In just under twenty-four hours, the United Kingdom will have decided. Not long after the polls close, we will then learn what we have decided. In one sense it will mark the end – the end of campaigning, persuading, and the agony of indecision faced by many voters. In a very practical sense however, tomorrow is not the end, but the beginning.

Part of the reason I posed two questions to determine how to vote in the referendum, was to highlight that we are voting for a future, not for the present. Whether we decide to Remain or to Leave, on Friday 24th June 2016 we wake up as a nation to a new series of challenges. Our choice is therefore not whether to stay the course for the status quo, but rather to decide which challenges we believe are most likely to bring out the best in us.

In the middle of what has been a bitterly divisive campaign it is important to remember what unites us – the hope and aspiration for Britain to play an outstanding role in helping all of the peoples of the world to flourish – not because we are better, but because it is worth aspiring for us to be doing the best we can for all human flourishing, not just the flourishing of our own nation. Whether we do this as part of the European Union, or outside of it, that goal does not change.

Given that the goal will not change, it seems prudent to ask what challenges lie ahead depending upon how we vote. I am fully prepared to face whatever outcome we wake up to on Friday: while I believe that it is better to leave the EU and hope that is what we decide, should we vote to remain it is important to set that to one side and endeavour to make Britain the best player in Europe. Below I venture a few thoughts on what challenges may lie ahead for either outcome:

Should we vote to leave …

There is no fairytale if we vote to Leave. I do not accept that the Chancellor will introduce anywhere near the catastrophe budget he projected previously, because in adversity you react strongly and positively to challenge. Nevertheless, the priority will be to set out quickly what the next steps will be. If there is a very narrow vote for Leave (by which I mean anything less than 51%) it could well be that the ramifications go beyond our shores. Other European nations are not entirely content with the EU and may decide to follow our lead. If the EU is pressured into wholesale reform by a Brexit vote, the government may well have grounds to offer a second referendum based upon the reformed EU.

There is no guarantee of that however, so we have to assume that the government would need to set out a timetable for separation from the EU. The government will be busy negotiating new deals, both with the EU and (more positively) with other nations spotting the opportunity to get a favourable deal with the UK. While this goes on, we must be ensuring that the government does not withdraw, but uses its freedom from Europe to become a positive force in international relations. We also need to positively step up to whatever the short term economic challenges would be that result from the vote.

Most crucially, we must all stick a proverbial two fingers up at Nigel Farage and love our neighbour. In speaking with friends, I cannot agree more that the biggest difficulty with the Leave vote is how it will make those who have immigrated to Britain feel. The only way we can overcome that if we vote to Leave is by committing to demonstrate as overtly as possible that we want migrants to continue to play a flourishing role in our nation. It means getting over our natural British reserve (or in my case, my crippling introversion and shyness!) and saying that leaving the EU is not about closing the door to the nations. Both at the level of our own streets and communities, but also as the government begins to pull together a post EU migration policy, we must actively share that culture so that it is warm, generous, and truly loving of our neighbour.

Should we vote to remain …

If we vote to remain, our attitude to Europe needs to change. We can no longer be disinterested in how the EU operates, or sneer that we are ‘in Europe but not of it.’ Having wedded ourselves to the project, if we remain we need to make it work well. That means that where a Leave vote means setting out a timetable for departure, a remain vote means setting out an agenda for reform.

Top of the list is an easy reform for home – changing the electoral system for European Parliament elections from the frankly awful Party List system to either Single-Transferable-Vote (as used in Scottish local elections and most Northern Irish elections) or the Additional Member System (as used in Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and the London Assembly elections). Our attitude to these elections needs to change from treating it as a glorified opinion poll on the national parties, to instead judging how our elected representatives are doing in Europe. I’d of course prefer First-Past-The-Post … but as the EU mandates we must use a proportional system, either STV or AMS are preferable for establishing a clear constituency link.

That reform would be easy – the rest sadly not so. An EU reform agenda would need like-minded statesmen from across Europe to have vision and political courage on a par with the framers of the United States Constitution. It would mean producing a roadmap to provide for the appropriate division of powers and responsibilities between the national and the supranational level, and providing for a genuinely federal, genuinely democratic Europe. The distinctly British contribution to this would also be a general commitment to liberty – the European tradition has been much more grounded in technocracy, and trust in the wisdom of a governing elite. In his book How We Invented Freedom, Conservative MEP Dan Hannan spells out the key difference of the Anglosphere – a commitment to individual liberty; a conviction that it is preferable that everything should be permitted unless it is prohibited (rather than the reverse in Europe); a persuasion that humans flourish more when they are freed from excessive restriction and regulation.

Of course – the reason I am voting Leave is that I don’t think the above is possible – I think the EU is culturally opposed to such a mindset. The ever-closer-union of the EU does not envisage individual freedoms and the principle of subsidiarity as set out in the US constitution, which makes me fundamentally nervous of being tied to it in the longer run. That said – if we vote to remain, then we must not shirk the challenge merely because it is difficult!

Regardless of how we vote …

There is a challenge for all of us that does not depend on the final outcome, and that concerns the health and vitality of the way we do politics. Just before the last General Election I made a plea which is echoed today in this post. Where the election was fraught for parties not reaching beyond their natural base, the referendum has been fraught for each side trying to win over the undecideds by demonising their opponents. One of my very first blogs on this site was simply entitled: Politics is missing basic courtesy. A recent article on Conservative Home put it differently but makes rather the same point: Our politics is unlikely to change unless we all do. As the author so eloquently puts it, it is much easier to carry the day when you adopt the moral high ground and paint your opponent as unethical – even evil. Sadly, democracy and governance is what ultimately suffers. Debate is stifled, thoughtful persons are reluctant to articulate their view lest they be attacked for it, and we make democratic debate a matter of how loud your point is, rather than how deep. There isn’t an easy or short way to fix this – and ultimately it is for all of us to ask what part we will play in encouraging our politicians to do politics better.

There is also an issue that I will revisit in future which relates to migration. While it will perhaps be more pressing if we vote to remain (as EU freedom of movement will remain uncapped) I think it still applies if we leave. Successive governments have enjoyed the benefit of inward migration in terms of reducing the price of goods, but ignored the costs to ordinary people in terms of the ever decreasing stock of housing and the ever increasing pressure on already over-subscribed services.  Regardless of how we vote, the government must find the courage to face these challenges, and provide the infrastructure to match the needs of our society. Obviously this the issue is even greater and more nuanced than this, but it must wait for another day!

And finally – regardless of the outcome, we must all find a way to come together again. When I commented on The Christian Heritage of Voting, I observed that elections were not primarily divisive in function, but unifying. They were supposed to bring those who cannot agree together to one outcome. That is why I have maintained in all of my referendum posts that the important thing is not what we decide, but that we come together having decided. So one thing that all of us can do, regardless of how we vote, is to help move the conversation on post referendum – and face the new challenges together!

“If you could do anything you wanted to, and be guaranteed you would succeed, what would you do?”

Thus began one of the most helpful seminars I have ever attended on planning for the future. The speaker, who has spent his professional career giving one-to-one consultations to senior executives, wisely identifies that the biggest obstacle we all face when deciding what to do is the fear of failure. As a perfectionist I have no problem identifying with this phenomenon; 90 percent of my paralysis when facing a decision is due to my own fear of doing the wrong thing. This cultural phenomenon owes much to the way we do education in the United Kingdom – from an early age you are encouraged to know the ‘right’ answer, and chastised for giving the ‘wrong’ answer. Formal education eschews the patient methodology of Edison, who did not see the 10,000 attempts to find the right material for his invention as failures, but rather as 10,000 lessons learned.

That same conviction has carried into our modern culture, and especially into social media. No longer are we permitted to explore ideas, to venture opinions, or to entangle the depths of a complicated issue. The strange oxymoron of today’s liberal society is that it is utterly binary in upholding ‘established wisdom.’ Those who comment on anything, whether the EU referendum or the latest Budget, do not venture an opinion – they speak either truth or heresy. Mistakes are not tolerated; misspeaking is a one-way ticket to ignominy and ostracism; and there is no grace for those who make even well intentioned mistakes.

In view of this, is it really a surprise that the Electoral Reform Society are able to reveal polling data showing that 75 percent of respondents do not feel “well informed” to take a decision for the European Referendum? (£ – The Times) Our entire society and culture is focused on risk avoidance, and we are paralyzed by the crippling fear of doing the wrong thing. While it is good and proper that we weigh up opportunity, risk, and cost in decision making, that becomes counter productive when we daren’t decide for fear of deciding incorrectly. Human progress has deluded us into believing we have somehow ceased to be fallible, and rather than embrace the comfort of “to err is human, to forgive divine,” we neither allow ourselves to err, nor descend to forgive.

“Project Fear” is the epithet both Remain and Leave have used to describe their opponent’s campaign. Certainly the campaign has developed in such a way that thoughtful voters, precisely the kind of voters you would want to take a considered and balanced approach to their vote, are being terrified by prophecies of what it would mean to ‘mis-vote.’ Vote Remain and you’re signing up to pay for the Greek bailout. Vote Leave and you’re putting up your mortgage by £1,500. Both sides have already paid tribute to the national religion and declared that only they can save the NHS – although only Sir John Major has gone as far as to say that a vote for Leave would condemn the NHS. These are but a few short examples; the many more that spring to mind demonstrate why many voters feel sick of the referendum campaign.

What if you could do whatever you wanted to do, and know it would succeed?

My favourite (and therefore most overused) quotation about democracy is attributed to Arthur Balfour, who said: “Democracy presumes a people sufficiently united that they may bicker safely.” One of the most unhealthy developments in modern representative politics has been the growth of identity politics – about them vs us; absolute right vs absolute wrong; truth vs heresy. As I commented in an earlier piece, the Christian heritage of elections was that an electoral contest recognised a group did not agree, and was supposed to unify the group behind a decision. The most important thing is not what they decided, but that the group reached a decision, fairly and transparently, so that everyone could accept the outcome.

I very much appreciate my friend sharing Martin Lewis’ helpful blog on the EU referendum – the most helpful part comes near the end, when he says the following:

I’m generally risk-averse, and that pushes me just towards an IN vote for safety, maybe 55% to 45%.

Immediately of course, the Remain camp rushed to seize the plaudits that the highly-regarded and trusted Mr Lewis had ‘backed Remain.’ But that’s not quite what he said. The referendum is a binary decision, so of necessity he could only endorse one side. But when it came to reaching that decision, he effectively said “If I had 100 votes, I’d cast 55 for Remain and 45 for Leave.” Lewis deserves to be upheld for correctly pointing out that the decision before the electorate is extremely difficult, finely balanced and nuanced, and absolutely not an instance of a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. Undoubtedly there are people on both sides using wrong, even abhorrent arguments, but that is not the same as one option being conclusively right or wrong.

Why does this matter? Because this referendum is every political decision in a microcosm. This referendum is also about whether we choose to vote, or not. It’s about how we vote for Westminster, or our local council. It’s about whether we choose to engage in a debate recognising that if we all agreed there wouldn’t be a need for the debate. It’s fundamentally about recognising that debate, democracy and decisions are meant to enable us to divide for a season, to come back together and move forward together.

I began by asking “What would you do if you knew you could not fail?” I conclude by saying “When you vote in two week’s time, you cannot fail – however you vote.”

Since the date of the EU referendum was confirmed for 23rd June this year, I have had quite a few of my friends asking for my thoughts on it. I have been especially struck by the number of people who have candidly admitted their nervousness in knowing how to cast their vote. Quite understandably, these good and thoughtful voters feel the pressure that in a referendum there are no wasted votes – your vote makes a difference between the referendum motion succeeding or failing. Whether we vote to remain or leave, the outcome will impact the challenges and decisions we will face in the next decade. In view of that fact, it would be strange to not feel pressure in considering one’s vote.

To add to that pressure, there really isn’t anything by way of impartial analysis in how to cast one’s vote. Both sides are using quite similar tactics of describing the ‘doom-scenario’ should the other side win, while casting a vision of the sunlight uplands that lie before us if we only vote for their preferred option. The trouble is that it is foolish to predict the future: in the last 13 months the Conservatives won an unexpected majority, the SNP won almost every Westminster seat in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour party, and Leicester City defied 5000-1 odds to win the Premier League. The predictions of the In and Out campaigns are deserve to be treated as lightly and cautiously as any other prediction.

While I will venture some of my own thoughts on why we should vote a particular way, I can with a clear conscience give some advice which may result in readers voting contrary to the way I would hope – and doing so with my blessing and encouragement. I very strongly believe that the most important outcome of this referendum is not what we decide, but rather that we decided. Elections and referenda draw us in to the process of government, and are the crucial check on how authorities exercise their power. I feel no tension therefore between campaigning for my preferred outcome, whilst simultaneously encouraging everyone to get involved and vote, regardless of how they plan to vote.

The good news is that you can decide how to vote by answering two simple questions. These questions will enable you to assess the EU, based upon three principles below by which I believe authorities can be rightly judged.

The first principle is that effective co-operation between nation states should be encouraged. This principle applies not only to our role within Europe, but also in global trading agreements, in humanitarian initiatives, and in peacekeeping duties. Reducing barriers between nations helps to advance human flourishing; promoting greater trade, exchange of ideas, and cultural understanding. Put in a question, this would be “Are these nations delivering better outcomes by working together?”

Secondly, authorities must be accountable for their decisions. Democracy’s chief virtue is that it acts as a safety valve on public opinion. No government can govern for long without the sufferance of the nation, which in turn incentivises good decision making, and (more importantly) punishes poor decision making. I would express this principle in the question: “What can the public do to change a bad decision?”

Thirdly, authorities must deliver conditions for human flourishing. Put in simple terms, the role of all governments, whether national parliaments, elected mayors, regional assemblies, or local councils, is to use the power and resources at their disposal to leave the people they represent better off than if there were no governance at all. Put in three questions, one should ask whether a government:
1- has dealt with injustice or unfairness?
2- has invested to develop their area of jurisdiction?
3- has done so efficiently?

These three principles allow us to assess the role of the European Union as an overarching authority over the people of Europe, not just the United Kingdom. As you consider each, it enables you to answer two questions that will best determine how you should vote:

Question One: Are you satisfied that the European Union is delivering upon the three principles that are set out above?

Question Two: If you are not satisfied that is doing so, do you believe it is possible for the European Union to be reformed so that it delivers the principles set out above?

If you are able to answer either of these questions ‘yes’, then you should vote to Remain. Like many others involved in politics, I contest that it is better to be in politics, making a difference and looking to deliver change, despite the imperfections of our system of governance. I suspect that many who campaign for us to remain in Europe hold precisely that persuasion – Europe is not perfect, but we can only improve it if we remain in it. While I have sympathy for those who answer the first question negatively, and the second question positively, I have grave concerns about the wilful blindness who would argue that the EU can remain as it is and does not require root and branch reform.

If on the other hand you answer both questions in the negative, then you should vote to Leave. If your careful analysis and assessment leads you to conclude that the EU is not delivering on human flourishing for the peoples of Europe, and that there is no prospect of it ever amending its ways, then it would be not just illogical, but even immoral to consciously remain in an organisation that suppresses human flourishing and is beyond reform. It is of course a bold statement to say that the EU irredeemable – which is why I think that is the difficult question you have to answer honestly.

Let me conclude by crystallising the above down to one simple question: “Which outcome do you think we would respond to better as a nation?” Once you cut past the prophecies of the campaigns, the question really is about the challenges we will face on the other side. If we vote to remain, we are committing to being the best and most co-operative team player in the EU – which means dealing with the democratic deficit, slashing the oversized bureaucracy, and ensuring that it genuinely delivers for every member state. On the other hand, voting to leave means still playing a positive role in Europe from outside the EU, and building new trade arrangements around the world.

I imagine 75% of the electorate will vote with reluctance – whether to remain or to leave, those voting remain will wish they could register their discomfort with how the EU operates, and those voting leave will wish they could register their desire for a thriving Europe advancing human flourishing. Whatever way the country votes, the most important thing is not what we decide – it is that when we face the subsequent challenges we are able to say that we chose them.

Which way am I voting? Well if you tune in over the next fortnight, I will be explaining which way my conclusions took me, and what the key factors where in leading me to decide. For now I will keep you guessing – because this article isn’t about persuading anyone to vote a certain way – it is about encouraging everyone to make their vote count.