The aftermath of the UK’s EU Referendum: exploring social media’s imaginary realities #4

Now to the matter of that campaign, in the imaginary world of Facebook, called Keep Britain in the European Union. It has only 40,000 likes! Big data is telling you something, for sure!

This campaign (is that the right word?) says that Remainers must fight on, because, the Leave campaign – not sure which particular Leave campaign they are referring to here because there were several – deliberately misled. So if, (whatever) Leave campaign they are referring to, did mislead, so is Keep Britain in the European Union. For example, they say that the referendum was advisory. It was not advisory. They also say that only 37% of eligible voters voted for Leave, then say that 73% of younger voters supported Remain. Misleading!

Democracy works by counting the number of votes cast – the number of people who abstained is not counted. But let’s work with the opposite for a moment. In the young voter category, in the age range 18-24, only 36% bothered to vote. So 64% in this age group were not in favour of Remain. Thus, it follows that only a very small – a tiny minority in fact – of younger voters supported Remain – not 73%! Am I being misleading?

I could go on, but will restrict my observation to this question: who is deliberately being misleading, the Leave campaign (which ever one they are referring to) or Keep Britain in the European Union?

The matter of our departure is little mentioned now in the traditional media. It seems also to be decaying in social media – half-life approximately two weeks, as with the traditional media. The Twitter/Facebook generation have found something else to chatter about and so have the press. We are leaving and that is the reality and people have already moved on.

And for the third time, the disembodied voice asked: “What are you doing Paul?”

I now know what I am doing. I have been thinking, through writing, about the nature of reality and human beings’ relation to it.

We all do it, even those who engage in the delusion that they think, that they are rational and objective, all of which flies in the face of the evidence that this is not entirely correct.

“What is it that we all do?” asks the disembodied voice.

What do you think we do?

The exact nature of what I am doing, or exploring, will be found in future writings, where ever they may appear.

The aftermath of the UK’s EU Referendum: exploring social media’s imaginary realities #3

That big red bus!

When is a promise not a promise? Several answers are possible. One is that, in a referendum with a simple question put to the people, no-one can make any promises and officially no-one did. Another answer is hermeneutics.

There is a belief, spread through both the real world and the imaginary world of social media, that a promise was made to spend 350 million pounds per week extra on the NHS, this being, the amount we send, some said, to Brussels. Were people not listening?

David Cameron was asked by a member of the public during a TV debate, to guarantee that the so-called reforms to the EU that he negotiated with the European Commission would be implemented if the UK voted to remain. He declined to give such a guarantee. I will leave you to figure out why that was so.

Putting aside the disputed matter of exactly how much is sent to Brussels each week, which probably is something that one can call into question, there was never any promise made to spend 350 million pounds per week extra on the NHS. Apparently, according to the Vote Leave campaign literature, one can build a new hospital every week with this amount. Why anyone would want to believe that we are going to build 52 new hospitals every year, is unclear, which is, if you take the headline statement as a promise, is what someone now has to do to fulfil the promise, which in fact was not a promise, because no-one promised anything, as no-one, other that the government, was in a position to do anything about the referendum result. And they promised (it was the only promise made) that they would implement the result of the referendum, which is what they are now doing. Which is why also, all those people on social media that have been saying that the referendum was only advisory are – lying is too strong a word. But it is not true that it was only advisory. This was made clear at the start. Did people listen?

Back to the big red bus and a few blogs back I mentioned that there were several organisations campaigning, independent of each other, on both sides – Leave and Remain. One of those organisations was the Labour Party, who campaigned on their own for Remain. And this is what they said in the leaflet that was delivered through the letterboxes of every household in Britain: “Working people and their families are protected with paid maternity leave, equal pay, minimum paid holiday.” The implication was that these benefits have been given to us by virtue of our membership of the EU. What they failed to mention is that going all the way back to the early 20^th century welfare payments and employment rights have been developing in the UK, largely as a result of Trade Unions, the Labour Party, and earlier, the Liberal Party. Yet no-one wants to criticise the Labour Party for making statements that are not strictly true. They were being economical with the truth, because they are political, and this is what political organisations and people do to advance a rosy picture of their version of the promised land.

There are many examples like this in the referendum literature. And on the big read bus there was the headline slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week – let’s fund the NHS instead. Vote Leave. Let’s take back control.”

Hermeneutics is about interpretation. Evidently some people interpreted this as a promise, but it could never have been a promise, because, as already pointed out, the referendum was not about promises and manifestos, and the election of a new government, but the people being asked a simple question: do you want the UK to remain in the EU or to leave the EU? And on the web site of the Vote Leave campaign, one finds more beyond the headline:  “If we vote to leave the EU, we will be able to save £350 million a week. We can spend this on our priorities like the NHS, schools, and housing.”

It was also said, which people listening to the TV debates would have heard, that we can also spend the money on things that we are already spending the money on, like payments to farmers, etc. The point was that the UK Government would decide.

If you look at what went on during the referendum through the distorting lens of the media, any media including Facebook, and do not start thinking slowly and looking more deeply into what happened you end up like – many of those people in continental Europe, who, not being on the ground and engaged in the process, are just disconnected from reality, and, needing to construct a reality to explain what has happened, will construct a reality with the information they have, even when it is distorted. Likewise some people in the UK, who are still engaging in constructing a reality that demonises some people on the Vote Leave side, namely Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, but not others, namely Gisela Stuart. Strange behaviour, or not?

To think that one thinks!

To be continued …

The aftermath of the UK’s EU Referendum: exploring social media’s imaginary realities #2

And it came to pass that there was no second referendum!

There never was going to be one, yet this did not stop people believing that this was a possibility. The idea was peddled in the media and through social networks. Even supposedly educated people, those who go around calling themselves scientists for example, were prepared to talk about a second referendum as though it were a real possibility. They were too busy thinking fast – those who thought slowly would have seen that a second referendum was just nonsense and here is why:

There is no legal basis for a second referendum. The terms and conditions of the EU referendum are laid down in an Act of Parliament. So the specification that the ‘first to pass 50% would win’ is defined by law. The Bill was also passed overwhelmingly and the outcome has not been challenged in the courts. The petition seeking to have the terms of the Act changed, so that a second referendum would be triggered if the vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% cannot be implemented without introducing retrospective legislation. The UK Parliament does not in general implement retrospective legislation. Only in very special circumstances does it do so: information about when it does this is available in the public domain so anyone who was talking about the idea of a second referendum could have consulted this information and seen just how unlikely a piece of retrospective legislation was. Did they consult this information? So you think we live in an information society do you?

What then about a new Act of Parliament, enabling a fresh referendum in the year … It would not be in 2016 that is for sure. It takes time to debate a Bill, and to pass it into law. Windows of opportunity are also limited. Voting in the UK by tradition takes place in May/June, more rarely October, but this month clashes with the Party conference season. Most likely then would be June 2018.

‘Subjective’ common sense would also tell anyone who cared to think about the matter slowly that there was never going to be a second referendum. On the Monday morning after the referendum, the Cabinet met and accepted the result of the referendum, and leaving the EU then became government policy. MPs in the House of Commons demonstrated on the Monday afternoon that the result is accepted by the vast majority of MPs as well, even by those who do not agree with the outcome of the referendum. The British population is also suffering from referendum exhaustion. A second one is unlikely be welcomed and probably would not be engaged with to the extent that was seen in the June 2016 referendum, and a reduced participation would undermine the credibility of a second referendum.

The idea of having a second referendum also undermines the credibility of democracy – the UK’s democracy, which stands in sharp contrast to the frame of mind seen in some continental European countries where undermining democracy, it seems, is not seen as a problem. Perhaps this is why there have been so many problems in continental Europe, and why the continentals are heading into more problems and why, in the future, British people will look back and be glad that we were able to get out before those problems manifested themselves (the contempt for a ‘democracy of ordinary people’ that can be seen now in Brussels and continental Europe is alarming, but very Ancient Greek!).

Anyone who cares to look in the real world will see that the result of the referendum has been accepted by Government and Parliament and that the process of leaving is already underway. This has been the case since Monday June 27. It seems to have taken several weeks for this to become apparent to many people. Some people still cannot see this.

Meanwhile the doomsayers will continue with their “woe is us”, disregarding the fact that life is what you make it, and the British people will make a new future outside the EU, for as David Cameron admitted during the referendum campaign, “Britain can survive outside the EU.” It can prosper too by developing the policies that are aligned with this new reality. This too is already happening. All those people on the continent, and some at home too, who are looking forward to the UK’s demise will be disappointed, for they truly do not understand what it is to be British. Just look at our history and you will begin to understand what I mean. And I am the most un-nationalistic of people. Yet there comes a moment when it is appropriate to unite and to act in the country’s interest. National crises that affect everyone tend to unite people, regardless of whether they see themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It seems now that we have a Prime Minister that knows this!

So what is going to happen? The question is hard to answer given the complexities! Legally we are still in the EU, but for practical purposes we are already out. Most likely we will be formally out by the end of 2018, because Article 50 is likely to be invoked before the end of 2016, sometime between the time when Parliament returns from its summer recess, and the start of the Christmas recess. But this does not mean we will be leaving at the end of 2018!

The UK government is very likely now to put in place very quickly, economic stimulus measures to counter the negative effects of the withdrawal decision. The engineering, energy and construction sectors are likely to experience a boom as planned capital (infrastructure) investments are brought forward. An opportunity to announce such measures comes in the autumn with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn Financial Statement to the House of Commons.

At this moment in time, the civil service is most likely busy creating and analysing several exit scenarios. One of these must surely be rapid exit sometime in 2017. Many people have come to assume that it will take two years to leave. The reason for this is that Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon allows 2 years for negotiations. It does not however specify that the negotiations have to take 2 years. Both sides may have an interest in bringing the matter to a speedy conclusion. And one way of doing that is to conclude a transition agreement that allows final agreements to be moved into the future and spread out over many years and thus moved out of the public gaze, thus giving both sides the opportunity to claim that they got exactly what they wanted and that no principles have been compromised. Who knows? I am of course speculating, which is exactly what everyone did during the referendum, for it was not possible to predict, offer exit plans, or even remain plans, for all is outside our control, and in the hands of our Government, who will have to deal with a European Commission and 27 Member States that are unlikely to be able to agree among themselves, and will want different and incompatible things, regardless of all the posturing that is now taking place for public benefit.

And for the second time, the disembodied voice asked: “What are you doing Paul?”

To be continued …

ICT and Art STARTS Boycott

STARTS

So this is how it goes:

START by deciding what you are going to use artists for. Engage with artists for several years in a disingenuous way, pretending to listen. As you go about doing this, gather around you people who are willing to jump into bed with you, for you have piles of public money to spend in a reckless way. Then do what you intended to do from the START, by issuing a Call for Proposals. Proceed then to evaluate the proposals in a way that will ensure that you get what you want. Select proposals for funding – is selecting the right word? Then, when all is done and finished, and you have what you want, only then consult. Make some ridiculous claim about respecting artistic freedoms and independence, while asking people to do what you want. When is an open consultation not an open consultation? Answer: when it is a DG CONNECT open consultation.

So how does one respond to this appropriation of art by the State for the purposes of the State? You could abandon all principles and jump into bed with DG CONNECT and take a payment for services rendered while in bed. Or, you could protest by boycotting STARTS. You do not have to participate and you do not have to provide any input to the supposed consultation that was recently announced. You could also be subversive and provide an input to the consultation that is a pile of rubbish – the joy of art and DG CONNECT’s creativity nonsense is that, they would never know it is rubbish!

This is artistic freedom and independence! How are you feeling DG CONNECT?

ICT and Art STARTS boycott.

ENDS

The aftermath of the UK’s EU Referendum: exploring social media’s imaginary realities #1

I am quite interested in social media, in the cyber-world, that place of Twitter and Facebook, where people speak to their followers and imaginary friends. So I thought I would peer into this strange world to see what people are saying in the aftermath of the UK’s EU referendum.

My reasons for doing this, I will not here now tell, but at some future point will reveal. I am, I sometimes think, I writer, and to the making of suspense I like to bend my pen. It is a trait that is associated with that which lies deep within.

What I am about to cover is quite a lot in terms of content, so will take several blogs, before the end I reach and to the making of observations I indulge myself.

So to the business at hand:

In the immediate days following the announcement of the referendum result, there were some terrible racial and xenophobic verbal attacks on people. These are hate crimes – hate-speech. Such verbal acts are crimes and those responsible will be pursued by the police. They are perpetrated by a tiny minority of misguided people who are not representative of the British people. Such people exist in all countries – the UK is not unique. People who do such things have been condemned and their actions will not be tolerated.

 I note that people are using social media to state, often in a venomous way, that those who voted for EU exit are racists and xenophobes. This too is hate-speech. Separate and classify! Two phrases alike in their intention to attack people: “all people who voted for exit are …” and “all Poles are …” What’s the difference?

How can it be true that 17,410,742 people who voted for exit are racists and xenophobes? Why would anyone want to believe such a thing, for their experience of life, of living in the UK, would tell them that most British people are not racists and xenophobes? Don’t you think that it is insulting to the integrity of ordinary decent people in the UK to brand them as such?

Why is it that those who direct verbal venom at ordinary people do not choose instead to condemn those who exploit nationalistic sentiments for their own political ends? And the key names here are Nigel Farage (UKIP) and Nicola Sturgen (Scottish Nationalists).  Now you may be surprised. I will be returning to Sturgen and the Scottish Nationalists in a later blog because she is a very interesting example of something that I do not want at this stage to introduce relating to the UK. Both these politicians are popularists, nationalists and a disgrace, but they have a right to speak, even if they are preaching words that sow the seeds of nationalism, division and hatred.

One of the things the British people can be proud of is that during the course of our democratic exercise, people anguished over the choice. It was not an easy thing to decide whether to stay or to go. One of the things we cannot be proud of though is those who do not respect the result of this democratic process. At the latest count 77,000 names have been removed from the petition to Parliament to hold a second referendum. So you press a button on your computer and the world changes, and just to make sure, people think that the button needs to be pressed by people who are? Actually we do not know at this stage. But does the world change at the press of a button? I will be addressing the matter of a second referendum in a later blog.

We have also been hearing from young people who have started saying that old people have let them down and destroyed their future, what ever that future is, which we do not know. This is because we learn that 75 percent of young people who voted, voted for Remain, while older people tended to vote for Leave. So now we have another phrase: “all old people are …”. We ask now though why young people are not directing their comments towards young people: 64 percent of people in the age range 18-24 and 48 percent of people in the age range 25-34 did not vote (final figures subject to verification). It seems that young people let themselves down! So should we add another phrase? How about : “All young people are …”

Sounds very much like people are looking for scapegoats upon which to pin the blame for something than in truth is just imaginary!

The campaign in the UK was not simply two organisations campaigning. There were several working on both sides of the debate. This is an important point to note for future blogs.

The two officially recognised camps in the UK Referendum debate, Remain (known as Britain Stronger in Europe) and Leave (known as Vote Leave) were both what we call cross-party alliances. People put aside their party political differences to work together. This was a good thing. So there were people from the right and left working together in both camps.

One of the other groups running their own campaigns outside of the officially designated campaigns was UKIP, and you already know what they are like. They were an embarrassment to the official Leave camp.

What is not often recognised in the virtual world (and elsewhere), is that the Vote Leave campaign was chaired by a labour MP by the name of Gisela Stuart, who is German by birth. She worked with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, both Conservatives. Also not widely understood was that the Leave Camp, as the outsider, were forced to advance arguments for leaving, the burden of proof being, as it were with them and not the Remain Camp. The Remain Camp misjudged the situation and took the outcome of the Referendum as a given – that people would vote to Remain. This became evident from the debates on television where, arguing from what should have been a position of strength, they just poured scorn on the Leave camp and set about creating a climate of fear. This tactic backfired on the Remain camp!

None of three MPs above mentioned are racists or xenophobes. Suddenly though it has become like Gisela Stuart did not exist and was not part a prominent part of the Leave campaign. Instead there has been much hate-speech directed at Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. During the course of the referendum campaign a labour MP was murdered by a person who, from words of hate to deeds of hate did take the small steps to graduate.

In the cyber-world there is much ado being made about the rise of the right-wing. A cyber myth has developed, reflected also in the physical world, that those who oppose the EU are right-wing extremists. Those who care to look will find that opposition to the EU can be found on the left as well – for the right reasons. See here what I mean:

The late Tony Benn Speaking about the EU at the Oxford Union, 2013

The story will continue with an examination of the strange cyber-tale of a second referendum and the strange belief that the electorate’s decision would be overturned by Parliament. We will also is due course look at the myth of 350 millon pounds that was to be spent, some claim, on the NHS, which a MEP speaking in the European Parliament, mistakenly thought was related to UKIP’s campaign. So you think you live in an Information Society do you?

“What are you doing Paul?” asked the disembodied voice.

The UK’s EU Referendum: We the People have chosen …

We the people have chosen; and we have chosen to leave the EU! It is a double victory for democracy, because the British people have not only exercised their democratic rights to determine how they are governed, but have also chosen to reject the European Commission (EC) and its undemocratic and technocratic form of government.

Now the job of creating a different future begins. Our free debate has led to a democratic result. Now is the time for unity and people should be wary about those who will seek to exploit this historic decision for their own ends. Evidently this is already happening which is a timely reminder how easy it is for people to be led astray – not that anyone would admit to being led astray.

And if anyone was hoping that we might see an end to the name calling, the scaremongering, and the end of world predictions, their hopes will be dashed, for already there are people saying all sorts of strange things about what might happen and what they are going to do, which suggests that the concept of democracy is not fully understood and is something that some people are willing to respect only if it delivers the result that they want. They are only ensuring that we the people will not be asked again to decide upon important issues, which just plays into the hands of elites and powerful vested interests.

People should stop being so negative. Unplug yourself from Facebook and calm down. Be constructive. Once the dust has settled and people have had time for more considered reflection, the matter will seem very different.

People who are bitter and negative and want to be doomsayers will not be the ones who will be shaping our new future because the only people who will listen to the doomsayers will be their fellow doomsayers and they will just become an isolated and embittered minority. No-one wants to listen to people using bad language and to insults directed at people who did what they thought best for their country. Show some respect. It you want to participate, use your intellect and develop your arguments and learn to accept that in a democracy not everyone can get their own way. Those who have won the argument on this occasion are aware that there are people who do not agree with the majority decision, but, the reality is that the majority decision is the way we have to go. Not to follow the wishes of the majority will just damage democracy and undermine further the credibility of our system of elected representation. Remember that the alternative to democracy is a dictatorship, an authoritarian style of government, where you will not be allowed to write what you want to write in Facebook.

Our future will be what we decide it will be and not what negative thinking doomsayers would like it to be just to prove that they are right. Let us now, therefore, make a success of the direction in which the country has to go.

We will make some more observations, when the time is right. This is not the right time, so we end by remembering the forgotten youth of Greece whose futures have been destroyed by people, far away, pursuing megalomaniac schemes; people far removed from the consequences of their actions, who in ‘shining towers’ live in the bubble world that is the Emperor’s Court (EC). When will someone tell the emperor that he is wearing no clothes?

The UK’s EU Referendum: A choice between democracy and technocracy

All the issues of relevance that have been discussed over the past few weeks are largely views on what might happen if the UK decides to break free from the EU. This is the reality of this type of debate for none of us know the future, although the past seems to suggest what the future may be, especially as we are discussing Europe!

So we are left in a position choosing between what looks like the certainty of the status quo, and the uncertainty inherent in leaving. To stay or to go is probably the hardest question than any electorate in the UK has ever been asked to vote upon, made so by the fact that it is a single issue, unlike in a General Election when we vote on just about everything. It is however a single issue that will shape our country for decades to come, and will, potentially, involve our participation in events that British people will not want to be part of – the future may be more certain than people realise given that we are discussing here – Europeans.

I want now to give people an insider’s view, having been involved with Brussels for 30 years. But first a quote:

“In earlier times, anyone who thought of universal history, because of the narrowness of his horizons, constructed a unity at the expense of restriction; amongst ourselves, for instance, he restricted himself to West, in China to the Central Empire. That which lay beyond had no part in it and was regarded as a life of barbarians, primitive peoples, which were certainly an object of ethnological interest, but not of history. Unity consisted in the presupposition of the tendency to cause all the still unknown peoples of the earth to participate, stage by stage, in one – namely one’s own – culture, to bring them into one’s own sphere of order.”

These are the words of the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (in his book The Origin and Goal of History), writing in the aftermath of the National Socialists, the Second World War, and the Holocaust. These words very accurately describe how the European Commission thinks and operates; this organisation is very European in the most negative sense of the meaning of such a phrase.

I first became involved with Brussels, namely the European Commission (EC), in 1986. I did so because I knew that the Commission were not pursuing the right research agenda in relation to manufacturing industry. It is a long story, but now here in 2016, 30 years on, the same issues are still there, which is one of the reasons why I am now starting to break my connections, and to withdraw from all involvement with the EC. In the process I have come to call these people Prometheus and sometimes also Narcissus, along with those that gather around the EC (the Emperor’s Court). Everyday they just reinvent themselves in the same form they were the day before, but have so fallen in love with themselves, they are unable to see this.

As for the other reasons for my withdrawal:

They say that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely – the EC is the case study that demonstrates the first to be true, and may, if we do not do something about this monster, prove also that the second part is also correct. What it will take to prove the latter is the creation and the alignment of the sort of social, political and economic conditions that lead people to look for simplistic ideologically based solutions – the type of conditions that the modern world is now busy bringing about. This simplistic ideologically based thinking is already taking shape in the EC and in the wider EU.

The problems with the EC started at its inception back in the 1950s because it was created around a 19th century bureaucratic model: thus the perception of the EC as a bureaucracy. But the problem with the EC is worse than this, for it was also founded on elitism and dirigisme. Here in 2016 the EC is as bureaucratic, as elitist and as dirigistic as on the day it was born.

The EC is a technocratic organisation. It believes that it can intervene in matters complex, in business, in economy, in research, and so forth, and worse, that it actually knows what those interventions should be, hence they largely work top-down, rather than bottom-up, and most often fail, as is demonstrated by the fact that Europe has the lowest economic growth rate of any continent.

The EC has vast powers delegated to it by the various treaties and the money to pursue its technocratic fantasies. It has also become the target of the priestly caste of technocrats called scientists, technologist and engineers, who are now working behind the scenes to gain power and influence. This is in addition to powerful corporations who are increasingly, as the European economy continues to weaken, exerting their influence. The two – science and business – are closely allied with each other, as science is now primarily perceived as an activity to be pursued for economic reasons (which is also why we are now seeing a ethical meltdown in the world of science, technology and engineering). Hence the appeal to the EC, which has been desperately trying, and failing, for 30 years to deal with the economic decline of Europe. The EC is unable to understand that it is part of the problem.

The scientific technocrats are advocating a form of reason that is not grounded in humanity, common sense, instincts, and emotions – there is no room for the subjective and for soft knowledge. Richard Dawkins is one of their high priests, but there are others, who all hold in contempt anything that is not grounded in the scientific method and quantification. They are seeking what I have come to call Scientific Government and in the EC they find a willing partner in this madness. It is a marriage made in Hell. It is also a relationship founded on the elitism of Ancient Greece – free people think, slaves work.

Some years ago, under the reign of the previous President, the man concerned decided to take unto himself a person to be his Chief Scientific Advisor. The appointment was done in secret and there were no independent vetting processes. The advice delivered was given in secret and never subjected to public or parliamentary scrutiny, or that of the wider scientific community. The appointee used (abused) her position to advocate that science was so important that scientists needed to have a seat in government. Many in the world of science support her views. All of them have conflicts of interest and they all, along with their institutions, stand to gain financially from this. The conflicts of interest of the Chief Scientific Advisor were never independently established, nor were any disciplinary actions taken against her, for what in a democratic setting would have been seen as an abuse of a public appointment.

She was condemned by a number of MEPs. She herself, who in her post was just a mere employee of the EC, felt that it was within her power and her right to take these elected representatives to tasks for their views, and she used these people to further the case for her argument which reduces to this statement: in our system of government, politicians are told what to do and how to do it, and any improvement made to the instructions given to them is fatal to success, and if they deviate from what we instruct them to do, they must tell the people that they are doing so. Elsewhere one can also find people saying that policy decisions of a scientific or technical nature, e.g. those relating to the use of GM crops, should be taken out of the hands of politicians! Juncker it seems was not prepared to inherit this troublesome high priestess and she was discarded and not replaced. Instead, an internal person, who is also caught-up in the idea of Scientific Government, was appointed as an innovation advisor. This is just a foretaste of the totalitarianism that could come about in Brussels, as the EU’s economic circumstances deteriorate further.

We are dealing here with scientists and technologists who have become ideologues. They have taken a valuable means of knowing the world (science) and turned it into a perverse ideology that consumes the mind, just as the Soviets did with the works of Karl Marx, right-wing free market extremists have done with the works of Adam Smith, some Christians have done with the Bible, and some Muslims are now doing with the Holy Qur’an. These are, to use Hayek’s words, the “totalitarians in our midst” and this is a one hell of an ideological conflict that you are in the process of creating.

Some may have read Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom. The European Commission has already built The Road to Serfdom, and it uses the money that it takes from us, via our National Governments, to keep the serfs in line. It has created a dependency culture, whereby it decides what it will do, and then it seeks experts, all of whom will benefit from the Commission’s proposals, to support these plans. Then it often uses these experts to confirm that the money has been well spent. Dissenters are not tolerated and are sent into exile – i.e. they are dismissed as suffering from some deficit and never invited back. ICT-ART CONNECT – the STARTS Platform – is a prime example of this form of technocratic corruption, and my forth coming book (STARTS – Science, Technology and the Arts: The Artistic Voices that DG CONNECT Silenced) explores this.

The European Parliament is aware of these problems but is largely powerless to do anything about it. People like Juncker are themselves elitist and dirigistic, so will do nothing to put an end to this madness.

What people do not understand is that the European Commission is, in effect, an unelected government, not a civil service. We have not shared sovereignty, but instead transferred sovereign power to a body over which there is no democratic control. When they fail, as they do, we cannot evict them from office, nor is anyone punished for this failure – no-one resigns in disgrace, no departments are exposed for wasting public money, and no officials are disciplined. The failures are covered-up so that you, the people, never learn about what goes on behind closed doors, in Brussels, at your expense. They, the EC, act with impunity.

As a government, the EC has diplomatic representations all around the globe. The President of the European Commission is treated as a Head of State. The Treaty of Lisbon gave the EC power over foreign policy and the European Commission now has a foreign policy. It is one that is best described as cultural colonialism. So we have an unelected government preaching and lecturing to the world about European values, and seeking in an imperial way to project these values on to the non-European world and to enforce these values through trade and cooperation agreements. So why are you thinking that the China is more likely to prioritise a trade agreement with the EU over one with an independent UK that is not bound by the EU’s colonial dogma?

And the EC seems to be genuinely surprised about the backlash that has come in the form of the non-European world (the barbarians in need of European civilisation) contesting this colonial EU foreign policy, and taking their own steps to project their values and beliefs onto the world. The seeds of conflict are being sown!

It can be said that in this very traditional European policy there is no recognition of the genuinely different and legitimate interests of other societies. This is the fate that awaits Turkey and all from outside Europe who want to join the EU – they will have to become European and this will probably create a violent response against Europe, which will just reconfirm the European view that those in the non-European world are barbarians. Hints of this have already been seen in the aftermath of the Paris and Brussels attacks. People in Belgium actually referred to the Brussels’ terrorist as barbarians. Two days after the Brussels bombs, in The Hague, a man was sentence to 41 years in prison for war crimes and his part in the genocide of 8000 Muslim men in the Srebrenica enclave. No one called Radovan Karadzic a barbarian – he was one of us so he is a war criminal.

Let us be clear – when you start calling people barbarians, you separate, classify and begin to dehumanise them. And in doing so you are preparing people for the eventual outcome, which you will reason your way towards, because the sort of reason that is now becoming dominant in the Europeanised world is one that is devoid of any humanity, compassion and common sense. This is a path that only has one destination – it is a very European destination and you know what it is!

Efforts have been made to reform the EC, but the monster is very adept at finding ways around these reforms. The European Parliament and the Member State politicians seem to be powerless against the EC and its power grows with every new treaty that is signed.

The EC already has a currency, which is in effect the German Deutsche Mark, which is partly why the EU is now dominated by one nation – the Germans. The EC will one day have a fiscal policy under its control. It will one day have a police force under its control. It already has the beginnings of such in the form of its internal security department which investigates leaks of confidential information from EC officials. There also exists a fraud investigation body. It will one day have an army under its control as well. By that time, the National Governments will have been reduced to something similar to what in the UK we call Local Authorities, and will not have the power to resist the final step, which will be a European State, with an unelected government. Once a government with a police force and an army comes into being, that is not subject to democratic control and accountability, and which lacks a democratic ethos, it has the means to do what it wants to do – you cannot resist such a government! What will have been created is a totalitarian system that practices state control of society and economy. It will be a Union of Subservient State Republics run by an elite class of technocrats. Then the means of silencing their opponents will no longer be limited to exile.

Back in the early nineties, there was idealism in Brussels. People talked about integration, working together, about a social Europe. There was also a rejection of the idea of a Europe based upon a melting-pot where many cultures are mixed into one: people spoke about strength in diversity and they celebrated the vast cultural differences across the Member State nations. No-one has any idealist visions any more. Social Europe is dead. The idea of diversity has been abandon in favour of the meting-pot notion of a single culture. Everything now is about money, about the economy. Many people (including academics and artists) go to Brussels to gain power, influence, and to get their hands on public money, and will resort to disingenuous means to do so. The EU now pursues a neo-liberal agenda, and has abandoned the people of Europe to the power of money, just as the US government has done with its people.

I get the feeling that the people of Europe are sleepwalking once more into yet another one of those very European nightmares.

It may be that the only hope left is that China and India will find a way to balance economy and science with humanity and nature and that they will be the ones providing the future model for civilisation. I have come to the conclusion that the days of the West are drawing to an end, and that the future lies in convincing the Chinese and the Indians to walk a different path to the European world by looking to their cultural heritage as a source of new inspiration. And this is what I will now be dedicating my efforts towards, because what Europe offers is just the past masquerading as the future.

The European Commission is an affront to democracy. It is becoming a threat to democracy, liberty and the right of people to choose. The only way we can remove the European Commission (meaning Juncker and his College of Commissions and all the bureaucrats that work for them) from our lives is by voting to leave the EU. This is the circumstance that people such as Schuman and Monnet have bequeathed to us. The irony is that by seeking to avoid the past, they may have laid the foundations for the past once again to become the future, which is Europe’s history in a nutshell.

We cannot predict the future, but history does provide us with powerful lessons that we seem not to want to pay attention to. Back in 1933 if anyone had predicted what was about to happen in Europe they would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Yet knowing how Europeans have behaved since the time of the Roman Empire, and all the worst aspects of Ancient Greek beliefs that are still deeply embedded in European culture, what happened between 1933 and 1945 can be seen as the past reinvented, but on a far more destructive scale.

“Probably it is true that the very magnitude of the outrages committed by the totalitarian governments, instead of increasing the fear that such a system might one day arise in this country, has rather strengthened the assurance that it cannot happen here. When we look at Nazi Germany the gulf which separates us seems so immense that nothing that happens there can possess relevance for any possible developments in this country. And the fact that the difference has steadily become greater seems to refute any suggestion that we may be moving in similar directions. But let us not forget that fifteen years ago the possibility of such a thing happening in Germany would have appeared just as fantastic, not only to nine-tenths of the Germans themselves, but also to the most hostile foreign observers however wise they may now pretend to have been.”

The words are Hayek’s, written in 1944, and taken from the book that I have already mentioned.

Already it seems we have forgotten this recent past and are now willing to trust our future to a dictatorship of technocrats in the belief that this will not happen again. It will, but in a different form.

Now is the time to take steps to prevent this.