‘Social Solidarity’: Fairness

I read an interesting essay only a little while ago:


It is a short but interesting read if you ignore the jibes at Trump.

‘Asabiyyah’ is much the same as ‘social solidarity’. It means a high level of trust and ‘togetherness’ within a given group. It is said that there was a time when you did not need to lock your house doors because the idea of robbing your neighbour was anathema. It just did not happen. To have such trust and togetherness, there must be fairness, or, better, the perception of fairness. Perhaps even better, if there is a perception of UNfairness, and it is felt by enough people, then you can forget ‘social solidarity’. DIStrust will be the order of the day.

There are massive ramifications to that idea. Once the ‘feeling’ of unfairness creeps in, then distrust automatically follows.

Why did Brexit occur? Why was the referendum not a walk-over for ‘remain’? I think that we can reasonably say that there must have been millions of ordinary Britons who distrusted the EU. Had they trusted the EU, then must surely have put up with the many manifestations of incompetence and some corruption. But we know that distrust comes from a perception of unfairness. We Brits are especially sensitive to the horror of unfairness. “That’s not fair!” is one of our favourite cries. We even have some sympathy for baddies, if they are treated unfairly.

It is difficult to know where to start. Perhaps the prison smoking ban is a good point. How can an ordinary Brit have any sympathy for a criminal in prison? As I far as I personally am concerned, it is about not punishing people more than the law demands – in this case, loss of freedom. “It’s not fair!” to deprive the prisoners of a little pleasure which is not part of the sentence. What is worse is they are even deprived of that little solace outdoors in the open air. But, of course, I have a personal interest, being a persecuted smoker. What surprises me is that organisations which claim to look after the interests of prisoners have not said a dicky-bird about the smoking ban. Why is that? One can only assume that they are so far up the ‘do goodie arsehole’ that they agree with the ban – for health reasons, of course.

But what was the unfairness about the EU? What did the majority of Brits see? I suppose that there may well have been many and various unfairnessnesses, of which immigration might have been one. For example, why would Polish people cross the whole of the rest of Europe to get the the UK? Why should Britain accept a ‘quota’ of grown-up young men masquerading as children? I would have thought that every smoker and vaper in the UK would have voted ‘Leave’, if only on the principle (It’s not fair!) that smoking has bugger all to do with the EU.

And is that not a very, very important point? There has been a massive distortion of what the EU was intended to be. Parts of it are simply off-shoots of the WHO. Who gave the EU power to decide what is or is not healthy? It was enough for the EU to organise standards of the quality of horse meat and similar products. It was not to ban snus everywhere except Sweden. Who let the EU do it?

But there must be more ‘unfairness’ perceived by Brits than individual components. I suspect that is loss of self-determination. Stories abound in the papers about matters referred to the EU Court of Justice. ‘That is not fair!’ Why should our own courts be insufficient? And it is even worse when the EU Justice overturns our own Court judgements!

Further, I think that a large number of Brits have wondered what our Parliament exists for. Does it exist to discuss gold-plating EU directives? Or does it exist to decide matters such as PP? Is its existence like this?:

Perhaps many thinking Brits are aware of the costs of the EU and have reckoned that those costs are far too great to be justifiable. I agree totally with that. The EU ‘Government’ has produced almost nothing of value. It has created ‘level playing fields’ which ought not to be level. It is a parasite.

So a majority of Brits decided, on balance, and for their own individual reasons, that the EU is not for us. It is unfair. And that is what bothers me about ‘the negotiations’. Will May give away our fisheries in exchange for ownership of Greek debt? That is the sort of ephemeral ‘gain’ which none of us, except the fat cats in the City, understand.

The settlement will have to go before Parliament. There is no doubt. It will have to be in the form of a Treaty which replaces all previous Treaties. That is the bugger. It is massively complicated. What to keep and what to throw away?

Is there a simple answer? I think that there is. Keep what is ‘fair’.

Not much else matters.


3 Responses to “‘Social Solidarity’: Fairness”

  1. Rose Says:

    But what was the unfairness about the EU? What did the majority of Brits see?

    One against 27 is never good odds.

    • junican Says:

      The fact is that Germany and France have such such big populations, relatively, that they only need a few other states to agree to do as they say (in return for some sort of bribe) for them to have the majority vote. I don’t think that States even realise that they are corrupt in their EU dealings.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Totally true Junican

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: