In my working life I had little interest in the UK’s domestic politics. I was simply somewhere else. In fact, I don’t even think I could name the last five British prime ministers with confidence.
Getting to know Henry has changed that somewhat. He has introduced me to the thinking – and the arguments – that go on at the heart of government.
And anyone would be interested in the referendum.
This is how I see it.
Sixty years ago a catastrophic war ended.
Terrible, unforgivable things happened in that war.
The nations of Western Europe, all, in one way or another, defeated and humiliated in that catastrophic war, formed a union.
The main purpose of the union was to prevent more conflict on a ruined continent.
By the end of that war, the country where I am now was no longer a great power.
It became part of a European economy but not, at least in its own mind, part of the Union.
Now the nation has to decide. It has a choice between two options, between two propositions:
(1) We are a European country. We belong in the Union. We are very similar to the other countries in the Union. This Union is rich and wealthy. We share the same civilised values.
(2) We are an English-speaking country, part of the Anglosphere, a family of nations that helped to build the world as we know it. They speak our language.
I think the level of debate and the quality of coverage has been very poor.
They should read the best-selling book called Sapiens, which I just finished.
We are not just foragers with spreadsheets. We are a storytelling ape. A country is a story we happen to believe. (But what about your neighbour? What if his or her story is different from yours?)
News reporting and discussion is slaved to the two campaigns. The campaigns are trivial, misleading and an insult to the public.
Where is the independent journalism, questioning the two sides, asking them to delineate the future of the country as they see it?
As a journalist I collected quotations that helped me to define my own mission, like this one from Joseph Conrad:
“To have his path made clear for him is the aspiration of every human being in our beclouded and tempestuous existence.”
And now there is a new presence. On the internet anyone can say what they think.
The internet is porous. That is both a benefit and also a terrible problem. The terrorist group ISIS can show us a Jordanian pilot being burned to death as part of its propaganda.
The internet will transform public debate. It will shock our political systems. It will be uncomfortable.
“That’s putting it mildly,” said Henry, “the power of democratic governments and rational men and women to control a narrative has probably been lost. Fascists have long recognised this problem…’