Curioser and curioser, said Alice”. So is the EU referendum just part of an Alice in Wonderland scenario? Two points have been brought to my attention since my last posting, the first in an article in The Economist and the second in an interview with Lord Astor.

The Economist article points out some details in the trading agreement made between Norway and the EU. Many in the Leave campaign are pointing to Norway as an example of a sound economy in Europe outside the EU and can correctly do so if one ignores huge differences between the economies of Norway and the UK. It turns out that Norway was offered the trade agreement it has only on the condition that it adopted the rules on free movement of labour enshrined in the EU. There can be little doubt that any trade agreement between the EU and the UK, which both sides agree the UK would have to have, would be offered on anything but at least the same terms. So all the trumpeting by the Leave campaign on securing our borders and stopping immigrants from the EU would come to nothing. The immigration situation would remain as it is now; even if we vote to leave we'd have no greater control of our borders than we do now.

Lord Astor has pointed out that under UK law the result of a referendum can only be advisory; it doesn't automatcially become law even if the Prime Minister accepts the result as binding. The UK legislation that binds us to the EU would first have to be repealed through Parliament and there seems to be little prospect that a majority of MPs of all parties would vote to repeal it. So we could have the situation that the referendum results in a vote for Brexit but a majority of MPs refuse to endorse it. Which would leave us in exactly the same situation as we were before the referendum.

Of course Cameron could put a three-line whip on votes for repeal of the legislation, though even that might not be enough. On the other hand, a Brexit result has been widely assumed as the end for Cameron as Prime Minister. He has allowed MPs a free hand on the referendum so he could quite reasonably allow them a free hand on the legislation that has to be repealed, thus possibly saving his job. Any bets on that?

I think I'll go back to reading Alice in Wonderland.

The EU Referendum

The EU Referendum

I've now registered to vote in the EU referendum and, as I have intimated before, will vote (by proxy) to remain. Apart from my obvious self-interest I think there are compelling reasons to do so, in spite of the poor current state of the EU. And self-interest is the least of the reasons; the issue is too important for that.

The Prime Minister has said that he will regard the result of the referendum as binding. It will also be irreversible in the forseeable future and so, whichever way we vote, we will be voting not just for ourselves but for our children and our children's children.

This is my nightmare scenario. The UK opts out. Very few Europeans are happy with the EU at the moment, particularly with the Commission, and so the inhabitants of several other countries, Denmark and Sweden certainly, Germany possibly, Austria and many other probably will then demand their own referendum. To prevent this happening, and the looming break-up of the EU, the EU will then undertake the much needed major reforms that so many want. There will be panic, no treaties will any longer be sacred and no reforms, however radical, ruled out. The budget will certainly be cut and, quite probably, power will be removed from the Commission and given to the European Parliament. The EU will then become more democratic, much more realistic in its legislature and be the large trading block that the UK has always wanted to be part of. Except that the UK will be on the outside and unable to get in again.

This would exacerbate and compound the disadvantages I see in leaving. Our heirs would thus find themselves not only economically isolated but part of a lone voice in the wilderness more generally, with no “muscle” to back any of the initiatives it would like to take. The UK might well say “we told you so and you wouldn't listen” but nobody then will be listening to the UK either. I believe that, however the UK votes, the reforms will be coming, and soon; I can't see any other future for the EU and don't believe the political powers in Europe will let it die. And I would much rather the UK could have a strong hand in directing them than simply be an outside observer.

What appals me when my country, for the UK is still my country, faces such a momentous decision is the quality of the debate and the information made available. I find Cameron no more than a blundering and blustering idiot. Farage has never been anything else, in my view. And I regard Boris Johnson's campaign as a supreme exercise in cynicism. As a former Editor of The Economist he must well understand the disadvantageous economic consequences of a Brexit. All the major financial bodies have told him what he must already know, what most of the major employers in the UK, who are not British and want above all to to be part of a large trading block, have said. He must know that trumpeting the cost of EU membership and the supposed savings to spend on other things is all smoke and mirrors. So I can only conclude that his evident desire to supplant Cameron, which he sees as his next job, is his only motive; pure cynicism. Corbyn has been an irrelevance. And the debate itself seems to be being conducted on a platform of xenophobia, thinly disguised racism and personal insults, belying its extreme importance.

Cameron hasn't helped with his aimless and confused campaign and neither has the EU itself, its arrogant Commission seemingly above PR or even the dissemination of positive facts. And, crucially, the EU was found wanting over the immigration crisis, always a thorny, misunderstood and complex issue, ideal for tabloid sensationalism. The UK already potentially has a large measure of control of its borders and its failure to exercise it is mostly due to an understaffed, underfunded and disillusioned Border Agency; Brexit won't change that, merely exacerbate the problem. Immigration as a political football, subject of local concern and generator of tabloid headlines is here to stay.  The same goes for benefits.  It has needed the Lib Dems to point out that the UK is in a strong positon within the EU and, indeed, owes much of its position slightly above the current global economic turmoil precisely to its membership of the EU. Appeals to patriotism, to make Britain great again, master of its destiny, etc, always strike me as “the last refuge of a scoundrel”. Britain is great, as great as it will ever be since Empire days, very largely a humane, tolerant, hard-working and beautiful country that has very many reasons to be proud of itself and its position in the world (it's just a pity about the weather.) But it will never again be a global economic powerhouse or major global influence outside of a power bloc. It will be even greater in the EU and we should stay there.