Let’s be constructive
LAST year, #WeStandTogether held one of our Difficult Dialogue conversations around the Brexit debate.
Recently I reviewed some of the participants’ contributions, and they gave considerable pause for thought:
“Brexit was overly simplified and became a referendum not on issues but on Boris!”
“Politicians’ games are dangerous for communities.”
“People don’t trust institutions or politicians. The longer the debate has gone on it is like a running sore that will carry on to 2020 and beyond, reinforcing and retrenching people’s positions.”
“The media exacerbate inequalities.”
“It would be useful if remainers said that the EU has real problems and be honest about reforms that need to be made and, equally, Brexiteers need to be honest that their arguments were rubbish!”
“We need to challenge the assumption that those who wanted to leave are more prejudiced.”
The confrontational language being used by politicians over the last week has again raised concerns about the impact on our communities that our participants eloquently expressed.
Is community safety now being compromised for political ends? What happened to valuing ‘agreement,’ ‘consensus,’ ‘co-operation’ and ‘compromise’?
Why are some looking to play a zero sum game, which can only foster resentment?
Brexit has been dubbed a divorce and the analogy is very true.
We are removing ourselves from a ‘union’ but need to maintain a civil relationship for the sake of our populaces. In order to do this, it is normal to have a settlement, usually a compromise between the two parties.
Parents can often be very emotional about the issues involved, so usually have a lawyer represent them and often a judge to rule on disagreements.
The latter does not exist for Brexit and maybe that is what is missing?
The example that politicians set is clearly influential when these Brexit debates happen in local communities. The passion they exhibit and principles they articulate are all well and good but any decent scientist knows the danger of confirmation bias.
If our elected officials could view their own conclusions as suspect and robustly test them, they may find better solutions rather than stalemate.
With that in mind, we can all make the choice to engage constructively rather than destructively.
Rather than viewing the debate as divisive, we can recognise it as a spectrum of views and listen to where others are on that continuum.
We can then seek areas of concurrence rather than discord and prevent an increase of tensions.
We do not have to reach full agreement but recognising the legitimacy of different narratives should be a minimum aim.
One of our Brexit debate participants asked how we could reintroduce the notion of ‘more in common than that which divides us’?
Another shared their story of living in a small community of five streets and having good, neighbourly relationships both pre and post-Brexit. They believed there was a need for people to learn how to have conversations again, including listening properly.
#WeStandTogether believes in the opportunity to have constructive dialogues on difficult issues.
If you want to do this in your neighbourhood, contact us and we’ll help you.