Banging on about Europe (when nobody cares)

By now, any sane person is bored of the tedious debate in Britain about its part in the EU. Yet, Nigel Farage is interminable. The Tory Eurosceptics are having a fit (so most of them). David Cameron, the man who exhorted his party to stop banging on about Europe, is now desperately showing off his Eurosceptic wares, hoping his party buy it, while equally trying to add a great big invisible wink face to his European counterparts. Britain will have a say on a new Europe. Wink, wink. If the Conservatives win a majority in the next General Election. Wink.

Of course, though, while we're all bored of it, we're now approaching crunch point. For all the talk of negotiating a reformed Europe, we are going to face a take-it-or-leave-it from the EU that resembles the status quo. It is on that we will be asked to vote. So, the question might as well be put now: in, or out?

Well, we can all sagely nod and think how very grave it all is or we can look at the reality. Only 1% of voters actually think this is the most important issue in Britain today. (Source.) Yet, setting aside the Scottish referendum, this is the most fundamental question we will be asked in our lifetime. It gets to the heart of what the country young people will grow up to inherit will look like. Both the options in the referendum will constrain their actions and choices in the future.

People shy away from romantic notions of national destiny and all of that, it's a bit American. As the Prime Minister said, we bring a cool head to these things. We talk in wallets and their weights, not in terms of the glory of our history. It's a bit cringey now to talk of finest hours and thousand year histories and all of that lark.

This means that all the romantic notions go onto the 'out' side. In Scotland, the cry of freedom stirs the soul in a way that pointing out economic synergy never will. No such case is yet made for Britain and Britishness. Similarly, UKIP can invoke the British Bulldog, one nation boldly stepping forward into an unknown future ready to demonstrate its unique ingenuity away from the hefty chains of 27 nations. As David Cameron said, there is no such thing as a European in the same way there are Germans.

Similarly, it is unlikely that either side in the referendum will take too much time discussing the geopolitical impact of a closer Europe or the militarily strategic impact of a single European political unit. The debate will be poorer because of it. We will not bring the full significance of what we do or do not sign up to public attention. When the young people of today hit middle age, they will take the lead in the country. The decision we take in this referendum will, either way, constrain their ability to shape the world for their own children. So we are obliged to take this decision in this light.

Of course, this project would be unnecessary if this were reality. The interests of the next generation are sidelined for the interests of the voting generation. So we must do something to communicate Europe to the people at large and young people in particular. They must form their thinking on it now and chip into the discussion (or start one) at their dinner tables and try to influence the outcome that will work best for them.

I can hear the incredulity from here. I know, I know. But let's see if I can condense the European question into a few hundred words. I failed in the first draft.

Let's talk cold, hard jobs. Youth unemployment went up again last quarter, so it's potent.

The 27 nations of the EU form the largest economy in the world. Larger than the United States. Adding in other countries like Norway and Switzerland, the margin is slightly higher. The 17 countries of the euro are the second-largest economy in the world. Still bigger than China, although not for long.

This means that global business have 500 million potential customers, all sitting there and waiting to buy things. Cars, phones, haulage, anything. They're all among the very richest countries in the world, so you can sell them stuff they don't even need. So, where should they headquarter? Where should they (nominally) pay tax? Here are the two choices:

A) Germany, a solid member of the eurozone, EU and single market? Located centrally for easy access to anywhere from Cabo de Roca (Portugal) in the West to Virmajärvi (Finland, I swear I had to look that up) in the East. By virtue of its membership, it has favouable trade deals with all the major markets.
B) The UK, who might have a referendum in 2017 on membership of the EU. An out vote means prolonged renegotation of every trade agreement with Europe to stay in the single market. This will happen on a timescale nobody can imagine with results that can't be predicted. They also have to deal with trade deals with all the other markets you want to sell in (US, Japan, China). Unpredictable population, may actually just leave the single market altogether because of perception of choking regulation from Brussels.

Decisions, decisions! Now, I agree with Nigel Farage that it's ridiculous to suggest that BMW will stop selling us cars, Nokia phones and all of that. Indeed, a similar argument goes like this:

A) Britain, home of the world's largest financial sector. Populist government wants to tax high income at 50p in the pound.
B) Monaco. Taxes? What's the address?

And the evidence suggests there isn't that much moving about by high earners. It doesn't even suggest it hampers business formation all that much. But tariffs imposed do have a demonstrable effect. They tax per unit shifted, meaning they cost more to produce or are less attractive to buy -- the effect is the same: less product gets shifted. So headquartering, if your company is large enough to really have an option, is a big thing.

It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that we wouldn't have access to the Single Market one way or the other. It is unlikely we will have tariffs imposed on us because of our exit from the Union. We may not be so lucky with China, India and Brazil however.

But, equally, we must explain that the outs are being disingenuous already. You can't in the same breath say the following: excessive regulation from Europe is choking the recovery, therefore we should leave the EU so we can get rid of it all and prosper AND say we will not lose access to the Single Market. The regulations form the single market and every member thereof, EU or not, must apply the directives that come through. Simple as.

So, there you have it. The in-out referendum is about deciding the future for the next generations.  On it depends our prosperity, which will be talked about a lot, our freedom of action for the future, which won't. Get buckled in for 3 more years at least of hearing infinitesemally different policies on the sliding scale that exists between Eurofederalism and Brexitism.

On that point, it's already been kicked off and it's like watching the Rolling Stones get back together again. The Rt Hons Tony Blair, Lord Mandleson and Charles Kennedy MP have all weighed in on David Cameron's much-anticipated Europe speech. It's like being back in 2004 all over again. I've come over all giddy.

An Unexpected Turn... alternative approaches (again)

Again on the alternative approaches.

I've laid out my approach before and discussed alternatives. I'll try not to go over all that ground again. Anyway, my proposed approach (which is, to a first degree approximation, a workshop format) is not the most well-received part of my project, I'll admit. It is the first thing that people criticise (albeit constructively) and it is definitely the thing that people, though they universally agree with the motivations, politely suggest should be modified.

So let me use this post to express a principled, respectful dissent against this notion. Then I'll point out some compromises I am having to make in order to progress.

We'll begin with a dialogue:

Me: "So Straight Forward aims to meaningfully empower young people in politics..."

Composite individual: "Gee, that sounds noble!"

Me: "For me, empowerment is being able to have a conversation with a politician as an equal. I suppose the analogue is a conversation about football."

Composite: " Yeah, that would be great! The question is, though, how do we get there?"

Me:  "So I plan to deliver a series of talks which selects five fairly recent events and use them to illustrate the changing nature of the political consensus in Britain. Then, I give people a framework through which to see politics, which is fundamentally about seeing politics through politicians and the decisions that they have to make."

AND… SCENE.

At this point, after some rather ill-explained summaries of those arguments I have about which events should be chosen, how to interpret them and so on, I generally get something along the lines of "Well, what is it that young people get to DO in this project?"

Now, I began this project determined to set up a media outlet for these now greatly astute and shrewd young people. In my vision, these young people immediately wowed their elders and we began a grassroots revolution in society's perception of their progeny.

But this is not a satisfactory answer to the question. People have serious qualms about asking young people to embark on a project where the promise goes like this: "We'll do a newspaper and some campaigning on local issues but only once I have talked for a long time."

I get that the doubt might be in my own abilities to keep the attention of an audience. However, I have managed thus far to satisfactory effect.

Instead, I think the objection comes from a well-meaning place. The objection comes, rather nicely along the way, to this: young people will get bored if they have to listen to someone for too long, especially if that person is not a known quantity. Especially if it is not a subject they are said to traditionally care about.

Now, I think this panders to a certain view of young people that I think is precisely the reason there is no concerted effort to engage the young. That view holds that young people exist in an impenetrable bubble, over which they are sovereign. Inside the bubble, all is sound and light, with a cacophony of alerts and graphics. For all intents and purposes, they are attached by optical nerve or brain stem to the device du jour, using the most trendy app.

Outside the wall is a wilderness of that which is deemed boring. You cannot really get in, you can only maximise your chances of being selected for the bubble. To maximise your chances, you don the trappings of modern technology and use it to amplify, visualise, simplify, app-ify and lots of other mysterious processes to communicate your message. Only in this way do you stand a chance.

Of course this is a gross caricature. But you can't question the appropriateness of the talk as an appropriate medium for this generation without subscribing to something like this. Let me dissent, as I said before.

People, I think, respond to authenticity. More specifically, they respond badly to things that seem contrived. By this token, you have to be careful with your deployment of technology or it becomes gimmicky. By all means, polish the production but sanding the edges off too much leaves you with an amorphous blob.

More importantly, people have to be in the right mood. The mistake is in assuming that people are looking to be entertained all the time. Sometimes they want what they find entertaining to be subverted, challenged, stretched to absurdity. Sometimes, you just feel like you want to learn something. People flit from watching TOWIE to Africa. Moreover, to make this assumption about young people is to ignore reality: young people already pursue interests not in the canon. They do so, voluntarily in most cases, when they go into college in the mornings.

Granted, they get qualifications out of it. But many people do English A Level (and many also go on to take it at degree), when there is no significant earnings advantage to it. Nor does it qualify them to do or be anything more than they are before. Yet they pursue it because they are interested. Politics can be the same. You can give people a working understanding of the issues without committing them to lots of reading or exams.

Now, I said I'd sold out on that. Why? Well, I can't convince people that my format will work in all cases. As a really new project, I don't have any case history to say "Look, this really worked in this way." Nor can I say "this is the finished product, take it or leave it." This isn't a finished product, it's in development in a huge way. So I have to make concessions, or simply have people admiring my intention and agreeing wholeheartedly with the sentiment I'm espousing but then not being convinced I can do it.

So my halfway point is heavily inspired by John Hunter of The World Peace Game Foundation. Hunter created the World Peace Game as a teaching tool for his gifted fourth graders (age 9/10, or the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland year 5). Consisting of five storeys, the game is played over what appears to be the course of the academic year. Players are divided into nation teams, consisting of various Cabinet positions.

They then aim to solve a list of issues which are destabilising world peace - for instance, global warming, poverty and so on. Of course, these issues tilt away from each other and stand to some degree in opposition. The point is that the situations aren't easily reconciled and they are beyond the capacity of any single player. The game is a mainly uncodified pile of differing protocols but Hunter facilitates the games so that they are each unique.

I won't delve too much into the WPG. Go to the website. But what the game provides is a great set of in-game experiences that allow the players to pause the game and discuss the implications of those events and how they relate to the challenges they themselves will face in the future.

Now, my hope is to recreate that discussion in a smaller way over the course of 50 minutes. I call this little subproject "Tension" -- to highlight the tension between the nation-teams' goals and the global goals, along with the opposing demands from the domestic and international front. I slim the game back down to one layer, sadly terrestrial, and set up an asymmetric distribution of power between the nations. I hope that this imbalance, this disequilibrium, spurs action to reach an equilibrium (i.e., attempt to solve the game). Specifically, because unlike many games, the solution is not in the capability of any one player, it should spur discussion on how to co-operate. Once there, the rest should fall into place as each team realises the other's limitations.

This, of course, is the essence of politics. Co-operating within constraints to achieve a favourable outcome.

So, yes, I sold out on my lecture series/workshop format -- I'll be honest. I'm not even sure I've done the right thing. But I think I've gone low-tech enough to be slighly disarming but interactive enough to perhaps create an atmosphere more conducive to questions and conversation -- which is a precondition for what I want out of this.