Book Review: Muslim Girl: A Coming of Age by Amani Al-Khatahtbeh

Muslim Girl is one of those things that seems a little hard to define. It started out as a web community and blog (on Livejournal! Remember Livejournal?), but these days, it's a Facebook page, a Twitter profile, a website, a hashtag, a column in magazines, a slogan on apparel... essentially, Muslim Girl is now a brand rather than any singular entity. It is the brainchild of Amani Al-Khatahtbeh, and now it is also a book - her autobiography.

From its scattershot, breathless introduction, to the very last page, the book zips from one thought to the next, largely without a linear path. This was a surprise: I'd vaguely expected an autobiography, possibly with a little politics and a dollop of lifestyle stuff for young female Muslims (which is more or less what I perceive Muslimgirl.com to be), but generally following the linear route that autobiographies tend to take. Like pretty much every expectation I had about the book, this was not the case.

The introduction sums up the essence of the Muslim Girl project. The first sentence:

"I'm kind of playing the game right now," I told Contessa Gayles in the bathroom of Muslim Girl's overpriced studio in Brooklyn, New York.

Then, after the name dropping (who is Contessa Gayles? Never heard of the woman) a brisk tour of post-millennium history and some of the things that sent shockwaves around Muslim communities in the West  (9/11, France's headscarf ban, the Iraq War and American atrocities against Iraqis, Trump),  followed by the final paragraph which sums up the Muslim Girl media phenomenon:

I think we've become starved for people to actually listen to us. We've become so desperate to hear our own voices above all the white noise that we have willfully compromised and repackaged our narratives to make them palatable - to make them commercial and catchy, to make them headline-worthy, to sell a story that you will find deserving of your attention. We call it playing the game, because you consuming some semblance of our truth is better than you consuming whatever else is out there, conjured by someone else on our behalf. But that's not good enough any more.

 ("White noise" ... Hah! I certainly did not expect her to use a pun...)

Reading the book was easy and pleasant enough: it's accessibly written, jumping around thoughts and little scenes fast enough not to get boring, and while it may occasionally get quite ranty, the rants rarely get to that eye-rolling stage. That said, the book did not leave me with very strong impressions or a deeper understanding of anything. My most fundamental take-away from the book is a certain envy of Amani: ten years younger than myself, she has achieved so much more, and left her mark on the world in a way that I have not. I can only take my hat off at her achievements.

I guess the second take-away is the matter of identity. I was 19 when the two towers fell. The author was 9. I'm a white, atheist male. She is an Arab Muslim. For me, world politics since 9/11 has often felt like an enormous, slow-motion train wreck: something with near-infinite momentum, with atrocities, disasters, injustice, and erosion of the liberal, multicultural values that I hold dear, and something I have been completely impotent to stop or change, no matter how many petitions I signed, protests I attended, or charities I donated to to undo some of the damage. When all is said and done, I have always been a spectator, which is, I guess, the luxury afforded to me by my visible identity. For Amani, a young Muslim girl, the geopolitical events weren't something that she could watch from outside, but something that shone a spotlight on her identity, and seemingly defined her life. I have to admit to being quite tired of identity politics, and every time someone mentions "intersectionality" I groan inwardly. The book did remind me that this is a luxury that not everyone shares, and that there are some instances where ticking many boxes in the check list of "disadvantaged groups" really does mean an accumulation of troubles.

Where the book fell flat is in the "autobiography" bit. Perhaps it's because the author is still so young that she simply hasn't lived long enough to have many stories to tell. But my suspicion is that Amani shares a quality with many Muslims: that of being essentially a private person. It's perfectly understandable (and wise, in a world where racists are emboldened), but it means that even after reading the book, I have only the vaguest notion of what her family are like, and virtually no idea who else is in her life. I might know about some instances when she was bullied, but there is very little that's personal in the book.  If you were hoping that Muslim Girl would be like a Millennial Muslim version of Caitlin Moran's "How to be a Woman" (as I must sheepishly admit, I was), then that hope, too, will not be realised.

Finally, the book made me wonder about the future of Muslim Girl. When it launched, the idea of a pop culture, lifestyle-heavy, feminist, tolerant media outlet for Muslim Girls was overdue, revolutionary, and ripe. Now, after the girlpower phase is possibly approaching its zenith, with Amani appearing in music videos and casually name dropping celebrities she's met in her first autobiography, I cannot help but wonder: will Muslim Girl grow up? Will we see Muslim Woman, aimed at the Linda Sarsour generation, perhaps a little less consumerist and hip, perhaps daring not just to "play the game" but to meet the problems Muslim women face head-on: right-wing populism, discrimination and Islamophobia in the West, genuine oppression and persecution in Persia and much of the Arab world...

In summary: the book might not be exactly what you expect from an autobiography. It chronicles a life that has only just begun, and it shines a spotlight on how Muslims in the West are victimised by a society where racism flourishes, rather than giving in-depth, personal insight into one life, but it's short, never boring, and worth a read.

Brexit (again): A Letter to my Labour MP

After today's Supreme Court Ruling, I decided to write to my MP again. Below, you can find the general elements of the letter (I also included specifics about a conversation I've had with her recently, and my case).

If you have a Labour MP, please feel free to use this text to write to yours, if you agree with it....

Dear (name)

(...)
I am writing to you today because of the Supreme Court ruling on triggering Article 50. I would like to ask you to urge Jeremy Corbyn to adjust his (and Labour’s) position in light of the ruling. I would also like to ask you to vote against triggering Article 50 unless major changes to the government's Brexit plan are achieved. Here’s why:
1)      The referendum was a vote to leave the EU, but not a vote to give Theresa May a blank cheque to carry out a disastrous Brexit that will ruin British workers.
2)      The current government talks of realigning the UK economy as if this were an easy thing. Decades of poverty in the Welsh valleys prove beyond doubt that restructuring an economy is deeply traumatic and comes at the expense of generations of people’s lives and futures. Labour mustn’t let May do to all of Britain what Thatcher has done to the mining communities.
3)      Several of the Leave campaigners promised that the UK would stay in the Single Market. The Norwegian model was openly advocated before the referendum. It is therefore absolutely right that the opposition should hold the government to that promise – and withhold consent from triggering Article 50 unless the same act of Parliament instructs the government to adopt keeping the UK inside the EEA as main priority in their negotiating positions.
4)      While the (extremely narrow) majority of voters voted 'Leave', a significant majority of Labour voters voted Remain. The Labour party is not just there to represent all people – it is also there to represent the will of its own members and voters. Labour has a strong remit to oppose triggering Article 50 and cannot absolve itself of its role in a parliamentary democracy with talk of the “will of the people”. 52% is not the same as 100%. Those of us who oppose Brexit, and who oppose a ruinous one, deserve representation, too!
5)      Whatever your (or Jeremy Corbyn's) views on EU membership, the Conservatives will not put the interest of workers first when negotiating with the EU or the rest of the world. They will negotiate on behalf of bankers and bosses. A Brexit negotiated by Labour would be very different from a Brexit negotiated by the Conservatives - so why should Labour act as enabler for the Conservatives? If Jeremy Corbyn believes that the referendum gives a clear mandate for Brexit, then he should still oppose a Brexit negotiated by the Conservatives with all his might, and promise to carry out a Labour Brexit once Labour is back in power instead.
All it takes is for non-Conservative parties to band together, and a few Tory rebels, to put the brakes on Theresa May’s incompetent plans for a ruinous Brexit. Theresa May is not the High Priestess of Brexit; she does not speak for all voters, not even all voters who voted ‘Leave’. To preserve the British economy, British jobs, and the British way of life, the UK must stay inside the Single Market. It is the role of the opposition, and our representatives, to do everything possible to ensure that.
I look forward to hearing from you – and thank you, again, for the work you do.
Yours sincerely

(me)

2016: Year of The Deplorables?

I am an inherently political person. This doesn't make me great company - much as I love conversations about a million topics, there is a high chance politics will enter it sooner or later when I'm around. This blog post will be my attempt, in a ruminating, rambling kind of way, to digest the past year (plus or minus a bit).

Soft Brexit

Apparently, there is now a name for the least worst Brexit option: "soft Brexit". That said, it is baffling to see British politicians and press talk of a "Norway Plus" model. I think this is a staggering miscalculation: opinions in the EU range from "let's be punitive towards Britain" to "let's give Britain a deal that matches an existing deal with other countries". There is literally no one, aside from British punters, who is willing to contemplate letting the UK carry out Brexit with a special deal that is somehow better than the deal any other country has.

When the Brexit negotiations happen, the UK will have to choose which is more important: access to the single market, or opting out of the free movement of people. Seeing pundits speculate about deals that would retain one, while restricting the other, is mind-boggling. Only a very deluded politician or journalist could believe that the UK will get yet another special deal after spitting in the face of the EU.

Meanwhile, I continue to make the best of a bad situation, by campaigning for the Norway model. I know that it is the option which would hurt the UK's population the least, and result in no loss of UK citizens' rights.

My Letters and the Replies Received so far

I've started to receive a few replies to the letters I've been sending out to elected representatives. What delighted me most is that some of the replies seemed individual letters rather than form letters / bulk responses.

Please join my campaign efforts, and write to your representatives. If you are an EU citizen, please also write to your elected representatives - they may well be receiving fewer letters than British representatives do, and they are likely to pay attention. (As you can see below, the  most individual response I've received was from a German parliamentarian)

Below the break, you can read the letters and the replies I've received.

Jeremy Corbyn and the broken political system

Post-referendum, reading the news is about as dispiriting as it can get. As if the collapse of government and the risk of economic destruction weren't enough, we're also getting a daily dose of the most remarkable case of workplace bullying that's ever been seen - the way Jeremy Corbyn is being treated by the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Two very different conflagrations

The media have been delighted at the internal bickering and sniping within the Conservative Party in the lead up to the referendum. It might have looked like Game of Thrones, House of Cards, a Tory Civil War, but it's a very different conflict from the one tearing Labour apart. The Conservative Party presents a broadly united front except for a single issue (Europe), and it's roughly evenly split on that one - and the politicians have taken care to attack each other's rhetoric and points a lot more than each other's characters. (Well, Heseltine talking about Boris is an exception).

In Labour, meanwhile, the conflict plays out as 170 people against one. Every single attack is on his character and person. However, the one is the avatar of a few hundred thousand voters, and the underlying conflict is much more broad in its ideological differences. Labour is no longer a united front of any sort, and it's dying.

Toxic Labour

Chakrabati's inquiry into racism in Labour concluded that there is no systemic problem, but that there is an 'occasionally toxic atmosphere'. What an understatement - the atmosphere has been toxic since Jeremy Corbyn announced his intention to stand as candidate, and has been getting steadily more toxic by the day.

I'm one of those people who joined Labour in order to vote for Corbyn's leadership bid. It was very clear that:

• Jeremy Corbyn has morals and principles which are largely the same as what Labour is/was supposed to stand for
• He's a decent person
• He is unlikely to betray his values

It's also been very clear, right from the start, that principles are more important to him than networks. He's not a bridge builder, not an appeaser, not someone who compromises on the fundamentals. He's an outsider with a strong moral core and values that match those of many grassroots left wing and liberal activists (including me). Perhaps unsurprisingly, he had few allies among Labour's MPs, after many years of not towing the party line if he did not agree with it. 

Even so, the viciousness of the internal conflagrations in Labour took me by surprise. Right from the start, barely a week went by without some senior Labour politician declaring him unfit to rule. On an almost weekly basis, some people in the shadow cabinet planted stories in the press suggesting that Corbyn was planning to fire them all. Somehow, they played the victim even though no attack had taken place. 

Looking just at the facts rather than rumours and accusations that never materialised, Corbyn has been admirably principled leader. A minor cabinet reshuffle took place, MPs were given freedom to vote with their conscience on military intervention in Syria, and, though immediate rumours were planted that Corbyn was planning to get rid of Hilary Benn after all the positive attention the press had paid to his (rich in rhetoric, thin on substance) speech, Corbyn did not 'punish' anyone for having disagreed with him. The most mindboggling thing is how the press have been selling the idea that Corbyn is a vengeful, plotting schemer, when all the scheming and plotting appears to have occurred around him. Then, the "anti-semitism" crisis which was carefully manufactured by the media and a handful of politicians, presumably because of Corbyn's history of supporting Palestinians. Corbyn again responded as a decent person might: by launching an independent inquiry and putting a highly regarded outsider in charge of it. 

Now, the mass resignations and votes of no confidence by MPs, apparently carefully stage-managed and long in the planning, are designed to remove him. The amount of spin that's been employed against Corbyn is mind-boggling. Labour winning a by-election despite Corbyn being its leader? A failure (because UKIP came second). Winning the biggest share in local elections? A failure (because Labour didn't make gigantic gains, merely four mayoral posts and a few councils). Having more than two thirds of his party's supporters vote for Remain? A catastrophic failure (because all Labour voters should have obeyed Corbyn?). The man could solve climate change and yet still be branded a failure by his party politicians and the press.

He's standing fast so far, but I can't imagine the psychological pressure he must be under. The most bullied man in Britain.

Ugly Politics

Politics has gotten very ugly indeed. This does not exclude Corbyn's supporters...

11 days ago, a Labour MP was killed in the street leaving her surgery. This T-shirt strike you as funny? pic.twitter.com/IZkWHa24N9

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 27, 2016

I completely condemn abuse of MPs of any kind. No abuse is carried out in my name. There is no place for this in society or in our politics.

— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) June 30, 2016

JK Rowling spends a lot of her energies attacking Corbyn at the moment. This is disappointing, because I usually respect her opinions.

However, it's also true that Corbyn has attracted support from die-hard socialists, from angry activists who are as angry and bitter on the left, as Britain First & UKIP are on the right.  Corbyn has repeatedly spoken out against their behaviour.  But the press and public discourse are acting as if they are his base. They're not.

Jeremy Corbyn's base of support is built on people who have been feeling disappointed with Labour for years. It's built on people who vote Labour as "least worst option", not because they believe Labour still stands for anything. It's built on people who have been voting LibDem and Green in some elections because Labour had moved too far from its principles. It's built on people who felt alienated and yes, betrayed, by Tony Blair's government. It's built on people who look at Nicola Sturgeon and wish she'd not be a Scottish Nationalist, but a Labour Leader, people who think Blair was a despicable war criminal, who want more idealistic, principled leaders, people who think that the difference between New Labour and Compassionate Conservatism is paper thin, and who are sick of being forced into a binary, tribal choice because their own instincts are not "new" labour at all. Many of my friends are Corbyn supporters, having voted LibDem, Green, and, strategically but reluctantly, Labour.

When I joined Labour, I had to promise to adhere to its principles, which include "socialism". I am not actually a devout socialist, so I hesitated slightly. But Blairite MPs? Would any of them openly call themselves socialists? Under Blair, Labour stood for one thing only: wanting to be in power. It had no core beliefs, except that it was "not the Tories", and that seemingly was enough for Blair & Co.

I do not support political parties like people support football teams. They are meant to be more than a brand. They are meant to have some kind of philosophical basis. Corbyn, of all the candidates in the last leadership election, seemed to be the most ideologically Labour candidate, and that was why I voted for him.

It's not Jeremy Corbyn who is tearing the Labour party apart - it's the MPs. They've wronged him, they've wronged Labour supporters, and they are making Labour completely unelectable.

When the entire world is wrong and you are right, then that doesn't mean you should give up...

Will I vote Corbyn?

Assuming there will be a leadership contest, will I use my Labour membership to vote Corbyn?

I don't know. 

I think he's like Jimmy Carter - a great man, but not, perhaps, a great politician. (Turns out having a large network of sleazy and corrupt MPs is a pre-requirement, unless you want to be bullied out of office and constantly surrounded by conspiracies). I don't think he's inherently unelectable, but I do think the persistent, public bullying by Labour MPs, and the hostile stance of the press (including, in a case of bias that reeks to heaven, the BBC) is making him so. A political self-fulfilling prophecy.

That said, there's no way in hell that I'd vote for Angela Eagle after finding out more about what she stands for (last year, I'd voted for her as Deputy Leader). I guess a whole lot depends on who stands against him. If Jo Cox were alive, I would vote for her in a hearbeat. I would consider voting for MPs who are new to Parliament since the 2015 election, provided they stand for things I can support, and provided they haven't been part of this horrendous bullying.

I would prefer seeing Corbyn in a shadow cabinet, as Shadow Foreign Secretary or Shadow Minister for Work and Pensions, and someone young, idealistic, freshly elected and not tainted with the stains of toxicity & backstabbing as leader of the Labour Party. 

Failing that, I will probably vote Corbyn again.

I suspect that, unless things change, I will leave Labour. The way the parliamentary party has been acting is nothing short of despicable and abhorrent. I'm vaguely horrified that I am more impressed by the Scottish Nationalist Party (even though I hate any and all nationalism) than by Labour.

The Mess Needs Fixing

It seems to me that the real reason why this country's politics is being torn apart is the First Past The Post electoral system. It is this system which created two political parties which are largely tribal, with limited ideological basis. It is this system which has resulted in voters getting more and more frustrated and angry, as they struggle to find a politician or party that they can support. It is a system which forces people to vote for the lesser evil, rather than the things they really believe in.

Now I know Owen Jones is an 'acquired taste' (he seems like a smug lefty demagogue to me whenever I see him), but have a look at this video. He actually talks sense.

...and yes, PR would mean a much bigger UKIP presence in Parliament, and other parties I don't like. But that's democracy. Let people vote for something for a change, rather than voting against things. The compromises required to form a government are much more palatable if the coalition of ideas is one between different parties, rather than an internalised coalition of specific MPs.

If you agree, please join / follow / support Make Votes Matter. It's the only way to fix Britain's political system and make meltdowns like the one we are witnessing at the moment less likely. 

If the electorate hands you lemons...

So, Brits actually voted for Brexit.

Britain, to Europe

My (and most of my friends') reaction...

They voted Lemons. Let's make Lemonade.

I don't believe in asking for a second referendum (though if you do, there's a very popular petition for that). But I do believe that, after the initial shock has worn off, there's no reason to lose hope.

Here's why hope is warranted:

I still believe that the Brexit scenario the UK will end up with is to continue its EEA / EFTA membership (the Norway model). I outlined why in my very long first Brexit blog post, but here's a refresher of what it would entail:

• Continued access to the single market.
• Continued free movement of people (i.e. no changes to immigration, still the same rights for Brits to live, work and study in European countries)
• Continued acceptance of most EU regulations (though without input into shaping them)
• Financial contributions to the EU under the Norway grants scheme - probably a little less than the UK currently contributes to the EU. This would go to recipient EU countries in need of development (but not to recipient UK regions in need of development), so Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal etc. would not be out of pocket by the UK's departure.
• No Common Fisheries Policy (i.e. no fishing quotas)
• No Common Agricultural Policy (UK farmers on anything but industrial scale farms are going to be screwed)
• No votes in European Commission, Council, Parliament etc.

At this point, this scenario is the best that Britain can hope for. However, I no longer believe that it is certain to be the outcome, just that it is still likelier than any other alternative. Several politicians (in the UK and in the EU) have openly declared intentions that the UK should leave the single market. 

Here's why I think the Norway model is more likely than leaving the single market:

• Every other instance of countries having referenda about membership in European markets, where the referenda came out negative, has resulted in arrangements that are as close as possible to EU membership while still honouring the democratic decision. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland: the two former countries are in the EEA, the latter has replicated almost all of EEA through a batch of "bilateral" agreements that are all linked together. Basically, political leaders faced with a population that is eurosceptic have almost always ended up putting their countries as close to the EU as they could. 
• Politicians want to be (re-)elected. Leaving the EEA would throw the UK into ten years or more of economic chaos, with a lengthy recession at the start. Any government proactively causing not just a brief stock market crash, but actual long-term recession, would severely scupper its chances of getting re-elected.
• Aside from the SNP, politicians want to preserve "the Union". If the UK remains an EEA member, then most benefits of being in the EU still apply. For the fishing industry, there'd be fewer restrictions. Any second Scottish referendum would therefore have to present "EU-accession" (which includes eventually adopting the Euro and continuing to abide by Common Fisheries Policy) as the "Independence" option, while the "staying together" option would stick with the pound and stay out of fishing quotas. Basically, if they want Scotland to stay, they have to keep Britain in the EEA.
• The referendum wasn't won by the "Leave" extremists. It was won by confused, mostly undecided voters who want "change" and were shown a long list of (semi-fictional) grievances and who were promised the world. Now they see the first shockwaves of their decision. They also see how quickly the promises are being abandoned. Staying in the EEA is the UK's best chance of preserving its economy (and JOBS), and of not completely alienating the bulk of the electorate. 
• It'd be the quickest solution and actually achievable within 2 years. (The main sticking point would probably be just how much the UK would have to put into the Norway Grants). 

Will Boris turn the UK into The Black Knight?

Likely, however, is not the same as assured. If, post-Cameron, the more far-right elements take over government, the UK could continue shooting itself in various limbs (the foot having already been shot yesterday) until none are left.

So, my request for friends and readers who opposed Brexit is this:

Please start writing to politicians NOW.  Please keep writing to them (and feel free to write to more than one, and perhaps even to write to MPs where your families live). Please tell politicians what your priorities are for the upcoming Brexit negotiations. 

If you don't want to spend a long time writing your own letter, I've prepared two for you to copy, paste into the contact form online, and adapt. Delete stuff you disagree with, add stuff of your own.

• Letter for Conservative MPs
• Letter for Labour MPs

Tell them what you value.

• As a Brit, do you value the right to travel, live, work and study in other EU countries? Do you want children / future generations to have that right?
• Do you value the contribution of immigrants to UK society?
• Do you value access to the single market (and how appealing this is to major manufacturers and employers)?
• Do you value solidarity with nations hit hard by the recession and decades of underdevelopment (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Romania etc)? Do you think they should suffer financial losses if the UK leaves?

• As (non-UK) European, do you value Britain's inclusion in Europe?
• Do you value being able to travel, live, work and study in the UK?
• Do you value a quick resolution and return to economic stability?
• Do you value solidarity with the 48% of the British electorate who want to be part of the EU?

Please, write to your MP. Write to your AM. Write to your MEP. Write to your Abgeordnete/r, your sénateur, your deputati, ...

We can stop the UK from slipping further towards insanity, and we can stop the EU from crumbling. We just need to make sure that common sense prevails among the people who implement Brexit.

Brexit 3.0: My Case for Remain

One of the most frustrating things about the EU Referendum is that it is hard to argue for the status quo. It’s one of those “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone” situations. But, let’s have a go, anyway. Unlike my previous Brexit post which went a little viral, this one is not trying to be unbiased.

1 Economics

Economics isn’t as ‘pure’ a science as maths or physics or even climate change, so it’s natural that people don’t trust economists as much as, say, your friendly neighbourhood scientific genius. However, when 90% of economists agree on a prediction, it’s worth paying attention. They might disagree about how bad the economic impact of Brexit would be on Britain, but they all agree that there would be a significant cost. The British economy would shrink, by between 0.5% and 3%. The Economist predicts a rise in unemployment of 380,000 people by 2018.

For comparison, the 2008-13 recession saw the British economy shrink by 6% and unemployment rise by about 1 million people. So the best guess for the short term impact of Brexit is that it would be about half as bad as the 2008 financial crisis - not the end of the world. What happens after that is pretty much anyone’s guess.

Some of the very few pro-Brexit economists believe that it would hurt Europe more than Britain, so there could be job losses and economic plight in Europe. I have to admit, I’m not entirely clear on how this is an argument for Brexit – in a vote between “no additional economic harm” and “economic harm for us, or, if we’re lucky, for others”, the second option does not hold all that much appeal whichever way you cut it.

That’s just the immediate impact. In the longer term, no one knows. Some pro-Brexit economists believe a long rise, but simulations are impossible: everything depends on how well Britain is managed and what happens elsewhere in the world and what sort of deals get negotiated.

One of the effects of this immediate, fairly certain Brexit recession? The UK government would suffer a tax income reduction (and increase in jobseekers’ cost) that equals or exceeds the savings it would generate from not being a member of the EU anymore. All those promises about using the money the UK contributes to the EU now to prop up the NHS, Make Britain Great Again, replace the lost Regional Development income, keep funding British farmers? They’re demonstrably wrong, as the UK government would, by the reckoning of the vast majority of predictions, lose more money than it’d save.

So, in the short to medium term, Brexit would be a punch in our economic face. Even prominent Leave supporters and funders acknowledge this. Some even celebrate it: Peter Hargreaves, a billionnaire who has put millions into the Leave Campaign, is so excited about the prospect that he compared it with Dunkirk (the infamous military retreat Britain suffered early in WW2):

"It would be the biggest stimulus to get our butts in gear that we have ever had. It will be like Dunkirk again. We will get out there and we will be become incredibly successful because we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic.”

2 Leadership

Churchill? Methinks Not.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, agree with him. Let’s see Brexit as an opportunity that could enable the UK’s fortunes to soar in the long term. It’s not entirely unrealistic. On average, UK people already work more hours than Germans, for lower wages. So there’s obviously a different philosophy in place in Britain – wages could sink lower, hours could increase, and the Amazon model of employee performance management could become universally adopted among employers and finally kick our lazy butts in gear.

But, and it’s a huge “but”, where is the Winston Churchill of the Dunkirk metaphor? Would anyone honestly compare Cameron, or Johnson, or Gove, or Duncan-Smith, or May, or Corbyn, or even Farage with Churchill? In what universe? 

British people may be hard working, but this isn’t WWII: the survival of Britain is not at stake (no matter what Leavers might claim). This referendum will not be decided by die-hard Leavers or Remainers – it’ll be decided by the previously undecided voters. When the recession starts to bite, when a few hundred thousand people find themselves out of work a couple of years from now, when big multinational corporations pull out of the UK, do you think any of the current crop of politicians will be able to rally and motivate the population to pull through and turn the UK into a fiercely competitive tiger economy? Which of the politicians do you believe will be that leader – I’d really love to know.

My point is this: without a great, effective, competent and trusted leader, the Brexit recession will lead to political instability in the UK, and that in turn will make it much more likely that the economy will stay in the doldrums than that it should recover. With the current crop of politicians, the economic punch to the face could turn into a knock-out blow, rather than the punch that enrages the UK into a ferocious comeback.

3 Stability

Someone famously asked “What is the problem to which the EU is the solution?”

The answer is “The vulnerability of individual nation states to become politically unstable”

It’s hard to believe that Spain and Portugal were dictatorships in living memory (though not within my own lifetime). I do remember Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany being dictatorships. Watching as Poland’s current government is drifting towards authoritarianism is scary – and watching the EU push back against that is actually a big comfort.

The Troubles

This is an argument British people don’t really believe applies to them. Britain has been fairly stable for centuries, so there is a deep-seated belief that instability and political conflagrations are something that happens elsewhere, to other nations. It could not happen here, could it?

2011 Riots

Unfortunately, I think that’s an unfounded sense of superiority. It can and sometimes does happen to the most stable of nations. In the UK, The Troubles in Northern Ireland are not that far ago. They were in decline when I was a child, but people who lived through them in the 1970s and 80s may tell you that, at times, it did not seem as if a collapse of order was inconceivable. Similarly, the 2011 riots fizzled out quickly enough, but surely I can’t have been the only one watching the news open-mouthed, horrified, and beset with an uneasy sense that we’d be in real trouble if they’d continued much longer.

Look across the Atlantic, as Donald Trump is now one of only two candidates with a shot at the White House. Just because a democracy has been working for a hundred years or more does not mean it can never lead to disaster.

The EU is really a checks-and-balances operation, and sometimes it acts as a check and balance to its member states. As I mentioned in a previous Brexit blog post, it’s the ultimate centrist institution. The big decisions only come into effect when all member countries agree – and that means the EU is a beast of compromise, as there will never be a scenario wherein all member states lean to the left or to the right simultaneously.

Stability may not be exciting, and it slows down change (which is frustrating if you want to make big changes to society), but it can be a real benefit. Don’t undervalue it. 30p a day is pretty good value for that.

4 Clout

The EU is slowly establishing itself as a superpower. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it looked like America was going to be the sole superpower for a while. Now, the balance of power has shifted, and the superpowers are America, China, the EU and Russia. (Putin is staying uncharacteristically quiet, because he very obviously wants Brexit to happen. He’s keen for the EU to collapse, resenting its rise and eastward expansion, so a Brexit would suit him nicely).

While there are lots of countries in the EU, when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy, most of the decision making is heavily influenced by the big three – Germany, France and the UK. Whether it’s negotiating with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, or agreeing trade deals, or responding to the Arab Spring or the refugee crisis – the EU amplifies the UK’s clout in the world enormously. (If you think some of the global events are all being mishandled, you’re not the only one, but the handling of all these is more or less in line with the UK’s policies and wishes…)

Britain’s membership of NATO and its nuclear arsenal may be significant, but they will not guarantee a seat at the table in discussions about world events. Geopolitically, Turkey is probably more important to NATO right now than Britain. As a member of the EU, the UK has almost a third of the clout of a superpower. On its own, it’d have roughly the same influence on global events as Canada, with or without Trident.

5 Idealism

Of course the EU is partially built on idealism. I happen to share the ideal of a world (or at least a Europe) without borders but even if you don’t, there are bound to be some European ideals that you do believe in.

Culture: the EU is about multiculturalism (with exchange projects like Erasmus to expose people to other European cultures) and about local culture (funding the arts, supporting language & heritage preservation).

Education: thanks to the conditions created by the EU, most higher education systems in Europe have adopted the British qualifications. Bachelor degrees and Masters degrees are now the norm across most of Europe! Come on Britain, YOU’VE WON. Most of Europe is following in your footsteps when it comes to the way universities operate. Also, the EU supports and funds education and research initiatives.

Stilton

Protection of Heritage Produce: It might have all started with champagne, but these days there are dozens of British small and medium sized companies that flourish because their regional produce is protected. From Stilton to Cornish Pasties – various British regions have become valuable brands.

Environment & animal rights: The EU could and should do more to protect the environment, wildlife and animal welfare. But even so, air quality standards, water quality standards, the banning of neonicotinoid pesticides for the protection of bees, banning animal testing for cosmetic purposes, improving the conditions for factory farmed pigs and chickens…  they might not always go far enough, but there are significant achievements that affect the environment and animals across Europe. There are certainly ongoing efforts to keep improving environmental protection and animal welfare.

Privacy and Consumer Rights: British people feel less protective of their (digital) privacy than Germans, but most will recognise that Facebook, Whatsapp, Snapchat etc. have a lot of sensitive information about all of us. The EU does work to protect people’s rights, including privacy. As for Consumer Rights, as far as I know any electrical product sold in the EU has to have at least two years manufacturer’s warranty, which is why crappy junk products are sold by scamsters from the back of vans, rather than on the high street. European air passengers are the best protected in the world (in case of cancellation or delays), European airspace is the safest in the world (there are lists of airlines and individual planes owned by certain airlines which are not allowed to fly into European skies), and, much as in-depth labelling of allergens might be a headache for small businesses, European food labelling is among the best in the world, giving consumers the power to make informed choices.

6 Potential

Maybe you’re  not planning to move abroad, or to retire in a warmer climate. Maybe you don’t have children, or your children won’t ever want to study or work abroad. Maybe Europe is of as little interest to you as Argentina, or Botswana, or Antarctica.

However, many people quite would like to head somewhere warmer when they grow old. Children and young people have more potential within the EU than outside: university education is free in some European countries, and many courses in continental Europe are now taught in English, so young people don’t even need to be fluent in a foreign language to save £30,000 of tuition fees. And, in an increasingly globalised world, having the right to live and work in many countries automatically is actually a pretty massive opportunity. An open door is open in both ways. I believe there is value in preserving and maximising one’s potential.

7 Scab UK?

The EU is not just a European Free Trade Union. In some ways, it is also a European Trade Union, with a membership that's made up of countries, not employees. It uses collective bargaining power to negotiate with outsiders. It brings in regulations to protect the interests of its member nations and citizens. That stuff Leave Campaigners decry as protectionism? That's the foundation of what trade unions do: protect the (perceived) interests of their  members.

That doesn't mean it's great, but the Leave Campaign's position can be seen as "let's be a scab: the UK might benefit (at the expense of other EU members)".

The problem with that sort of approach is that, if the Leavers turn out to be right (which I seriously doubt), then this could lead to a race to the bottom. If the UK does well out of a bonfire of regulations and by becoming a sort of Wild West for businesses and capitalist barons, then chances are, other European countries will follow the UK's lead. If the competitive advantages are as big as the Leavers claim (and, again, they are almost certainly not), then the UK would be leading the charge into lower protection for workers, natural environments, consumers... basically, all the stuff that was not great about the Industrial Revolution and its robber barons, all the stuff that makes China not just economically successful but also an inhumane mess (where people in cities have to wear breathing masks, employees are driven to suicide by working practices, where species go extinct and entire ecosystems die)... all of that could be headed our way.

So, do you see the UK as a scab? 

8 Insurance

Some people buy optional insurance, others don’t. To me, the EU has always seemed to be the biggest insurance safety net that I have.

If I get sick or tired of Britain or too depressed by the Welsh weather, I can leave and start a new life elsewhere without a problem.

If the British economy goes to pots and I lose my job, I can leave and start a new life elsewhere without a problem.

If some cataclysmic events occur (Chernobyl-style reactor meltdowns, tsunamis, intemperate climate change, fracking-related poisoning of drinking water, an invasion of spiders, the reintroduction of the military draft, a UKIP general election victory), I can leave and start a new life elsewhere without a problem.

To me, 30p a day seems a pretty good bargain for that sort of insurance.

9 Questions to ask of the Leave Campaign

The pro-Remain rhetoric, spin and fearmongering are annoying and embarrassing. The pro-Leave lies, meanwhile, are stomach-churning.

But, should you encounter Leave campaigners, ask them some questions.

• They complain of EU over-regulation. Ask them for a list of the regulations they intend to scrap.
• They promise how they’d spend the money Britain would save if it left the EU. Ask them where they’d get the money from if Britain entered a recession. 
• They complain the EU is undemocratic. Ask them whether they voted in the last European election. Ask them whether they personally voted for any of the members of the House of Lords, or the Privy Council, or High Court judges, or any of the ministers in the current cabinet. Ask them whether the UK is undemocratic if its government has policies that they didn’t personally agree with. 
• They complain that immigrants steal jobs. Ask them how the UK has the lowest unemployment rate in Europe.
• They complain that immigrants are to blame for the housing crisis and put strains on services. Ask them why the UK government didn’t build more houses, or increase service provisions. (After all, immigration has been happening for years – is it the immigrants’ fault that UK governments haven’t been managing supply properly? Immigrants pay more into the UK in taxes than they take out in public services – without them, austerity would have to be more austere than it already is! Britain imports profitable working people and exports loss-making old retirees, in terms of public service / tax balances!) 
• They complain that the UK has lost sovereignty. (It hasn’t, according to law professors / experts). Ask them why they don’t want any say at the European level. 
• Ask them to explain to you in detail not what is wrong with the EU, but what they believe the UK’s post-Brexit arrangement with Europe and the world will be, and why. 
• Ask them who they believe will be in power in Downing Street for the next few years, and whether they are confident that Britain will be sufficiently well-managed by its governments to avoid economic stagnation, and why they believe so. 

Compare the answers you get from different Leave campaigners. Do they match? Do they sound convincing? Which ones do you believe in?

10 If Remain Wins

All of the above is necessarily talking about existing achievements and policies of the EU. But, for a moment, let’s daydream about the potential for the future.

It’s Friday. The results are in. “Remain” has won, but over 40% of votes were for “Leave”. David Cameron breathes a huge sigh of relief as the nation sides with the least worst option in spite of his staggering incompetence in how he’s been handling the EU. (Meanwhile, Britain First alleges vote rigging, Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins imply that the referendum would have had a different turnout if Jo Cox had not been assassinated / the government had played fair / British voters weren't all mindless sheeple, and proceed to whine like crybabies).

So, what next? Well, if David Cameron were a competent leader, here’s what he would do:

• He’d take the results back to the EU and point out that Britain came to within a whisker of leaving.
• He’d not put the UK’s relationship with the EU back on the agenda, but instead focus on EU reform, to benefit not (just) Britain, but people and nations across Europe.
• He’d point out that the EU has a problem of rising extremism, and that the problem is growing in violence and danger, which requires addressing, not just with rhetoric and lots of educated people sitting around a room looking baffled and despairing, but with looking at how the EU should be reshaped to be less abstract and more palatable to people across Europe.
• One of the EU’s problems is that there are many people making a living coming up with new regulations and adding to the bureaucracy. The first thing that should change is that some of the existing committees and groups should have their mission changed to scrap and condense regulations, rather than come up with new ones. (No new people should be hired – there simply should be a reallocation of existing EU resources to trimming, rather than growing, the regulations)
• A new EU law / directive / whatever should be proposed (and passed) which demands that any subsequent new regulations and laws must undergo iterative testing before they are approved EU-wide. I.e. designated “pilot areas”, one in each member country, should apply any new law. Then, someone should assess in each area what worked, what didn’t, how it was enforced (if at all) and what difference it made. Only once there is demonstrable evidence that there’s a difference, that the law works, that it has benefit, should it pass through the EU parliament for a vote.
• Cameron should propose a complete restructuring of the EU, to make it more transparent, democratic and efficient. The negotiations to restructure it would last about 10-15 years and far exceed his time in office, but the key thing is that EU reform should be a long-term objective on the agenda of Britain (and the EU). 
• There should be some changes to secondary education in the UK. Every pupil should have the opportunity (and be very much encouraged) to learn two foreign languages, and European ones (especially French) should be promoted. A scheme to promote language courses to be provided to university students studying any subject should also be conceived. Why? Eurocrat jobs require as essential requirement fluency in two languages and some competence in a third. I believe one of the fluency languages must be either French or English. One of the reasons Britain doesn’t have as strong a voice inside the European Commission as it could is a lack of people who have good foreign language skills. Britain is a leading voice on the European Council, but the European Commission could really benefit from more British perspectives being present.
• Finally, the migrant question. Britain could take a number of approaches. For example, the UK could negotiate with the EU a temporary moratorium on free movement EU migration to the UK in return for offering to take as many Syrian refugees as there were EU immigrants last year. It’s quite possible the EU might be open to such a deal. Alternatively and somewhat less nobly, the UK could implement immigration-reducing policies as outlined in my last ranty blog post...
• Oh, and he really needs to start working on solutions to the disgusting nature of political discourse (and debates about immigration) in the UK. 

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, there's work ahead. If the next ten years aren't spent negotiating Brexit, then there should be initiatives to improve the EU and make it more accountable, representative and palatable to its people. Because fundamentally, the principle of working together with other countries, trading freely, protecting consumers and human rights and the environment, and stabilising nation states is actually pretty damn sound, whatever flaws currently beset the implementation.

The Tragedy of the Incompetence of David Cameron

Do you ever feel like having a long, incoherent rant? No? Well, after the events of this week, I do.

Let's start with the basics: I still think Brexit is unlikely to be the economic end of the world, and I still think Brexit is unlikely to deliver any of the things Britain really wants. For that analysis, written when I was in a somewhat less grim mood, see my Politics Special: Brexit.

Now, on to the Tragedy of Incompetent Leadership in the UK.

Act 1: Incompetent Negotiation

In the UK, everyone will tell you that the EU is resistant to reform, a juggernaut, laden down with inertia, unable to change. There is an element of truth in this: the EU does operate on a slower timescale than most national governments. But that is a very different beast from "impossible to reform"

When David Cameron was elected for a second term with an outright majority, he had to deliver on his promise of a referendum. Here's his phenomenally obvious strategic mistake: he promised to negotiate with the EU first, and then hold a referendum.

What utter idiocy.

Think yourself into the shoes of other European leaders for a moment. Imagine negotiating with the promise of a referendum in the future. Cameron's intent is pretty clear: he wanted to put the EU in crisis mode, to get it to come to agreements as quickly as it did for bailouts. However, the difference is that the bailouts were negotiated precisely to ensure a (supposedly) guaranteed outcome of retained EU membership. You can't negotiate when the outcome on your side of the table is a big fat "maybe". That's like trying to sell a car and telling the buyer "pay me, and maybe you will get this car". It's a terrible negotiation strategy (unless you happen to be the lottery, in which case your argument is "pay me a tiny pittance and maybe you will get this fortune". No wonder the EU offered Cameron tiddlywinks)

What should he have done? Run the referendum as soon as legally possible after the election, on a premise of reforming the EU if "Remain" wins (and hinting that a second referendum towards the end of the next Parliament would be on the cards if he got re-elected for a third term, thereby giving himself several years to reform the EU)

If "Remain" had won, then this would have enabled him to negotiate with the EU on much stronger legs: he could have shown the evidence of all the "Leave" votes as a shot across the EU's bow, requiring genuine and deep-reaching reform. He would have had realistic timescales to negotiate meaningful reform, and this would have been his central political objective for his term in office.

Act 2: Incompetent Definitions

The Referendum campaigns have been absolutely abysmal. Lies, dishonesty, hyperbole, spin, distortions, publicity stunts... I cannot recall ever witnessing as shameful a farce in a functional democracy as the debacle we have been living through these past few months.

One of the key reasons for all this farce is that Cameron has chosen, quite intentionally, to leave "Leave" a blank slate. The only thing he has stated is that a referendum would be....
a) binding (i.e. no re-negotiating with the EU and no re-referending)
b) resulting in invoking Article 50 & exit from EU.

The strategy, presumably, is to paint "Leave" as a dangerous leap into uncertainty. What a colossal miscalculation. Of course "Leave" is fraught with uncertainty, but the electorate can see through his scheming, and no one is impressed at feeling manipulated by dodgy Dave.

Here's what he should have done: he should have set out a scenario for "Leave". That scenario should have been explicit and clear. Namely, he should have stated outright that his post-referendum strategy would be for the UK to remain in the EEA / EFTA but exit the EU, as a first step on a potential journey of distancing.

Why? Because this would have allowed a debate framed by some semblance of clarity. Sure, there would have been arguments that "maybe we'll kick Cameron out and put in place a new government" or similar, but at least the electorate would have an ability to make an informed decision.

The point of not defining what a "Leave" outcome would entail is to prevent informed decision-making. What wonder is it that, lacking information and clarity, the resulting public discourse has turned into a farce filled with so many lies that even experienced politicians are sick of it?

Act 3: Incompetent Argumentation

Two words: CAMP FEAR.

Plus, letting the referendum descend into a "Tory Game of Thrones" which only serves to convince the electorate that NONE of the f***ers currently in government can be trusted with so much as the responsibility over managing a lemonade stall, let alone a country.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the House, the entire debate is being framed as "if we leave, we'll get extra ultra Tory policies!!!" and "don't trust those toffs!!!" which is hardly likely to win the debate considering that the electorate actually ELECTED those same Tory toffs.

Due to the fundamental mistake of Act 1 (see above), we're now in a situation where "Vote Remain" is a vote for a status quo no one is particularly excited about, with nothing much to promise, while, thanks to the huge mistake in Act 2, "Vote Leave" is a vote for a change that is so vague that no one can really know what it would mean. Therefore, while Cameron & Co threaten everything they can think of, the Leave Campaign can promise everything, too.

Dear Cameron, a hint: remember how Obama won? It was on a platform of "change". Noticed how Trump got to be the Republican candidate? It was on a platform of "change". What on earth made you think that framing the other side of the debate as blanket "change" would be a good idea?!?

Act -1 (Prelude): Failing to Meet Promises

The number one promise that the Tories have broken is, of course, the reduction of net migration. I happen to be an immigrant and a big fan of free movement, so I can't say I'm heartbroken over that failure. However, despite what they may claim, they could have done something to deliver on that promise.

Here's the argument: Free Movement of People means that they cannot prevent people from anywhere in the EU to move to the UK. This is true.

Here's the counterargument: Actually, the Free Movement of People specifically states that any EU member state must treat EU citizens equally to its own citizens, which includes the right to move and reside etc. This sounds like it's the same, but it isn't. If the government wanted to reduce the flow of EU migrants, it could do so by creating a Catch 22 obstacle that any existing residents could meet easily, but which would be difficult for outsiders to overcome. While this means some inconvenience for the existing population, who would obviously be annoyed, if the feeling about immigration is that strong, it would enable the government to deliver on its promise to reduce net immigration.

Let's take an example. Imagine the UK introduced a UK Residency Identity Card (UKRIC). Imagine it also introduced a law that says landlords can only rent properties to people with a UKRIC card, and also imagine that you could only acquire a UKRIC card by providing evidence that you've been living in the UK for at least 6 months (or 12 months, or whichever threshold you want to set). The law could include some exceptions (student halls etc.), and undoubtedly there'd be loopholes, but it would clearly be an obstacle to moving to the UK. Incomers would have to choose whether to stay in a hotel, or with family / friends, or buy a house (of course, you could also make a UKRIC card a requirement to allow someone to buy a house...), or whether to come here to study. Would it stop EU immigration? Of course not. But it'd be a pretty big filter. It would reduce net immigration and go some way towards delivering on the Tory election manifesto promise.

Of course, there might be legal challenges to such a law, and who knows, it might even be deemed against EU rules. However, it takes about 5 years for any case to get to the EU courts, which would be enough to give the government some breathing room in terms of meeting its promises and the wishes of its electorate. It would also enable the government to negotiate about EU reforms in the meantime, from a very different position; one of having already reduced movement of people...

I'm not saying I would have liked such a policy. In fact, I would have been the first to decry it as vile and xenophobic. I'm just saying that Cameron could have implemented policies to reduce net immigration from Europe if he'd wanted to. Considering the UK government is being very creative with the custom-made obstacles it keeps introducing to naturalisation of residents who are already here, it's hard to believe they would not have had similarly creative ideas to obstruct people wishing to move here from elsewhere.

The reason I'm including this here is because this phenomenal failure of having made promises that they then did not deliver on, has completely wiped out any trust in this government on the far-right. They pandered to far right voters, and then they betrayed them.

[I really wish they hadn't pandered to the bigots and xenophobes to begin with... and this is something Labour are guilty of, too: there has been woefully little leadership and hardly any standing-by-one's-principles, with EU immigration being a popular scapegoat on both sides of the house.]

Act 4: Anger Mismanagement

The mood in Britain has been darkening these past few years. When I moved here, in 1999, the British tabloid press was already significantly more xenophobic and bigoted than the German one. I hope the German one hasn't caught up, but walk past any British news stand these days, and it's impossible not to be affronted.

I imagine right wingers find the Guardian and the Mirror and the Socialist Worker as much an affront as I do the Daily Vile and The Sun and The Express. The key point here isn't the flavour of the politics, it's the dominance of opinion telling us what to think, and the popular tone of RAGE and FEAR and complete and utter poison. Newspapers are not really newspapers, they are, at best, Opinionpapers, and, at worst, OUTRAGEpapers.

So, David Cameron's first key incompetence is his lack of enthusiasm for press regulation and reform. His second key incompetence is to not insist on law enforcement. I'm actually in favour of free speech (even extreme free speech), but if there are laws banning hate speech, then it's deeply hypocritical to not apply them consistently. This isn't even about whether Islamist hate preachers should be treated the same as far right extremists (which they should), it's the staggering imbalance between the way Joe Public is treated compared to Celebrities and VunIPs. If some small town twerp makes hate speech and offensive comments on social media, he or she might find themselves arrested. Meanwhile, Katie Hopkins is writing the sort of stuff that would make Goebbels proud, but gets a free pass. No wonder small fry hatemongers feel hard done by.

Farage, just last month, saying violence on the streets is the "next step" pic.twitter.com/V7T27LWH8F

— Richie McCormåck (@RichieMcCormack) June 16, 2016

Another thing which has been growing rapidly during Cameron's time in office is the popularity of a social media savvy, paranoid, fascist hate group...

PRESS RELEASE: Britain First to target Muslim elected officials in direct action campaign - https://t.co/sCrnQR39mT pic.twitter.com/x1457M5qEd

— Britain First (@BritainFirst) May 24, 2016

Leaked: Cameron ‘knee-deep in conspiracy’ with big business to keep Britain in EU - https://t.co/MkyFMP4rsa pic.twitter.com/JyGqiEuRdX

— Britain First (@BritainFirst) May 18, 2016

...but, though they've risen under Cameron's watch, he's done nothing at all to tackle the problem.

Over this background of constant toxicity comes the referendum, and the series of failures, backstabbings, campaign lies, fearmongering, propaganda etc during the campaign. It's a tornado of crap. Voters are not just suffering from referendum fatigue, they are actually getting very frustrated and in some cases quite anxious - whichever side they're on (or even if they're undecided).

A brief excursion into anecdote: I'm a political person and occasional activist. I happen to campaign for the human rights of Palestinians and for solidarity with them. The Israel/Palestine discourse is one of the most anger-filled, troll-rich ones you can find on the internet (or outside of it). So, when I found myself manning a Boycott HP / pro-Palestine stall in central Cardiff the other day, I was anxious and expected some blowback. Indeed, one woman walked past, telling us "I really don't agree with you", shaking her head. Another man with an opposing viewpoint stopped to spend half an hour discussing the topic with one of the people at the stall. Two other men expressed degrees of disagreements with our positions. In short: it was a more civilised and safe experience than I'd feared. Then, after spotting someone in a "Stronger In" T-shirt, I walked to the other end of town to a "Vote Remain" campaign stall. There, only two people were left after a couple of gruelling hours, which apparently included a deranged woman kicking their banner and counter-shouting abuse at speakers. I joined them for a bit, and another furious woman approached the stall, shouted abuse, and ultimately walked off shouting angrily to herself. The EU referendum campaigns have become more toxic than the Israel/Palestine one - that should tell you a lot! (I'd also walked past "Vote Leave" stalls in the city centre the week before: those seemed to be calm affairs featuring tea, biscuits and cheerful chats with passers-by without attracting any significant blowback).

What has David Cameron and his government done to address the rage and passion? Has he been calm and statesmanlike, or has he threatened economic collapse and war? Has he framed the debate to allow people to become informed, or has he intentionally created uncertainty to foster a culture of fear (which is now backfiring)? Has he conducted an honest campaign, or has he been as dishonest as Gove, Boris & Farage? Has he tried even remotely to stick to fair play, or has he tried to jump the campaigning queue with a brochure sent to UK households? (Incidentally, a brochure I have never received, so I have no idea what it says). Has he done anything, anything at all, to build up the public's trust in politicians and government?

Well.

Act 5: Tragedy

This is not Cameron's fault. But unless he starts being a much more competent leader, it could just be the beginning of a slide into catastrophe.

Remembering Jo Cox, the Labour MP who campaigned tirelessly for refugees https://t.co/yV1dCzLMEk

— The Independent (@Independent) June 17, 2016

A day of infamy. https://t.co/2WBpwrGEv5 pic.twitter.com/Y5jc4ZgJaQ

— alexmassie (@alexmassie) June 16, 2016

Act 6: Catastrophe?

Now we come to the reason for this entire bloated blog post. In the aftermath of this week's devastating events, my mind has been ruminating. I don't believe the assassination of an MP by a terrorist was Cameron's fault. I wouldn't even blame his spectacular incompetence and mismanagement of the referendum.

However, it illustrated something which I had not previously fully realised. I knew that there is rage and distrust among Brexitters. I saw how the Brexit movement has attracted frustrated, unstable people, and amplified their frustration into rage. Even so, until this turned into a gruesome terrorist attack, it never occurred to me that we may be witnessing the lead up to a genuine catastrophe.

No, not Brexit. No, not Bremain. I think the catastrophe could happen whichever way the referendum turns out.

I think this referendum could become the catalyst for long-term violence. I feel reminded of reading about the referendums that led to the creation of the Republic of Ireland - and the split with Northern Ireland. The most passionate of the losers of that referendum in NI ultimately turned into the IRA and caused The Troubles.

The worst thing is, I'm not sure the outcome of the referendum matters:

If Vote Remain wins, then Britain First et al could turn from mostly hooligans to a large number of violent terrorists.

If Vote Leave wins, but politicians pick the EFTA option to preserve jobs and the economy and their own re-electability (as they would), then Britain First et al will see this as a betrayal (as free movement of people would still apply & UK would still pay heftily into the EU), and so they could turn from hooligans to terrorists.

There are already quite a few actively violent far-right terrorists in the UK, for example

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34957358
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11894402/London-Mosque-fire-two-teenagers-arrested-on-suspicion-of-arson.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34843552
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11691707/Dentist-almost-has-hand-severed-in-Tesco-in-revenge-for-Lee-Rigby-machete-attack.html

So far, they have been targeting Muslims, and so far, they've been largely incompetent. My worry is that this referendum - and the way it has been so utterly mismanaged - could lead to a catastrophic growth of far-right violence and terror, and to a new era of Troubles for the UK and Europe.

Britain First alone has 1.4 million fans. That's 1.4 million radicalised extremists with terrorist sympathies. (For comparison, the radical extremist Anjem Choudary's following is in the tens of thousands, not millions). What is our government doing to prevent a total catastrophe?

Considering how incompetent David Cameron has been at handling the EU referendum so far, and how his incompetence has allowed it to become a farce festering extremism, I am deeply worried about the prospects of the UK. A few weeks ago, I thought the main consequences of the referendum were likely to be economic. Now, I am wondering whether we're on the cusp of something much worse.

Vanished: The Mysterious Disappearance of Mustafa Ouda by Ahmed Masoud

Vanished is part mystery thriller, part coming of age tale and part chronicle of recent history. Ahmed Masoud, a Palestinian ex-pat living in the UK, set out to introduce readers to a part of the world that most of us will never set foot in: Gaza.

The novel is framed by events of 2014: our protagonist, Omar, leaves his wife and son in London to make his way to Gaza during the bombardment of the strip by Israeli forces. Having had news that his former home has been bombed, and unable to reach his remaining relatives and friends by phone, he feels a strong obligation to return, no matter what the cost. En route, he begins to write down his life story, so that his toddling son might one day understand what drove Omar to leave him behind, should he not return.

Omar starts his life story with the year he decided to become a detective and find out what had happened to his own father. Omar was a baby when his father disappeared one night, and by the time he is eight years old, he wants nothing more than to find out how and why. His investigations are dangerous, however. Over the course of his quest, he finds himself embroiled with the Israeli security forces, rebel fighters, nationalist and Islamist politics, the peace process and the intifadas.

Vanished is a very readable novel. The prose is plain and matter of fact. The narrative moves briskly even when events don't (sometimes, years pass between significant events and paragraphs of text). Our protagonist's struggles are all too authentic. However, in its desire to present 25 years' worth of history alongside the mystery plot, the novel inevitably loses focus as time goes on - just as Omar's quest becomes sidelined in his life as larger events take hold of him.

There are many things about life in Gaza that seem a little surprising to outsiders like me. Though it's densely populated, there is a very strong sense of community in each street. People know each other. Similarly, everyone knows who runs the Israeli army in Gaza, and everyone refers to him by his first name. I cannot be the only one who is constantly perplexed that Benjamin Netanyahu is referred to as "Bibi" by politicians and media alike. After reading Vanished, I must conclude that this way of talking about people, which sounds overly familiar to my ears, must be the norm in that part of the world. Perhaps most importantly, the Gaza in this novel is a living, breathing enclave, with people leading everyday lives and having everyday concerns. Children go to school, treats, sweets and beatings are dished out by the grown ups, young people head to university and make plans for their futures and careers, while dreaming about and trying to hang out with members of the opposite sex...

However, the book does have its fair share of flaws and problems. Perhaps the most unsurprising is the way Israelis are portrayed: monstrous child-raping killers, nameless oppressors, bullies. There is no Israeli character with any redeeming features in the book: they are clearly the villains of the piece. For a book which handles shades of grey and complexities between the different resistance groups and political factions among Palestinians quite well, this treatment of Israel is a little too simplistic. Then again, I doubt the citizens of occupied France / Poland / Czechoslovakia / Jersey during WW2 had many nuanced things to say about the German occupation forces...

Towards the end, the story loses drive a little bit. Events speed up radically, to the point of becoming a little confusing. At one point, I really struggled to understand whether I was reading the framing narrative or the life story narrative. The ending feels rushed, as if the author had grown tired of the book and just wanted to get it out of the way. Or, perhaps, as if it received less editorial TLC than the start of the book.

For me, the most problematic aspect of the book lay in its gender politics. I have not read (m)any novels written by Arab authors. I tried reading one (HWJN), but gave up on it, due to problematic gender politics in that novel.

For most of its length, Vanished treats female characters as any other novel would. I can't really discuss the problematic aspects, but I do know that any feminist friends of mine would read certain elements with their teeth very firmly clenched, and even I felt quite uncomfortable.

Vanished does a good job of being entertaining. It is educational in the way it depicts Palestinian society, though very simplistic beyond that microcosm (Israel BAD, Palestinians OPPRESSED). It's worth a read for anyone who wants to know what living in Gaza must have been like in the recent past.

Rating: 3.5/5

PS: For a very nuanced, intelligent and nevertheless thrilling and exciting novel handling the effects of oppression on oppressors and oppressees alike, I would heartily recommend Kindred. Perhaps such things can only be written about with such masterful nuance a hundred years after the fact...

Politics Special: Brexit?

A few weeks to go until Britain decides whether to stay in the EU or leave. Recently, an undecided Facebook Friend bemoaned that the two campaigns shout at each other, while another bemoaned that the same sets of facts are being used by both sides to make opposite arguments. Basically, it's a nebulous mess, not helped by the fact that both campaigns are run by politicians who seem more interested in their own egos and potential future leadership races than reality.

So, as EU citizen living in the UK, I thought I'd throw my two pence into the ring.

Here's the big question you will be asked (if you are a Brit) in June:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

What will your answer be?

Uncertainty

One thing is pretty obvious: no one really knows what will happen if Britain leaves the EU. Both campaigns speculate, the Brexiters painting a lovely utopia of having "the best of both worlds" while the Breuropeans imagine a vengeful EU which will set out to crush Britain and turn the UK into an isolated pariah state. Neither outcome is realistic.

So, let us speculate as to what the likelier scenarios would be, and how the UK would be affected. 

Status Quo

Before starting the discussion, we need to look at what the EU actually is, and what it is not. UKIPpers, tabloids and Eurosceptics love to rant about "Europe" as if it were one thing. It is not. In fact, Britain is currently part of various European supra-national organisations:

• The Council of Europe - which runs the European Court of Human Rights and is in charge of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the court in Strasburg which tabloids rail against whenever a villain or migrant tries to assert their human rights. 
• The European Economic Area (EEA) - which is broadly, EU + EFTA (European Free Trade Area). As with most European things, there is an exception: Switzerland is part of EFTA but not of EEA, but has negotiated treaties that effectively replicate EEA membership. The difference is almost rhetorical: if Switzerland scraps any one of the treaties, they are all nullified (they call it a Guillotine Clause). The reason for all these complications? The Swiss have repeatedly voted in referenda that they don't want to be part of EEA, so the Swiss politicians & negotiaters came up with a creative solution to adhere to the referenda while still getting the benefits of EEA membership. 
• The European Union. At last. The thing the referendum is about. If you look at the structure of the EU, you'll notice it includes the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union (in Luxemburg, not to be confused with the human rights court in Strasburg), the European Central Bank, and the European Council of Auditors. 

Want a laugh? Count how many different organisations have both "Council" and "Europe" in their title. No wonder most people are confused. 

Here's a neat chart from Wikipedia:

Britain's Grievances

It's not just British people who are a bit frustrated with the EU, but Britain seems the most overtly scathing about Europe. Let's have a look at what the issues are.

• Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act). British governments (and tabloids) get annoyed when people they deem undesirable try to assert their human rights, even though the European Convention on Human Rights was originally drafted under the leadership of a British Lord (David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir). It's been in effect since 1953, but became a bone of contention after Tony Blair's Human Rights Act, which does nothing more than apply the convention that had already been in effect in the UK for decades - basically, this act allowed it to become a party political matter by moving it from the background to the foreground. Funnily enough, this is actually a matter of the Council of Europe, not the EU. Any nation wishing to join the EU has to first sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights and join the Council of Europe, but it's a pre-requisite, not a part of the EU. Leaving the EU on its own would not have any effect on Human Rights cases.
• Migration (and the Free Movement of people). The free movement of people is a pre-requisite not just of the EU, but of the European Economic Area. So leaving the EU would not necessarily allow the UK to put any limits on migration - to do so, the UK would have to leave the EEA and Common Market as well.
• Cost. The EU costs a lot of money. 
• Policy Cost: especially the Common Agricultural Policy. One of the EU's roots is the Common Agricultural Policy. (It was built on common mining and steel policies, too, but these have long ago faded into obscurity). CAP's raison d'etre is to preserve traditional farming. France, especially, is horrified by the idea of US-style super-farms. For farmers with modest land holdings to be able to make any sort of living, the industry has to be subsidised, and CAP does this by setting prices. As a consumer, that means our food is more expensive. Effectively, everything produced in the EU is akin to a Fairtrade product, and this has been the case for decades. It irks Britain (and many Europeans) that the choice to not support farmers has been withdrawn from us. At the same time, farmers protest that even with CAP, getting by is a struggle (e.g. UK milk farmers ranting abut supermarkets).  
• The Common Fisheries Policy sets catch quotas, which means UK fishermen can't maximise their catches. This is an EU policy, not an EEA one, so Icelandic and Norwegian trawlers are not bound by the same restrictions. The EU set the quotas because of fears over fish stock and the risks of over-fishing, but the imposition grates in the UK. 
• Operational Costs: The EU is a juggernaut, employing thousands of highly paid civil servants. All those organisations have cushy salary schemes, generous pension schemes, superb health insurance for their staff - basically, EU technocrats are paid very, very well. And, as it's built on political compromises, the EU organisations are often woefully inefficient. The most visible example of this silliness is the European Parliament, which has its offices in one country, but its debating chamber in another, so all the MEPs get shipped by special trains to the debating chambers whenever the European Parliament has a session, and back afterwards. 
• Red Tape, regulation and bureaucracy. A lot of EU legislation is about standardising and regulating conditions in the common market. From environmental regulations to food safety ones, from classifying bananas according to their curvature to limiting the amount of hours an employee can be made to work per week, or the amount of rubbish that should be recycled, the EU is constantly working to create common conditions for the common market. More importantly, as it's run largely by technocrats, the EU sometimes creates rules and regulations that national parliaments would struggle to pass. There is something slightly paternalistic in this attitude: EU lawmakers feel they can create rules for the good of the people, even if the people wouldn't want those rules. Rules about rubbish and recycling make life more hassle than before. Rules about lightbulbs and energy efficiency deprive consumers of choices. The technocrats would argue they are necessary to protect the environment and make our lifestyles more sustainable, but the truth is, if citizens were to get a direct vote on such matters, many of the rules would not pass. The difference between the UK and other European nations is that, by and large, the other countries support EU decisions publicly. UK politicians, on the other hand, prefer to paint the EU as bogeyman and point the finger at Europe. "Europe is forcing us to recycle or we'll be fined", the local councils moan, and only as an afterthought does "but recycling is the right thing to do" come into it. 
• The Democracy Deficit and Paternalism. Of the EU institutions, only the Parliament is elected by its citizens. All the rest get their leaders appointed by national governments. The Parliament, meanwhile, can only vote on laws and rules that the other organisations (Councils and Commissions) propose. On top of that, the Parliament is quite young, and its powers have grown very slowly. The EU is fundamentally a paternalistic institution: politicians have long ago come to the conclusion that sometimes, the people can't be trusted to know what's best for them. When the Democracy Deficit became too glaringly obvious, the Parliament was created, in the hope of eventually giving it more power. Unfortunately, many people across Europe seem to be using MEP elections to vote for the nutters and outliers who'd never be elected to their national parliaments, which means the 'mainstream' political parties and alliances are joined by fringes of Nazis and Communists, so, perhaps unsurprisingly, the EU has never gotten around to give the Parliament more powers. 
• Sovereignty. A lot of the other issues are often combined into one big grievance: can the UK claim to be a truly sovereign nation if it does not have absolute control over its borders / migration, the rights of its citizens, the rules its businesses and organisations have to abide by? It's a bit of an emotive topic. It's also a topic laden with a certain degree of hypocrisy - the same people who are Eurosceptic are often pro-TTIP and other trade deals, which have an equal or greater impact on sovereignty. When people bemoan the loss of sovereignty, my impression is they bemoan the instances where some condition is locked in by a multinational agreement that they disagree with, while often being just as keen to lock in a different condition through multinational agreements to give them longevity. So pro-business, anti-environmental-protection people are keen to surrender UK sovereignty in ways that benefit corporations, but hate any surrender of sovereignty in matters that restrict what corporations can do, and pro-environment, pro-socialism, anti-competitive people feel the opposite way. The EU is made up of enough nations that it will probably never be all-right-wing or all-left-wing. On the big matters, every nation can veto. (Incidentally, this is why TTIP is certain to fail: I can't imagine all EU member states ratifying it). The EU is the most centrist of organisations - it is all about compromise, it will never be right-wing or left-wing, and it will always be a break on the ambitions of far-left or far-right parties. This dooms Europe to be somewhat boring. Whether or not it detracts critically from the sovereignty of a country depends rather on how off-centrist its policies are. If the EU were a UK politician, it'd be Tony Blair.

Britain's Benefits

As the popular press is essentially Eurosceptic, the entire debate is framed in terms of Brexitter arguments. The Breuropeans, meanwhile, run a campaign based on the fear of uncertainty, without really putting enough effort into highlighting the benefits EU membership has brought.

The biggest benefit is free trade, prosperity and jobs. Aside from that one, here are some that are worth noting. 

• Developmental Subsidies. For the past few decades, the EU has put a lot of money and energy into Regional Development. Back in the 70s, CAP ate up almost the entire EU budget. Now, about half the EU money goes into supporting projects that are meant to help poorer regions of Europe develop. If you live in Wales or Northern Ireland, you probably walk past a dozen 'European Regional Development Fund' project logos every day, without noticing them. Colleges, Universities, leisure centres, infrastructure, heritage -without EU money, many developments would have required a sympathetic UK central government to put in cash. Arguably, Wales and Northern Ireland might be stuck at the same levels of deprivation as they were in the 1980s if it weren't for the EU.
• Livelihoods. Without the EU, the number of people able to make a living in agriculture in the UK would be much smaller.  CAP may exist because France would veto any attempt to scrap it, but without it, it's not just French farmers who'd find themselves out of a job, but the vast majority of British ones, too.
• Emigration. Hundreds of thousands of British pensioners have chosen to retire in the sun, in Spain, Portugal and other nations with a warmer climate. Thousands of Brits have become entrepreneurs and started businesses abroad - every time I visit a tourist hotspot, I find travel offices and tourist services staffed and owned by Brits. The UK has seen more immigrants than emigrants, but there are those who have made the most of the Free Movement of People, even from Britain. And, if you happen to have children, the best thing you could do is encourage them to learn a foreign language: university education in the Netherlands and Germany, for example, is free. They could save themselves £30,000 of tuition fee debts by going to university abroad.
• Environmental Protection Measures. OK, this is a controversial one. I think working towards sustainability and protecting the environment is fundamental to preserving our standards of living and should therefore not be a party-political issue, but I know that unfortunately, short-term-thinking is rampant in certain political circles. That said, restrictions on pesticides which are suspected of being responsible for bee colony collapses, and protection measures for air quality, seem like pretty sensible policies to me. If only the EU could be convinced to ban fracking... 
• Ease of Travel. Reducing hassle in terms of currency exchanges, and reducing the cost of roaming, may be small fry to some people, but they do make a difference. So does the EU policy on air travel compensation - as Europeans, we're the best protected people in the world when it comes to flight cancellations and long delays. European Health Insurance Cards, a common emergency telephone number that works across Europe (112), open skies agreements which let a British airline (Easyjet) and an Irish one (Ryanair) become Europe-wide juggernauts, two of the biggest airlines on the continent. 

Brexit Scenarios

So, let's think through the effects of different scenarios. Unfortunately, as the referendum question relates only to the EU, we can't know what the UK's negotiators would implement if the vote was for Brexit, but let's look at the options.

Britain leaves the EU, but stays in the EEA (by joining EFTA)

This would put Britain in the same category as Norway and Iceland.The big picture:

• Britain would reduce its contribution to EU running costs. 
• Britain would be out of CAP, so either British farmers would struggle to get by, or the UK would have to find a way to subsidise its farmers that would not bring it into conflict with the EU. (Funnily, free trade agreements are incredibly pernickety about what governments can and can't subsidise, and the EU is fiercely protective of its own farmers).
• Britain would be out of the Common Fisheries Policy and could catch more fish.
• However, to stay in EEA, the Free Movement of People provisions would continue to apply - no change to migration.
• Also, EU regulations would apply - Britain would no longer be able to influence the regulations, but it would have to accept them to continue staying in EEA. Red Tape reduction minimal.
• No change with regards to Human Rights and the European Court.
• To stay in EEA, Britain would have to start paying money to poorer European regions to help their development, under the Norway Grants scheme. As Britain's GDP is bigger than Norway's, Iceland's and Liechtenstein's (the other nations who have to pay into this), then the UK would allmost certainly have to pay more than those countries. None of it would go to Wales and other underdeveloped regions in the UK - it would go to Southern and Eastern Europe. 
• Addendum: Switzerland does not pay into the Norway Grants. However, I think it's likely the UK would have to. My reasoning is this: there's a set list of countries which receive Norway grants. If the UK tried to negotiate a Swiss style agreement with the EU, then all of those EEA Grant recipient countries would have a strong interest in opposing any deal that does not include sizeable UK contributions to Norway grants. Worse, as the UK's departure would reduce the EU's overall income, it would reduce the EU budget available for regional development, so unless the UK would be forced to put a good sum of money into the Norway grants, those recipient countries would lose income that they can currently count on. Countries like Greece, which narrowly avoided a Grexit by making painful concessions. Would the EEA Grant recipient countries be willing to effectively pay for Brexit? No way. So we're back to the Swiss option being a red herring for Britain: Europe would insist on UK contribution to regional development funding as much as it would insist on the free movement of people being a part of the single market.
• I can't put numbers on the cost - I guess the UK would pay less into Europe than it does now, but I personally don't see how the savings are worth losing the ability to shape European policies and veto those which the UK does not want. Also, those UK regions currently reliant on EU funding would have a hard time convincing a London-based government to replace the lost revenue.

The Switzerland option, by the way, is essentially the same as the EEA option. While Swiss politicians insist on describing theirs as bilateral agreements with the EU, they fully replicate EEA rules (including Swiss adherence to changing regs when the EU changes them), so it's in my opinion a red herring.

Britain leaves the EU but joins the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area

This would put the UK in the same category as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Essentially, this is EEA-light. It offers partial access to the Single Market (with trade quotas), but the requirements on nations are much lower, too. So, no free movement of people, less red tape.

The problem with such an approach is that the ball would be entirely in the court of the EU: all member nations would have to agree and sign it, so UK interests would effectively be outnumbered 25-1. It'd take just one nation to be angry with the UK's intransigence to scupper any possibility of a good deal for the UK. 

Imagine, for a moment, putting the UK's fortunes to a Eurovision voting process: how well would the UK fare? 

Britain leaves the EU but seeks an Association Agreement under the ENP

The EU has a number of Association Agreements with nearby countries as part of the 'European Neighbourhood Policy'. This would put the UK in a similar position, in terms of its links to Europe, as Morocco, Egypt, Israel and Jordan for example.

This would, again, put the UK at the mercy of EU goodwill, in terms of the terms it would get. This is where Michael Gove and George Osborne are having their punch-up: Gove believes Europe would offer a superb deal on a platter because of the trade benefits to Germany, France, etc. Osborne believes that they would apply punitive terms because every single nation would effectively have a veto over the UK's fate. 

Imagine, for a moment, how Romania and Bulgaria would respond to giving the UK a great deal, after the UK's efforts to make Romanians feel unwanted and discouraging them from coming to Britain. Or Greece, after the UK's insistence on not contributing anything further to bailouts. Or Spain, which isn't exactly delighted about Gibraltar... 

My best estimate is that, if the UK didn't opt for outright EEA / EFTA, the EU would offer the UK a deal so close to EEA as to be almost indistinguishable, or very little, if anything, at all. 

Basically, free movement of people would be a pre-requisite for access to the Single Market. Why? Because EU nations have hundreds of thousands of their citizens living in the UK, so they'd have to look after the rights of their existing ex-pats.

Facit

The likeliest future for a brexitting UK is something similar to EEA membership. This wouldn't reduce migration, it wouldn't reduce human rights cases, and it wouldn't reduce red tape. On the other hand, it would save the UK money, remove fishing quotas and almost certainly bring about major changes to UK agriculture.  It would also make it impossible for the UK to influence the rules it would have to abide by. Personally, I struggle to see how the financial savings and increased fish catch would be worth the loss of influence.

There is little middle ground between an EEA-like settlement and a huge distancing. As the UK's relationship would have to be agreed by all EU member nations, and as the timescale for exit would be short in EU terms (two years), the UK government would be forced to decide between an EEA-like arrangement (and therefore only a small increment of change to the current status quo), or a potentially disastrous distancing from Europe. I simply don't believe the UK would risk going it alone.

Other Consequences

Regardless of the big changes to trade and rules, there are some things which I believe Brexit would almost certainly affect.

• Loss of Regional Development Funding will make impoverished UK areas much more reliant on Westminster for their prosperity. This could make development much more cyclical, if different political parties take different stances on investment into developmental projects. 
• Some industries would suffer. For example, I strongly believe that Airbus Group would relocate its UK manufacturing facilities elsewhere. (E.g. the wings of Airbuses are produced in Wales). This wouldn't even be about trade and free trade. While Airbus is a private company, it is still incredibly political at heart, and very, very invested in the idea of Europe. Take Concorde for example: Airbus had been continuing to support and produce parts for the plane while both Air France and BA operated it. When Air France announced the retirement of its fleet, Airbus announced it would no longer support the plane. (Even if other companies bought Air France's fleet). The talk was all about financial sustainability, but really, it was a decision of (inter)national pride - Airbus would not support Concorde if only the Brits still flew it. If Britain votes for Brexit, I'm pretty sure Airbus would decide to remove itself from the UK - not for pure business reasons (although I'm sure they'd talk of the risks of further distancing & potential future impact), but because its corporate culture would not allow it to stay invested here. This could of course have a knock-on effect on other suppliers...
• Some stock market fluctuation and pain, across Europe. Stock markets don't like unpredictability or instability. For at least the two years of Brexit negotiations, the stock markets would be very volatile. (To be fair, they'd probably be even worse if Trump got elected in the USA). This doesn't have a huge immediate impact on regular folk, except of course, all our pension funds these days speculate on the stock market, so getting the annual reports might well be a bit of a tense affair for most of us! It's possible that some companies (all around Europe) would fold if their pension fund deficits become too big as a result.  

On the other hand, there are some things which would not change:

• Terrorism & security. Honestly, the idea that all the spy agencies would stop talking to Britain's, or, conversely, that leaving the EU would make Britain safer, is the silliest red herring of them all. That won't stop politicians and the media from implying or outright stating that there are security risks to staying/leaving, but they are vastly overstating any impact. 
• Existing Migrants. There would be no mass exodus of EU migrants living in Britain or British migrants living in the EU - certainly not while the Brexit negotiations were ongoing, and, assuming that sanity prevailed and the UK chose the EEA-style outcome, not thereafter. Of course, if UK severed itself from the common market entirely, then all bets are off.
• Most trade-reliant industries would not dis-invest radically from the UK. There would be a few exceptions, such as Airbus and other companies where the corporate culture is deeply invested in the European project. Again, the assumption is that the UK would remain more or less an EEA member. (Of course, if it didn't, then the effect would likely be catastrophic for the UK economy and cause quite big industrial departures - that's why I am fairly sure that the UK government would go down the EEA route)

My Recommendation

Predictably, I would encourage all my British friends to vote for staying in the EU. I don't think being an EFTA country instead of an EU country would really offer the UK the benefits that some people strive for. It would mean the UK would have to abide by EU policies without being able to affect them.

(Norway and Iceland are too reliant on their fisheries to join the EU, and Switzerland's politicians settled for the best they could achieve while their electorate kept voting against membership in referenda). 

I don't think the UK would opt for something very different from EFTA / EEA membership, because the EU simply would not put any amazing offer on the table, and access to the single market is too important. After all, if Swiss politicians and Norwegian politicians go as far as they can into Europe without violating their respective referenda directly, it seems extremely unlikely UK leaders would choose a different path. (Swiss referendum was about EEA membership, Norwegian referendum was about EU membership. In both cases, the population voted against membership, so Swiss leaders negotiated their EEA equivalent treaty which applies all the same rules & freedom of people, while Norwegian leaders stayed in the EEA - Norway was already a member)

Of course, this leaves a small but not entirely insignificant risk that, post-referendum, Britain's government might be sufficiently deluded and incompetent to throw the baby out with the bathwater (a Boris/Gove combo just might - though Boris Johnson is clearly not nearly as eurosceptic as his current speeches), which is why some senior Tories are already advocating that Cameron should stay & lead the negotiations if it came to a Brexit. I have no idea who will be governing Britain post-referendum, regardless of its outcome. But I'd wager that free movement of people, over-regulation and money flowing towards Europe are here to stay.

[edited 5th June 2016]