It was most interesting to read the apparently opposing points of view expressed by Bejay Browne and Peter Davis on August 2 and 9, respectively, regarding Britain’s possible exit from the EU through a referendum to be held no later than December 2017.
However, whereas Peter Davis has obviously researched and thought about the whole subject in great detail, Ms Browne’s report used the word ‘could’ no less than 15 times ( with one ‘might’ and a ‘may’ thrown in for good measure) to express a possible doomsday scenario for all British citizens should we dare leave Mother EU.
I mused that HSBC may (not ‘will,’ please note) move to Hong Kong. That’s where they started, and then moved to Bermuda or the Bahamas when Thatcher signed the Sino-British agreement to return Hong Kong to China. Anyway, imagine, if you will, the valued senior HSBC executive returning to the bosom of his family in Richmond one evening, where his wife is relaxing after performing a number of tricky surgical operations in Guy’s Hospital, and his twin daughters are studying for their A levels in German, Russian and Spanish, and he announces that they will all be relocating to Hong Kong in six months and will have to study Mandarin. Oh, yes! I can see it all so clearly.
What is certain to me, at present, is the woeful and widespread ignorance about the workings of the EU and its increasing everyday influence over our lives, whether we be Brits or Lithuanians. The referendum, when it comes, will be a vote that will shape the future of the UK for many generations to come and people entitled to vote should think about this very, very carefully. Without, however, a lot more education and individual study about the pros and cons of being in or out, I fail to see how any vote can be considered a true measure of opinion either way.
If the British government holds the interests of the British people of today, and the generations to follow, close to their hearts then an extensive educational programme should be started right away. This could (or should that be ‘would’?) take the form of extensive press coverage (including TV programmes) carefully and evenly setting out the pros and cons of staying in or leaving. That this will happen is, in my opinion, remote since Mr. Cameron is a fervent ‘in’ man and would be afraid of such an initiative, even though it would elevate him to the level of a statesman rather than leaving him in the depths of mediocracy where he now abides. Indeed, it is already clear that the might of the establishment is swinging behind the ‘yes’ vote.
Is the British public capable of voting with sense and sensibility? With the right knowledge, I believe the answer to that one is a resounding ‘yes’, just as a British jury is capable of giving the right verdict in a court case. However, in a court the jury hears both sides of the argument placed before them by experienced and trained experts. Not so the pros and cons of remaining in or leaving the EU or, at least, not yet.
For the government not to lay out the facts and thoughtful and balanced opinions for all to see, is doing the British public, wherever they may be, a disservice of criminal proportions. The same goes for leaving the public to find out for themselves, because the results of a British Airways survey carried out two years ago come sharply to mind. Apparently 53% of my fellow countrymen booked to come to Cyprus thought Cyprus was part of mainland Greece (do you hear that Makarios?), 25% thought Spain is in France and 14% pointed to Belgium when considering France as a destination. More scary was the 14% who confused Italy with Belarus and the 24% visiting Ireland who thought it is in Spain.
Makes you proud to be a Brit, don’t it?
Brian Lait, Larnaca
