We are all the People.

For a renaissance of participation, stop ‘othering’ those with different views

What a very painful emotional turmoil we, as a country, find ourselves in. With a week to go before the European referendum, we are split down the middle on an issue that really matters. How could that be? If there is such a thing as Britishness, if there is a country whose sovereignty is worth fighting for, how come we are so divided?

It is not the issues that divide us, but the way we are talking about them. If we were being invaded by aliens today, we would not hesitate to band together. But when we are being assaulted on all sides by competing stories about what the facts are, different framings of the reality – the most likely result is confusion, destabilisation, vulnerability.

But we are living in an age of much increased connection and mobilisation. Many people are feeling like – for the first time in their lives – they can be seen and heard by the politicians and the media. In the age of petitions, networks, easy mobilisation, a new age of citizenship is arising. After decades of feeling oppressed and taken for granted by the elites, we sense a chance to take control of our own lives.

That surely, is something we should all be encouraging: autonomy is an essential human need and when we don’t have it, we will always be straining for it. No-one, politician or businessman, would try to deny that to an individual or group; it’s just that they don’t agree what it looks like.

In trying to understand and respond to this ‘good’ challenge, let’s not ignore the fact that this is not a Left v Right or a class divide. On the same platform we are watching David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas and Jeremy Corbyn together. Group hug? On the other side, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith, Boris Johnson, 10 Labour Party MPs and the Ulster Unionists. What is this new fault line?

The age split is slightly clearer: amongst the 18 – 34s 53% are intending Remain, against 29% for Leave. It’s closer in the middle with the 35 – 54s voting 38% for Remain and 42% for Leave. For the 55+ it’s only 30% intending to vote Remain, with 54% for Leave. So if any of the undecideds in any of the age groups want to support the youth, Remain is probably the call there, particularly since 81% of the older voters are committed to turning out to vote, versus only 52% of the younger ones.

If you try to listen more carefully to the competing rhetorics, another distinction lies in what I call altitude. While both sides refer to Europe and our relationship with the wider world in their speeches, the Leave side is more focused – attractively – on our own needs and wants. They view Europe and the world as outside of our borders, challenging our sovereignty. They talk a lot about people entering our country and use language like ‘full up’ when thinking about capacity for exchange or freedom of movement.

It’s a zero-sum argument – any gain for ‘the outsiders’ is a loss for us. When conjuring up China as a possible partner for the UK, there seems to be no sense of the dynamics between us – why a country of 1.36 billion people might not be an equal partner to a country of 64 million for example. Germany and France on the other hand, are a similar size – although together the countries of Europe look sizeable and the power of Brussels formidable. If Leave were a film, they would be Mutiny on the Bounty: plucky rebels against immovable authority.

Remain in the meantime, orientate themselves as if they are hovering above Europe somewhat, looking at the relationship between the countries and the competing needs and demands of all involved. They use language like co-operation, negotiation, subsidiarity. They watch the flow of people between countries, both historically and more recently, and see the need for far more complex systems of integration. When talking about the wider world, they are more cautious. They keep in mind the 20 times greater needs of the Chinese which might dwarf our own and make fair negotiation impossible – unless we band together with others our own size, with similar needs, known collectively as “Europe”.

But when Remainers are challenged on what they can do to change the poor treatment the UK people feel they have had from Europe, or specifically Brussels, some of them flounder. Despite recognizing the existential nature of the choice to be made (ref) – how it affects our very identity and sense of security in the world – few can confidently call out the dangers of conflating migration with loss of autonomy. Only the tragic death of Jo Cox has exposed what can happen when anger and frustration is aimed directly at groups of vulnerable people instead of at policy and democracy.

It’s hard for Cameron and Osborn to challenge this because so much of their austerity strategy is already dependent on exactly that strategy – making the poor, the sick and the marginalised – collectively referred to as scroungers – responsible for Britain’s fortunes. At exactly the same time as they encourage the wealthy and criminal to run off the leash. To keep the downtrodden down, they use fear and intimidation rather than any proper critique of the system or vision for a better outcome. It doesn’t work.

In defence of the vulnerable, however, Labour and Green parties prevaricate less. They are quite clear that the current regime in Europe have often failed us economically and that the predominance of right wing parties in Europe is badly distorting the project.

But given that at its best, Europe has given us innumerable social benefits and human rights protection, freedom from war and beautiful friendships; and that new people’s parties are springing up all over – then the centre-left/green mantra is “Another Europe is Possible”. If Remain were a film it would be more like Field of Dreams. Not as in the impossible dream – but as something concrete that arises from emotional investment, socio-political commitment and effort. Build it and they will come.

So where does that leave us? Both views have merit and are understandable; they want similar results – an inter-dependent nation that is able to manage globalization effectively – but their perspective and means of getting there differ enormously. For me it’s clear: when thinking about the future of Britain, we have to think how flourishing in the wider world actually comes about. It’s not enough to consider only our capabilities. As our imperial and military history has taught us, we cannot control outcomes on our own, we have work with others to negotiate them.

At the same time, we cannot take our internal stability for granted. If the ballast is all at one end of the boat, it sinks. Much much more can be done to help local communities, towns and cities in the UK get advantage from the influx of migrant labour. As this video spells out, we get £10.00 back for every £1.00 we put into the EU – so why do local communities see so little of it? The migrant dividend – as Caroline Lucas describes it – should appear and stay in the host community. If the benefits of immigrant settlement of any kind, was paid forward, they would be welcomed and nurtured by their communities.

And let’s think about what ‘taking back control’ means: everyone pays lip service to more local control – even George Osborne with his City Deals. So let’s take it a step further: as Yanis Varoufakis describes, why not introduce participatory budgeting on a regional level? When the riots in Keighley threatened community cohesion across the North of England, local authorities brought people together by letting them decide how a proportion of the budget should be spent.

Across Europe, the real fight of the 99% against a disinterested, cold elite is taking place. Everywhere they are divided into Left and Right, the powerless being played against each other by a right wing media, paid for by the wealthiest. But the forces of democracy, accelerated by the revolution of connectivity are rising: Podemos and the 15M movement (holding the balance of power) in Spain, the Pirate Parties of Sweden and Iceland (now with 43% of the vote). In Denmark, Alternativet call it the ‘friendly revolution’.

In these last hours before the referendum, we need to expose the polarized narrative and replace it with a more ambitious idea of shared need and response. Let’s call for a renaissance of peoples’ participation, not just within the UK but within Europe. Let the Remainers back the Leavers need for more local control, and the Leavers look across their borders for solidarity in the struggle against the elite. From Thursday, when we think about Europe, let’s think about a new era of mutual co-operation both within each country and beyond.