Brexit means confusion and lies

The British people are today more divided and confused than any time in the past 75 years. The Brexit process, as conducted by the British, is a total mess. It has brought out a very high degree of intellectual intolerance and social arrogance. But, above all, it has shown that many within the political class are just concerned with their personal career and well-being. They do not care about the broader issues that we used to call the common good. The ideals are dead. We grew up believing that politics were about public service and patriotism. Now, many of these fools teach us that current political fights are about positions, media exposure and crushing the other side. They are also about promoting delusion and outright lies.

Immigration and integration

In the EU context, immigration cannot be seen just from the number of people that keep entering the European territory. Very often the debate is about new arrivals and how the numbers compare with past figures. That’s not the most current concern, I would say. Particularly now, that the arrival numbers are down. Immigration is above all about the integration of those already in.

Integration has many facets and the discussion should as much as possible focus on this issue.

In some countries, the immigrants have become very visible. They are now part of our daily public experience, as we walk the streets or enter the shopping malls and other open spaces. Visibility brings attention, also some degree of concern, and the political parties in those countries know that. That’s why the issue has become a central theme in the political arena. And it will be very present during the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections.

My take is that we should try to focus the political discussions on the issue of social integration. And be clear that such an issue calls for efforts from both sides, the one receiving the new populations and the one we call the immigrants.

Brexit time

We should remind ourselves that Brexit is not just a British issue. But, at this stage, the ball is in their court. And the most appropriate way forward would be to have the draft deal approved by the UK Parliament.

It seems difficult to achieve that. The No-deal camp is getting additional traction. Many see it as a possibility. It’s hard to understand such a position, but the fact of the matter is that the contingency planning for a No-deal is creating the impression, among some popular segments, that there will be a way out in case of no agreement. Also, that the related difficulties will be just temporary.

It’s strange as a reaction, certainly irrational, for many of us, but it’s also linked to the fact that a good number of British still believe in their superior approach to international relations. And the place of the UK in the world.

On the other hand, I think it’s too late for a second referendum. It takes time to go through the constitutional process that is required in the case of a referendum. Furthermore, I do not see enough political and media support for holding it. In the minds of many, such a consultation would open many wounds. The debate and the campaign would be deeply divisive. And nobody can be sure of its outcome. It could end up by giving more arguments and space to the populist politicians. These extremists have no bounds and would take advantage of this new referendum to challenge the established principles of representative democracy. They would try to confuse the voters as much as possible.

As such, this is no time to promote a new referendum. It’s Westminster and the May Cabinet that must take up their responsibilities and decide how they want to see the Brexit settled. And they will have to assume the political consequences as well.

Fragmentation and the balance of interests

Recently, I have seen a bit of alarm about our “divided societies”. Some analysts would even say that we are more divided than ever, and they would point in the direction of the social platforms as the vehicles used to promote splits – and conflicts – among the people.

It’s true that Facebook, Twitter and other instruments of communication are being used to propagate all sorts of views. And to create a group mentality that aims at opposing – and fighting, as well – another set of opinions.

But I think the reference to fragmentation is exaggerated. Our societies have for a long time been composed of different social categories. Politics and democracy have been the translation of different interests and distinct views about societal organisation and our common destiny as a nation. Diversity is the norm. And we should not be afraid of it. The point is to be able to find the equilibrium between the interests of diverse categories of people. That’s what leadership must be about.

Populists are the enemy

As we move into this new year, a very challenging one in many fronts, let's not forget that fear is the currency of the populist leaders. To be successful and mobilise support, they create frightening news, exaggerate the problems, scare people out, and then, they present themselves as the only guarantors of a safer world, and the saviours that will take us there.

They create a fantasy and false narrative.

To fight such extremists, one must be able to demonstrate that the fears they have identified are not real or, if indeed there is a big issue, there is also a set of solutions that can be implemented to deal with it, without disturbing the established institutions and within a democratic and participatory set-up.

The challenge is therefore to address people's fears. And to win the narrative. That means a pragmatic approach must be followed, words should be clear and frank, and the combat against populists must be explained to everyone. We should talk about it all the time.

Populist leaders are manipulators and delusional. We should be able to show that to everyone.  

Best wishes for 2019

Time to wish all my readers a very happy 2019.

And to promise I will be around, as much as possible, and try to propose balanced views, innovative analysis, and the appropriate critique, when necessary.

That’s a very demanding agenda, I agree. But that’s what is needed at this time of confusion, superficiality and self-centred communication that is nothing but distortion and egoistic promotion of one’s agenda.

Let’s move on.

End of 2018

To my Portuguese readers, today I sent a message closing the year 2018 with three short sentences about Taoism. I should do the same for my international readers. But before, I should say that 2018 was a complex year. That’s the best introduction to a philosophical approach to such complexity. Now, I add the three words that summarise the phrases I wrote in Portuguese: accept, connect and smile.

And I wish all of you a very tranquil end of 2018.

The event of the year: Brexit

From a European perspective, Brexit is the leading issue of 2018. At least for many EU leaders and British politicians that spent a great deal of the year discussing the matter. It has also been the key theme for people who comment on EU affairs. Including for myself, as it was recurrent subject in my weekly radio programmes.

It is not yet clear, as the old year comes to its conclusion, what will be the final act of such a political drama. Is it to end as a Shakespearean tragedy? Or, are we going to watch a final scene inspired by Mr Bean’s approach to film-making?

It’s quite interesting to end the year with such a dilemma in the air. But the matter is extremely serious, and it will dominate a good chunk of the coming year’s political agenda. Clarity should therefore be the word to wish for the New Year. But, like so many wishes, this one might also end up unfulfilled.

Poverty in the EU

Recent data shows that one in 10 European workers lives in a household that is statistically classified as poor. This is undoubtedly a high percentage of people. They work but their income is not enough to cover the full range of their basic needs. Very often, they are the only source of income in their nuclear family because they are single or divorced people with small children at their charge.

Childcare is an expensive line in the European families’ budgets. As such, if there is an entry point for any programme aiming at addressing poverty, this is an obvious one. Social systems must be geared towards providing better help to parents. Childcare and schooling, from a very early age up to the end of mandatory education, must be free – and some additional cash made available – for those parents that have low levels of income. That would be money well spent, both in terms of poverty reduction and the education of the new generations. It would also have the benefit of reducing the chances of poor people being tempted by populist politicians.

The leader simplifies and proposes a direction

We should not confuse simplification with populism and dogmatism. Simplification is a leadership task that helps to decode and elucidate complex issues. It’s also about giving direction to the necessary action.