The vote is now impossible to predict. For example, it is going to be extremely wet tomorrow and that will put off a lot of wobblers on both sides, Similarly, many perfectly decent but unsophisticated middle middle class people see a world of disorder and will conservatively vote for what they think will maintain order (Remain): such a desire for order amidst disorder led to the interwar errors.
On the other side, many
working class people and entrepreneurial small business people may see
this in cultural terms as the last stand of their culture not against
immigrants but against the administrative middle classes and so be the
more motivated to vote.
We could go on ... I doubt whether the
rather depressing and slightly unpleasant appropriation of a dead person
for political purposes will make much difference, irritating as many
voters as it mobilises. The economic arguments have long since reached
the limit of their power.
It is now down to instinct and
sentiment and brute self-interest albeit with the so-called 'educated'
middle class desperately trying to use a selection of pseudo-rational
arguments to explain their choice to themselves.
If we were to
characterise the underlying structure of the conflict, it would be that,
although highly complex with many different strands, it is essentially
the conflict between a conservative desire for an order to be supplied by
an ostensibly liberal-minded administrative class in uncertain times
(Remain) and a more radical instinct for change because the existing
structures are no longer viable even if those who want change have
different prescriptions about what to do next (Leave).
Remainers constantly call for a 'plan' about 'what to do next' utterly
missing the point that the various administrative classes of late
liberal capitalist democracy have themselves failed to bring order under conditions
of globalisation. Their plan is just 'more of the same' only more
This leaves the population with only two
alternatives which the two sides now represent. The first choice is for an
intensification of effort by the administrative classes to regulate
disorder out of existence along a middling path (the 'plan') despite the
constantly growing cracks in the paradigm.
The second choice is to step
back and construct geographical and policy fire breaks against the
gathering storm to protect the population and bring the administrative
classes under control, either through markets or democracy or both. Either choice is broadly coherent but coherence is not necessarily the
same as rational since national socialism had its coherence.
question is whether the administrative classes have the authority and
competence to manage vast numbers of humanity each with their own
special interests and world views and whether the 'fire break' method can
actually work against the sheer weight of forces emerging as a result of
an over-rapid globalisation.
I take a Leave position because my
analysis is that the administrative classes are faced with such an
impossible task that they can only turn to increased surveillance,
taxation (to support themselves) and even repression.
break' approach gives nation states' and indeed communities at a lower
level in the political food chain reserve powers to make decisions in
their own interest, analogous to the personal autonomy necessary to make
effective private and family decisions. It is really the last chance
saloon, not only for stability but for the successful adaptation of populations to a
more managed globalisation over a longer period of time.
point, if one is concerned with stability, is that the system is
paradoxically being destabilised by its own attempt to create a stable
system. A new and more flexible and adaptable approach to the system
is required. The stresses and strains within the current system are
'tectonic'. If they are not released gently, like economic crises, they
will release themselves in a bigger explosion later.
Remainers are (I believe) not understanding is that the British Leave
proposal is actually rather conservative. It detaches Britain from the
system sufficiently to ensure adjustment but actually retains nearly all
the existing links - unless the European Union itself seeks a
confrontation (which is unlikely). It also permits re-engagement later on European reform by Europeans for Europeans.
Re-immersion in the European
Union appears to solve the problem in one country but it has no effect
(other than to delay the day of reckoning) on the total system, not even
to improve its position. The total system continues its
administrative-led trajectory towards increased disorder, made worse by
the patching up being done to try to ensure the British do not leave.
So, a vote either way is problematic but a vote for Remain ironically
increases the very disorder that its proponents most fear. The act of
voting Remain merely pushes a 'crisis of order' forward by a few years (perhaps even
months). The fundamentals say that the immersion of the nation must
eventually be much deeper in an integrated European Union than many Remain voters
Perhaps Remainers will come to want an enhanced
administrative authority over them as crises mount and economic
prosperity fails to materialise but, if they do, then democracy will be
little more than handing over power to the political wing of the
administrative and managerial classes.
And when the immersion has
finally taken place in full, they, as citizens, will either be part of
the administrative and managerial class or subject to its desperate
attempts to manage mounting entropy. Being a subject of the European
administrative class is really not much better than being a subject of
the pre-modern Crown.