There is no good Brexit. But as I noted recently, being in the European Economic Area may be as good as it gets on Brexit.
Tonight the Lords voted to stay in the EEA. Those voting were as follows:
Officially Labour abstained. Labour peers ignored the whip.
And we end up with every part of the House voting for common sense bar the Tories.
At least we know who to blame for driving us to the edge.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It is quite possible that the Tories are “negotiating” with the EU is bad faith i.e. they want a hard Brexit = to crash out with no deal. As May said “no deal is better than a bad deal”. Alll the evidence points to the fact that this is what they want. Why they want it, is another matter. It is possible that much of this is related to manoeuvering to become Prime Mincer (ref Ridley Walker) (I’m harder than you are etc) or maybe they believe their own PR on the subject. The needs of the UK thus coming very much in 2nd place – as the UK always has wrt the Tories and their internal affairs & “funny” views (I don’t mean ha ha) pretty much since the mid-18th century.
Why they’d want a hard Brexit is it would create the economic pandemonium integral to Friedmanomics, the disaster giving them the excuse to implement disaster capitalism (shock doctrine) leading to impoverishment for most of the country and the creation of a small handful of oligarchs (to include them, obviously), a la Russia and the recently emerged crop of Chinese billionaires. Their behaviour, even Johnson’s, makes perfect sense from that perspective.
In relation to the vacuous “no deal is better than a bad deal” there is in fact no “no deal” scenario. We have a web of international arrangements (not least the WTO) that will kick in if we don’t agree anything better. So “no deal” is the worst possible outcome, and *any* deal that we reach must be better than that.
Joining the EEA was the obvious thing to do, but the government set themselves against it. It would clearly involve leaving the EU, satisfying the “mandate” from the referendum, but the UK would very clearly end up as a rules taker rather than a rules maker. Well, that is where we will end up anyway if we want to export to the EU. (Fascinating anecdote I heard the other day, about a cattle farmer in the independent sovereign nation of Canada, which makes it own rules, who nevertheless has two fields of cows satisfying different rules for different markets: one farm of over-sized additive-pumped cows for export to the US, and one field of lean vegan cows for export to the EU.)
Does anyone have any idea how this drama will ultimately play out? It’s like a combination of a Shakespeare tragedy and a Gilbert & Sullivan opera. Apparently bookies are more often than not the most reliable psephologists so I checked to see what odds are currently being offered – https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/brexit-specials. The hopelessly chaotic way in which it’s being so completely mismanaged by the 2 main parties can only be indicative of the paucity of their leadership. Brexit or Remain – the country deserves so much better. How did it get to this state? The fear must be that because Corbyn is playing it more as a game of political poker, (which voters can’t understand) than as an event of historical importance, the Tories will be voted back into power as the lesser of the two evils. “The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision.” (Moses ben Maimon, 1135-1204)
Corbyn has always treated it as just that, as I know from insiders
Funny how the “blame Corbyn brigade” can’t face facts.
1. The Tories promised a referendum in 2015.
2. Labour refused to support a referendum and said that leaving the EU will damage the economy.
3. The Tories won a majority despite five years of austerity because their promise of a referendum won them the UKIP vote and the same Brexit-opposing big business and others (who are now blaming Corbyn for not “stopping Brexit”) supported the Tories because Milliband’s Labour was “too left-wing”.
4. The country (including two-thirds of Labour’s constituencies) voted for Brexit.
I am sure you think there is a logical argument in that sequence
I can’t see it
Richard,
What he is saying is the same as what Bill Kruse is saying immediately below.
The country doesn’t deserve better – this is, after all, what the country voted for. As ye vote, so shall ye reap. The electorate are the first ones who should be blamed, not be presented as victims.
@ Bill Kruse
While that is ‘idealogically’ true, the Brexit campaign was so deeply flawed in terms of its technical structure, constitutional legitimacy and false information, that the majority of the electorate was not able to make an ‘honest’ choice. Even then “The difference between leave and remain was 3.8 percent or 1.3 million in favour of Leave ….What has been largely ignored are the 12.9 million who did not vote. Had the democratic process been that of Australia where voting is compulsory, the polls indicate the result would have been to Remain from day zero, …” (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been). So, the no-voters carry some of the blame – but, viewed as an exercise in democracy (haha), it lacked so much integrity that I still maintain the country did deserve better. We was stitched up, mate!
If Theresa May had personally made the effort (including consultation) to work out a detailed plan for Brexit which at a minimum didn’t damage the UK economy she’d be better placed to stand up to the Brexit fantasists in her Cabinet by calling on them to submit their detailed plans for comparison with her own. As it stands nobody it would appear in the Cabinet has made the effort to do this and the Cabinet goes round and round in circles endlessly dithering accompanied by a back ground of slinging playground insults at each other. This is Kindergarten government which a wretched predominantly right wing media tries hard on a daily basis to spin as grown-up and authoritative!
I think you should all stand back and realise that the EU is a fully paid up member of the neoliberal project. So many of the blogs are in support of the overthrow of neoliberalism but all the talk on Brexit is clinging to the belief that life cannot exist without neoliberalism. I voted Remain but the antics of both sides have convinced me that serious change is needed. Will that come if everything remains as it is? A recent blog examined a readjustment in financial markets but couldn’t identify the trigger. Well Brexit will probably be a seismic event. Corbyn has always been critical of the project, just like his mentor, Benn. He may be right. Whenever I think of the EU now I think of the treatment dished out to Greece. Things have to change. The problem seems to be that we all want things to be better but we’re frightened of doing anything about it. And the quality, intelligence and integrity of our politicians hardly inspires confidence. Good heavens, what would they do if presented with a real problem rather than just talking about buying and selling stuff? It’s not difficult, is it? People have been trading for thousands of years and all of a sudden it’s impossible. There are real problems around – like climate change- and all we’re doing is faffing around.
We all know what the EU is
Tne question is whether we can change it more effectively from within or without
Since there is no chance from without the internationalists amongst us think being in offers the best prospect for defeating neoliberalism whilst being out lets it run rampant here
Hear, hear!
There are many dissenting voices inside the EU, and the warning that was Brexit has shifted Juncker and Co.’s comfort already.
There are reformers inside the European Parliament, if not in the Commission, who need to be supported, not abandoned. Macron and Merkel will not always be in the driving seat, both their countries are rumbling with dissent.