What is true freedom? Discuss...

Freedom. Liberty. Two words thrown about as a weapon by the right against perceived state intervention and by the left against a corporate takeover of civil society. But who is right? Both? Neither? I can tell you my version of freedom, because I have recently given much thought to it. I am sure some others have already thought up the same, so I apologise for reinventing the wheel, but I wanted to cast an eye on it at this current time when politics in the Western world are in an ultra-rapid state of flux.

I was sitting in various places in my garden and on my terrace one late-spring weekend last year, looking at the newly-planted apple trees and watching a family of blue tits flitting from branch to ground to wall and back to branch. It is one of my greatest pleasures to watch the wildlife enjoying the product of several summers' worth of planting and landscaping, experimenting and seeking advice over attracting all manner of living things with wings, hooves, antlers or tails to grace my garden and the meadow just beyond it.

I rarely play music in the garden; the songbirds make its theme tune. It has been visited by deer, foxes, kites, hawks, song thrush, squirrels, wild boar, even a trio of stray cows that had broken out of their meadow on the hills above our land and fancied a nibble of our grass. Sitting out there is better than anything else. Apart from the exhilarating and highly amusing company of my children, of course.

And that's when it hit me.

This was freedom: the absence of worry. Here I was, sitting in the garden I had conceived, smoking a cheap cigar, listening to the sounds of nature, contemplating life's knottiest questions.

But why?

When I sit outside, the only things that bother me are if I see some weeds have grown back where I  or my gardener had recently removed them, or when a neighbour decides to light a fire. Pretty petty stuff, really, in the general scheme of things. Freedom, to me, is the absence of worry, and the cleanness of the conscience. Let me explain.

Absence of worry includes not having to think where your next meal is going to come from. Or not having to decide whether to default on the electric bill to pay school lunches. Or having utility bills low enough to not notice the payments leaving your account. Freedom is being able to walk down any street knowing you're nearly totally safe from accidents, fights, shootings, natural disasters and reckless driving, unless you do something reckless yourself; leaving a hospital after treatment without a huge life-changing bill hanging over you; the ability to jump in the car and drive across three international borders on a short road trip; not needing to worry about your children's safety in school as the only drills they practise are fire drills; and being able to sit in my garden typing my own opinions on anything I feel like.

What about the cleanliness of the conscience? I don't mean piety or sinless behaviour, as I get the feeling most religious types are never free of their torment. I mean feeling not guilty for the actions and decisions you take. No regrets, in other words. I am a firm believer that not every crime is immoral and neither is every lawful action moral. I give you the example of activists, whether protesting the climate emergency, LGBTQ rights, the destruction of public land, or just supporting the opposition. In other words, those who believe in their causes to the extent that they get put into prison, not just in countries like Russia, China or Equatorial Guinea, but in Poland, Hungary, the UK and the US too.

I also mean the compromising of morality for the sake of profit, for example Western countries that turn a blind eye to the horrors of Chinese brutality against Uighurs, Tibetans or Hongkongers to keep trade going, or the selling of weapons to inhumane regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Where does one sit with Israel? I deplore antisemitism, or indeed any -ism against fellow sentient beings, but I am very comfortable in saying that I am passionately, even fervently, anti-Netanyahu and everything he stands for. Peace must come, but it cannot come while anyone who believes in the right to statehood and self-determination for Palestinians is accused of being anti-Jewish. This is an overreaction designed to silence anyone who questions them and their unlawful behaviour.

As I sit here typing this out on a Chinese laptop, with a Logitech keyboard made in China, I realise I am also contributing to the suffering of others, but consumption guilt at this level is only avoidable with extreme pickiness and a lot of hours spent questioning sales staff in computer shops as to the provenance of their wares. Instead, we need to make it clear to suppliers that their pursuit of profit is what is driving this enriching and rewarding of nasty regimes, and that we are willing to pay more for these products if their production is moved to a place in an enlightened and democratic nation where jobs are needed. We need to pay more for our products; bring them in-house, so to say, and create more jobs in our backyards. This means we need to communicate this loud and clear to companies who switch production to places with cheap workers to save more money.

Also, cleanliness of the conscience goes for how we treat others on a personal basis. I have done things to others that I look back on with regret. I am not alone here at all. I cannot change the past and go back to rectify it, but I can show sincere remorse and make up for it by never doing it again. There are other things I have done which others would find immoral but which I have thoroughly enjoyed. I did not harm others or even come into contact with others while doing them, or even make anyone feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. There are people who would consider them immoral, nonetheless. I really don't care what they think, as the only thing that was harmed was their squeaky-clean and vacuous imagination.

I used to be very conservative in my views on life. I used to be quite sanctimonious and I took life very, very seriously, to the point where I had no fun at all, which was mainly due to nurture, not nature, sadly. I also expected those around me to do the same, believe the same, and act the same, so as you can imagine, I had very few friends. But slowly, as I met people who loved life, tried everything out that does not kill or harm, accepted failure and celebrated success, I realised my view of the world was silly, fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned, and was not a way to keep friends. I rejected the moralistic, moralising, morale-reducing harbinger of self-righteousness that I had become, and opted for the flexibility and open-mindedness that I had learned from various people I met on the way to being me. It was a long and tortuous journey, but it led me to finding contentment and spiritual peace.

Why am I saying this? Because in the manifestation of my former self, I was not free. Freedom is in the head more than anywhere else. And it starts with how you act towards yourself, then other individuals, then society in general, in that order. Acting honestly towards yourself is where freedom begins. It means thinking those thoughts that you used to suppress, it means switching off your own internal censor and investing in your own happiness, not brushing it to the fringes of your mind.

Freedom is a concept, not only a legal item, and we need to exercise it without encroaching on others' sensitivities or causing fear, misery, discomfort or anger in them. This is why, when I read stories about Americans and their attachment to guns, I cringe. If Second Amendment zealots really want to have their weapons, they should also balance that up with the sensitivities of other individuals and general society, especially around those who have victims of gun violence in their circle, of which there are many. So compromise needs to be found. Think of it like this: I like to play golf, but I don't play it in the town centre park; I go to a golf course, a place specifically dedicated to this activity. Likewise, people with guns should balance their wishes with those who prefer to have the freedom to walk the streets or send their children to schools without worrying if they'll come back.

Likewise, religious people can have whatever views they like, but they have no right to impose them on other individuals, or society in general. If they don't agree with women's rights over their bodies, equality of the sexes, alcohol consumption, polyamory, soft drugs, euthanasia for the terminally ill, or anything else for that matter, they can believe and practise that amongst themselves, but they should leave the rest of us well alone and not impose their narrow views on the rest. This is why, in true democracies, religion and the state are kept far, far apart. Let's face it, the teachings of most religions evoke the same basic rules: look after your fellow human being, do nobody harm, live to the full, don't judge. But it is precisely that fourth one that has made its way from religion into politics. And we should slam it straight back into its box.

For this is what true freedom is - practising what you believe is right for you as a conscientious and mature citizen, and keeping your nose out of others' business, unless you can see clearly that it is having a detrimental effect on them or those around them. This is by no means an issue of keeping the state out of our affairs; this is in fact a personal and societal one, and the sooner these matters become mainstream, like public smoking did, the more effectively we can deal with those who still seek to impose their views on us all.

I find it horrific that the very same people who complain about the encroachment of the state on their daily lives also want to use the state and the law to limit people's rights in areas they have problems with. For them, it's okay to let the state take a back seat over healthcare, guns, education, corporate responsibility, youth issues and social security, but they clamour vigorously for state "intervention" in matters as diverse as abortion, bailing out failed banks and even freedom of expression when it questions their own beliefs.

To recap: freedom is not about the ability to carry weapons in public or impose your views, religious or not, on the rest of society: it is the absence of these things, and most importantly, the absence of worry. Now before you think, "well yes, but that requires earning money to a certain level". No, it doesn't. It means that, whatever your salary (or not), you should not need to worry where your next meal is coming from. Let us take social democratic countries where it is more difficult to die of hunger than not, what do they do right? They maintain the idea that we're all in it together. Part of your taxes goes directly to providing for the most vulnerable in society, and making sure they can integrate as much as possible into normal life.

In rampant capitalist countries, it is claimed that low taxes and trickle-down economics will sort out the poverty by allowing companies to invest what they would have paid in taxes to hiring more workers. But this is a fallacy, as not only do companies cream off their profits for their shareholders first and foremost, it also encourages individualism and selfishness in the fact that people start to covet their own wealth and treat colleagues, neighbours and even family members as competitors rather than team players. Another side effect is, although you can become fabulously wealthy, you can also die destitute and hungry, or rejected by your health insurance.

We need to balance the right to live in peace with the duty we have to provide for those less fortunate than us. And that means doing what is right by our fellow humans - let us give everyone the right to live without worry: let us use our taxes to support those who need it most, whether it is by providing everyone with proper medical care, adequate and affordable housing, essential supplies, or opportunities to feel useful in society. For freedom is the right to live your life without worry, and that means money needs to be much less important. Societies need to extricate themselves from their reliance on budgets and markets.

I remember in the past when I was working for a pittance and still had to pay the bills, rent and living costs. In the UK, I dared not rock the boat even one little bit for fear of losing everything. I was not permitted to have any self-pride.

In order to deliver a society free from this in the 21st century, we need to move away from our addiction to news outlets and newspapers run by media moguls, our exaggerated commercial activities, and our feelings of inadequacy brought about by comparing our lives to our peers on social media. We need to reconnect with the society we live in, be true to ourselves, and stand by our principles. But most of all, we need to drastically change the way we live: this starts with taking steps to ensure all of us fit into the society where we live and work; be less cynical about helping others; entreat our leaders to enforce the rule of law; pay more for products and commodities to ensure their ethical cleanness, and be prepared to give up outdated privileges that encroach on the well-being of others.

Finally, we need to wean ourselves off those things that destroy or harm our planet, our only home. Cars are a necessary evil, but we can do a lot more to avoid using them too much. It was once said that to gauge the level of advancement and collective wealth of a civilised society, we should not count the number of fast cars on its streets, but the number of rich people who take public transport.

In these testing times, we all need to take mental stock of what we have and what we are going to lose if we continue to let society slide further into the abyss. We should not be reacting glumly whilst watching it happen; we should be proactively stopping the cynical takeover of our cherished freedoms by those who seek to reduce or remove our rights to freedom of conscience and make us worried about everything around us.

Livid is not the word. I am beyond apoplectic. Britain is now a basket case.

After two and a half years of indecisiveness, secretive meetings, blocking, kicking the can down the road, arguing, gaslighting, throwing the subject off course, obfuscating, giving warnings of dire consequences if the vote is not respected, rejecting warnings of dire consequences if the vote is respected, we have now ended up with fewer than 60 days before we leave the EU, and we still don't have a fixed plan.

It could have been so much easier. If Theresa May had engaged with all parties in the negotiations to leave the EU from the very beginning, we could have had a much better consensus on our future direction. As it happened, she gave very little away and now we have a situation with less than 2 months to go where Parliament has had enough, is starting to get twitchy, and is attempting to remove the Brexit process from the government's responsibility.

Theresa May did nothing to consult anyone on the process. She just continually banged on in her robotic way about her wish to carry out the "will of the people" in the 2016 Referendum.

Firstly, a 52-48 outcome is not an adequately wide margin to accept even a minor change to the constitution of the local Women's Institute, let alone the destiny of a country of over 60 million people. Will of the people? Not to me, it isn't.

Secondly, I am furious with the opposition leadership. In fact, not just furious, I am monumentally enraged. I am incensed. Irate. Infuriated. Fuming. In short, Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the entire issue is at best misguided. At worst, it is the most blasé, nonchalant and unconcerned attitude any leader of the opposition has ever taken to a matter of such importance.

There was a time where I thought Corbyn was waiting for the PM to tie herself in knots. Now, I just think he's having some kind of 80s throwback fantasy, preferring to be in opposition, and loving this return to Tory rule where he can act out the fantasy of some Che Guevara-style action hero.

I never really warmed to Corbyn. I found him to be such a wet stick of celery. His parliamentary style, trying to take the poison out of debates with the PM, was a disaster. Theresa May, whose heart is so small and so deep black, despite not having a single idea of her own, manages to run rings around him every week.

Corbyn has spent the last two years being the "nearly man". When you consider, over a decade ago, when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair, it was like exchanging a Picasso for a rolled-up caricature of your grandpa made by a bloke in a tourist trap alleyway. Cameron, who is a snake oil salesman with a silver tongue and an empty soul, made Brown look like a total arse.

When Cameron won the 2010 election, and went into government with the contemplative nice guy Nick Clegg, I saw it as an opportunity to rein in the Tories' meanness. The public, with the goading of several hawkish newspapers, saw Clegg as "the guy who didn't see through his tuition fee promises", and wiped out the Liberal Democrats for probably ever. When Cameron narrowly won the 2015 election, much to everyone's surprise, he set the country on its current trajectory.

With the Lib Dems gone, that meant Britain could go back to being a 2-party state, to the delight of the dark forces in politics. With the Labour party infiltrated by left-wing entryists, its first act was to reject the statesmanlike David Miliband as leader and elect his nerdy brother Ed instead. Cameron tore lumps out of him. With the Labour Party's prodigious ability to choose totally unsuitable leaders in key areas (Michael Foot being one that springs to mind), and the grassroots membership's loathing of any leaders that actually do well (Tony Blair for example), they decided to choose someone who couldn't command a police-trained dog to sit, let alone half the House of Commons.

Step forward, Jeremy Corbyn.

Although I am by no means a Labour party supporter, it is to him I turned when I thought Theresa May was about to sell out her citizens overseas (including me). But he did nothing. All he did was waffle on about lost jobs and higher taxes, neglected communities and run-down town centres. Yes, I totally agree with the fact that the Tories have caused untold damage to poor people by ripping the soul out of their communities and flinging hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken citizens on to the scrap heap known as Universal Credit.

But please, Jeremy, in the name of sanity, DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!

When I see dippy old troglodytes spouting nonsense like "Britain stood alone once before, and we can do it again!" or "Let's go to WTO rules!" I truly despair. These daft souls have learned nothing in the last 3 years, and don't believe any of the warnings raised by experts and those in trade and industry. One rather idiotic old git last week said it would do the country good to miss out for a while, to see what they once had. These people get airtime on the BBC. Yet Corbyn does not take the opportunity to put anyone straight, to the delight of the ERG and their supporters.

He deflects attention, doesn't stick to any point, answers his own questions, refuses to deny in a clear way that he is an anti-Semite, and lets the Tory press walk all over him.

We thought Gordon Brown was a terrible Labour leader. Then Ed Miliband came along and we realised there were even greater depths. Then Corbyn arrived, and it turned out the bottom of the barrel was in fact quite a lot further down. We wonder who will follow him - let's hope we don't discover a new nether region.

In my opinion, the Tories have capitalised on the "niceness" of leaders of other parties - they excoriated Gordon Brown, vilified Nick Clegg, ignored Vince Cable, patronised Caroline Lucas, laughed at Ed Miliband, but there is one party whose leaders they still keep at arm's length - the SNP. They seem to be absolutely terrified of them, and with good reason. Nicola Sturgeon seems to be the only party leader whose reach is wide enough to put a massive dent in the Tories' plans. In fact, there are anti-Brexit English and Welsh people who look to her, rather than Corbyn, as the person most likely to stick up for them in public discourse.

And right they are. Nicola Sturgeon is going to be the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland. The recent developments in Westminster have set the country on a trajectory that cannot now be reversed. I have always been British, and if you look through my posts around the time of the last Scottish referendum, I was vehemently in favour of preserving the Union.

Now, though, I would totally understand if the Scottish decided they were going to cast off the English and set sail for European climes. I am quite sure they would be fast-tracked to EU membership. Then, the Northern Irish, who are currently having a bit of an existential crisis, may choose to reunite their island. Without the Scots, who have more to do with them than the English, they won't be able to call themselves "British" any more. (As an aside, I would hope the DUP would suffer the same fate as the Lib Dems by going into government with the Tories, but politics over there are deeply entrenched.)

This will leave the English and Welsh. The once great country of empire, cradle of the Industrial Revolution, birthplace of some of the world's greatest sports, now reduced to a friendless husk of isolationist reactionaries and Blitz-spirit circus freaks. The country has been sold off and broken up by disaster capitalists all for the sake of a financial dividend.

Yesterday's seven-fold vote in the House of Commons proved one thing: Theresa May can't find a way out of the impasse, so she is setting up the EU for a fall. When they reject her approaches over this idea to revisit the Northern Ireland backstop, which they have already done, she can blame them for their intransigence and inflexibility, whereas in fact they are just protecting their own (Rep. of Ireland). They owe Britain no favours.

So yes, I am bloody fuming. The Tories always seem to find a way to blame someone else and stay in power on the backs of the gullible and the easily-led. Funnily enough, I haven't met anyone who admits voting for them, but if I did, I will not be responsible for my actions.

They wasted valuable airtime telling everyone that Jeremy Corbyn is an IRA/PLO/Chavez/Argentine Malvinas (delete as appropriate) sympathiser whilst themselves cosying up to the Saudis and selling arms to some of the nastiest dictators around the world.

They trashed the reputation of the Liberal Democrats by inviting them to form a government then hung them out to dry by rejecting the Lib Dems' flagship policy on tuition fees, almost wiping them off the electoral map.

They profess to care about the less well-off and the needy, despite raging with indignation when the United Nations criticised them for their austerity politics.

They blame immigration, especially EU immigration, for causing wages to drop over time, hospitals to become overcrowded, adequate housing to become scarce and expensive, and schools to become saturated, yet refuse to introduce simple legislation requiring everyone who comes into the country to register with the local council, making it mandatory for those nationals to leave the country after 3 or 6 months of unemployment, and counting people in and out as they come, something other EU countries have done rather effectively.

Instead, they go complaining to Brussels that they won't let the UK have concessions on free movement of people.

They are about to do the same smoke-and-mirrors trick - they are lining up their cards. When the EU rebuffs their wish to renegotiate the Irish backstop, they will blame them and turn more people against the EU, even though it is their own fault. This is the ultimate sign of a coward and a cad - if you can't own up to your faults, you are obviously a dishonourable shyster and a cheat.

Finally, when this utter catastrofuck finally gets under way, I hope it ruins the careers and reputations of a lot of Quitlings and their acolytes. They will, however, probably find a way to escape the fate that should befall them, like some Bond villain that gets out of a burning factory by sending for a helicopter, leaving the rest to perish.

In any case, the next few weeks should be programmatic for the years ahead - maybe parties will split, or new ones will be formed. Maybe someone finally gets some balls and says what everyone else knows - that the referendum was fraudulent and unconstitutional. But that's a rant for another day.

UK Election 2017: tell your old folks their time is up

We live in an age where the source of your news will determine who you vote for and where in the social pyramid you probably find yourself. Most people will read from a news source, but there are stark differences in how those news sources treat various events and deal with diverse opinions. For one newspaper a scandal, for another an amusing anecdote. For one TV news broadcaster a waste of money, for another a long-term solid investment. Who to believe? And why does it matter to read all different sources of news?

My grandfather, who was also my uncle (long story cut short - my mother and her mother married two brothers), once gave me a very important life lesson. I asked him one day why he read a left-leaning newspaper but also a right-leaning one. His answer was clear: you have to know what the enemy is up to. I have never forgotten that line and I have stuck by it ever since.

Today, we live in a multi-faceted media world. We can get our news from someone's Facebook feed, or feeds from sources we ourselves have accepted. We can get it from watching Sky, Fox, ITN, or the BBC. Indeed, we can find it from a rejected newspaper in the train, or maybe we buy our newspapers at the corner shop every morning.

Newspaper readers in particular are very difficult to wean off their paper of choice. You could never give a Sun reader the Guardian and presume they will like it immediately. And vice-versa. Besides, it is not just a question of politics - it is also a matter or familiarity, intellect and taste. But it really matters. Because getting your information from one source is detrimental to acquiring a balanced opinion. Malcolm X once said, "If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." If you stick to one source of news, over time, you are likely to believe everything written in there.

I acquire my news from the BBC, the Guardian, Mail Online and the Independent. I sometimes read the Economist, the Telegraph and watch Channel Four News on their website. I also see a lot of posts on Facebook from very diverse outlets such as Al Jazeera, CNN, and France 24. Most treat issues with the same seriousness and neutrality. Some find a unique angle to report from, some give statistics, some show a non-commentary video to tell the story. But the vast majority do not try to influence you one way or the other, because most of us accept certain issues as already fact, or because the news outlet wants you to make up your own mind through what they present. That is not always the case when it comes to politics.

That brings me on to the upcoming general election in the UK.

Where to begin? Let us start with the spin and the influencing. Take Theresa May's non-appearance at the BBC Election Debate on Wednesday night. She was replaced by the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. Predictably, the left-wing press said this was a mistake, and she was scared of meeting the people, terrified of debates and not interested in ordinary people. The right-wing press predictably said it was not worth her turning up as it was a waste of time because twice as many people were watching BGT on ITV and because she was out on the streets instead, talking to the people who matter.

Where does the truth lie here? It probably lies somewhere in the middle - Theresa May knew a few weeks ago that she was a country mile in front, so she thought it best to steer clear of controversy and stay on-message, however sterile and boring that is. Saying that, I would say this was a bad error of judgement, as it gave five of the other six debaters the chance to stick in the sword.

Then there were the debates themselves and how they were reported. I watched the last half, and I saw highlights of the rest on highlights clips on YouTube and Facebook. I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Angus Robertson, Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood were quite eloquent, but they spent a long time attacking each other and especially the Tories, and not enough time talking about their own party's credentials. Amber Rudd was robotic and smiled when the audience laughed at her comments, like "judge us on our record". It was as if she knew this was just a soundbite, and she realised the audience knew as well. Paul Nuttall was like a builder's bumcrack at a society ball. He was excess to requirements. He got nearly no applause and when he opened his mouth to speak, he came across like Sean Spicer's less talented stand-in.

How did the newspapers report it?

Take a look at this article in the Guardian, on how biased the media has been behaving against Jeremy Corbyn, which seems to have a lot of credence. This one attacks Corbyn for befriending terrorists, this one shows Corbyn as a security risk, and this one bemoans the left-wing bias of the BBC. They're all from the Daily Mail.

If one runs a Google search for Daily Mail articles on the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn, one can find hundreds and hundreds of them criticising and attacking. The same newspaper's treatment of the Conservatives and Theresa May? Pretty clement, even towards Boris Johnson, the current incumbent of the people's Naughty Step:

In the end, this article is about Boris Johnson's masterful handling of an ice cream known in Britain as a 99 and nothing about policy at all. Funnily enough, there were no negative stories at all, except the one on the PM's refusal to attack Trump for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and a mild one on her decision not to go to the BBC debate. Press bias is a feature of both the left and the right, and although left-wing ones are quite strong, they don't hit nearly as hard. Nowhere is it more vitriolic and more effective in its premeditated viciousness and underhand manoeuvres than in the hands of the right-wing media. They manipulate stories, change angles and points of view depending on who they are defending or attacking. But now, the tide is turning and many reasonably-minded press outlets are calling them out. Here is one of those, handled very effectively by the Huffington Post.

So, before you put your mark on the ballot paper next week, do a lot of research and question everything. You may even end up changing your vote preferences. For that reason, we need to get the message to the old. They are the ones most heavily influenced by newspapers, especially the right-wing press, and the ones most likely to vote. Demographically, in 5 to 10 years, there will be a lot fewer of them around, and my own feeling is this time is seen by the oligarchs in charge of the UK's press as being the final opportunity to make a landgrab for more wealth and influence.

Fortunately, the young are fighting back. Hundreds of thousands of new registrations to vote have been placed recently, and mainly by the young. This has caused a massive tilt in the opinion polls and a surge towards Labour, but these young people are notoriously languid on polling day. We can only hope they do go out to vote in their droves. The UK needs an effective opposition, especially if the Conservatives win a majority.

The Internet is full of images and graphics, like this one below, debunking the myths and lies spread by the right-wing media. The problem is, old people do not see these things, because newspapers do not have the same scope as the Internet, and so many old people are unaware of these simple issues.

(continued below the images)

These images containing meaningful messages are doing the rounds on the Internet, and so I challenge anyone with a family member over 60 who is without Internet: dig around for 5 to 10 simple yet effective memes of this kind, put it on your laptop or tablets and visit your relative to persuade him/her to vote for a party that wants to look after everyone.

Let us face it, the old have had their day. They need to be told the world will still be going on once they have departed, and it will most certainly not be the same world we have now. The elderly need to be persuaded that in fact, they do not have to put up with the decisions they make. The young do. Make way for youth, go and persuade your grandad to stand aside for the benefit of his descendants.

Will Brexit bring about greater democracy and prosperity? Simple answer: no. More complicated answer: below

The first things all Brexiteers bang on about are:

1. The money the UK throws at the EU when it could give it to the NHS
2. The democratic deficit at the heart of the EU
3. Immigration issues
4. EU law and human rights
5. Corporate freedom
6. Independence
7. Because the UK is always isolated and never gets its own way

These are smokescreens for the the general consumption of those who like their news delivered in handy little soundbites that they can quote later to Bill down the pub. The real truth is somewhat greyer and a lot less savoury. As someone who lives and works on the inside, I would like to put the record straight on a few of these.

MONEY, FUNDING AND THE NHS
Firstly, let us consider a few things concerning the distribution of funds. The UK puts in a lot of money as it is one of the richest. It works a little like the tax system: the more money you make, the larger your contribution, so of course you are going to pay proportionally more than, say, Spain or Finland, but sizeably more than the Czech Republic or Slovenia. That is normal. Why are Brexiteers complaining about this? It seems they want to be clients, not team players. Where's the solidarity in that? And what the country gets in return is never discussed as it's not in their interests.

Yes, the EU can be a little profligate with the funds, but the fact is: agriculture, science and research, infrastructure, education and many other aspects of life would not receive the funding they need, and I include the NHS here, because I think herein lies the rub: the EU funds these things without subjectivity, based purely on need and the effect it will have on the improvement of people's lives.

Do you really think, deep in your heart of hearts, that the Conservative/Neoliberal alliance at the top of and above the UK government really cares about those things? I don't; I think it is another chance to grab more public money. Why waste it on schools when it could be invested in private enterprises and corporate landgrabs? 
At least, with the EU, those funds get to where they are supposed to. Take it away, and watch the NHS falling and being sold off, schools getting privatised, infrastructure budgets being cut, and farms being sold off to rich landowners who can turn them into supermarket-run agri-factories.
Do you trust the UK politicians to look after the NHS, farms and schools? Honestly???

DEMOCRACY
There is the supposed democratic deficit at the heart of the EU. Well, shall I tell you what a democratic deficit looks like? It looks like people who act in their own interests whether they are elected or not. Democratically-minded people do things in the public interest anyhow, whether elected or not. The expenses in the European Commission are incredibly stringently controlled by the Court of Auditors, and you will not see the civil servants being chauffeured about in black cars. You will, though, see the politicians (yes, those in the European Parliament too) being chauffeured about, because they are politicians and to leave them to public transport would be like asking a Yorkshire terrier to do your accounts.

But the Commission is pretty apolitical and works for the benefit of all, and despite its many foibles, is actually more on the side of the people than the politicians. There is a European Ombudsman that anyone can use to blow the whistle on improprieties; there is a European Consumer Rights and Law commissioner, who makes sure we get value for money, like reducing mobile phone tariffs across the EU; and there is a scheme whereby any EU citizen can go into the embassy of another EU country when abroad and get proper representation. But you don't hear about these things because it's not in the interest of the EU's detractors.
But it's a terrific trick of national governments that they get the Commission to do their dirty work, taking one for the team, time after time after time, so that they don't get blamed. The fact of the matter is, though, the 28 national leaders of each country, known as the Council of Ministers, sit down around the world's most expensive table to discuss what they wish the Commission to implement. So, the Commission is, in essence, just carrying out orders of national politicians. In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Prime Minister, "Almost all government policy is wrong... but frightfully well carried out."

IMMIGRATION
This is the scare story du jour. And it's a complete fallacy. Let's be honest, shall we? The country is not overcrowded; it is just underdeveloped and badly maintained. The infrastructure was built 150 to 200 years ago after the Industrial Revolution for the society then, and it has been slow to be updated. The roads in the UK are far narrower than in France or Germany, the houses smaller, the hospitals and airports built in far smaller plots. Look at Barajas Airport in Madrid - it is on a plot 5 times bigger than Heathrow. Charles De Gaulle, Frankfurt and such are massive in comparison. But the main issue is housing. It is not that there is no space; it is that the developers have artificially created a bubble by not building on the land they were designated, and so the demand sky-rockets and the prices go up. It is not in their interests to build because the prices will tumble and their profits too.
Furthermore, do you really think the country will sink into the mud because Poles, Lithuanians and Romanians, the large part of whom have a greater work ethic for less pay, are doing all the manual jobs? No. Because, sadly, Brits have become colonialists in their own country. Don't blame the new arrivals - blame mean-minded bosses for not being willing any more to pay full price for a proper day's work. Do you think this will clear up after Brexit? Do you think the gap will return and the market will be filled with British workers in the fields, on building sites and under the kitchen sinks? Rubbish. The market demand is insatiable and even if you started to train up locals now to take over, the full quotient would not be ready for employment for a good few years. And do you think prices and wages will remain the same? No. Because British people still expect a bargain, but workers will not accept the same payment rates as those who come to Britain for work out of necessity. What you will end up with is a skewed law where the cheapest will get all the work and hourly rates will fall everywhere in all sectors of work.

EU LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
It is claimed that too many people are abusing the EU's Human Rights legislation. Too many people are taking advantage of the current law to get out of prison or to get more benefit payments for themselves. This is not a falsehood, but it is an exaggeration. The UK government has suggested withdrawing from the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), drawn up by British lawyers after WW2, and implementing its own Bill of Rights. They can go ahead if they want, but the fact that all EU citizens are guaranteed the same rights is enshrined in EU law, meaning equal treatment for all.
Do you really think, Dear Reader, that the British government will make the situation better? I can answer that one now: of course not. If anything, it will make it easier to implement other laws that restrict the rights and freedoms of everyone in the land. I cannot imagine a more sinister power-grab than this. Imagine something simple as EU law concerning consumer rights: let us say you buy a kitchen and it is riddled with problems. EU consumer protection law dictates that the company has to either correct it or replace it without cost. The same goes for clothes, furniture, computers, everything. You have the right to return your goods to the shops within 14 days of purchase, all because of EU law. 

The four very elements that the Leave campaign is highlighting are the four very elements that everyone should be worried about. It is a myth that things will improve if the UK leaves - the EU guarantees so many more freedoms to its citizens:

• The right to work in other EU countries without needing visas, residence permits or the filling of quotas
• The right to study in another EU country for all or part of your university course (Erasmus)
• The right to the same mobile phone roaming costs and no nasty bills no matter where you are in the EU
• The right to the same standard of healthcare as back in your own country
• The right to vote in local and European elections wherever you are
• The right to live where you want and be treated by the local councils and national governments the same as locals
• The right to the same consumer law as everywhere else
• The right to jump on a train, plane, boat or bus to France, Belgium or wherever and not need to worry about declaring your alcohol or tobacco
• The right to go from Lisbon to Warsaw without showing your passport

And many other things.

THE SILENT TAKEOVER

Just remember one thing: once the UK frees itself from the EU shackles (in other words from keeping it on the straight-and-narrow), there will be nobody else to keep an eye on the opportunism and impunity with which the corporate elite will act. This is your future. Nobody can tell you this because this is much more inflammatory than the stuff that the In and Out camps have been propagating thus far. The In campaign dare not say these things because some of them would be believed.

But the time is coming for you to make up your mind. Do you want to guarantee your own subjugation to a corporate elite? Do you want to hand over the things you most cherish about social democracy to faceless (and often heartless) drones in glass towers? Would you rather your tax money went to help the landed gentry to buy up the rest of the countryside and pay for their own limousines or would you rather your taxes guaranteed a harvest? Would you rather your money went to help poor people up the social ladder a little? Would you rather your taxes paid for infrastructure and education, whether here or in the EU at large?

I know where my allegiances lie - and leaving the largest trading bloc the world has ever known is not going to bring you prosperity. It will bring more prosperity to those who already have it, while turning the country into a feudal state.

INDEPENDENCE

Independence from what?

The UK is already independent. 

But I'll tell you what they want you to believe:

That outside the EU "we" will be able to make our own laws. What kind of laws? Do you think it will be for the benefit of UK citizens? I don't. It will be for the benefit of the One Per Cent.

Furthermore, we need to remember who we are and not who we were. We are members of a club of 28 nations, some of whom are "more European than others", so to say. It is time the UK started acting more European and stopped sniping from the sidelines. The EU is more heavily supported by smaller countries than larger ones, and the answer is simple: the President of the European Commission is Luxembourgish, the previous one Portuguese. the President of the European Council is Polish, the previous one Belgian. The thing is, it gives the chance for smaller countries to shine on the world stage like they would never be able to if they were independent. 

The larger countries of the south, like Spain and Italy, are also by-and-large pro-EU because they understand the prestige membership brings them. The prosperous and fiscally careful countries of the north and central areas, like Sweden, Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic, are more sceptical because they also like their freedoms, but none of them would think leaving the EU would solve their problems. The largest countries, like France and Germany, have found it hardest to assimilate to the EU because they have needed to shrink, or at least take on fewer airs of a large country although this is of course very difficult, especially when it seems nobody else is on your side. Just ask Angela Merkel about refugees and the "solidarity" she received. 

Even Greece, the country with the biggest reason to be upset with the EU, does not want to leave. It might want to leave the Eurozone, but most definitely not the EU. So the UK is a little bit like Denmark, and a little bit like Germany. What it needs to do is just relax into its role as a counterbalance to the Eurozone's largest powers and stick up for those countries that wish to remain outside. It needs to engage more, be more understanding and empathetic, and stop thinking everyone should act like them.

Do you really think independence will guarantee self-control? I don't. I can't see how voting to leave a club but having nevertheless to pay membership fees to access it will really make the UK independent. The conditions would remain similar but the UK would not be permitted a say in any matters. Furthermore, it will take years to undo all that constitutional paperwork.

Which brings me on to...

HAVING A SAY IN EU AFFAIRS

The UK is alone and isolated in EU negotiations? Rubbish. The UK has had a great deal to say about the EU and its workings. 

• For one thing, the UK was central in introducing the call for tender system known as TED to allow for a more simplified and equitable EU-wide system of provision of goods and services so any company anywhere can bid for a supply contract. 
• The UK, as the largest non-Eurozone member state, is the de facto leader of the outside pack and recently negotiated more rights for those wishing not to join the Euro. 
• The actual running of some of the EU institutions has in recent years become much more familiar to British civil servants than to French ones. The streamlining of administrative processes, the cutting of costs and bureaucracy, the accountability of every job posting, the justification of every business journey made, the pricing of every cup of coffee poured in an EU building... everything in the EU institutions is accounted for, down to the limitation of photocopies for language trainers. 
• Furthermore, English is the prevalent language these days, and French is now a more and more distant second. German is waiting in the wings to be promoted if the UK leaves the EU. And English will, in one night, become obsolete as the Lingua Franca of the EU. It will lose its status as the working language of the EU institutions, and French, German and probably Polish or Spanish will get a much bigger role to play in the EU.
• There are disproportionately more British (and Irish) staff in managerial positions than other nationalities, although due to the geographical position of the EU institutions, French and Belgians make up a large part of the admin staff. In the Court of Auditors, English is the only language and to get a job there it is essential to speak it to a level good enough to work in.
• In negotiations, the only reason why it seems the UK is isolated is because the UK government really does not get the EU. It acts like a yob in Torremolinos, wanting all the home comforts but without the disadvantages. It was shocking and shameful for me to see my government try to negotiate favourable treatment in the EU and at the same time refuse to play any single part in the Syrian refugee crisis. 

If you really think the UK is hard-done-by it is all smoke and mirrors. The government just needs to stop moaning and get on with teamwork. If you think the EU is a gravy train, try speaking to assistants and administrators in Luxembourg at the bottom of the EU pyramid, where they earn less per month than local bus drivers, gardeners and cleaners. This is because staff in all EU institutions in all cities earn the same, calculated on Brussels salaries.

Finally, the EU is incredibly bad at promoting itself, which is both a good and a bad thing. On one hand, it means it is too busy doing what it is supposed to be doing rather than spending time and money advertising itself - the quiet ones are those who are getting on with the job rather than looking for reward. At the same time, it means people are malinformed and misinformed about the good it does. 

Get informed before you decide.