The recent period of civil unrest can hardly pass without comment by a political stakeholder such as the Wessex Regionalist Party, especially when some of the protests have occurred within the Wessex region itself, as defined by our Party. Attending what would have been a counter-protest on the northernmost fringes of the region in Oxfordshire, outside a Holiday Inn housing asylum seekers to the north of the city, I got to talk about the Wessex cause in the calm that ensued from the apparent no-show of the far-right.
Some of my fellow counter-protestors were interested to hear about the regionalist cause – and with one Green Party activist in particular I partook in an engaging conversation with myself about the pros and cons of (Wessex) devolution.
Another counter-protestor expressed skepticism that that Wessex really did extend as far as Oxfordshire. Nonetheless, I am myself from a border area of the region, and, however strong or weak regionalistsentiment in the different corners of the old Kingdom, I was somewhat struck by the localist framing of the counter-protest I had earlier observed in High Wycombe.
The spokesperson for the demonstrators told me that it was important to show that Wycombe was not to be taken over by the likes of the English Defence League – that it was a diverse area and that racism, fascism, etc. was not welcome here.
I was tempted to take her attitude as somewhat nimbyist – but given the scenes from the rest of the country, I can understand why people want to defend their local area first.
After all, the Wycombites cannot be expected to defend the whole country. As a regionalist, however, it was less inappropriate that I should travel to Oxford to counter-protest – a show of solidarity, shall we say, with my fellow Wessex brethren.
Unfortunately, the counter-protestors upset some locals. “Are you from here?” was the question I was asked by the locals residing by the Holiday Inn. The lack of attendance from the far-right rendered the music played by the other protestors somewhat superfluous – and later we moved down the road closer toward the roundabout to disrupt them less.
When one local shouted “burn them” (as in, the migrants) he was rightly spoken to by the Police; however, protestors’ shouts of “throw the fascists into the sea” down by Manzil Way and the Oxford Mosque were apparently of no alarm to law enforcement.
Arguably the threat is less serious given the near-absurdism of such a chant, uttered 50 miles from the nearest coastline. There is not the immediate threat that “burn them” might imply, especially given the recent fires at so-called “migrant hotels” in the rest of the country.
But “throw the fascists into the sea” is nonetheless somewhat of an incitement to violence – or at least would foreshadow the oppression of political enemies in a world in which people like those running Stand Up to Racism were in charge. Ironically, this would make them fascists themselves and one can only assume they would throw themselves in the sea too.
While not a conscious choice that I ended up wearing a hoodie of sea-green to the protest – colour of the Party and of the erstwhile Wessex Clubmen, who sought to defend their local area against the excesses of both sides in the English Civil War of Cromwell days – I did consciously reflect that my protest – a counter-counter-protest if you will – was one which reflected their spirit somewhat.
In essence I grouped myself with the counter-protestors not only for security in numbers but also because they were – at least professedly – there to protect the hotel from criminal damage and the migrants from any potential harm by dissuading the so-called “far-right.”
In reality I wonder whether the only effect the protest really had was to anger the locals, who may in turn have wanted to provoke the so-called “far left.”
Once the local had uttered his “burn them” cry, I went over to speak to the bystanders, who avowedly condemned the man’s speech. Unfortunately, I was then interrupted by the leader of the Stand Up to Racism protest, who seemed to want to frustrate my being able to talk to the lady myself. He began by interjecting that Westminster was full of paedophiles and, later, when the local woman was talking about not having much help from the State/public services, a sequence of “I really resonate with that” responses and pointing towards politicians for these difficulties. The residents completely switched off when he started blaming all on capitalism after failing to have actually engaged with what the locals were saying.
Politics is not about identifying and then exterminating an enemy, but about working together to find solutions to common problems.
By the same token, it is also important that problems which can be solved at the personal, family, local, or regional level be thus solved and not escalated or removed from their proper sphere.
It is in this sense that regionalism is not incompatible with cooperativism. While those on the extreme left cry “no borders; no nations; stop deportation,” it is simply not sustainable to think we can continue to accommodate an indefinite number of migrants without our economy and local people taking a hit. Yes, migrants contribute on a net basis – but removing the border completely? No upper limit on immigration was one of the reasons the E.U. was problematic for British interests.
As Wessex Regionalists, we believe not in obliterating the concepts of nation and border but by promoting cooperation between nations and borders. A world without borders is either anarchy or (totalitarian) world government – and neither seem particularly attractive arrangements.
No – and this is where more reasonable counter-protesters such as the Green Party activists I met and chatted with agreed – devolution – that is, bringing the centres of power closer to the local level – is a desirable middle-ground. That which can be decided at the local level should be; and that which cannot be, must be solved in conjunction with the rest of the world.
Clearly the migrant problem is both global in its scope and local in its effects (on those housed near the so-called “migrant hotels”). In the short term, could the housing of asylum seekers be devolved so that local authorities can avoid the national government imposing seizures of hotels etc. from the outside? Yes, but one cause of migration is the poorness of living standards elsewhere in the world – and it would be in Wessex’s enlightened self-interest to collaborate with the third world to improve living standards there while it is also in our enlightened self-interest to help people fleeing war and persecution here. Indeed, there is no contradiction in these two terms: if they leave Wessex and go back to their home country when it is safe, we invest in peace and prosperity in the rest of the world and thereby increase peace and prosperity here too. If they cannot, then, properly treated and respected, there is no reason why asylum seekers and refugees here cannot make a positive contribution.
From personal experience in my home constituency of Maidenhead, it is where our national and international politics have failed on this issue that the local charity sector has picked up the mantle – and I have heard of great local schemes that have facilitated integration and helped those migrants stuck in the system be useful and contribute.
Maybe if Westminster gave local authorities more power to take up such initiatives the national backlog wouldn’t be such an issue.