Borderline Fantasy

Is it in Britain's best interests to be an enthusiastic member of the EU? This is a question which cannot properly be answered until "Britain's best interests" have been defined and agreed upon. Personally, I'm frustrated and disappointed by the overwhelming emphasis being put on trade as the pivotal factor in determining the argument. I would like to see fuller consideration given to humanitarian principles and for them to be placed at the forefront of the debate. We can expect our business leaders (hired hands of the corporations) and politicians (factional lobbyists) to bang on about economic benefits, but they should be reminded that a driving factor in the founding of the EU was a humanitarian reaction to the two World Wars which had been caused by fractious European states. With this in mind, I am prepared to embrace almost anything - even the Eurovision Song Contest - as an alternative to parochial and potentially lethal nationalistic rivalry.

I wouldn't argue that nation states are a bad thing in themselves but I am prepared to question their underlying assumptions. Some of the principles upon which they have been founded are no longer valid, especially clear now in the Middle East where religious and cultural differences have emerged to challenge national borders previously imposed by force. For example, the one thing that ISIL and I agree upon is the questionable validity of the border between Syria and Iraq. But ISIL is repeating the historical mistake of imposing borders forcibly and, to make matters worse, it is invoking a supernatural deity as justification for its barbaric methods.

ISIL may claim to be motivated by religious zeal but I am sceptical: organised religion has always been a powerful institutional tool for controlling the behaviour of populations and once you have control of a population you have wealth and influence. It has been said that "You can be sure you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do" and the carnage resulting from religious hatred is as evident today as it ever was in, say, medieval Europe. Religious homogeneity may form the basis of a nation state - as it does in Saudi Arabia, where citizenship is predicated on being Muslim - but the concurrence is too much of a coincidence to convince me that states don't deliberately harness the power of religious belief to their advantage. In the words of another sceptic, "Where there is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat".

Consensus is the best way of defining a national entity because it is a sounder base for peaceful harmony. Today, in Britain, our Monarch and Defender of The Faith proceeded in a gilded coach to the Houses of Parliament where she announced the proposals of "her" newly installed government. Fortunately for us, her subjects (not citizens, note), this is largely pantomime: the Government is not effectively "hers" and there's scant consensus as to which faith it is she's defending, why and from whom. Consensus does exist, however - for now, at least - as to what constitutes the nation known as Britain. But to think of this as an end-point would be ridiculous. Everything moves on: hegemonies shift as power slips away or is defeated; resources get depleted; and populations migrate. Given that change is inevitable, it is prudent to consider one's nationality as of secondary importance to one's humanity. And given the vulnerability of humanity, it is prudent to form alliances. In Britain's case it would be folly to spurn an alliance - a federation, even - with Europe.  We need all the friends we can get, especially if we are to stand any chance at all of winning the next Eurovision Song Contest.