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.

Imagine if Leave lost and we imposed a hard Remain - there would be anarchy

Let me take you back two years and three months to the time immediately before the Brexit referendum. The Leave campaign promised we would remain in the Single Market and Customs Union for the sake of business. Things would more or less remain the same. The Brexit deal would be signed and sealed in one afternoon. There would be more money for schools and hospitals, and the mainland would still be there to carry on visiting and trading with.

Fast-forward those twenty-six months, and now those same people are putting severe pressure on the PM to leave everything, which will most probably cause us to become more of a vassal state to the US than we ever were to the EU. They harp on about the "will of the people" and "they've had their say, there should be no more Brexit referenda," conveniently forgetting that the reason we have elections every couple of years or so is precisely to reflect the mood of the people at that time.

So let's see what life would be like if the tables were turned and the British government implemented a hard Remain...

It's the twenty-fourth of June in the Year of Our Lord, two thousand and sixteen. The people have spoken and it's a resounding victory for Remain. 52% of the electorate, a sizeable and clear majority [not, obviously!], have voted to remain in the EU.

David Cameron is delighted, and begins immediate negotiations to take the UK into Schengen and the Eurozone. By 2020, the British Pound will be obsolete, and the only monarchy in the Commonwealth where the Queen's head doesn't appear on the currency will be her own.

The gutter press, though, protests. "DON'T TAKE US INTO THE EURO", clamours the Daily Mail. The Guardian shoots back with images of Leavers including Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg under the headline "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" for pleading with the PM not to join the Euro.

Remainers take to the readers' comments sections to have a good old-fashioned pitchfork and fire-on-a-stick fight over the direction of the country. They want Boris ostracised and EU flags to replace the Union Jack everywhere except on government buildings.

People like that Wetherspoon's guy and that Dyson fellow are routinely attacked on social media by hordes of Remainers, branding them all kinds of nasty names. Audiences on the BBC's political panel shows like Question Time constantly heckle the few famous guests who still dare to say they are Leavers. Katie Hopkins leaves the country to go and live in Alabama [in the end, there are pros to everything] and receives a slap on the face by several Remainers who showed up to the airport to make sure she left.

Those on the Leave side continue to campaign, saying the vote was close and there should be some compromise, rather than this total sell-out to the EU. Remainers heckle them, especially on social media saying "we won, you lost, get over it", and other cheap slogans to that effect. Leavers say "but we were told if Remain won, we would just carry on as normal, not join the euro and Schengen. We've been lied to!" Remainers say, "we knew what we were voting for", as if that was their original intention. Despite all the archived articles in newspapers and on TV, Remainers insist that was the plan all along.

Of course, this is never going to happen. Why not? Because those on the Remain side are far less vitriolic, caustic, venomous, spiteful, malicious, whatever your description, than a lot of those on the Leave side. Why so? Because, having been a member of a very large social media group actively trying to counter Brexit, I have noticed one thing: all 60,000 members are civil, decent and friendly. And being too "nice" may actually be their weakness.

It is absurd to think that the Remain half of the country would act in this way. Which is why I question a lot of the vitriol on the Leave side. It is astounding how much hate has built up when reading readers' replies in the Daily Mail and the Express. Where does all that aggression come from?

I think it stems from many different places:

• Many people don't know why the UK gives money to the EU and think it's a waste. 

What they don't realise is that that money is 1% of every country's national spending, and a lot of it is spent doing local projects. The UK, having nine of the most deprived areas in the EU, the money gets re-invested in areas which the UK government would not consider touching.

• A great number of people are conned daily into believing they are being ruled by Brussels. 

This is an absurd notion, but one that has a lot of support from the newspapers. Many newspaper owners, living overseas or in tax havens, have alternative agendas and don't like the idea that the EU is interfering in their tax affairs, so they cook up all types of stories and twist reality to make it seem like the EU is a left-wing dictatorship. They have been doing this for years. The link to the left here highlights the abominable abuse levelled at Brussels for the last 30-odd years.

• Too many people found themselves excluded from the benefits of economic development

Successive British governments have done little to improve the lives of a lot of people in poor areas, and more and more people have slipped below the poverty line without having been given the chance to improve and develop. Wages have declined, prices have risen, working conditions have stagnated or receded, property prices have become prohibitively expensive, and healthy food like fruit or meat is a luxury. A lot of these people voted to leave the EU to give the government a kick where it hurts, but in fact, they have hurt themselves the most.

• Apathy and ignorance

A great deal of the public have entered a kind of limbo world where they are happy with their lot in life (modest living, decent social life, car, a couple of holidays, maybe kids). Things like Brexit are at best a distraction, at worst an annoyance. They maybe voted in the referendum, but did so based on the last story they read and whether it was positive or negative. They don't really care either way because they only go abroad for a couple of weeks a year, don't need EU funding, and have routines that don't matter whether they care about the EU or not. When the Lambrusco price goes up a quarter, they might start wishing they had paid attention over the last 3 years.

What to do about this?
Recently, one member said he thought we should "start getting a bit French about the whole thing", which is not a bad description of where we are today: just half a year away from B-Day, and a whole raft of warnings concerning the UK's preparedness for the eventuality of no deal should be bringing the good people of Britain out on to the streets, but they are a sedate, passive kind of folk; that's why successive governments have been able to make them swallow all kinds of bad measures à la boiling frog.

Getting a bit more active in the streets, more frequently and more aggressively, would be quite a feat for the people of Britain to carry out. There are two reasons for this: firstly, most demonstrations take place on weekends unless they're strikes, because they are busy at work, and because of the British propensity to associate leave from work with bad performance, any time off is precious. Secondly, most British people don't really care enough to be out every day on the streets protesting, as they have jobs and livelihoods that are indispensable to them and they prize their private life more than they care about which people govern them.

In countries like Romania, where there have been great upheavals in recent times, whole swathes of people have been out on the streets for days, sometimes weeks, on end. The constitutional and democratic state of the country there is fragile and still in its infancy compared to that of the UK, whose institutions go back centuries. For that reason, British people still trust in the procedures and processes that flag up threats to democracy. But considering the fraudulent manner by which the Leave campaign won the 2016 referendum, all the evidence against them, and the reams of papers proving collusion with foreign hostile forces, the clamour to bring the perpetrators to justice, let alone annul the result, is unsettlingly quiet.

Why is nobody on the streets? Why are people not angry? Why does it seem that the press is more concerned with Jeremy Corbyn's views on Israel and Palestine than the crooks who are trying to take over the country by stealth? Smoke and mirrors, it seems. Keep the spotlight off the bad news of Brexit just until B-Day, then all hell can break loose if necessary. These gangsters, who have friends in Trump's White House and in Putin's Kremlin, as well as with Salvini in Rome, Orbán in Budapest and Kaczyński in Warsaw, not forgetting the AfD in Germany, the Front National in France, and Geert Wilders's PVV in the Netherlands, are without doubt trying to build a coalition of strong-in-the-arm factions to take on their enemies, the so-called liberal elite.

They hate the tolerance we have garnered over the last few decades. They despise the idea of legal same-sex marriage, multi-coloured neighbourhoods, high standards in areas like food hygiene, the environment and healthcare, and seek to deregulate it all in order to sell to the highest bidder for profit and to the detriment of the little guy. So they created a word for these people: every time someone defends liberal values in public, these people accuse them of being a snowflake.

And herein lies the most basic of all the paradoxes - it's the little guy that put these people in charge in the first place. It's always the little guy who holds all the cards, but no awareness of this superpower. That's why the ones at the top try so hard to garner their support. Look at the crowds cheering Trump at his rallies - with all due respect, they are generally out-of-town, poor, religious, uneducated, or all four. The rallies have taken place in locations like Youngstown Ohio, Huntsville Alabama, and Duluth Minnesota. Their lives have never taken off and they want someone to blame. Along comes the demagogue and sweeps up their votes, even though they'll never see an improvement in their own lives.

Look at the areas that voted for Brexit in large numbers: run-down seaside towns like Redcar, Blackpool and Clacton; post-industrial towns like Stoke-on-Trent, Wolverhampton and Burnley. These are also places where the population has largely been forgotten. So these are prime places for the demagogue to ply his trade. This is where change is going to be instigated, but where nothing will ever be better for those people without firm action by the government of the day.

I am not sneering at these people, in fact I have a lot in common with them. I also spent years living from day to day without any sign of advancement in my life. I had little positiveness in my life and I was often two meals from starvation. I know what it is like down there. I grasped at anything I could that had a positive element to it, whether a potential job offer from a dodgy agency, or even a good write-up in the daily horoscope. Anything at all. So I can also understand when a person with good rhetorical skills can articulate the frustrations of the poor to the nation. The poor and downcast are so desperate that they will latch on to anything that promises to bring them out of their misery, even if it is obviously a lie. Those running the Leave campaign were very aware of that, the Remain campaign focused mainly on the negative implications of leaving without trying to demonstrate all the good that the EU does.

So if Brexit were cancelled: what would happen in the country?

I personally think the following:
10% of people would be very angry indeed, and would provoke protests and riots.
25% would be upset for a week before returning to normal.
65% would be very glad that this was no longer filling their news feeds every day

But 100% would be livid that the government put the country through such a waste of time and money, and for what? To settle an internal dispute in the Conservative Party. I would hope this débâcle would split the main two parties enough to cause them to break apart, so that we would have four or five main parties, and we can eliminate that stupid First Past The Post "system" for good.

We can live in hope...

The EU is the carrier of my identity now, and I will fight anyone who wants to take that away from me

Yesterday evening, as I settled down to watch TV (yes, it's a Saturday night, but I don't need thrills right now), I was lucky enough to behold that glorious end to the summer season of classical music on the BBC that we all know as the Proms. 

The Last Night of the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall has a splendidly rousing finale which encompasses all that is good about being British: the spectators are not expected to be quiet, in fact they bring tooters and crackers with them; the lead violinist in the orchestra is, at times, allowed to go off-key during solos; the conductor gives a speech where he/she mercilessly mocks the audience; there are crowds gathered in four other concert locations in the UK which are also incorporated into the event, and everyone waves a flag.

It is the most patriotic outpouring of emotion you will ever see. It is like a cross between the Vienna New Year concert and a Six Nations Rugby match where everyone in the crowd is on the same side. The songs are fervently steeped in British history and culture and anyone who claims to be British should know the words to them: Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1, known as Land of Hope and Glory; Hubert Parry's Jerusalem; Fantasia on British Sea Songs arranged by Sir Henry Wood (during which it is a custom for the audience to pass around packets of tissues during the section known as Tom Bowling), which contains the Sailor's Hornpipe, when the audience bobs up and down, and ends with Rule, Britannia!, which witnesses an extraordinary display by the soloist, who is expected to do something either amusing or spectacular with his/her outfit. It never fails to please each year. It finishes with God Save The Queen in an arrangement by Benjamin Britten, which I think is better than the original, and everyone sings Auld Lang Syne to finish the night off holding hands.

It is the night of the year when we can see everything good about Britain: the artistic talent of its musicians and singers; the rebellious yet good-natured demeanour of many of its denizens, and the depth of affection that people hold for the little wind-swept island off the coast of Europe that once really did rule the waves. The season has taken place 125 times, and is a direct link to the days of Empire, yet the people who attend the concert are open-minded and cultured internationalists who understand Britain's place in the world, which is the reason why for the last three years, there has been a steady increment in the number of EU flags that have appeared at the Last Night finale. In fact, last night, the blue and yellow more or less outdid the Union Jack. So much so, it made the Daily Express explode with rage:

A cut-out from my anti-Brexit group Facebook feed

Oh but it REALLY infuriated the Brextremists on the readers' replies section:

The Express reported that one very disgruntled Twit(ter user) wrote: (1) "Is there anything as weak, as petty or as demeaning to our nation as the waving of EU flags during Last Night of the Proms? Those flags should be burned, along with all other symbols of degeneracy and the power of finance."

A reader called Dave77 said, (2) "Waving a much detested FOREIGN FLAG is the 100% epitome of being a TRAITOR, when you are celebrating a genuine BRITISH FESTIVAL"

The same bozo said in a later post: (3) "I truly have never heard of one single person that was PROUD to be a member of the much detested EU --That could only happen if your ancestry is somewhat diluted in a European fashion maybe."

And finally, this splendid self-own by someone who goes by the name Henpecked: (4) "The remoaners and all this EU flag waving reminds me of 1930s Germany where a certain party rode rough shod over democracy by sheer force of obsession and numbers.
We must not let democracy be defeated by this shabby lot, democracy must always win."

Well I would like to reply personally to all of these "points" raised (if one can call them that):

(1) Firstly, the Twit - actually, my friend, the very reason people feel they should wave them is because they don't like petty parochials like you who can't see the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The ability to wave EU flags at a British event is in fact a sign of open-mindedness and openness to the world, which is what your idol, Liam Fox, is constantly seeking. He, though, makes you think you need to leave an international organisation in order to be more global, and you lot fall for it.

You know, you can go ahead and burn the EU flag if you like - you think it will trigger us in the same way setting fire to a Union Jack would trigger you. Well it won't, because we're not actually the ones who are highly-strung. The EU flag is not a symbol of degeneracy and the power of finance. To me, it is a very personal symbol of belonging.

Churchill himself said, "We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and... wherever they go in this wide domain... will truly feel, ‘Here I am at home.'" And that's how I feel. Just because your only foray into mainland Europe is to go and do British things on the Costa Del Sol for a fortnight a year, things you wouldn't do at home, like eat a Full English breakfast every day or sing insulting songs to non-British passers-by (although maybe you would), it doesn't mean you have to spoil it for the rest of us - those millions who have made their home in another EU country and are happily settled and integrated there.

(2) and (3) Well Dave, I have news for you: I see Europe totally differently to you. You have never met one person who is proud to be a member of the EU because of the small-town circles you go around in. From the very little information I have gained from your "effort" on the Express thread, it is easy to suppose that you haven't spent too long in the company of more internationally-minded people.

The EU flag is not a foreign flag; it is the flag that represents 28 countries in Europe living side-by-side in peace, and that includes the UK (still). In fact, to me, nobody and nothing is foreign unless he/she/it makes a great effort to denigrate anyone not like them. For me, when I talk about "the north", I mean areas on the Baltic or North Sea, and when I talk about "the south", I mean those on the Mediterranean. I don't get infuriated if someone comes to my town and carries on with their own way of life, because it's perfectly normal. 

I doubt you go to Torremolinos and speak Spanish and eat pinchitos at a chiringuito, so why should a Pole speak English, drink Tetley's and go for a ride to the garden centre on Sundays? In fact, at home, I have BBC as standard TV channel (I have watched German TV for about 5 hours of the ten years I have been here) and drink Marks & Spencer tea. Integration is not what you think - it is the ability to see others as human beings, speak the local language, and not enforce your customs on them.

As for calling the attendees at the Proms traitors, that is really very weak. The fact is, the vast majority of reasonably-minded, balanced people find Brexit to be a betrayal in itself. It is seen by them as a regression of the United Kingdom into a much diminished shadow of its former self. The problems causing people to vote to leave the EU are mainly inflicted on the people by the British government, and it will only get worse when the EU is not there to act as a conscience.

(4) How wrong you are, Henpecked: it is the other way round. We see Brexit as a landgrab by dark and anti-democratic forces. Have you ever wondered why Brexit is being bankrolled by extremely rich businessmen? Because they care not one bit about the ordinary man or woman in the street. They will earn vast amounts of money by pulling the country out of the EU, and to make it happen, they will go to any length. But the best way to make it happen is to recruit the working man. Every revolution has been won by gaining the support of the working man, and every time the working man falls for the trick of the ringleader, which is to curtail his freedoms and get rich off the worker's back. You know the film The Producers, where the writers of a Broadway musical want to make a flop because they'll earn a lot of money out of it? That's really what Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ilk are up to. And you can't see it. 

I am sure you are one of those people that if the EU eradicated plastic pollution from our seas, you'd be moaning about how "Brussels" is taking away your right to drink tea in a plastic cup, even if you don't. In fact, you complain about everything the EU does, even if it is for the common good. 

No, it is not a panacea or an answer to every problem, but it is the best we have, and we should help it to grow, not attack it for everything it does to help.

So finally, I would like to let you know that there is someone here who is proud to call himself a European, and I know a great deal more people like me. Maybe, Dave, it's the circles I go around in...

We have been fooled by alt-right politicians and the media. It’s time for the silent majority to take a stand.

                                                                                                                                                            Source: AFP / Justin Tallis

Look around you and you will notice very little positive news. It does exist, of course: there is water on Mars; a Thai youth football team was rescued using innovative techniques despite the odds against them; the Duchess of Sussex will probably wear something stunning to a public event some time soon. None of these are political issues, of course. In this field, things seem to be in utter meltdown. Everywhere.

Theresa May’s hijacking of Brexit. Trump’s infallibility despite overwhelming evidence he’s more than likely a big-time crook and a sleazy pervert. Viktor Orbán and his illiberal democracy. Poland’s PiS party taking away citizens’ rights. Spain’s unjustifiably rough treatment of Catalan separatists. Putin infiltrating Western democracy, to the extent he was able to poison a few civilians in the English countryside. But most of all, a large number of ordinary people who either don’t believe these things are actually happening, or worse, don’t wish to know about them because they’ll just make them have to do something that will require time and effort away from their busy lives.

People often try to remain superficially indifferent in order not to get press-ganged into something they are reluctant to do, like make a stand against injustice or read up on important issues, when they could be buying that ultra-important pair of boots on Amazon, or giving the dog a haircut. Others don't want to stick their heads above the parapet in case they have trouble further down the line. Yes, we all hate being accosted on the streets by clipboard warriors. I'm not talking about that. 

But...

Right now, we are about to go into a period of immeasurable darkness once again, and what are people doing about it? They're polishing their driveways or mowing the carpets. They're doing anything except confronting the most important issue facing our civilisation since 1936. The current coordinated effort by ruthless individuals like Aaron Banks, or Steve Bannon and his band of merry men and women to smash Western democracy and install right-wing regimes should be blasted all over the media in the same way the Cuban Missile Crisis was back in the sixties.

But it isn't. 

And the reasons are simple: firstly, people would be utterly petrified. Secondly, many news outlets are party to this invasion. And thirdly, people are more interested in things that are harmless, fun, or that raise anger and prejudice, which is why the newspapers contain stories of violent lesbians, immigrant sex predators, Polish thieves or Mexican murderers. Of course, none of ours acts remotely in that way, do they? Noooo... 

These headlines stand out because they are done by people who aren't in your tribe. The fact is, most of the homosexual people I know are virtually incapable of violence; all the immigrants that I know are more likely to offer me a drink and a chat; all Polish people I know are hard-working, efficient and cerebral, and I know a couple of Mexicans, and they're pretty chilled out dudes. The fact of the matter is, right-wingers, and by that I mean people in the alt-right movement will say "if we can make a few in those enemy groups out to be wicked people, we can fool some in our society that the rest are like that too." 

The alt-right is pushing hard against the new 21st-century norms and standards that most of us take for granted as a society, such as women's reproductive rights, choice of gender and sexuality, freedom of movement of goods and people within a trading bloc such as the EU, international programmes such as Erasmus, acceptance of climate change, and I am almost convinced that they are experimenting with wacko ideas such as the flat earthers and creationists to see how far they can push people's gullibility. 

Dividing society down very strong, defined lines of demarcation is one of the steps on the road to aggressively marginalising their enemies. Once they have cordoned them off, no matter how large their numbers are in comparison, they can try to gain power through promising certain positive measures that many will benefit from (see the PiS party's rollout of childcare payments in Poland). Then, after they have gained power, they can execute the other things in their manifestos where yes, they carry out what they said they would, but on the side introduce marginalising or restricting measures on their ideological opposites, such as gay people in Russia, or pro-choicers in some parts of the US. They may also try to manipulate the judiciary so that their policies are more easily enshrined in law, sometimes for generations to come.

If you think my opinions are unthinkable, I advise you to check out the current situation in Poland and Hungary. Their spinmasters will say that these are necessary measures to do with the security of the people, but it is more to do with the implementation of their nefarious ideology.

And in all this, the moderate people sit back, content with their twice-yearly holidays, TV packages, family cars and visits to the park. They want life to carry on for them, so they sit there pretending not to notice. Many of them will have voted for all types of parties and both sides of the 2016 Brexit referendum. It's not about one side or another, it's about the silent majority. It is these people that need to be engaged the most, as it is these people that will decide if the nasty guys get in or not.

Think about it: how many decent folk do you know (you know the type: friendly, upstanding, clever, etc.) but wore MAGA caps or stuck a Leave.EU banner in their windows? Many of them voted for Trump mainly because they couldn't stand the thought of Hillary in the White House; many voted Brexit because they felt excluded from society; and that's fair enough. But a lot of them were bombarded with propaganda on immigrants stealing jobs, property and children. They were conned into thinking a darker skin colour is a sure sign of a troublemaker. In the Brexit referendum, there was a twist in the tail: apparently, the full hospitals, blocked roads, lack of affordable housing and overcrowded schools were due to too many foreigners, and nothing to do with government under-investment over many decades.

And this is where we find ourselves today - in this ideological battle between right-wing rule breakers and fair-minded folk. It is not too late to halt this criminal ideological takeover of our society: we can get out the message to more decent, ordinary folk who vote certain ways out of tradition or class rather than for justice. I mean, it is still incredible how many people still want to vote Tory, despite their total mismanagement of the country and the Brexit process. Surely, these people can be persuaded to vote for another party. 

We need to halt the rush backwards towards the intolerance and prejudices of the past, and we need to start now. We need to push people's buttons to make them see we are being manipulated into a new era of segregation and fear. The reality is that we have never been more prosperous or contented than now, but it does not feel like that, because it's not in the interests of the alt-right and their friends in the media to portray it so. The alt-right needs to spread misery and doom, and that is what sells newspapers, so they leech off each other.

In order to stop this, we need to look at several aspects: firstly, who is subsidising all this activity, and why? Secondly, just how many fake profiles are there on niche Facebook groups, or the comments section of newspapers, spouting all kinds of aggressive nonsense to make out that there are so many more people out there with the same intolerant views? And thirdly, how can we make a difference in fighting back? 

I have myself come up against a neo-fascist recently on Facebook, and it wasn't pretty. When I challenged his views, he accused me of being weak-willed and lacking in coherence (if anyone knows me, they know that is exactly the opposite of what I am). This was despite me banging on vehemently for long, sweeping paragraphs about why he was wrong in every single syllable of his nonsense. I provided evidence and links too. But no, it was dismissed with a figurative sweep of his hands, and a literal one over the "block user" option on his Facebook profile. Just before he did, like some super-villain getting a rush by telling his victim how he's going to kill him, he announced he was going to block me, so I had a millisecond to react, and I managed to accuse him of being a coward because he didn't want to debate.

What happened there was what is happening everywhere at the moment. The Orwellian 2 + 2 = 5 dogma is well and truly alive in these people: it is the twisting of everything to the benefit of the lie. The fact he was the one who more or less called me a snowflake, and yet it was he who blocked me out of unwillingness to have his views challenged, demonstrates a fragility, vanity and feebleness in the minds of these people that can be used against them. By assuring you hold the truth, and enough of your allies rally round you, you can defeat these guys. But here is the catch: nearly nobody will. 

I recently had a guy living below me whose premise on this Earth was to get through life without making too much of a ripple. Even if he saw an injustice, he kept out of it. He told me of his "triumphs" at escaping from having to deal with thugs and drug pushers at a bar he used to work in. He disapproved of my outspokenness, not that I took heed of that. These people need to be railed against for their utter refusal to stand up and be counted in these, the most programmatic of days. We cannot afford to just give up and let the alt-right overrun us. We need to give them a good shake to awaken their spirits and get them motivated to do something, even if it is to put their X on a ballot sheet every 4 or 5 years somewhere other than their default choice.

Just remember what John Stuart Mill said: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." 

There's a big reason why the UK may not actually leave the EU

Switch on your TV and some politician, no matter what side of the fence they sit on, will say "the British people voted to leave the EU, and that's what we're going to do". There are Remainer members of the public who say "we accept the result of the referendum and we have to abide by it". But deep inside the minds of many, there is a profound sense of having made a terrible mistake. As every day passes, more and more articles in the mainstream press, including even the most rabidly fervent pro-Brexit papers, are appearing, containing bad news on the UK's withdrawal from the EU. 

This is to me a sign that most newspapers, including the vitriolically parochial Express and the excrescent Mail, didn't really believe the UK was going to actually go through with voting to leave the EU, but had found a niche in propagating xenophobic lies for profit, and now they have fulfilled their readers' wishes, they don't quite know which way to go and seem to be hedging their bets... added to this is a fightback by the readers - lots of replies to articles expressing regret, apportioning blame and venting anger. Here, I list some recent articles to make my point:


This article from the Mail admitting that Brexit is not yielding the bounty it was supposed to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/comment/article-4784688/The-Brexiteers-lost-economic-argument.html


This article, with a link to The Spectator, detailing how the chief director of the Leave campaign admits to lying to achieving his goal:
http://www.europeanscom.eu/leave-director-admitted-the-brexit-referendum-was-won-by-lying-to-the-public/


Business Insider reports that the promise of more manufacturing jobs is also not true:
http://www.businessinsider.de/commerzbanks-peter-dixon-on-uk-manufacturing-after-brexit-2017-8?r=UK&IR=T


Prospect Magazine has an interesting piece on how civil servants have told the government that the UK will have to choose between the US and EU trade models as it is too small and insignificant to set up its own (it seems to have sided with the EU, unless Liam Fox has his way):
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/government-ecj-paper-european-britain


There's this piece from the Telegraph, of all places, suggesting immigration figures were exaggerated:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/23/immigration-figures-review-new-checks-suggest-numbers-far-lower/

The Daily Mail also reports this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4819922/Net-migration-Britain-100-000-LOWER.html
It's OK to report these things after having voted to leave the EU - nice bit of track-covering: when Brexit blows up in everyone's faces, they can say proudly, "we told you so!" (whatever the situation).


We also have a surprise entry from Putin's mouthpiece, RT, who want to inform us that people have started to regret their decisions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABD-EZLVeRs


This BBC report talks about the exodus of foreign workers and the reluctance of many to go to the UK to work:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41036236


It is backed up by this Reuters report:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-food-idUKKCN1B32Q1


The Financial Times argues that giving up influence in Europe will not enhance influence elsewhere:
https://www.ft.com/content/d9e595d0-8750-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787


This article from Pound Sterling Live says in a very discreet and indirect way that the pound is not going to go too much lower against the Euro (currently €1.09 to £1.00) because J.P. Morgan says it looks like hard Brexit is not going to happen (they even lower their odds from 25% to 15% on the chances):
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/7363-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-forecast-update-jp-morgan


Here, we see the Pound Sterling as reported in the Independent, as the worst-performing of all major currencies:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economy-growth-q2-2017-half-eurozone-eu-europe-second-quarter-a7909706.html


OK, the Guardian is the most pro-EU of all the papers, but it has this interesting editorial where, reading between the lines, it seems the government has given up on its hard Brexit wishlist:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/23/the-guardian-view-on-uk-brexit-policy-this-time-the-lady-is-for-turning


This one from the Welsh Daily Post concerns the effects of Brexit that are already biting:
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/axe-threat-nearly-100-workers-13513704


These are just some of the articles reporting the slow demise of Brexit. There are also many books, speeches and reports by all types of experts, professionals and those in business claiming Brexit is gradually being dumped:

This book is especially poignant:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06Y15DBTG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

It is called "Brexit, No Exit: Why Britain (in the End) Won't Leave Europe" by Denis MacShane, and it goes into detail about how the UK (and the West in general) reached the point of protectionism and anti-globalisation but this may be just a blip.


All-in-all, it is slowly but surely becoming clear to many people that the promises made last summer to the people of the United Kingdom were based on blatant lies, false premises and pipe dreams in an attempt to make the common man and woman vote to leave the European Union without realising the full ramifications. The government is going through the motions to make it seem they are still going ahead with it, but it is becoming more and more unlikely - impossible even - by the day.

Why is anti-establishment sentiment thriving even after Brexit?

Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

There was quite a gloating article in the Guardian this week on Brexit and its consequences on the rest of Europe. In a nutshell, it said that Europe had been revolted by the self-harm the UK has inflicted on itself and the instability it has unleashed on the British economy, its politics and society in general. Despite its "I told you so" theme, it is not wrong. But the battle for the soul of Britain has been hijacked by two opposing factions: the rich on one side and the poor on the other, with paradoxically the poor unwittingly doing the bidding of those who would like to subjugate them. Anti-establishment fever tilted the vote towards Brexit, not a genuine desire to leave the EU.

Oh David Cameron, what have you unleashed? In fact, I could replace the former Prime Minister in that sentence with a number of people, like the present incumbent (whoever that is at the time you read this), or maybe a few media moguls. But this all goes back decades. It is a seething collection of pustules that has been awaiting its time to spew its fetid contents all over the skin of public life and drag the victim into a chronic downward spiral of health and well-being.

There is a correlation between the Brexit vote and the current malaise in society - let me explain...

Successive governments have run public services into the ground through cutting costs, economy drives and selling off tenders to the private sector. None of this needed to happen if it were not for ideology-driven politicians whether in national government or local councils, and their chums in the private sector from lobbyists to energy conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies to building contractors. Every one of them is partly to blame for the current situation. The situation is clear: for the last 40 years, cheap is best, and to hell with the consequences. Hospitals and health workers, infrastructure building, public hygiene, education facilities and staff, police, firefighters, the military, even libraries, have been affected by the scything down of their expenses all so that governments, councils and their contractors can say to their clients (that's you), that they have been saving money in your name.

Well I don't know about you, but as far as I am aware, it's the exact opposite of that method that leads to good running of public services. Money needs to be put into their systems, not removed. That means that instead of reducing our income tax bills, VAT payments and council charges, the powers that be should be raising them, or at least looking for ways to maximise returns. When some suited chinless wonder from the richer side of public life comes on TV and warns against voting for various politicians because "your bills will go up", people need to remember that this bozo from the landed gentry is actually worried about his own costs going up. He will be the first to see a reduction in his own income because he is earning more per year than most earn in ten or twenty years. Why is Jeremy Corbyn being picked out for special treatment? Precisely because of that. He wants public services to run properly and rich dudes fear that if they do, not only will they lose money, they'll lose the opportunity to buy into them when lobbyists have finished convincing politicians to sell.

Back in the 1980s, public services were run into the ground until the public clamour to sell those services off was so loud, that this was the most logical step. It was a tactic used time and again by the then government to make the case for its sale. This was true for water, energy, gas, telephony, public transport, even security services. What we saw, though, was a change in the accountability and rights of those public services, now they were private. Trains that were before late or didn't show up at all were blamed on strikes and militant worker-related action, whereas now the services are not much better and in some cases worse, despite being sold off. Outsourcing and selling off public services has led us nowhere, except that now those services need no longer be directly accountable to the government, and ultimately, the public. It also gives carte blanche to those companies to limit pay, reduce workers' rights and entitlements, all in the name of saving money. They have effectively written themselves out of any social responsibility.

It is this selfish ideology that has led to this moment in history (and yes, this is history - PhD theses will be written about this period in the not-too-distant future) where the gap between rich and poor has finally become too wide, and where injustice in society has become plain for all to see where once it was easier to sweep it aside with gimmicks and distractions, fobbing people off with standard soundbites and impersonal press releases.

And things are a lot more complicated than on the face of it. Far from being a country that's full to bursting, as landowners, right-wing politicians and lobbyists will tell you, there is plenty of room. Indeed, only a very small percentage of the land has been built on. The real issue is that it is a country whose infrastructure has not been invested in for a very long time, and citizens' roles in society are becoming less and less welcome, and it shows:

• the hospitals are maybe fully equipped, but many times there are staff shortages or there are not enough beds for patients, leading to dangerously long waiting times. If real investment were made to ensure there were enough fully-staffed hospitals for everyone, we would need to delve deep into our pockets 
• you should send your child to a local school no matter its ranking, meaning that pupils are liable to be turned down if their parents try to apply for a place in what might be a more suitable school outside their catchment area, even if it is just over a designated line. This means house prices in certain areas rise, and the rules prevent any logic from being used. The fallout from this is that people are being forced to do irrational things to get their children into the school of their choice
• the Royal Navy, once the envy of the world, is now a shadow of itself, as is the British Army and the Royal Air Force, all so the defence budget can be spent on a nuclear arsenal that nobody dare use
• there is a huge swathe of building land that is lying unused and empty because building companies refuse to build on it, meaning prices of houses go spiralling up, but more shockingly, their untouched land turns them a huge profit

There are many more examples of this, and people have become sick and tired of being treated like commodities. They know that successive governments have cut everything to the bone, they know the country is dangerously paired back to the very limits of manageability, they just haven't joined all the dots yet, but they are slowly becoming aware of it. 

Having an ideology of saving money for the sake of it has proven recently to be a myth that has badly exposed the long-term dangers of such recklessness in playing with people's dignity and respect, and nowhere has that been more evident than in the case of Grenfell Tower in West London. What has struck me is how someone came up with the idea of saving a few thousand measly pounds by choosing an inferior cladding material in a refurbishment project to make the outside of a tower block more aesthetically pleasing while neglecting the inside, where residents - who are human beings, by the way - live.

The sentiment of grief turned to anger very quickly, leading to a general feeling of ill-will towards the Prime Minister, the government, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, and various contracting firms. This is not surprising, but it is a microcosm of UK life in general. The protests we saw in Whitehall and at Kensington Town Hall are just a spit in the ocean of general British dissatisfaction with the way life is going at the moment, and this is manifesting itself in so many ways.

The Brexit referendum last year, in my opinion, was won by a three-way split between different sections of the public: 

• easily-led individuals who believe everything that the right-wing press tells them, as well as unadventurous, stay-at-home monolinguals who know nothing about the wider world except the two-week drunken jaunt they undertake every summer to some touristic Mediterranean concrete jungle
• people with vested interests in pulling out of the EU, such as some unscrupulous employers, financial investors and politicians, who have been heavily sponsored to say negative things about the EU, and finally
• genuinely disaffected, forgotten and ignored people all around the country who wanted to vote for a change and saw it as their way to stage a protest; effectively kicking the government where it hurts for their constant overlooking of their issues (it is these people I can forgive for voting the way they did - so would I, probably)

What the last group fails to realise, is that by voting the way they did, they have done exactly what the people who are profiting from making their lives a misery wanted them to do; that is to say, they are turkeys voting for Christmas, which makes this such a national tragedy. There is also a gap between the educated and the under-educated, leading to a startling decline in trust in true facts and expert opinions, and a worrying rise in people's willingness to tie their misery to any popular movement that will get them out of the terrible hole they are in, whether that be extremist religion, militant political organisations, support groups, pressure groups or general grumbling to mates at the pub. Brexit had very little to do with many people's actual wishes and more to do with a genuine national mood of dissatisfaction with their circumstances.

What the UK needs right now is a long healing process and a coming to terms with the fact that the people have been lied to for many years for profit and nothing more. The recent election on 9th June reflected people's mistrust of the current incumbents and their handling of social matters as well as Brexit negotiations, where even the Daily Mail has revealed that 69% of people favour a softer departure from the EU. People need to regain a modicum of trust in their politicians and their public services.

Anti-establishment sentiment is thriving in lots of little pockets like local issues, or even as a cause of adverse personal experiences with authority, but when the dots get joined up and everyone realises that it is a national issue, there will be a mass protest at the gates of the high and mighty. People just don't realise yet who is to blame, but this is slowly revealing itself now that people see that cuts in services and selling out to corporate greed have led to the situation we find ourselves in the early summer of 2017.

If you want nice roses, you do not cut at the bottom.

The truth takes too long to explain. It's time to rectify that.

The problem with human beings is they only live for 60 to 90 years. That is hardly enough time to learn how to make the world a better place. The other problem with many human beings, although fortunately not all, is their laziness: they have a tendency to strive for simplicity and they like complex explanations to everything packaged in neat comprehensible bundles that they can relate to, whether they are correct or not.

Throughout history, humans have tried to better themselves. They have gone from a short, brutal existence in primitive conditions via controlling fire, harnessing electricity and championing human rights, to supersonic flight, connecting everybody through computer screens and curing fatal diseases. Humans have forever been improving others' conditions, but they have not always raised their standards on a personal level.

What do I mean? Well, look at the vast majority of inventions. They have been created to make our lives better, because we are as a species particularly lazy. We will go to great lengths to reduce the need to go to great lengths. What these inventions, discoveries and adaptations do not do, however, is raise standards of intelligence and behaviour in people. They unfortunately go for the lowest common denominator, and if that's not available, the shortest and crudest explanation. This is what we need to correct now.

What has laziness got to do with it?
Well, look around you. People strive for the latest gadgets and machines to make their lives easier. They want them so badly, they'll go out to work for 8 to 12 hours a day to earn the money to pay for them. It's quite a paradox actually, when you think of it. We invest in clothes driers so we don't have to spend twenty minutes hanging up clothes on a line and wait several hours before removing them. Some of us then hire people to iron them for us.

We buy cars to go shopping even if there is a supermarket just down the street so we don't have to cart a couple of bags of acquisitions a few hundred metres, even if a shopping trolley costs a fraction of the price and the exercise would do us good. We buy kitchen appliances so we don't have to whisk, mix, stir or beat food ourselves, and we programme a destination into a map-reading machine so that we don't have to use our brains to read maps ourselves.

We constantly seek to take the effort out of our lives but we run ourselves into the ground getting there. We strive for simplicity in everything, though, including how we consume information, which is why many people are more willing to accept a snazzy slogan from a demagogue than listen to a full-length explanation from an expert.

In fact, people seem to have grown weary of professionals and experts altogether. And this is where the danger lies - politicians, big business people and captains of industry don't get where they are today by being lazy. The cleverest and most ambitious ones use the language of the lazy consumer to persuade, cajole and steamroll their targets into buying their products or supporting their policies. They can make people dance to their tune and wear clothes according to the weather they make. They get out of bed before they've even got into their pyjamas.

I am not saying this is nefarious behaviour; I am saying that they know how to play people's tunes. And there are a lot of people willing to be led. The fashion industry is the most extreme example of this - some rich tycoon with a clothing idea sends a faithful acolyte on TV to say "this is the latest fashion accessory", and before the Y in "accessory", it is sold out and a clamour for more engulfs the shops. If many ordinary people are willing to listen to this useless information about fashion which, let us be frank, has little or no impact in the whole scheme of things, they will of course treat important topics in the same way. And this goes for voting patterns too.

I would go as far as to say that the brutal treatment demonstrated in public voting shows on TV (the hollow commiserations handed out by the hosts, the cruel wait before the announcement, the gossip on the spin-off shows and in the newspapers, etc.) have made many people collectively immune to the feelings of others. People talk about these victims of fame as if they were characters in a soap opera. Added to that, we see evidence of people filming others involved in accidents or being attacked without intervening. Our civilisation is becoming immune to people's suffering.

And this is also reflected in recent political events.

The first that I can bring to mind is the refugee crisis in the Middle East and its spillage into Europe. Leaders of countries are ordering massive fences to keep out people fleeing for their lives and accusing them of carrying diseases into Europe, or worse, of shielding terrorists in their numbers. The problem is the opposite opinion is not an effective counter-argument - that we should allow these people in regardless is not going to win over many neutrals. This whole débâcle has sunk into mud-slinging and blaming each other for either being too hard or too soft. But those in positions of power are too proud to let go of their pet hates and any productive debate is stifled by the constant accusations. Western politics is sinking to lows that will take revolutions to amend.

Furthermore, we can point to the US-Mexico wall that the current incumbent of the White House is so adamant will be an effective antidote to illegal immigration. And this is where human laziness really reaches its nadir - symbolic gestures are seen as effective solutions to people's ills. For that is what the wall on the southern border of the US will be - a symbolic gesture, nothing more. People will go over it, under it, through it and around it. And symbolic gestures are happening everywhere. They stem from human laziness and unwillingness to investigate too far into something in case it turns out to be wrong.

Take the Brexit bus.



Never was such a succinctly effective untruth so widely used, and accepted, to justify an argument. The other side of the coin, though, cannot be emblazoned on the side of the bus so successfully:



And herein is the underlying problem - the arguments for and against any subject generally have on one side an attractive soundbite that makes perfect sense to people who like their news in short paragraphs; whilst on the other, a complicated narrative with detailed explanations can confuse or bore the average reader. Guess which story is likely to garner the most supporters...

And that is the disadvantage of those who seek to explain the truth and justify their answers in more detail - they can easily be drowned out by heckling from the opposition, or mocked for their unwieldy explanations. Short, snazzy slogans are the domain of commercial retailers and sports teams, but the political classes are getting in on the act, and taking their ideologies, warped or not, to the wider public. Unfortunately, and I don't think I am going to gain many friends by writing this, but there is a large section of the population that is easily led by simplistic messages that claim to be able to improve their lives, the very basis of commercially successful strategy. Taking this out into the real world is both reckless and unfair. The truth becomes blurred by people wishing it true, no matter how false it is.

The BBC has recently set up a Permanent Reality Check team to look into stories and claims that have been flagged as containing an element of untruth or spin. As you will see from its detailed clarifications, the answers are more complicated than the text they were originally packaged in.

If we are ever going to break the cycle of untruth, we have to simplify the message of truth. how could Brexit have been prevented? Simple, positive messages showing the benefits of the EU would have garnered a lot more support than the Osborne-Cameron fear campaign. Take the Facebook group WhyEurope - they have been developing positive slogans in support of Europe for a while now, and many of them bring the positive side of the story into a far more easily comprehensible light:

"Europe because...
We all have better things to do than waiting at borders."

"Europe because...
You receive the same medical care abroad as at home."

"Europe because...
I don't want to pay custom fees on Amazon"

"Europe because...
it's like being rich - you have 28 different places to live."

"Europe is like a window...
Often invisible, but you're gonna miss it when it's broken."

If only this group could have got this type of message out before the Brexit referendum... But of course, these positive features do not ring with people who aren't as greatly affected by them as they are by more pressing needs, like their health, social security, employment and domestic lives. Which is why their disenfranchisement will lead them to seek scapegoats and form up behind a cheerleader who will promise them sunnier times ahead, even if that may clearly not be true.

Populism does not need to speak the truth; it needs to press the right buttons. Which is why Donald Trump and his team could think up non-events like the Bowling Green massacre that never was, and the much-derided Sweden incident. People want to believe in Area 51 cover-ups and refugee rape stories in Germany. They want to believe it so badly because they are desperate to be right for a change. They have spent decades being told they are at the back end of society, misfits, plebs, rabble, and now the Establishment is teetering on the brink of self-inflicted destruction, those who get out of bed early on the opposing side are seizing their chance.

The only way for the current political class to salvage this is to shine an equally positive light on the future rather than the incessant sad music being they play while forcing through austerity policies on the poorest of society. Governments insist there is no money for schools, public transport, healthcare, welfare and job creation, yet there is ample money for defence and meaningless vanity projects. The current batch of politicians like Schäuble, May, Juncker, Rajoy, Hollande and recently Renzi and Cameron, seem (or seemed) to be doing very little on the surface to quell the fears of the impending downfall of Western civilisation, just carrying on as normal while all around ordinary people are growing tired of hearing about the closure of hospitals here and the reduction in police there, while third countries that are not so friendly to the West are now so obviously trying to infiltrate the system by subterfuge. People are looking for a sign that everything is all right and these dark times will pass.

If the West is serious about keeping up its standards then it needs to find some visionaries and statesmen and women from somewhere. The space is full of politicians acting like glorified civil servants, more worried about their own opinion poll rating than doing what is needed to re-calibrate the situation; any shining lights are extinguished by being marginalised by power-hungry politicians or disillusioned by the rigidity and intransigence of the political system.

It's time someone with a positive vision and two very sharp elbows stepped up before the populists get there first.

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.