Do not blame Corbyn for Cameron's Folly

I am furious with Cameron. Why would I not be? He leads a party and a government both of which are at odds with my beliefs and values. My antipathy is permanent. No, my fury today goes beyond the norm. His arbitrary decision to put  the country through the forthcoming referendum will define his legacy. Not only has this led to a nasty, gratuitous distraction for Parliament and people but it could yet lead to lasting real damage to the country he is supposed to lead. Where is the leadership in gambling all our futures with such uncertainty over the outcome? This has been done for purely partisan motives. It will be small compensation that he will be the greatest loser.

There was never any need for this. Had he been a true leader he would not have derogated to an uninterested and under-informed public the responsibility for determining policy on immigration (which is what drove the referendum decision). Parliament is the place for such matters. This is what we pay MPs and PMs to do. Were he truly the Remain advocate he claims to be, he could not have taken the risk he has with all our futures. Whatever the outcome of June 23 (please let it be IN), this reckless gamble must go down in history as Cameron's Folly. Now that Out looks possible, the voices of the Remain Right are starting to point the finger of blame at Labour's performance in the campaign to distract public opinion from the truth. Let us be crystal clear: any failure was in calling the referendum in the first place and only one man carries the responsibility for that.

How do you feel about this EU campaign?

Dare one say it? The campaign which started this morning but which is in reality already 2 months old, is both boring and badly managed. Yes, the subject f EU membership is important. Yes, voting about Europe is, for us who live in safe Tory seats, the one occasion when our votes count. But the powers that be could hardly have done worse in terms of enthusing the electorate.

If I were a Brexit-er [which I am most decidedly NOT] I could at least be enthusiastic because this is such a simple, clear message. But the awfulness and chaos of the rival gangs could reduce this clarity to confusion and lose them their chance of prevailing.

Then there are the Remainers. Oh dear! Their case could be so strong but their message and presentation are so poor. As usual with anything run by the Tories, the focus is on money and foreigners, when the visceral, emotional attraction must surely lie in decades past and future of peace and cooperation. Instead, we have Johnny Foreigner against Colonel Blimp; gunboats against the defenceless; and, sadly, old-and-voting versus young-and-disenfranchised. As if it were not already bad enough that Europe as an issue historically attracts low priority in voter concerns and low turnout. Four months of bad-mouthing bigotry is no turn-on, will do nothing to give democracy a good name and may lead to a damaging conclusion when there was no need for the referendum in the first place. What a mess.

Tom Serpell

Do we really want to go it alone all the time?

They say that perception is truth so perhaps I may be allowed ignorance to some extent of facts "on the ground" when the impression of reality is all I can rely on. I have long felt that collaboration - teamwork, if you like - was a preferable way of overcoming obstacles to going it alone. Not only are two heads better than one but more resources and fewer opponents result. So Europe has avoided conflict since its members agreed on cooperation. So, the principle of mutual defence [note that word] lies behind NATO. So, the countries of the world agreed to create the UNO to foster collective solutions to the biggest issues.

Then why is it now the case that these apparently laudable institutions seem to be by-passed by our own government, a key player in each? NATO is, it is true, cited as the vehicle for some actions but these are rarely concerned with mutual defence. Rather it is used in aggressive adventures. The UN fails totally to appear when a massive humanitarian crisis faces hundreds of thousands across Europe and the Middle East - even neglecting the disgrace of the Calais Jungle and its suffering inhabitants. And how pathetically self-serving have the leaders of the EU been when dealing with the crises facing both the elected government of Greece and its suffering people.
rld.
When institutions fail it is because its members fail to cooperate. This will inevitably lead to the further breakdown of the institution, leading to unilateral actions and inter-nation, "Balkan" conflicts, with the humanitarian aspects of the crises of the world left high and dry. Before this occurs, leaders need to look hard at both the reality and perception of their own loss of faith in collaboration and ask if this is really the fault of the institution or of their own leadership. They need to ask what is really best for the country and for the world. My perception may be shared, to the extent that supporters of cooperative institutions may end up voting to abandon them, if they are allowed to fail to perform as they should. Then the reality will be truly dangerous.
Tom Serpell