I spent time over the weekend with some of my oldest friends. We've known each other so long our narratives are well known to each other. And maybe we've survived as friends for this long because our outlooks are not dissimilar. So almost inevitably, it seems, we discussed Brexit, the state of the government and the alternative options that are available. It was fun, if worrying.
Much of what we discussed is reflected in the weekend's papers.
There is a growing consensus Theresa May is so hopeless it is hard to see how she can survive.
And that Johnson simply has to go.
There seems to be belief that there are bound to be more Tory sex scandal casualties.
Whilst almost everybody is of a single mind that the UK's Brexit negotiators have been even more incompetent than we might have ever thought possible.
That the EU's negotiating position may not be entirely reasonable is no surprise to anyone because the stronger party in any negotiation rarely feels obliged to be entirely fair, and this was wholly predictable since the EU is, despite Brexiteer claims, very obviously the party in control here.
What is only hinted at though is the sheer horror of no deal and what it might mean: it is apparent that this has still, as yet, to dawn on people. The country's unpreparedness for what happens if there is no deal is staggering, but in the context of the previous comment perhaps less surprising.
And in all this the economic downsides remain almost unfathomable because they are so unpalatable.
But these were just the more obvious conclusions to draw. What is as shocking is that as yet there doesn't seem to be anyone in a position of power who, as it was put, is 'grown up' enough to address both the pragmatic and existential issues that flow from these observations (and to use the words 'grown up' is also slightly shocking when those present had an average age in the 60s).
The pragmatic issues to be faced come in two forms. One required option is a clear statement of what hard Brexit actually means and what planning is needed for it, with a timescale and costing attached. I suppose we can hope that this is what the 58 risk assessments on Brexit might provide, but I am ready to be severely disappointed. What I do know is that in the absence of that information no informed decision other than to stay within the EU can be made. After all, rationally in that absence we are quite literally leaping into the unknown. I stress, I am saying this in the absence of any viable alternative in the situation I describe.
The second pragmatic issue is related to the first, and may well require the rational conclusion that we simply cannot do Brexit within any conceivable time scale and any conceivable cost and that it is time to own up and admit it.
Either way, pragmatically the time for costs and plans to be on the table has already long past and we do not have them for either of the only known options, which are hard Brexit and asking to stay: nothing else now looks likely. A 'grown up' really does need to address the options now, whichever is to be preferred, and to dare no one has.
That then leads to the existential issues. These also cannot be avoided. Some are glaringly obvious. The future of Ireland is, perhaps, highest on that list, where the consequential issues are so enormous that they hardly bear thinking about, and yet that thinking must be done. There is no easy solution to the issues that arise for Ireland, whatever happens (bar staying).
The Irish question does, of course, bring the future of the Union and the nature it might have into play. And that means that questions around Scotland also cannot be avoided. If they are, it will not be so for long and so, yet again, they require someone to address then head on.
Let's not ignore England and Wales in all this too. In saying that I recognise Wales as a country: I also suspect it is staying in Union with England. And for the English (most of whom have very little comprehension of the fact that they even live in a Union of nations) the questions are at least as hard. The myth of 'Great' Britain has, I suspect, now been shattered for good. It's not clear what Britain is in a political sense any more. And 'great' we are not.
For some that is going to be very hard to accept. Farage, Johnson and Gove promised them Greatness again. But, whatever happens, we are a massively diminished nation. We have no influence left almost anywhere, and it is apparent we have a political system so threadbare it can hardly deliver government, let alone competent participation in any issue of consequence. I think this is going to create enormous stress. It also requires leadership to address the issues.
And let's be clear what those issues are.
It will be hard to see why we keep a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
Hard too to justify our defence policy and belief that we have a right to intervene internationally when we will have pretty much voluntarily left that stage.
And we will also have to accept that outside any obvious network of states we will lead at nothing in what is a globalised world.
These are crushing blows to many English people's perceptions of what they are. Adjusting to failure and isolation when for centuries we have thought ourselves the epicentre of the known world is a challenge to the national psyche that will have consequences hard to predict.
In fact all of these issues have that same result: forecasting is nigh on impossible.
A grown up leader would, of course, make an open appraisal of the situation.
And they would deliver an evidence based opinion.
On the basis of that they might now be abundantly clear that we need more time for Brexit and ask for it, stating the price they will pay to secure it.
Alternatively they might be humbly apologetic. They might say Brexit is not possible. They might say to the country that the option Cameron gave to them cannot be delivered. And they might, when doing so, apologise to the EU as well, and ask to cancel Article 50, hoping that the worst that might happen will be that we have to abandon our rebates, which may very well be a a price worth paying.
But that would require a leader with the courage of Michael Collins in Ireland in 1922, knowing all the risks that they would be taking.
And it would require the support of a national government created, temporarily, in the national interest.
In exchange that leader would have to face the issues of Ireland and Scotland, nonetheless, and address the issues that arise in both, including government deadlock in Stormont and the hobbled devolution to Scotland that was designed to undermine the credibility of any Holyrood administration.
That government would also have to address the failure of the Westminster system as well, where the Commons cannot now attract people able to form competent governments; where first past the post guarantees the very stalemates it was supposed to guard against; and where the Lords has to be reformed.
Whilst doing all that the power of a hopelessly biased press has to be addressed and the BBC has to be allowed to be politically free.
At the same time the Bank of England has to be brought back under control and mechanisms to truly revive local democracy - which is the bedrock of a true democracy - have to be created to allow some degree of fiscal autonomy that has been denied them for so long.
And in between all this there will be a need to hold society together, and that cannot be guaranteed to be stress free.
Who is the 'grown up'? I am not sure. But we need them because we are facing meltdown in the UK on so many fronts the need for coherent leadership has not been greater since 1945. And I cannot now see how that can be achieved without cross party cooperation to achieve stability and reform (and to avoid backlash against any one party that takes on the task) when the risk to the country is enormous, in the face of which the current incumbents have so very obviously failed.
We face a political crisis of a scale I have never previously imagined now. And I won't beat about the bush: the scale of the challenge is both enormous, and a little frightening so deep are the issues requiring resolution. But first we have to recognise that. And right now our government, so incompetent is it, seems unable to appreciate the gargantuan consequences of its own failings and make way for the process of national recovery that has, if we are to get through the next few years relatively unscathed, to begin very soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well obviously, being a contemporary etc, I agree with much of that.
The point I would add though is that takes a long time to change public opinion. Surveys show that it can – and certainly will in this case – shift by about 2%pa. Hoping for change is fine, but you have to wait for it to actually happen till you have the level of consensus you need for many of your propositions. Without consensus nothing is sustainable.
This though is the main point to give you hope. There is no consensus at the moment about anything. So anything more or less can change. You will just have to wait about a decade…..or so…
Cheers
There are tipping points
We will have one
I suspect it will be when a Nissan, a Toyota, a Honda etc decides to move jobs en masse. They have all been promised ‘frictionless trade’ which it abundantly clear is highly unlikely to happen.
Projected public opinion surveys suggest about 2022 onwards…that’s why I suggest keeping powder dry.
My comment on tipping points in response to Peter Bell’s recent plea on his own blog for more boring, a reasonable wish, but I fear we are at a point that requires what Adam Smith described as “a daring but often dangerous spirit of innovation”.
If only such an inspired vision was available
Oh well there are some more points. I think its important to separate economic and political effects of changes of this magnitude. Your experience should tell you that business will, on the whole be fine with change. The public sector is, on the other hand, highly exposed. The long term economic issues are that the public finances will be weakened. Managing that should be our main concern.
The much bigger point is that Britain is hugely weakened politically. The longer term issues here seem to have been missed by the political debate. They’re too short term in their thinking. But actually this might be a good thing. We should be more sceptical about our influence and impact.
Finally, we should always keep this stuff within its international context. Is there a distinctive British populism or nationalism driving all this? How far is this a European issue? What does Brexit look like externally? Thinking about our position from different points of view may inform our views and help us respond more dispassionately to this enormous policy failure, which is, after all, the result of pretty continuous political failures extending back 30 years.
The public finances need not be damaged at all….
But that requires us to understand public finances properly
I agree managing the fisc from a technical perspective essentially manageable. The practical and political aspects unfortunately aren’t. I agree with your general perspectives on tax , covered in your other work. If anything, I would take a harder line than you.
Good!
“The public finances need not be damaged at all….
But that requires us to understand public finances properly”
And to have a government prepared to institute sensible policies based on an understanding of proper financial arrangements. And one which is not wedded to powerful interests that are very well suited by the prevailing orthodoxy.
As John McDonnell indicated the “market’s” reaction to a Labour government gaining power will be to do its level best to destroy the national economy and destroy the new government’s support and credibility. With a compliant MSM propaganda machine they may not have much difficulty in achieving that. The big players don’t give a toss for the national economy because there interests are globally diversified.
It’s tantamount to treason. The Johnsons, Goves and Farages should be in the tower. Along with a good few others. That would relieve pressure on the housing market by releasing homes 🙂
Localism would be the answer, as you briefly suggest, leading to a council of all the councils running the country, I would imagine. By then though, that would probably be several individual countries, Scotland, Wales, Northern England, Southern England, possibly an Ireland or two, and I have no qualms with that. The UK, with its central government all too often oblivious to everywhere but its most immediate surroundings, doesn’t work for the majority, and that will have to be recognised. Hull has its Hullcoin, the aim of which is to keep spending local, Brixton and Bristol have their own Pounds created with the same intention, Preston (Lancs) is prospering in the face of adversity due, it seems, to a council-led initiative of making as much spending as practical local… I understand too your friend Richard, Richard, is advising Preston on the setting up of a community bank… very wise IMHO… these are ideas which will spread as other areas see their success and copy them. I’m reminded of how the idea behind Worgl spread, and happily, unlike at Worgl, this time there simply won’t be any effective form of central government to collude with the banks to stop it. Quite possibly, a Golden Age looms before us. When the mechanisms the predator class uses to repress us are breaking down is the perfect opportunity to refashion the culture to the advantage of the many. That opportunity looks like it’ll be along any minute 🙂 We can win this.
A powerfully argued position Richard, and I regret to say that I do not think we have anyone in Government or on the Opposition benches with the stature or ability to lead the country through this period of massive instability and weakness.
What is frightening is not so much that we don’t have people with the skills to negotiate a ‘least-worse-option’ for Brexit, but that no one can see this stark reality. Who among the Government negotiating team can anyone honestly say has the necessary gravitas to manage this process to a satisfactory conclusion? Listening to callers to the various online / radio shows I am struck by the complete blindness to reality that many of the commentators display. The MSM has done a “good job” in keeping people ignorant of the consequences of the Brexit decision.
It may not yet be too late, but the Brexit negotiations should have comprised a team from ALL parties in Westminster, and not just the Tory Government. I am not hopeful of the future.
What we need is a vote of no confidence in this Government tabled every week by a unified opposition. Every week until they go.
Can you imagine what this would be like if it were a Labour Government? The Right would be having a field day now.
The EU’s alleged intransigence is just holding the line for the EU project. And can you blame it? This treaty is full of countries with a burgeoning right wing. Why should the EU make it easy for the UK? It is sending a message out to others that it is better to stick together within a treaty because that is what the EU is: A Treaty. If we go back to an ultra competitive Europe manipulated by the USA / Russia and even China it is a recipe for disaster in my view.
During Thatcher’s reign we saw the stable door opened on so many areas of society and economic life (privatisation, de-regulation). And what do we know now? It hasn’t worked. When (if) the UK leaves Europe, a stable door will be opened that will very quickly need to be shut. I do not blame the EU. They know that they are dealing with liars ( remember the NHS bus) and people who funded the Leave campaign who have yet to tell us where the money came from – don’t you ‘Komrades’.
As for the Tories – the biggest shower of merde ever to walk the halls of Westminster – you can tell what is going by the recent tribulations surrounding one Ms Patel.
On BBC news last night I heard that Ms Patel was ‘very capable’ and considered herself (and by others) a future PM!! So called ‘Friends’ said that she would bounce back and end up in Cabinet again!! Ah…..bless!
What this tells me is something very unpalatable about modern politics: they – the politicians – are obviously working to set of rules and standards that the rest of just are not entitled to. You will go to prison for not having a TV license on benefits or have benefits cut if you are late for an interview. But making foreign policy on your own for your State is just a little matter – resign now and come back to the fold later – don’t worry about it Dear. There has been a decoupling of standards in public life – the establishment perhaps – which indicates to me something is seriously wrong with politics at the moment.
Priti Patel should never be allowed back into Government. Not because she is a woman, or Asian but because she is not capable and like a lot of her political creed she has NO moral or ethical compass aligned with a sense of entitlement that puts her beyond the reproach of people like you and I.
As for Johnson – well……………it is obvious that keeping the Tory Party together is worth putting your country second isn’t it Theresa?
If they had any decency, the Tories would resign and call a general election. Fat chance.
Yes – this is a crisis – no doubt about it.
Indeed. Responding to your point in my own words, there is a cult of individualism which means that the greatest commitment of a “leader” is to self (some combination of career, wealth, sex, power) rather than to some greater good beyond themselves. The remarks of Patel’s friends bear this this out – absolutely no sense that her holiday on the Golan Heights might prove unhelpful for the for the people in Israel-Palestine-Syria (who cares about them anyway?). No responsibility or accountability except to anyone.
But it isn’t just Patel, she is merely a symbol for the whole dam lot of them. Our beloved media (owned and manipulated by ???) contribute mightily to our national predicament because any individual who might emerge as a genuine challenger to this status quo would be destroyed in a barrage of negativity.
Terrible as it is, the present unholy trinity of wealth-politics-media is designed to perpetuate the stable conditions necessary for the self-aggrandisement of the few. There is a remarkable capacity for this system to hijack any “tipping point” and claim it for its own ends – the 2008 crisis being a good example of this. We – the great British public – are preoccupied by “just about managing” or/and have the collective memory of a fruit fly.
Perhaps things are even worse than you think. In a General Election, would you care to guarantee that even the current Conservatives would certainly lose…. ….?
No
I spend 80% of my time in Oslo, my favourite customer is in Lisbon. Without oil, Norway would be a 3rd world country but they have used their luck well. They are a part of the single market, it serves them well but they refer to their membership as all pay, no say! But it works. The Portuguese don’t have oil, they are a 3rd world country with little or no say in anything save for the occasional great footballer. The fiasco described so eloquently above suggests that we are leaving our future generations to a 3rd world island, formerly known as great britain. My generation have had the best of everything, what right have we to visit this on our children and grandchildren? It was Herbert Hoover who said “”Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt.” And will they!
I am sorry but that is simply not true of Norway
Sweden has no oil and has the same standard of living
Denmark does well and has much less
And Iceland is also doing OK now
So to say Norway would be an exception to the shared Nordic model but for oil does not make any sense
Sorry….
Mike Jenkinson says:
November 13 2017 at 10:56 am
‘I spend 80% of my time in Oslo, my favourite customer is in Lisbon. Without oil, Norway would be a 3rd world country but they have used their luck well.’
I don’t think that’s quite right, Mike. Certainly Norway has made good use of the oil it was given by good fortune, and Britain squandered much of it’s own similar good fortune.
Japan has no oil worth peaking of but produced a massive economic advantage. Oil is not the be all and end all. It’s an asset to be capitalised on or to squander. Portugal has its assets, but has to make the best of them and presumably has not done so. What do they do with all that sunshine? and all that shoreline and all those people who live there?
Luck don’t enter into it. It’s all down to management.
@MikeJenkinson,
Seeing as the national debt is nothing more sinister than the accumulated savings of the non-government sector, what’s not to like about inheriting it?
Mike,
Most of the so-called ‘oil-rich’ countries are in the “third-world”. With the assistance of Google you might like to familiarise yourself with the concepts of ‘Dutch disease’ and ‘resources curse’.
You have summarised my feelings and concerns . Thank you
I argued here for voting Leave, which I did immediately by postal vote, having voted same in 75. Knowing that it would create havoc for the tories but not believing Leave would win, later regretted I didn’t abstain as it was a totally discreditable thing for a government to recommend the status quo on such a major issue – with no Plan B. I now feel even more guilty because the chaos is frightening.
Carol
If only more of our politicians were as honest and reflective as you!!
Carol, I can easily see why you might have voted in that way. I might have done likewise in an English constituency. No-one could have been expected to anticipate the total lack of coherence in the Brexit process by its proponents. Nor indeed to expect that ‘Leave’ would prevail. Nigel Farage didn’t even believe it.
Like you I would have been wrong to do so, and it’s big of you to admit you were duped.
Carol, I’m afraid I can’t be as magnanimous towards your actions as Andy and PSR. How supposedly intelligent progressives voted along with the racists, nationalists and free market fanatics driving the anti EU campaign really appals me.
Talk about Stalin’s ‘useful idiots’! Any left winger should know how the right will always try and shift the blame for their own failures onto somebody/something that has nothing, or very little to do with them.
OK, finger wagging over. At least, unlike the lying riff-raff still trying to push this madness through, you’ve admitted you got things very seriously wrong, and feel guilt over your actions (something the Brexiteers will never do).
The question now is, what are you going to do to stop this madness?
In fairness, Carol is a great campaigner who is tireless in her work for LVT, where I am an admirer of her commitment
I voted Leave because: the EU is a neoliberal organisation which mainly supports the owners of capital, the European Court of Justice has made some very bad judgments against workers, a socialist government needs capital controls, a socialist government does not need the controls which the EU provides for worker and environment protection, I don’t believe that total freedom of movement of labour benefits workers generally (not a view generally held by lefties, I know). But I recognise that the Labour Party would never have called a referendum on EU membership (at this stage – it was valid in 1975) unless it had a realistic plan. Corbyn and McDonnell recognised that and I should have listened to them.
Disaster capitalism.
Some commentators believe this is the real purpose behind Brexit. I’m thinking this may not be far from the truth.
Some politicians will do anything for some extra cash for themselves. This includes crashing the UK to suit the wealthy disaster capitalists.
I believe the conservative government is a mixture of incompetence and wilful negligence driven by possible financial profit.
May looks increasingly like she is on a shoogly-peg. After May departs, who knows what direction the conservatives will take. I don’t think they know themselves.
WOW!! The first time I have ever seen anybody mention Michael Collins as a leader to emulate. Can’t help feeling you may well be right. By the way, who are the G Men in this anaology?
Great article and one I will keep to remind me of what was said before we enter the abyss.
Michael Collins had the courage of his convictions
I am not saying he has was a saint though, in case you get me wrong
Michael Collins was shot dead and his supporters were systematically bankrupted: you draw analogies too well, in an era where opposition or factual commentary attracts the label ‘traitor’ and a venomous media campaign.
I was writing with some insight into the facts of this one
I wish I could cogently argue that that is an overly pessimistic summary of the current situation facing us, Richard. I’d like to be able to dismiss it on the grounds that you had supped too well in good company and become a little dispepsic.
“After all, rationally in that absence we are quite literally leaping into the unknown.” I fear it is worse than that, Richard. If we choose to divorce ourselves from the European ‘family of nations’ we will have little choice but to do deals with the US with absolutely no control or influence on the conditions of those deals and as not even a junior partner. We won’t even have the standing of a State in the union. None of the protections and none of the limited democratic input through ballot box nor legislature.
The US global empire has never looked so weak and dangerous. It is collapsing in the classic manner of all empires simultaneously at the periphery and at its core. Its very weakness makes it the more dangerous because it will use desperate sanctions, both economically and militarily to hang on at all costs to its waning global power.
We should be very, very frightened I think. The programme (which, typically, I have heard twice as often happens when one dips in and out of Radio 4) about the basics of political coalition in Chimpanzee societies makes the point that there is no benefit in allying to the strongest alpha male unless one is satisfied to be a fawning acolyte.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09cympw (As is often the case with documentary presentations the information content is diluted by waffle, but nonetheless interesting and I thought worth wading through the crap for)
Our current Brexit strategy (which is barely worthy of the description strategy and scarcely amounts to tactics) is tantamount to political illiteracy. Sub-Chimp political acumen. Who says evolution cannot go backwards ?
If Theresa May survives as Prime Minister, it is because the alternatives are even worse.
Thank you for voicing so clearly and reasonably the issues as well as the risks we are facing as a country in the next few weeks, months and years.
Some in Government, or in its wings, must have the same concerns in private but do not appear to have the will or the courage to voice them above the din of the media. Those toxic media have taken over the country, they are out of control, they lead and shape opinion since no one in government can lead, and the opposition is more concerned with infighting than with leadership and reform.
The poverty of competence in the government is staggering. It says a lot about the grounding of our elite. Priviledged education and social background clearly have not delivered competence, quite the reverse, those elites have relied more on networks of influence than on intellectual ability and strength of character.
While this is not new, it appears more unstabling in times like these, which would require proper thinkers as well as competent doers, but instead we have government itself distrusting experts and deriding their advice, echoing the gutter press barons.
Democracy is totally undermined in the UK, by the lobbies, the media, the electoral system, and and I do not see how we can address all these issues and Brexit at the same time.
Thank you, I will be reusing the phrase ‘poverty of competence’: it fits rather well and it is less overtly derogatory than ‘deluded berks’.
With Corbyn running like a headless chicken, the only alternative to May is Johnson.
Read Farrage, Johnson and Trump.
Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practised to deceive.
How bizarre!
Corbyn is a headless chicken? Really? Compared to may, not at all
Is he the man for the moment? I do not know
But he is definitely not a headless chicken
He has ideas, ideals, principles too it seems. Not a headless chicken by a long way, but does he see the wood for the trees? Do his praiseworthy ideals get in the view of the practicalities of government? Do some of the people who influence his decisions have an agenda behind the scenes?
I don’t know enough about it to judge. I’m not a member of the Labour Party so I’m not privy to the details of the strategy, just an interested observer.
One thing seems clear to me though, he and his bickering team would be a lot better than the absurdly incompetent self-serving lot we have now. Even with his deep distrust of the EU, which I can sympathise with to some extent, he’d be able to manoeuvre around the edge of the cliff, somehow…I hope.
He’d need to gather support from all around, can he do that? A government of national unity for a crisis the kind of which we’ve not seen since 1945?
I’m a strong remainer, a critical but convinced supporter of the EU, only while we’re in can we organise reforms, we’re not alone to want them, plenty of support out there, but if/when we’re out, we’ll just become irrelevant. Easily ignored.
Oh well…all we can do is vote when we can, campaign in our own little ways and voice our anger and worries; keeping quiet is not an option.
Marie in her post at 1:01 today states: “only while we’re in can we organise reforms, we’re not alone to want them, plenty of support out there, but if/when we’re out, we’ll just become irrelevant. Easily ignored.”
Agreed, but the opportunity to organise reforms is now past. We failed to do this when the opportunity was there, I think largely because the UK only ever truly saw itself as a reluctant member of the EU. I suspect UK governments thought EU membership was a price worth paying for entry to the single market (i.e. simply as a trading opportunity) and were largely uninterested in taking a leading role in formulating its politics, social policies etc.
I spent 2 years working in Germany in the 1990s where I read their press and watched their TV daily. One analogy above others sticks in my mind: a commentator described the European Parliament as being like a football match. Some people arrive carrying kit, get changed and go on to the pitch to play the game. Others go into the grandstands and shout. UK rarely goes on to the pitch and instead is generally to be heard shouting abuse from the sidelines.
The better-informed German press, mindful of their nation’s awful 20th century history, regretted the lack of a strong British voice in the EU Parliament, as it would have better balanced the dialogue between the large countries with significant global economies and the smaller nations of Europe.
There is no doubt in my mind that had UK (government, media and electors) taken its role in the EU more seriously, things would have turned out differently. For a start, we might have sent more credible MEPs. The Farage-led UKIP team’s tactics in the EU Parliament undoubtedly produced an antagonism towards UK there. I fully understand that was UKIP promoting its own political agenda, but UKIP wasn’t the UK government and where was the voice of Westminster in all of this?
Surfinjo says:
November 13 2017 at 10:07 am
“With Corbyn running like a headless chicken,…..” Nonsense.
“….. the only alternative to May is Johnson.” There is no question in the English political language to which Boris Johnson is the correct answer (with the possible exception of ‘who should be expelled from parliament next’)
Have read here and elsewhere about the permanent security council seat and that it might be in danger. I can’t see that happening due to UK basically being a second vote for the US position on most issues and a third vote alongside France for the NATO position. Why would the US allow or encourage that to happen?
There may be all sorts of justifications for the UK losing its seat but the US and NATO issue probably trumps them all.
Rick says:
November 13 2017 at 10:40 am
“Have read here and elsewhere about the permanent security council seat and that it might be in danger.”
It is emphatically in danger because it is exclusively reliant on the UK nuclear ‘deterrent’. The refusal of Westminster to devolve real power to Holyrood is, at bottom, related to there being nowhere in England or Wales that would willingly garage nuclear submarines and their payload. And for very good reasons.
Corbyn’s desperate attempts to win votes for his Scottish party dinosaurs is entirely to the end of maintaining the nuclear deterrent against his own oft stated anti-nuclear principles.
Attendance yesterday at Remembrance Sunday ceremony reinforced, again, my view that the sooner we take a unilateral and principled stance against the obscenity of nuclear weapons the sooner we will merit a seat at the high table of the security council.
Where do you get the idea that Scotland loves its nukes? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36824083
If you infer that I think Scotland loves its nukes I have misled you in what I wrote. or you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. My fault if there was ambiguity there: communication has not taken place ’til the message is received and understood.
My assertion is that Scottish Labour is concerned for the jobs that will be lost. And that the neoliberal core of labour is still terrified of being seen as being allied to the unilateralist Michael Foot ‘suicide note’ manifesto.
I have some sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn on this issue because he is having to go against his own principles until he succeeds in winning-over the party to his view.
I wish he’d concentrate on issues in South Britain where he has some mandate and a lot of work to do yet however rather than conspire to back Tory Unionism in Scotland. He will not get into No.10 by undermining the progressive alliance. This year’s GE should have taught him that.
Labour Party intransigence has condemned us all to more May.
“Alternatively they might be humbly apologetic… At the same time the Bank of England has to be brought back under control and mechanisms to truly revive local democracy — which is the bedrock of a true democracy — have to be created to allow some degree of fiscal autonomy that has been denied them for so long.”…
I counted some 11 or 12 suggestions, or ‘have to’ points in the paragraphs between the above words. Very sensible stuff. I’m no politician, but if the system can so blunderingly lead us into the chaos/ensuing shambles we’re currently experiencing I’d be surprised if it can achieve even one of your suggestions, or even wish to.
My thoughts, and of many of my acquaintances, is that we in Scotland are giving them plenty of rope to hang themselves. When that happens, we’ll gladly cut the rope that sees the dead corpse of the United Kingdom slump to the ground and a great majority of the citizens of this country will breathe a collective, if not disgruntled, sigh of relief. And then – as the Scottish Government are proving is relatively easy (apart from the constant and childish carping from the pro-union press) – we’ll get on with the straight forward task of running a country, of the people, by the people, for the people.
I’m applying for asylum
Apparently, almost half a million already have, over the years, according to the BBC.
Yes, lots of doom & gloom, plenty of suggestions of what’s wrong and needs to be put right. But how to do it? Quite a few of us up here have thought for some time that the main problem in the UK is England, or at least the elite who run the country and their sense of exceptionalism. Here’s what Anthony Barnett says in his conclusion to “The Lure…..”
“Eventually Brexit will collapse. The sooner, the less excruciatingly drawn-out the pain will be. Then Britain’s separate nations, England especially, can recover as themselves, to put their admirable qualities and pugnaciousness to good use in collaboration with their neighbours — for the road back to our European identity lies through England gaining its independence and therefore the confidence to share power without feeling shame.”
So, my suggestion is that England should declare independence and give itself a chance to come to terms with its history, and all the baggage that entails, and start looking towards what sort of future it wants to create for itself as part of Europe.
I think you can see I am moving in that direction
I have made representations on your behalf.
But don’t hold your breath I have astoundingly little influence.
In the meantime get rid of the Volvo and get a soft top. There is a good reason gunpowder mills were built flimsily.
Yes and the quicker the better Scotland will have much better future without being held back by a system that hasn’t worked in three hundred years and remember you don’t have much in the way of natural resources to offer to any one please declare your independence now
Not sure if your comment about having no resources is tongue in cheek? Scotland is very well able to feed itself and more. We are the only nation of the 4 to have a trade surplus. The British unionists are currently engaged in an effort to stamp out the Scottish brand on our food and drink.
The shelves now hold British Haggis, Whisky, Salmon, strawberries etc. Insidious as always, it’s a campaign designed to crush any aspirations or belief in our strengths. Union Jacks plastered everywhere. Might seem trivial, but we keep hearing about the UK internal market, a new meaningless phrase to subsume our assets. We are all Brexiteers now, despite voting 62% Remain. Sturgeon has been ignored throughout the process.
Indy supporters like me are disgusted and impatient to be out of this festering cesspool. Those in the south could do worse than having a progressive, successful country on their doorstep, as they head for the cliffedge. It’s not personal, it’s survival, and its beyond time to dissolve this Union.
Yes and the quicker the better Scotland will have a much better future without being held back by a system that hasn’t worked in three hundred years and remember you don’t have much in the way of natural resources to offer to any one please declare your independence now
A great analysis. However, the assumption that the tories and the westminster elite care a jot about the outcome is a problem. National government for the national good, when all are busy fighting to get their noses deeper into the trough? Democracy is a sham, this is a bun fight and there must be a massive hidden agenda, but who is actually in control, who stands to win, not the public, that’s for sure.
I think hard brexit, possibly no-deal, is being engineered, and yes the outcome will be catastrophic, and it will be a question of who gets caught in the hot seat when the music stops. MSM stoked hatred will only make it worse, and who again gains from that, and how do we get this out there when brexit is being swept under the carpet so easily?
Keep trying I guess, and hopefully get some leadership at least from Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government, while it is still there.
I agree with your analysis and it is indeed extremely worrying, not least because there appears to be no overwhelming opposition. The mood of the ‘general public’ seems to be one of grin and bear it. While there may be a little less ‘bread’ on offer – Hammond will doubtless find some crumbs – there’s no shortage of ‘circuses’. So, for the majority, life goes on with its inevitable vicissitudes …. until the shxt hits the fan. The frog and boiling water metaphor, comes to mind (https://www.moralstories.org/frog-hot-water).
In 2020 there’s an opportunity to choose a new government, but I’m not holding my breath. Even if Corbyn wins, I don’t think he has the political courage to tackle the underlying problems, identified by you, head on. It will just be a different brand of ‘BandAid’. Turbulent weather ahead I’m afraid, so better batten down the hatches. As always, it’s those least able to weather the storm who will bear the brunt of it and suffer the most. Plus ça change ….
However, in the longer term, Bill Kruse is right – there’s much to be hopeful for. The new technologies allied to a properly functioning modern macro-economic policy within a true democracy and the sky’s the limit …. and beyond. A Golden Age is achievable if human consciousness rises to the challenge. It starts within each of us.
I expected to see some sense on this blog on this topic but for me the constant fearmongering got tedious months back. I reckon at this point Brexit will end being viewed as a success simply as most of the direst predictions won’t appear.
After years of the mantra of doom, dooom, doooooom, anything short of a resurgence of the Black Death, London becoming an enclave of ISIS and Word War Three will be regarded as the mildest of inconveniences to a population being told to expect The Brexpocolypse.
There’ll still be iPhones X’s and quinoa. They won’t fade away. People will still get up and go to work. I’ll still argue in the pub on a Saturday evening. Business, mostly, as usual
I am not arguing the world will end
I do think our country, our system of government, our economy and maybe even our internal security are at risk
Please do go to the pub by all means
I just hope you will be able to afford to do so in the future. If you can it will be because somebody worried about it now
Graeme says:
November 13 2017 at 11:40 am
“I expected to see some sense on this blog on this topic but for me the constant fearmongering got tedious months back. [……]
There’ll still be iPhones X’s and quinoa. They won’t fade away. People will still get up and go to work. I’ll still argue in the pub on a Saturday evening. Business, mostly, as usual”
The craven complacency of government is pretty tedious too, Graeme. The people who will come out on top whatever happens. Maybe that includes you – maybe it doesn’t. Like the rest of us you’ll have to wait and see.
Speaking as one who has never owned an iPhone (other brands are available; and I don’t have one of those either) and can’t see the need for one, and has never tasted quinoa, and only recently discovered how to pronounce it I’m not greatly consoled by your assurances that all will be well. I also doubt that most people will get up and go to work since they already don’t. Many have jobs, but few are usefully employed.
Nice for you that you can still afford to drink in a pub. Something else which is becoming a luxury.
was listening to john redwood he is one of the leaders of brexit he said that britain should get on with making a good deal or prepare for britain to go for world trade rules but to delay was costing the country businesses were left in the dark about what was going on with brexit it was time for the government to take the bull by the horns and make a decision to leave europe with a good deal or no deal and go for world trade rules with no money getting paid to europe westminster are keeping everybody in the dark on brexit scotland wales and northern ireland have no say in what is happening when westminster make up their mind on what road to go down the three countries will then decide if it is acceptable to them or not they will then have to decide if they want to stay with britain or not scotland and northern ireland both voted to stay in europe
And?
John Redwood is untrustworthy and distinctly damaged goods:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/11/12/british-lawmaker-advises-investors-to-take-their-money-out-of-the-uk/#4960fead4c1e
If John Redwood told me the time I’d ask for a second opinion.
I regard the man as a complacent fool lacking the skills of rational thought and frequently wonder what hold he has over the BBC that earns him air time so often on subjects which he appears not to understand.
As a Scot, this scares me the most. Genuinely scares me. Gotta get out of Dodge
Your asylum application would be very welcome. Need someone to keep a critical eye on the public finances.
“These are crushing blows to many English people’s perceptions of what they are. Adjusting to failure and isolation when for centuries we have thought ourselves the epicentre of the known world is a challenge to the national psyche that will have consequences hard to predict.”
No.
The consequences are not hard to predict.
Look at the Daily Mail.
Look at the Sun.
Look at the Telegraph.
All that will happen is that once again this country will revert to the blame culture that fed the Thatcher era and still endures. The establishment/rich will just find someone else to blame for our decline like they usually do. We’ve had all the following blamed somehow:
1. Unions
2. Regulation
3. Immigrants
4. Government management of the economy (macro economics)
5. The Poor/workless
6. The Disabled
7. The Education system.
8. The Welfare State
9. The EU
10. The Public Sector
11. The Tax system
12. The Scots
13. The Welsh
14. The Irish.
Have I missed any?
The establishment will blame any one but themselves.
So What?
So the “establishment” always blames someone else. So? When wasn’t that the case? Every criminal has the right to a defence lawyer and a bullshit excuse. They always will. It doesn’t mean that people always believe them. Certainly not now, not lately The Daily Mail’s humiliation in the recent election GE (fro example) was quite satisfying.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste”
Why did anyone think that hard Brexiteers in charge of negotiating our EU exit would do anything but create the no deal scenario?
As ever I assume the reason should be search for the money / who benefits – so tax haven status, privatisation of all our public services coming soon is my anticipated outcome. Whilst I don’t expect actual civil war, I imagine considerable civil unrest that will be stamped on ferociously, and therefore a move to a full on fascist / police state in all but name will follow.
One can only hope that inspire of the lies and mendacity of the majority of the press / BBC that the reality will start to impinge on enough of the population soon that Corbyn / Labour can start to articulate staying loudly.
I cannot disagree with any point that you have made here: and you are right to say that we must confront our national incompetence in Brexit and, as you say, “own up and admit it”.
I worry that this will no happen and, worse, that it cannot happen: there is no individual or organisation capable of doing so.
You have described our weaknesses in Brexit, and those weaknesses run very, very deep; and they have been getting steadily worse for a very long time. We have degenerated into a state where such a folly became likely and, eventually, inevitable; and with it, we became less and less capable and, finally, utterly incapable.
We should be thankful that the folly we fell into wasn’t war – or at least, not a war as destructive as some in living memory – nor that our poverty of competence was tested by another flu pandemic or an environmental catastrophe.
But history is merciless, and many in Iraq would disagree with ‘not a war as destructive as some’; some would question whether our responses to BSE or Foot and Mouth or Varroa bode well for our responses to antibiotic resistance or Wheat Stem Rust; and we already know that Westminster has failed us, utterly, in our responses and our readiness for Global Climate Change.
You are right that the weaknesses run very deep
I am just hoping not so deep we cannot pull out
But we are still digging right now
In the referendum, the bulk of the Northern Ireland population voted to remain in the EU. Britain is leaving the EU. The Republic of Ireland is not. Logically, therefore, the six counties should be transferred to the EU in accordance with the Ulster population’s wishes. The six counties should be transferred to the Republic. That way, Ireland would be united, Britain would be rid of a burden it long ago tired of, the border problem would be solved, and the Northern Irish would remain in the EU. It might be objected that only by a referendum giving such a transfer the approval of the population in accordance with the Good Friday settlement — but the point is that effectively, the Brexit referendum has already done that — the people of the north of Ireland expressed a desire to be within the EU – therefore, they wish to be connected with those countries, including the Republic of Ireland, that make up the EU. It would surely be possible for the Republic to devise a federal constitution that ensured devolved powers going to Belfast with the Northern Ireland assembly continuing to govern the six counties, but under the overall sovereign authority of the Republic of Ireland. What is puzzling is that the leader of the Labour party, who famously was photographed in meetings with Gerry Adams and other Sinn Feiners, and who proclaimed his allegiance to the cause of Irish unity, has not uttered a single word about the Northern Ireland/Irish Republic border conundrum.
I suspect the DUP might disagree with Mike’s suggestion. But then, on the other hand, I stumbled on a tweet the other day which stated “Who’d’ve thought the DUP would be the least embarrassing party in the current UK government?”
[…] But I may, of course, be getting just a little desperate after writing this. […]
Richard,
I have been disappointed by our European friends’ negotiating position. Wanting £50 billion from the UK sound as if it was based on the UK paying its obligations for the rest of the current EU budget period until 2020 at something like the £350,000,000 a week the Brexiteers claimed. Can that false and malicious number really be based on fact after all?
I believe the EU, recognising that foreign affairs are to be an EU competency, naturally wanted France and the UK to surrender their seats on the UN Security Council, to be replaced by an EU seat. So the UK seat is now safer? ( Not that there is a great deal of point in our seat…).
I am really worried about the Irish border question. Maybe the UK should simply unilaterally declare a desire to revert to the situation prior to the creation of the EU in 1992, a situation that had prevailed for 70 years. Namely, free movement of people from the Republic to NI, and tariff free imports. If the Republic wants to create controls, such controls would be one way, and entirely at the discretion of the Republic. I think that is a way forward, and will keep everyone happy!
I am sorry but I cannot agree
We agreed to fund a budget
And they are saying we should
That’s real commitments
The £350m was just lies
The United Nations only recognise nations. Organisations like the EU might be dealt with but , under the charter, could not be recognised -unless it becomes one state.There is no desire for that despite all the nonsense about the EU being or wanting to be a ‘super state.’
I would not seriously dispute Richard Murphy’s assessment of the situation. If anything – and hard as it may be to believe given the despairing tone of his article – I suspect he is being overly optimistic in a few areas. He appears, for example, to reckon that Article 50 might be revoked, and at reasonable cost. I’m trying in vain to envisage the political process that would take us to that destination.
He is also able to imagine a “clear statement of what hard Brexit actually means and what planning is needed for it, with a timescale and costing attached”. I can only suppose the conjuring of such a document to involve faux-Latin incantations, choreographed stick waving and, perhaps, a liquor distilled from the tears of a unicorn.
I don’t condemn Richard Murphy. He is reaching for reason. But if reason there be in the current situation I fear it lies well beyond the reach of any mere mortal. The implications of Brexit may be unfathomable. They are surely not readily amenable to scientific certainty. They reach far and deep into a four-dimensional matrix so complex that even short-term variables may proliferate past any realistic possibility of the kind of comprehension that is a prerequisite of control or management.
Which is my way of saying that we’re not only f***ed, we can’t even figure out how f***ed we are.
What is becoming clear is that the ‘deal’ for which the brightest and best that the British political establishment has to offer are striving would most appropriately be called, not ‘soft Brexit’ but ‘status quo ante’. It is plain enough to see, even if politically painful to acknowledge, that what the British government is desperately hoping for is an arrangement no different in its essentials from what existed prior to Brexit but of such a character that it can be spun as something close enough to the Brexit that was promised to be seen as a lucky escape by Leave voters newly pounded into pragmatic awareness by a peek into Pandora’s Box, while the madder of the Mad Brexiteers are bought off with their favourite confection of bitter recriminations against the Johnny Foreigners of the EU who have denied them their dream of a return to selling fruit and vegetables in measures based on the weight of a medieval monarch’s turd.
All of which is a hope as forlorn as Richard Murphy’s wished-for map depicting a safe, certain and fully costed route through the maze of Brexit consequences. The UK is not getting a deal such as described. Leave voters will believe the worst, or what the media tells them – which are essentially the same things. And the Mad Brexiteers will not be placated – because they’re mad.
While accepting his dour and dismal assessment of the situation, where I really part company with Richard Murphy is when it comes to his idea of a solution. Talk of a “national government created, temporarily, in the national interest” horrifies me even more than the thought of Brexit. It is based on the truly odd notion that an incompetent and infantile elite can be made more “grown-up” by adding to the numbers who are part of this incompetent and infantile elite.
The fallacy is that it is a particular section of the British political establishment that is in error and that this can be corrected by drawing on the remainder of the same British political establishment. It fails to recognise that all this does is remove even the notional opposition to established power by making it part of established power. The problem isn’t that the British government is Tory, it’s that it’s British. Richard Murphy’s proposal doesn’t make that government less Tory. It merely makes it more British.
A government of national unity in London is a recipe for entrenching and enabling ‘One Nation’ British Nationalism. If the prognostications for the periphery of the British state are dire under the present administration, they are nothing short of calamitous under a regime empowered in the manner suggested by Richard Murphy. If this is a real prospect, then it only makes it all the more urgent that Scotland escape the British state while escape is still possible.
Dammit: I think you’re accusing me of being an accountant
And I am that, somewhere deep down inside still
Aye, Richard, and antibiotics won’t cure that nor anything less than major surgery. 🙂
I wonder which part would need to be removed?
Actually, Richard, I was making a considerable effort to avoid levelling such an accusation. 😉
Phew….
[…] would not seriously dispute Richard Murphy’s assessment of the situation. If anything – and hard as it may be to believe given the despairing tone of […]
I fear Richard is right, UK is in an unprecedented political crisis it has brought onto itself with the false premises of Brexit. Building on it, it would take a lot of leadership to get out of the mess, a no deal is unimaginably catastrophic as trade, employment, legal contracts, capital movements, nuclear isotopes needed for energy and cancer treatment, and many more issues we’re probably unaware of in absence of Brexit Papers (and even those were put together in haste) may grind the UK to a halt, practically closing what now is a seamless Northern Irish border from trade based on EU treaties. Canceling art 50 would take a lot of explaining too, as would asking EEA/Single Market membership, an apology for misleading the public by some Brexit architects. May not being a Brexiteer could apologise, but that would leave the hard core believers shouting for treason, and a part of the brexit voting public with them if their assumptions don’t change. Time is running out on an orderly Brexit, UK has about 2-3 weeks I gather to accept a divorce bill and other phase 1 issues to move on to future relationship issues. To accept a 50bn euro divorse bill the UK needs to know an outline of the future relationship, and transition period, closest available the brexiteers want is the Canadian CETA that took a decade to negotiate, if rest of all 27 EU MS and EU parliament agrees. Unlikely if EU citizen rights are not respected adequately. CETA takes a decade to negotiate and ratify. As any discussed transition is not this long, I suspect trade on WTO rules will be necessary in brexit britain post say 2-year transition and before any potential trade deal (which itself like CETA will face opposition). This means closing down car and other export factories due to WTO tariff costs, unless the government compensates their tariffs, which will add unknown sums to the ‘divorse bill’ – this time handed out to corporates… so even an orderly divorse can be unimaginably costly and undesirable.
Just a comment on WTO rules as far as I understand them (!)
– it is up to the importing WTO member to impose tariffs as they see fit. WTO tariffs are maximums and are not compulsary.
– The UK could therefore impose zero tariffs on EU imports. The UK is a founder member of the WTO in its’ own right & will be after Brexit.
– The EU could impose zero tariffs on UK imports.
Thus, if the UK has zero tariffs on EU imports, and the CTA continues, then no NI ‘hard border’ is necessary unless Eire or the EU require it.
Be interested to see if this is right or wrong.
I think you’ll find we’re not in the WTO and have no right to join without pleading
You are right that we do not have to impose tariffs
Why would the EU impose zero tariffs on UK goods? I can think of none at all
I whole heartedly agree with peter a bells assessment it’s that it’s british therefore in reality English until you actually treat the other devolved governments with respect and not arrogance or Disdain you will get nowhere this so called union is already dead and Scotland will not play the fiddle while it sinks
What are you worried about?
As an economist you should know all markets compensate over time. Yes there may be some short term turbulence…
Import duties will solve the tax deficit nicely! The exchange rate has already compensated for any duties. Big business will soon sort out any political shenanigans that impedes globalisation.
Brussels STILL doesn’t understand it is negotiating with the British people, not our government (however weak) Demanding too much will make a deal impossible AND alienate the British public against Brussels.
I’d like to see the risk assessment for a low paid worker…. Labour shortages pushing up wages and lower housing demand kerbing housing costs. Bet that isn’t one of the 58 assessments!!!
Suggest you have a drink with someone who has a more positive view of Britain.
Peter
You’re wrong on this
Markets can only work when regulated, but there will be no appropriate regulation. They will not then compensate. They will fail instead.
There is no tax deficit
And Brussels is not negotiating with the British people because a) that is not possible b) their representatives are the UK government right now and c) they are not functioning and d) the consequence of failure is not war on Brussels but UK civil war. After all, a majority did not vote for Brexit, and opinion is deeply divided and those wanting Brexit had better appreciate most of those who voted for it did not want hard Brexit
I am not kidding when I say that civil war (fought as a terrorist activity) is a possibility: it ranks high on my recognised risks
Er, Generally, it is regulation that distorts markets, rather than the other way round. Yes some markets DO have bad consequences when not regulated, but International money has been as “true” a market as any
While I agree that a tax deficit ( Govt funding) isn’t the problem some claim, there is a one, and a new tax stream for the Chancellor is a new tax stream!
I’d put serious money on another Brexit win, if another referendum took place. Don’t mistake the loudness of the Remainers voice as an indicator for majority voting intention. Anecdotally, and many surveys seem to show a larger Brexit vote.
I think there are more likely scenarios to societal breakdown than a hard Brexit! “Representation without taxation” for example i.e. Corporates demanding a favourable legal system while not paying taxes
Peter
Sorry, but without regulation there are no markets so your first claim is wrong
Re second para, the deficit is necessary: there is a shortage of government debt and no requirement to impose tariffs
The evidence from pollsters is a steady small shift against Brexit, as demographics alone suggest likely
The last is implausible
Sorry – we’re never going to agree here
Peter Dawe proves my long-held belief that a little economics is a dangerous thing.
Carol, do not misinterpret brevity of comment with naivety of understanding.
Being dismissive of someone you’ve never met, on the basis of a few postings, is arrogant.
An example One has to note that exchange rates can change precipitously, yet the consequences long term are difficult to determine as the “market” ( I don’t think I put “free” in there) adjusts.
RM
Re: WTO.
The Institute for Government says ‘the UK does not have to re-apply to join after Brexit’ However there will be lots of issues to sort out. Here’s the link:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/10-things-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto
But it’s not a member
And rejoining could not happen until we left the EU
Can you imagine how long that will take? This is not like a direct debit to the National Trust
Even if we were a member despite assurances from leave.eu that “WTO rules are what most great countries trade under. If it’s good enough for Australia, America and Canada, it’s good enough for the UK” – one of their spokespersons was repeating this on the Today programme this morning, it is a total lie.
James Hardy did some digging and has posted this Who actually trades solely under WTO rules? https://medium.com/@MrWeeble/who-actually-trades-solely-under-wto-rules-1b6127ce33c6
Worth looking at but what he came up with “”WTO rules are what most great countries trade under. If it’s good enough for Mauritania, it’s good enough for the UK” but he was corrected even on that.
Quite so
Nice link, Sean.
Is it not the case that the majority of trade between WTO nations is carried out under Mutual Recognition Agreements which have to be negotiated between countries individually and can take years to determine?
Yes
Just for the record, re. recent Brexit polling, Richard is correct to suggest there is a gradual swing towards Remaining in the EU – https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results.
Which ever way you ‘slice’ it, the margin of difference is absurdly small for a referendum (effectively a plebiscite) involving a major constitutional change. Because it was so appallingly badly designed, the campaign was flawed from the start and, in everyone’s best interest, should be rescinded.
Of course, realistically that’s not going to happen – not because it can’t but because of political ego. The Tories have committed the nation to a generation of unprecedented & unnecessary civil unrest/divide. And the principal architect of this catastrophe, David Cameron, has shamelessly walked off to enjoy his family’s ill-gotten fortune. It will surely be judged as one of the most dangerously inept political decisions in modern history – maybe even on a par with the incompetence of Lord North.
Hi Richard,
The risks we face are indeed huge and depressing. The incompetent bunch who are leading us down this path will not be the ones to suffer; in every country however poor there is an elite that do very well.
One of the saddest things in the list of woes is the effect on the UK. I seem to be in a minority nowadays in considering myself to be British ahead of being English. But it is hardly surprising that people from the constituent parts of the UK would feel estranged from the UK when Westminster is so remote and arrogant. I live barely 50 miles from London and it is another world to me!
One of the many examples of David Cameron’s contempt for the union was the faux sincerity of the indyref campaign (we don’t want you to go, “the pledge” etc etc.) followed shortly afterwards by a general election campaign where one of the central themes was that “we can’t have the government of the UK decided on by the Scotland, i.e. the SNP”. He was an example of an (apparently) very clever individual who had a gift for doing very stupid things.
The constitution of the UK it an utter mess with different devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England; and the distraction of mayors sprinkled randomly around. What is needed is a complete re-start on the constitution with the layer below the UK parliament being similar in size and power in each country and region of England (I think that England would need to be split into regions so that the devolved governments would be of similar size across the UK). Also, the UK parliament should rotate where it sits around the different parts of the UK on a regular basis to avoid it being so London-focused.
My preference would be for a reformed UK to remain within the EU, but If the list of problems you describe all come to pass I may just have to move to Scotland and vote for independence – my name is Robertson after all 🙂
Neil says:
November 14 2017 at 12:37 am
“David Cameron’s …..an example of an (apparently) very clever individual who had a gift for doing very stupid things.”
Interesting conclusion, Neil. You must have almost supernatural perceptive skills to have detected signs of ‘very clever’-ness. Doing the stupid things is rather more obvious to we normal mortals.
“The constitution of the UK it an utter mess with different devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales, …… UK parliament should rotate where it sits around the different parts of the UK on a regular basis to avoid it being so London-focused.”
It has no business being London-focused at all.
Your suggestion that you would consider moving to Scotland could prove to be worth serious consideration. I already have. The sort of major redrafting of constitutional arrangements needed in the UK as whole are not likely to be forthcoming, but there is a realistic possibility (I put it no more strongly than that, because I am aware there is considerable opposition from various quarters) …realistic possibility that Scotland could gain independence and be in a position to embark on some sensible progressive restructuring which could be the beginning of a new order in the manner of a previous ‘enlightenment’.
No way will this be possible with the UK as a whole because there are far too many vested interests determined to maintain their own advantage, but Scotland would have a chance. Not least because the English would like to continue to pretend that Scotland is a mere irrelevance stuck on the top of end of Britain somewhere. A ‘region’ (of England by implication) as Mr Corbyn mistakenly described it.
Civilisation of Britain has always, since time immemorial, flowered in the North and gradually spread southwards.
Hi Andy,
Re: David Cameron – I suppose I’m just going by the fact he went to Oxford – must have some level of intelligence!
I keep on hearing from commentators how brainy Michael Gove (“intellectual backbone of the leave campaign”?) and Borris Johnson are. If so, they seem to have chosen the wrong profession to show off their talents. I think Boris would make an amusing history lecturer, but Foreign Secretary?? Not entirely sure what Govie would be suited to.
Perhaps the combination of high intelligence and arrogance will tend to produce poor political strategists/statesmen. If bluster and “winging it” having worked for them in their early life, why not just do the same in government!
A few voices on here trying to be optimistic but from the angle of markets will sort everything out in the end…just keep the faith, or business will be just fine with how it all shakes out. I couldn’t disagree more. The UK has some of the most featherbedded corporate structures that will react to a Brexit disaster by sacking workers and seeking even more govt subsidy/tax breaks. How will people enjoy the next 10% rise in their electricity/gas bills? The next hike in the price of staples? The price rises based on a depreciating Pound? How are ruinous mortgages going to look in this new environment? Will landlords react by pushing up rents? Will student loan debts still be rising by 6%? How will people react to Christmases getting less and less merry? Will the gig economy become even more entrenched in this brave new Brexit world? Will rural economies decay even further as more and more young people head for the cities to seek work? Will the already strained generational contract break down? How will disabled people fare when they are being abused and driven to suicide right now in a “booming economy”?
If you consider how bad things could get for ordinary people if or when the UK becomes a backwater economy it is that prospect that is truly frightening. Things are bad enough right now when you’re caring for a disabled partner but we won’t be able to live in a more hostile environment than the one that exists today. How many others out there will be making the same calculation I wonder. However all is for the best in the best of all free self-correcting market worlds I suppose. Just remember people have to live in them…you know real people, not economic categories…
[…] got a note from someone who I have known for a long time yesterday. He was writing in response to my suggestion, also made yesterday, that the political crisis that we face as a result of Brexit is gargantuan. […]
[…] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/13/the-political-crisis-we-face-is-of-gargantuan-scale/ […]
[…] http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/13/the-political-crisis-we-face-is-of-gargantuan-scale/ […]
[…] would not seriously dispute Richard Murphy’s assessment of the situation. If anything — and hard as it may be to believe given the despairing tone of his […]