{"id":33576,"date":"2016-05-30T08:19:04","date_gmt":"2016-05-30T07:19:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=33576"},"modified":"2016-05-30T08:19:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T07:19:04","slug":"could-the-futility-of-the-referendum-debate-be-the-precursor-for-change-to-something-better","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2016\/05\/30\/could-the-futility-of-the-referendum-debate-be-the-precursor-for-change-to-something-better\/","title":{"rendered":"Could the futility of the referendum debate be the precursor for change to something better?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The sheer stupidity of holding a referendum on the future of the U.K.'s membership of the European Union is becoming more apparent by the day.<\/p>\n

I know of no one who really believes that the UK public thought this an issue of real priority before David Cameron made it the focus of political concern. And, equally, I know of no one who thinks he did so because he thought it was the most pressing issue on his agenda. This referendum has always, and inevitably, \u00a0been about the long-festering divisions within the Conservative Party, \u00a0and what is now very obviously apparent \u00a0is that it will not \u00a0solve them.<\/p>\n

I can \u00a0completely understand why some are calling for the resignation of David Cameron. A person who puts the resolution of his own problems in managing his own party above the interests of governing in the national interest and of the state itself does not look to be fit for the office of Prime Minister. \u00a0That these difficulties \u00a0might reflect his own level of competence does not help.<\/p>\n

Nor does the fact that in \u00a0making the referendum the focus of his attention he has had to put \u00a0aside a whole year of the government's legislative programme \u00a0by offering a Queen's Speech with almost nothing to discuss within it \u00a0help his case: this gives the very strong impression that \u00a0he and his government have no idea why they are\u00a0in office.<\/p>\n

The recklessness of first calling and then facing the very real possibility that he may actually lose this referendum is unforgivable.<\/p>\n

The fact that it has opened up space for the racist elements within British politics, \u00a0and given them mainstream voice, is even worse.<\/p>\n

That there is a real risk of significant cost to the UK as a result of Brexit reveals foolhardiness: \u00a0every risk that he and George Osborne talk about is one that they created which the UK need not have faced.<\/p>\n

And, whilst all this is going on, the rest of politics \u2014 where there is so much to discuss \u2014 is on hold.<\/p>\n

All of this is of normal concern to me, \u00a0but over the weekend I have spent some time thinking about the discussion I will be having on Wednesday evening at the Hay Festival with Andrew Simms when the subject will be how quickly we can change economics to meet current need<\/a>. I am \u00a0naturally optimistic: \u00a0you cannot be an advocate for change if you do not think it is possible. This weekend the antics of those engaged in the referendum debate have been the cause for some pessimism on my part.<\/p>\n

At least, that was until \u00a0I realised that within the UK (perhaps in particular, because of its innate conservatism) \u00a0we always need a crisis as a precursor for change. \u00a0Whatever happens I think that the EU referendum debate will provide such a crisis.<\/p>\n

There is a growing crisis of confidence within, and about, the Conservative Party.<\/p>\n

Although I find much of the debate on immigration distasteful it is also true the discussion of this issue has raised real questions on the nature of identity, assimilation, change and community which need to be addressed.<\/p>\n

I welcome the fact that John McDonnell and Caroline Lucas are now appearing on the same platform with each other, as a matter of choice.<\/p>\n

Debate on democracy is also a good thing: it does however require that we now discuss how we wish to choose those who govern us in the future.<\/p>\n

The surprising consensus on economics has indicated that from whichever part of the political spectrum comment comes from there is a value to cooperation, \u00a0which is good news.<\/p>\n

The distaste for bogus data, \u00a0and both sides have been guilty of this, \u00a0should surely be a lesson to politicians in the future.<\/p>\n

But, most of all, what is most readily apparent is that too many politicians have been too willing for too long to play a game in a bubble that is contemptuous of most people and which does not consider the consequences for them. \u00a0This referendum may, in this respect, mark the end of politics that respects those in that \u00a0bubble in a way that was never wholly deserved.<\/p>\n

If, however, (and it is a very big if that I am not wholly sure is justified) \u00a0enough politicians can realise that it is now their job to create nothing less than a new political order designed to win support for the change that is necessary to embrace the issues that will challenge us in the 21st century then this referendum may just have been worthwhile. If the eventual outcome is\u00a0the appropriate politics that is required to \u00a0address the challenges that have become apparent during the course of the referendum campaign then we will have won, after all.<\/p>\n

Those challenges are enormous. \u00a0Climate change is at its heart; \u00a0let's not pretend otherwise.<\/p>\n

So too is robotics; \u00a0indeed the challenges that it presents are, to me, the pivotal issues that will now bring about change \u00a0precisely because we will have no choice about seriously reappraising how we organise society as a consequence of the \u00a0readily apparent and immediate issues that robotics will raise when it still remains the case that climate change can be ignored.<\/p>\n

And this issue raises identity in so many ways, including \u00a0within the economy, the community, the family, and so much more, \u00a0all of which will need to be addressed.<\/p>\n

Just as we will also need to discuss how those communities work together to build the viable political agreements that are necessary to deliver the quite extraordinary processes of change which will be necessary if we are to adapt over the next 20 or 30 years ( which will also require a complete redesign of the tax system, which I already thinking about).<\/p>\n

To put it another way, \u00a0we face the \u00a0most extraordinary political, economic and social challenges in the future and, totally depressingly, we are spending our time engaged in a complete distraction that is all about wholly unsuccessfully seeking to resolve the fights of the past. \u00a0You could get depressed about this, \u00a0or alternatively you can hope that the futility of the referendum debate, which is so very obviously understood by the vast majority of people, can itself be the precursor for change to something better.<\/p>\n

I will live in hope.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The sheer stupidity of holding a referendum on the future of the U.K.’s membership of the European Union is becoming more apparent by the day.
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,74,106],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-green-new-deal","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}