Referendums in Europe: Yes, No and Back Again

It is amazing how having to choose a side in an argument can change someone from apathy to partisanship. I know this from experience of silly classroom situations where students are randomly given a side to argue and get totally caught up in their role, fighting to the bitter end. Luckily, in the classroom environment we can all come out of it and shake off the tension with no harm done. But in the political arena these Yes/No debates can be much more damaging.

By Yes/No thinking, I mean being able to answer a complicated issue with a simple one way answer. We have had quite a few Yes/No campaigns in the UK in recent years and they have done massive damage. First was the 2014 “Yes/No” vote as to whether Scotland should leave the UK and become an independent country. Scotland has remained  in the UK, but deep feelings of hate were built up during the campaign which still remain strong two years later.

The more recent example is the June 2016 referendum as to whether Britain should leave the EU, this time presented as a “Leave/Remain” vote. This oversimplified decision has split communities (and possibly countries) and left a wave of racism, division and hatred of perceived “otherness” behind it. A friend told me that he received a message from a colleague on the morning after the referendum, who was texting to boast about the fact that he had “won” and my friend had “lost”. As if the fate of our country is some kind of local football derby. So when it comes to Yes/No politics, I am definitely a No.

The question “Refugees. Yes or No?” is not one that has been explicitly put, but I guess that most of us could comfortably divide a lot of the people we know into “yes” or “no”. I know I could, despite the astounding ridiculousness of that question, or the fact that it is not actually a question at all. But it seems, in social media and often in real life too, that a lot of people have picked a side and are aggressively attacking the other one.

In truth, that is also the way my own brain battles with this phenomenally complicated crisis. When I see terror attacks on TV and atrocities committed in European countries, all my fear responds with a massive NO. When I think of the teenage Sudanese boy I met in a refugee camp in Calais, who still hopes one day to be a doctor, I swing back to YES. And so it goes, back and forth; huge complicated world structures, histories of nations, the lives of millions of people and the infinite possible futures of Europe swinging back and forth between these two simple poles. Yes. No. Yes. No.

But what is the alternative? Are we all supposed to muddle round indecisively, letting things happen by themselves? Is everyone supposed to end up like me, so weighed down by indecision that I can barely open my mouth on a given topic? (This is definitely a flawed strategy when it comes to the refugee crisis, of this much I am certain. Because right now it is only the haters who are speaking loudly.)

I think there are other ways to explore these issues than through the Yes/No lens. As ever, I think it is vital here (and much less dull) to ask more interesting questions. One route is to investigate what path people took to reach their opinion. With the Scotland referendum especially, many voters took very individual and different routes towards their vote for “Yes” or “No”. Their decision was a result of their unique emotional reactions and instinct, interpretations of history, understandings of politics and economics. As well as their very different hopes and fears for the future of their country. Learning about all these puts back the detail which Yes/No strips away. It can be really painful to hear opinions which go totally contrary to what you believe. But if you can widen the debate away from recycled racisms or political slogans and get to what the person is trying to protect or promote, the conversation does get more interesting. You might actually leave with some respect for them as a person, even if you hate their views.

Another friend of mine has the strategy of just putting awkward questions and encouraging people to think more deeply. To him, challenging prejudice, even just for a second, is the best way of resisting. Much better than shouting the other person down. For example asking how we can know that a statement is true, how much we trust the person who said it, or what if this other totally contrary assertion also has some truth in it. Again, it is difficult to detach and just “test” the other person’s convictions without allowing your own feelings to come through. But if you can manage to question non judgmentally you are much more likely to open minds and stop people becoming defensive.

Personally, I find the best way of distracting my mind from shuttling back and forward from Yes to No and back again is to ask different questions entirely. Preferably ones that don’t operate in a binary system. For example “How can I help?”. I recommend these types of questions to anyone else who is almost permanently in doubt during these tense political times and can find no straightforward answers. Try it. At the very worst, you can prevent your brain from melting down in shuttling exhaustingly back and forward between opposite certainties. And at the very best you might actually help someone.