Dear Marchers,

As I write this, I see that after some uncertainty there has been clarification that tomorrow’s march will go ahead.  I’m glad that you will get your chance to march:  the right to protest is one of the freedoms that we are fortunate to enjoy in this country.

Wanting to understand more about your reasons for marching, I popped over to read the ‘About’ page of ‘Unite for Europe’s website.  I agree with some statements (one strongly enough to have blogged about already and – in a more formal style – to have written to my MP about).  I disagree with some statements (one strongly enough to have blogged about already because I believe it strikes at the heart of democracy).  However, the statement that gives me the greatest cause for concern is the one right at the top of the page:  the one that defines the “we” and “us” in all the statements that follow.  This is what it says:

“We are the 48% who voted against Brexit and those who were not allowed to vote against it – the young and the EU nationals living, working and paying taxes in the UK.”

That is a bold statement:  one that is, I feel, adrift somewhere in the realm of post-truth.  Language like this encourages the idea that people who voted Remain are a homogeneous group, all with very similar reasons for voting Remain.  It encourages the idea that people who voted Leave are also a homogeneous group, all with very similar reasons for voting Leave.  This then encourages the idea that reasons for voting Remain and reasons for voting Leave are diametrically opposed.  This then encourages the idea that, if you voted for the option which fewer people chose overall, then you have lost everything.  None of this is true.  It is the language of absolutes.  It is the language that crushes hope and stifles our capacity to be changed.  It is the language of division and conflict.

The only way to discover the truth about anyone’s opinions on the EU, or EU nationals, or immigration, or multiculturalism, or sovereignty, or any other issue that you are interested in is to talk to them.  If we talk to people who made a different choice to us then we may find that we have something in common with them.  We may find that some of them share some of our concerns for the future.  We may even find that some of them are politically very similar to us.  Then we can start build real consensus about the way forward.  Not about the negotiations – of necessity they will be done by a handful of people behind closed doors, as were the negotiations to join the EEC.  There is a good reason for this:  as someone once said of negotiations, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”  Furthermore, although the precise mechanism is unknown at this stage, I suspect that there will be little scope for manoeuvre once a deal has been negotiated.  The options are likely to be:  take it or leave it.  No, the time when we will need that consensus is when powers return to the UK and we have “taken back (a little more) control”.  What sort of country will we choose to be then?  What will our relationship with the EU be like?  These things will be ever growing and changing.  I’d like them to be guided by liberalism.  Would you?

I hope that you enjoy your day out in London.  I hope that some comforting truth emerges from the day’s events.  Above all, take care and be safe.

Best wishes,

A Liberal Leave Voter