I was asked this in an email yesterday; the sender knows who they are:
You've strongly criticised Corbyn's Labour for not acting, and I've supported your call for a Brexit policy/action plan from Labour, but now find myself bewildered, because I just don't know what Corbyn should/needs to do.I'm not talking about the "pick and mix" of eg Norway Plus or whatever, but what Labour should do to halt the slide into anarchy and potential civil war (with that evil Svengali Bannon clearly fomenting Nazi/Fascist style "March on Rome" politics across the EU, and encouraging Brexiteers in the UK to "fight" (and he clearly means literally))Should Corbyn simply declare support for the Electoral Commission's quasi-judicial (if not effectively genuinely judicial) process that assigned criminal malfeasance to the "Leave" campaign, declare the result null and void, and call for the suspension of Article 50, pending the outcome of a new, properly supervised (e.g Facebook suspended for 3 weeks, during the campaign) Referendum, a move I would support?
I think the question a good one, and answering it a challenge. I have assumed when doing so that I might have become a member of Corbyn's advisory team, which is not a far-fetched assumption.
This does not make this an easy question to answer. What I can say is that in my opinion Corbyn's team have opted for the easy answer and in my opinion that is a mistake on their part. That easy answer has been to take the short-term political route. In effect they have ducked the issue. I know that in March 2016 they effectively chose not to campaign on Brexit because I was told so by somebody well able to know. The reason given was that this was a Tory issue that would tear the Tories apart and so it was decided to let them self-destruct. The consequence for the country of a Brexit vote was not considered: we have all paid the price for that ever since.
The policy does, however, appear to persist. I defy anyone to really be sure what Labour is actually promoting right now bar ‘a' customs union which is not ‘the' customs union; no single market, which means they have no Northern Ireland solution, and an end to the free movement of people, which is not an EU requirement in any case (because they demand the free movement of labour, which is something quite different). The expediency does, then remain.
And in my opinion, as a matter of fact, I think that expediency inappropriate. There are three good reasons. It betrays democracy. It betrays the country. And it betrays those most vulnerable in the country. I will consider each in turn. I stress that when doing so I am arguing as if a member of Corbyn's team, which is not a wholly inappropriate possibility to consider. I think that is what the question posed demands of me. The answers may then sometimes appear inconsistent with other positions that I take: that's what party politics would demnd.
Democracy
The idea that the country decided once and for all on Brexit in 2016 is anti-democratic. It is simply not true that a referendum decides an issue once and for all. If it was the 2016 referendum should not have been held, since the issue had already been resolved in that case in 1975.
Nor can it be true that the country can be bound by a referendum which it is now known was won by breaking the law, and where there was (and I am aware some deny this) a real chance of significant foreign interference.
I am not saying that the result should be ignored. That is, very obviously, impossible. I am saying that Labour has a duty to say three things. The first is that the law must be upheld if democracy is to be seen to be done. That requires a second referendum, appropriately run and carefully monitored and subject to significantly enhanced controls.
Second, the right to change one's mind when awareness of the facts changes has to be sacrosanct: this principle is at the very heart of good governance, good government and democracy itself.
Third, when so much has changed since June 2016 to suggest that the decision made then was informed is obviously wrong. It is to respect the voter and not to disrespect them that there is a need for a second referendum.
Democracy has to prevail here and only a second referendum will ensure that happens.
The country
What was not as clear in 2016 as it is now is the existential threat that Brexit poses to the UK.
The issue is not just of the divide in Northern Ireland, however vital that is.
Nor is it either the issue of keeping Scotland in the Union, which to Labour is fundamental (as it is to many in England, although not so, necessarily, elsewhere).
The issue is one of maintaining a viable and diverse state, from Labour's perspective. That requires not just that the Union be maintained, but that it also prosper.
I would argue that the Union cannot be maintained if we Brexit: the separation of Northern Ireland and Scotland from England and Wales will happen in that case. I am not saying that will be overnight: it will not be, of course. But it will happen. And this matters. A party set on governing the country as a whole has to protect the integrity of the state it wishes to govern. Right now Labour is failing to do that. A second referendum where this was made an issue is vital to Labour's integrity as a Unionist party, which it is.
But so too is the integrity of the UK on the international stage in that case. Many in Labour will wish to see the UK move on from being a US poodle. And a majority in Labour would wish to see a change in its defence strategy. Many too would want it to set different priorities in foreign policy. And Labour is, if it is anything, an internationalist party that has always looked outward, appreciating that international cooperation is the basis for the achievement of its domestic agenda. And the simple fact is that this is not possible if the UK, or the rump that might be left of it, loses its international credibility for decades to come as it goes through a process of national reappraisal as to what it might be if the Union fails. If Labour believes Labour has international obligations it has to oppose Brexit now.
The vulnerable
Labour exists as a political party to protect the vulnerable in society. It does not ignore others, of course. But it accepts the mutuality of obligation to those who need support and protection within society as being at the heart of what defines its political role.
Brexit is challenging the vulnerable. Real wages are falling. The cost of living is rising. Jobs are at risk. Investment is declining, rapidly. The risk of substantial economic shock is high. The prospect of those with limited or no capital having the means to protect themselves against the consequences of such issues is very limited indeed.
Of course Labour could say it could do its best to protect those most at risk. But it is not able to do that at present. It is not in government. And the fact is that the risk is entirely self-imposed. Even if we were to leave the EU nothing required that we leave the Customs Union or Single Market. And nothing said we had to create an environment where, almost inevitably, the most vulnerable will carry the greatest burden for a situation not of their making, just as happened in 2008.
Labour could call this out. It could say it will oppose Brexit in the form proposed because it will harm those who cannot afford to suffer such harm.
It can demand a second choice in that case - in another referendum.
And it can also say that to minimise harm the government should promote soft Brexit, if it has to promote brecit at all.
But at the same time it has to make clear it will not be constrained, now or if we stay in the EU or not, by interpretations of rules that cause harm.
Portugal has shown that governments can work within EU limits and not impose austerity.
Quantitative Easing has shown that a government can create the funding to deliver investment, and nothing says that this has to be in finance or increased mortgage loans, which is what that cash was used for.
The EU does not require unfettered freedom of movement of people, and much UK migration is, anyway, from outside the EU. We can use the EU's rules to protect UK jobs, but have simply chosen not to do so to date.
And we can buy British, as just about every other EU state has.
We can also nationalise our services, come to that, not least when no other viable option is available, as now appears to be the case for many of those that have been sold to the private sector at massive cost to us all.
Labour could, in other words, run a policy that is wholly consistent with Labour principles within EU law.
And by staying in the EU it could have backstop stop of knowing that an alternative government in the UK could not undo all that was good about what Labour might do, precisely because it might not be allowed to do so.
To put it simply, Labour has to argue, quite emphatically, that for all its faults the EU is good for the people of the UK. Which is why it can insist this government must have a soft Brexit policy whilst now opposing Brexit altogether if thag option is available.
And when it comes to EU faults, such as a bias to markets on occassion, and the failure to support states like Greece, or the faulure of the Common Agricultural Poliucy, then the issues are ones Labour will continue to be concerned about, come what may. And it has more chance of effecting change on them inside rather than outside the EU. The EU is not perfect. But that is precisely why Labour has to be in it, to change it for the better. Labour cannot be seen to be shirking its responsibilities to others. Who else can rely on it if that is what it does?
Practical interpretation
How should this pan out as policy? Like this:
1) Ask for an Article 50 extensions: stress that no one, the EU included, is ready for Brexit.
2) Demand a soft Brexit, on a Norway plus model, from this government.
3) Demand a second referendum.
4) Campaign for staying in on the basis of a Labour policy of reform when that second referendum comes.
5) Make clear what a Labour policy of reform is (along the lines noted above).
6) Put this plan to the membership for approval at the Party confernece in September.
That's what I would do.
I am not living with much expectation. But I can have a little hope.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
I voted to leave in 75 and remain in 16. I did so because in 75 I feared the emergence of capital over labour. I think that happened. Now I believe that the only way forward for labour is at the international level and the EU is a good start. Trade Unions and collective bargaining still have an important role in society. They are certainly a bulwark against the right. The French left was very few votes from being in the presidential run off. I agree better to be in than out form links across Europe ensure that the rules about labour and capital are rigourous and used evenly. Keep up the good fight.
Excellent point Denis, and one that needs to be made forcefully far more often to left wing supporters of leaving the EU. They need to realise that the anti EU movement is a hard right/far right con trick, brought about by, as we now know, a campaign of downright lying and criminality, in the case of people like Banks and Farage.
Of course the EU isn’t perfect, but the UK leaving it isn’t going to improve things for workers; the exact opposite in fact.
Thank you for this very comprehensive articulation of a position which, as a member of the Labour Party, I cheerfully endorse completely.
I would like to amplify one point; that Labour would need to work hard on either getting serious changes made to the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties in those aspects that entrench, embed or impose neoliberal positions or policies on and in the EU. Furthermore the Eurozone would benefit from the voice of “economic reason” that, with a Labour government, could emanate from London, and our open, internationalist credentials would thus be further burnished and strengthened.
I have often crossed forks (only plastic ones mind) with you about your comments about Labour and BREXIT because I honestly believe that as well as triple locks here and there in terms of policy, this Tory administration has done its best to make British politics as toxic (someone has used the word ‘sulphuric’ which seems even more appropriate) as possible. This deliberate act of democratic vandalism seems to have unleashed forces that the Tories themselves do not seem to be able to control let alone HM’s Opposition.
Labour is not helped by the fact that within its ranks there are people who would have Corbyn for breakfast and capitalise on the backlash from the MSM if he took the line you and others suggest (even though what is being suggested is eminently sensible). It is also not helped by its ignoring of its traditional voters by New Labour and seem to have found a shoulder to cry on in UKIP (two new UKIP councillors have been voted in in the town I work in at the last local election. UKIP is still here).
You have acknowledged that not being a member of a political party or even an organisation gives you a lot of freedom to speak truth to power (and I and many others here are grateful for that).
Contrast that with my recent plight where I took a senior member of the Council to task for a decision that was just plain mad and bad. I was ticked off by senior management in my own org which is financed by said Council and told that it was not always appropriate or beneficial to point out the truth. My response was that I must be in the wrong organisation then. But it also showed how cowed organisations can become when new orthodoxies assert themselves and how standards can go down when there is an imbalance of power or a threat to it.
I like your post above because it places you where I think you should be (and remain as so): in a place to be listened to by politicians. Even if May was listening to you on this issue I would be happier but that is very unlikely.
I feel that Labour for the above reasons are easily antagonised by external criticism so I do hope that you are (shall we say) welcomed back or at least listened to and acknowledged. So I share your hopes deeply.
Thanks
I know some in Labour do read this….
On the 5th of July 2013 James Wharton MP introduced his own referendum bill . His bill failed and The Conservatives then made it a manifesto pledge. In his speech James Wharton said this “This is about giving the public a real say–a real choice between the best possible deal that we can get from the European Union and, if the public so choose, leaving it, if that is what they want to do” Have we been given that choice ? I must have missed it. Furthermore the referendum bill was possibly the worst legislation Parliament has ever produced resulting in a confused mess. 544 of 597 MP’s voted for it with only Alex Salmond showing any backbone by trying to introduce a sensible clear threshold (which was rejected) The 544 MPs who voted for the Bill include the likes of Caroline Lucas and David Lammy both opposed to Brexit. Corbyn didn’t vote (how convenient). In the 1975 referendum debate, Mrs Thatcher eloquently explained why referendums were the tools of dictators pointing out that they could produce close results (i.e 52 – 48) that were not clear enough and which undermined democracy. She noted that even though they were not binding in effect they became politically binding. She also noted that you cannot put complex issues to a referendum or things like abortion or the death penalty. Before the usual trolls come on and say that it was a fair referendum, the exact same points I just made were made by leading Brexiteers in the 2015 referendum act debate. This whole thing has been a disaster from start to finish and MPs owe it to the country to put it right. However, having another referendum is effectively repeating the same mistake. It may be the only way to resolve this mess but if there is a second one it better be more coherent than the last one and there should be proper thresholds and defined rules on the outcome. I’m keeping an eye on a court case that intends to prosecute certain MPs for lying… That might fix the problem. Certainly, many leading political figures have come out of this looking very stupid indeed.
Agree with all that – especially the last
Incredible that Thatcher was so sensible about referendums. Even a stopped clock etc
Very, very interesting post Richard Allen. Thank you.
Perhaps I should start with mentioning that I´m a German and not living in the UK. So I´m just not that directly involved. And perhaps that makes me a tiny bit less biased?
I´d like to raise two points in answer to your comment.
1. Personally I´m generally not against referendums. I do believe they can play a role in our democracies. However referendums are normally a yes/no decision. If a referendum then is supposed to work you need two clearly defined options. Plus clear and truthful information about the pros and cons of both options.
Additionally depending on the “range” and “importance” of a referendum you need clear thresholds. Perhaps Switzerland might give us all some inspiration here?
The Brexit referendum just didn´t follow these guidelines?
“Remain” = status quo was clear and pretty well defined. But “leave” was allowed to campaign without having a clear goal (Norway option, Canada, WTO) and / or a plan to reach that goal. Essentially “Vote Leave” and “Leave EU” were allowed to promise everything to everyone.
They could promise farmers less red tape, less paperwork without mentioning that less documentation would mean that they can´t export their products. Documentation is needed here.
They could promise expats in Spain or France the emotionally satisfying “take back control” without mentioning that the status of the expats might become more difficult after Brexit.
Essentially they promised that all the good parts of EU regulations or laws would still be valid for the UK after Brexit. While all the obligations would vanish.
Somehow British authorities allowed organizations to campaign for leaving the EU without any idea on how to do it and what the supposed end goal was to be?
(Yes, I know about the “Leave Alliance”. However their representatives weren´t the ones invited to write opinion pieces for newspapers. Nor were they invited to TV shows.)
Just what were they thinking?
Who can be against “taking back control” (quite a nice emotional “argument”?
Who can be against “keeping all the good parts” but “getting rid of the obligations”?
Have cake and eat it.
Not to mention that Cameron and Osborne were some of the worst people to lead the remain campaign. I mean the Tories were the ones that blamed the EU for almost every problem in the UK. And every good thing was only possible because the UK government won the battle against EU interference.
And I don´t think that a referendum on abortion can´t work.
Witness the Irish referendum just a short time ago.
Both sides were pretty clear.
“No” meant the status quo.
“Yes” published the proposed change to the constitution and the proposed abortion law.
Both options were clearly defined and there were months of discussions.
Okay, unlike the UK, the Irish actually valued the opinion of experts. 🙂
2. You want to reform the EU?
Actually that is possible. Just look back at the last decades. The UK since Thatcher was the cheerleader for neo-liberalism (free market, privatization, de-regulation) . And over two decades the UK managed to get a majority inside the EU for it. So don´t blame the EU for the decisions of your own elected.governments.
Am I even required to mention that many governments inside the EU are still less “free market” than the UK?
Likewise the British government was the cheerleader to accept the East European countries inside the EU. Other EU countries were a bit more wary. One reason why all countries except the UK used the then negotiated “emergency brake” to restrict freedom of movement.
You didn´t use the emergency brake?
And in the 2000s your British tabloids were scolding us for not showing proper European spirit. Gleefully reporting the speeches of Tony Blair scolding the rest of us.
Anyway, you want to reform the EU? I´ll support you.
Just gain allies. Convince other governments / member states. Personally I´d think that several would happily support you.
Unfortunately past and present British governments were more interested in gaining the support of British tabloids than in gaining the support of member governments. Everything was Britain against Brussels / the EU. We win, they lose.
Why did Cameron order that the Tory MEPs leave the moderate conservative faction in the EU parliament and join the right wing faction? They lost useful contacts to several European governments. Self inflicted wound.
Detlef,
A beautifully clear description of how this folly is entirely of our own making. Thank you.
If they had any shame Cameron and co would hold their hands up, but they haven’t so we can’t even expect that.
Well-rounded nuanced advice & I hope the LP leadership listens. But getting the voting public to listen is like talking to a stranger accross a busy road – that’s politics. For me, it’s a two-point argument:
The EU is like FIFA – corrupt & probably unreformable, but leaving means that future generations don’t get to participate in the world cup.
Voting for Brexit is like buying a house – you’ve made an offer, but then the survey comes back & you need to make a further decision on whether to go ahead.
One more thing & I think it’s crucial – 16 & 17 year olds MUST be able to vote if we have a second referendum.
And over 70s shouldn’t be allowed to, as most of them won’t last long enough to have to live with the consequences.
It will affect me. I expect to live another 30 years. It would be gerrymandering of the worst kind to ban voters on grounds of age. I suspect the idea is that a majority of older people voted Leave. Yet if you look at the profile of the average leave voter they had an intermediate level of education & a worsening financial position, more likely to be middle class, middle aged, living in the south-east. Even if they are ‘baby boomers’ those born after 1952/53 are too young for their earliest memories to be of traumatised adults, rationing & austerity. Voters over 90 appear to have been very likely to have voted Leave – precisely because they remembered the war and older baby boomers because they experienced its aftermath.
Most of the people I know of this age, myself included, voted to Remain for our children’s and grandchildren’s futures, as well as our own. Out on the streets in my area most of the folk campaigning for Remain are this hated by Remainers older generation. Your comment is pitiful.
Everyone is familiar with the phrase ‘ship of fools’ . We are currently sailing in a ‘ship of fools’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
How about;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HmC-RgTECE
This is good.
If I was voting for Labour plans, I’d suggest the following amendments:
1. Revocation of Article 50. Or extension of Article 50 — it doesn’t matter between revocation or extension provided that …
2. Second referendum is held within 18 months of March 2019. The choice is between Stay in the EU, or apply for EEA. (Hard Brexit is not on the ballot, and should never even have been an implicit option in 2016).
3. EEA has a provision that if it is chosen, there will be a five year planning period so that the (minor, in comparison to hard Brexit) transition needed will run very smoothly indeed on exit-EU day.
4. Campaign for Stay in the EU.
If the public really does want to leave the EU, a period of EEA membership could be the least disruptive route (e.g. as per Richard North’s “Flexcit” plan). I think we become free from more than two thirds of EU laws and regulations by moving to EEA. This might bring some advantages to UK citizens (depending on how the government of the time takes advantage of the change), but there will also be losses from leaving the EU. The EU to EEA experience would allow the UK public to make a more informed choice of whether to then press for a harder form of Brexit.
There’s a danger that EEA countries may reject the UK’s application, on the basis that a UK presence would greatly disrupt the EEA ecosystem — e.g. if the UK demands major alterations to EEA and/or views EEA as a staging post to exit from the single market. But there is at least the scope for normal politics and diplomacy in discussion of the options available. It’s a far more workable route than what’s currently being attempted. And it wouldn’t make much difference to the 50 year horizon over which Rees-Mogg is now suggesting the effects of EU exit should be evaluated. As such, it would be possible to use the words of Rees-Mogg and his colleagues to endorse the much softer Brexit route just proposed. There would of course screeching from the ultras, but perhaps it loses force as it becomes obvious what a pig’s ear they made of things in 2017 and 2018.
The Labour party is as split as the Tories are – though in different proportions and for different reasons. Nobody is going to be able to convince me that Corbyn (and, more importantly, McDonnell) who have voted against every institutional and procedural development of the EEC, EC and EU in the HoC are either willing or able to define and advocate a rational policy stance on this issue to achieve the least worst Brexit outcome that will secure party and then popular support. Prevarication, dissembling and expediency are the order of the day. It’s the same with the manoeuvrings on anti-semitism. There are approx. 3 million Muslims in Britain, many of whom support Labour; there are only approx. 300,000 Jews. Go figure.
I don’t know if anyone else reads The Daily Mash – but this is a particularly enlightening piece of satire…
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/university-fresher-still-believes-in-corbyns-brexit-long-game-20180730175796
History shows that Jeremy isn’t in any way a flag-waver for Europe. I have also found him (for all him many good points… and there ARE many) to be unfortunately inflexible. The man can’t compromise. That’s a shame given that the word ‘compromise’ pretty much defines effective politics.
Shame though it is, I don’t think the well thought out views and questions arising will ever be given an airing at LPHQ.
All good recommendations but (there’s always a ‘but’) I regret too late. Pandora (aka Cameron) opened the box, misguidedly releasing the Keres (evil xenophobic spirits) who will wreak their havoc for decades to come. The general public is probably tired of the whole wretched business, leaving the politicos to sort it out as best (or worst) they can while lamely accepting the consequences.
The opportunity for systemic change won’t present itself until the damage to the UK economy & society has become inescapably evident. J R-M has suggested 50 years – and he may be right (for the wrong reasons) but I’d say closer to 10 (i.e. 2 Parliaments). In the meantime, progressives should not lose heart and keep the flame of reason burning by whatever means available, while honing a rescue plan that incorporates the above recommendations.
Moi – a pessimist? Surely not. Barista – un doppio espresso per favore.
And when your coffee is no longer available?
Will that be your tipping point?
There will be one
Sooner than you expect
Wise politicians need to anticipate it
The question is, does Labour have wise politicians!
Yes, there will be a tipping point – but I don’t believe it will be as soon as you suggest. Believe it or not, I could live without coffee, lol. But, seriously, I don’t think bigging up Armageddon is helpful. It just creates a more virulent (albeit irrational) reaction from the ‘other side’, who have a lot of media influence on the general public. ‘Project Fear’ has legs.
Of course there will be practical problems emanating from our EU exit, some more urgent than others. But, they will have the effect of bringing many people together for the ‘sake of the nation’. The Dunkirk Spirit and Battle of Britain baloney. You know what I mean. Anyone who doesn’t sign up to whatever emergency policies are invoked will be seen as unpatriotic. Besides, such crises tend not to be immediately cataclysmic as inventive people do come up with effective ‘Band Aid’ to stop the symptomatic bleeding.
Meanwhile, wise politicians (if there are any with influence) will be putting in place a workable strategy to deal with the cause of the ailment. And we can only hope there are some within the LP. If not then the patient could die, metaphorically speaking. I still maintain this process will take longer than maybe you think. I mean, is it really conceivable that we’ll run out of food? Don’t discount any support that might be forthcoming from Trump’s USA to mitigate against such adversity and further confuse the electorate as to who our real friends are.
‘Brexit’ is surely the worst political decision to haunt this nation since … when? 1765 – the Stamp Act? 1925 – return to the Gold Standard? 1956 – the Suez intervention? 2003 – invasion of Iraq?
Suggestions on the back of a postcard.
That’s enough for today. I’d better go stock up on some decent coffee. Even in an emergency, freeze-dried instant crap would be unacceptable.
1660 – restoring the monarchy?
“Second, the right to change one’s mind when awareness of the facts changes has to be sacrosanct: this principle is at the very heart of good governance, good government and democracy itself.”
Agreed 100%.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/
“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
I’m not sure that most people really grasped what Danny Dyer was saying when he said the 2016 EU Referendum left the country with a riddle and not a solution because over two years down the line the country is still fighting over what “Leaving the EU” really means! It is readily apparent that a Soft Brexit of the May or Corbyn variety doesn’t pass muster which only leaves two options – staying in as we are (with perhaps some re-defining of what free movement of labour really means operationally) – or crashing out on a No Deal basis. Given widespread consternation that the latter will cause mayhem it is only moral that the nation should be given a second chance to change its mind as you say Richard with a Final Say Referendum.
You claimed that:
“Even if we were to leave the EU nothing required that we leave the Customs Union or Single Market”
Did you miss the part where the EU vociferously reminded the UK that they couldn’t cherry pick the parts of the EU they linked and ignore the ones they didn’t?
The option I have suggested is available
Here’s an economic argument concerning the UK from Bill Mitchell that reading between the lines stresses the importance of an urgent Final Say Referendum even though he doesn’t say so and is in fact virulently anti-EU. That argument is basically the UK economy is too fragile to withstand the economic uncertainty from a No Deal Brexit:-
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=39928
Bill’s article reveals the utter economic and monetary incompetence of the Conservative and Labour parties together with the Civil Service Treasury department.
Thanks – this is an excellent article by Bill Mitchell and a harrowing exposition of the state we’re in.
Despite being a member of The Labour Party I’ve come to the conclusion that what we need is a new party. I’m not interested in consortiums or alliances that gather support by existing in the middle ground and in the status quo. I’d like to see something that challenges every aspect of our economic and political lives from nationalising utilities and rail to changing the way we exploit and own property and land.
I got close to despair with Miliband’s election campaign where he refused to challenge the Tory claims about debt and fiscal incompetence. What we have now is just as bad. A great political game of strategy is being played by Labour (no laughing at the back please) forgetting that whilst they play more and more peoples lives deteriorate, and the whole nation shuffles closer and closer to the edge. And yes I have tried to engage but people like me have little or no voice.
As a diem25 memebr we simply think moving to a straight Norway plus deal is appropriate.
Which in itself only pushes any final decision further down the line, yet it allows the UK or at least Labour (+Greens & SNP) if they win the next GE to set out a stall of reforms needed for the EU to placate the masses & to uphold the internal control of EU laws we have never enforced. Which would hopefully show that although the EU has massive issues the problems in our own country have been self inflicted through corruption & cronyism.
We are not subject to the SGP & can invest whatever is needed to resurrect the post industrial towns without relying on asset financialisation, the national & regional investment banks can sponsor private not-for-profit business if it wishes to ignore competition rulings on top of Richards suggestions of ways round it, even fighting litigation on the competition rulings on grounds of corporate monopolies not being restrained.
Remaining or leaving solves neither future political problems for the UK & it’s citizens should really have an informed choice on whether we wish to have European or American lifestyles.
For a thorough debate to occur again in the near future a slight period of stability & diffused emotions is necessary & a Norway plus deal gives flexibility without economic destruction from a full brexit or a civil war by having a 2nd ref or remaining.
I have it on good authority that after triggering a50 we have lost most of the concessions & vetoes previously arranged so a return to remain on a worse arrangement may well not be a good idea politically or economically.
I favour a free vote of MPs. Failing that, a People’s referendum should include all those affected by this fateful decision, including Brits abroad and EU citizens living, working and paying taxes here. To quote an old slogan, no taxation without representation.
Sadly, Momentum on the one hand and the JRM Front on the other are batting for the same team. One wants to build a Trotskyist nirvana, the other a neo-liberal utopia in this green and pleasant land. Both recognise that in order to realise their dream they need to smash the social-liberal-democratic stats quo. Neither of the mainstream parties to which they attach themselves have the guts to stand up to their anarchist agenda.
God help us. God help the rest of Europe. Their aspirations do not stop at the Channel. The first foundation stone of that beautiful vision that emerged some 70 years ago, peaceful co-existence, is at stake.
Momentum campaigned to remain in the EU, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest they have changed their minds, they are simply getting on with other stuff given that the result was Leave.
Do they always give up on their beliefs so easily?
I am becoming a little tired of the standard dismissal of the EU by British critics: it is neoliberal: it is corrupt. This is an argument that is just too easy to use: the EU has faults and there is no need to justify the generalisation. To those British critics I would simply say: if there are failures, physician – heal Britain first.
In less than four months we will all solemnly acknowledge a centenary momorial of particular significance: the armistice in 1918, and two world wars. The ritual will be on an international scale, and we will bow our head; repeating the devout words we claim that we mean: Never Again. Do we mean it it? Much more importantly than all this, my justification of the EU is simply stated in three short words: Lest We Forget.
The rest we can fix: but first you have to mean it; and I no longer believe that in Britain we do mean it. We have a very funny way of showing it: Brexit.
Hear, hear
Good post John, which I heartily endorse. Thanks.
@John S Warren,
Many thanks for this post which goes to the heart of the issue.
Thank you John. Good to be reminded of a fundamental benefit of the EU that is so frequently lost in arguments about chlorine washed chickens.
For many it is visits to WW1 battlefields or having parents who went through WWII. For me it has also been extensive travels in Central Europe and seeing the impact that the EU has had there, after decades if not centuries of oppression. No it’s not perfect but it’s a huge step forward which is little understood here. Too many here have no idea of the destabilising potential of Brexit to the rest of Europe, which they have every right to tackle, even if that has negative impacts on the UK.
And thanks Richard and all for a thoughtful analysis of the options which I shall be sharing with like minded folk.
Richard Murphy says:
August 1 2018 at 4:58 pm
Do they always give up on their beliefs so easily?
Who says they have? Perhaps it’s just that we lost the referendum based on the evidence and debate available, until more evidence is available there are other things. The referendum was run on lies and fantasy, the deal or no deal will be cold stark reality, there will be opportunity to debate that and assess where we are and whether or not leavers will be satisfied with the outcome or not, after all it’s all about them now.
The last I heard was that Labour were moving towards a Norway style arrangement.
Who knows?
@ Richard
So sad that you should feel inclined to write “Who knows?” about what the Labour Party policy is on Brexit. You clearly are one amongst millions who are being treated with contempt by Jeremy Corbyn who has made a career out of pretending to be the “great democrat!” I think he’s just another phoney like Blair pretending to be interested in the well-being of the many but not truly wanting to be answerable to them at the end of the day!
The 6 things Labour should do make a great deal of sense. What a tragedy that sense is an attribute no longer associated with the leadership of the 2 main parties.
Mr Underwood,
Generalisations are easy, aren’t they? Could you please point to good, sound operational examples of “small government”, of “free markets”, and define precisely what you mean by “sound money”, and specifically what makes it “sound”.
I can only point you to the Austrian school of economics to answer these complaex questions and arguments: https://mises.org/
You really need to get a life if you think you will find answers that will satisfy anyone with any critical economic faculties there
Mr Underwood,
Pointing in the direction of theoreticians is not answering the question. The question was actually much simpler and does not require the discussion of “complex questions and arguments”. I made it easy; let someone else do the heavy lifting. All you need to do is point to the results. Once again, could you please point to good, sound operational examples of “small government”, and of “free markets” – in the real world.
I can’t ask the same question of “sound money” because I do not know what you mean by the term. Pointing at the Mises Institute doesn’t really cut it. For the sake of clarity, The Mises Institute’s “Principles of Sound Money” argues for the Gold Standard: “The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary unit’s purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties.”
Is that your proposition on sound money: the Gold Standard?
I voted to leave because I am fundamentally a libertarian at heart believing in small government, sound money and free markets, none of which we have today. I won’t go into the arguments but suffice to say that Richard’s summary of where Labour should be is sound IMHO.
I feel that the best option now is the EEA/Efta route as per Dr Richard North’s Flexcit document. I would not oppose a second referendum if only to finally settle the last of any residual doubts about a ‘fair’ first referendum. I don’t think that Labour will command any degree of influence on this even if the Tories fall apart.
I have said all along that we will never leave the EU. I based my assessment on the ruling clique of the City and Big Finance winning out over politics. When in doubt, follow the money, is always a good policy. IMHO, May has been set up to fail and is doing a fine job of scuppering Brexit, satisfying the City and avoiding a second referendum which might just end up in another Brexit win – and we don’t want to risk that, even if it’s a tiny probability.
Sound money?
Small government?
I assure you, those are not my objectives?
Why? Because the first is something that does not and cannot exist. You clearly know nothing about money.
And the second, because that is antithetical to every known freedom for the vast majority of people.
You are a tough commentator and dogmatic to boot. We will clearly cross swords for a long time and it is not my intention to extend such an arguement, suffice to say, that we agree to differ. I respect and admire your blog which brings to light many interesting and controversial subjects. I support much of the Austrian school of economics which gave rise to my quotes although I am sure you would not wish to pursue this cause: https://mises.org/
However, you know nothing of my education and it is not fair to jump to conclusions so quickly but is emblematic of a fixed and closed mind. I will continue to read your excellent commentaries.
It is not indicative of a closed mind
It is indicative of an ability to identify economic nonsense
Like Austrian economics
I shall treasure these sound contributions for some time to come. They reinforce my belief that we have outgrown the politicians who misgovern us at all levels. T. S. Eliot’s “greatest treason” may apply here, if we go back to the why of the vote.
An interesting academic research paper from Warwick U by Thiemo Fetzner “presents novel and comprehensive evidence suggesting that austerity-induced
welfare reforms brought about by the Conservative-led coalition government
from late 2010 onwards are key to understanding Brexit. Austerity-induced
welfare reforms are a strong driving factor behind the growing support for the
populist UKIP party in the wake of the EU referendum, contributed to the development
of broader anti-establishment preferences and are strongly associated with
popular support for Leave. The results suggest that the EU referendum either may
not have taken place, or, as a back of the envelope calculations suggests, could have
resulted in a victory for Remain, had it not been for austerity. By combining evidence
from the population of all electoral contests in the UK since 2000, together
with a wealth of evidence stemming from individual level panel data, this paper
is among the more comprehensive studies of the UK’s political landscape around
the EU referendum thus far”
We need a stay of execution. That is the least Corbyn can ask for.
Whilst that paper is useful to describe in academic terms what happened, with hindsight is it any surprise that large numbers of people who had had their quality of life massively reduced and saw no prospect of that changing, took the first opportunity possible to give the authors of their woes (call me Dave and Gideot) a hearty kicking not realising what the impact of that would be. Especially when promised that all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds by the snake-oil vendors Boris, Gove and Farage.
@ John Carlisle
As I’m sure you’ll agree your mention of the Fetzner study showing UK Austerity cuts as a strong “hidden” driver of the Leave vote is only part of the picture. The unifying cause underlying Brexit is the toxic poison of greed made manifest in Neoliberal ideology now currently dominating most thinking in the world.
Analysing The Brexit Leave Vote:-
Agriculture and Insourcing –
“I lived and worked in the fens, from where 80% of the UK veg (cabbages, cauliflowers, calibrice, brussels, leeks and onions) originates. I knew loads of the farmers, the gangmasters and the workers. As soon as Jan 1 2004 arrived, the veg workers, who had done the work in the fields for generations, in ZHC, were sacked, and EEs brought across to do the work instead. Many were “loaned” the money for the journey (a loan that they could never repay), had their passports taken off them (“as security”), were put in 2-up, 2-down houses that in 2004 cost £30K and a year later cost £100K because the gangmasters were buying them all up as houses of multi-occupancy at 20+ per house, and fed an abysmal diet, all of which was the subject of excessive stoppages from their pay. Many of the workers wore clothes entirely unsuitable for the weather and ground conditions (not those nice new orange ones you’ll have seen when the BBC sends a camera), …… so I hope you enjoy your slave-picked veg. You might of course, be forgiven for hating the British gangmaster. But in an ironic twist, most of those were replaced by even worse EE gangmasters, who not only advertised the jobs solely in EE countries, but required workers to speak a specific EE language.”
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-and-brexit/brexit-analysis/mapping-brexit-vote
Manufacturing and Outsourcing –
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2870313
https://www.peri.umass.edu/component/k2/item/1096-globalization-checkmated-political-and-geopolitical-contradictions-coming-home-to-roost
UK Austerity –
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/381-2018_fetzer.pdf
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=39928
EU Austerity –
http://www.gregpalast.com/currency-rules-but-its-not-ok/
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=18739
And the lesson for the Labour Party? You ain’t going to overthrow Neoliberal ideology in a twinkling and you’re going to have to sup with devil to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water but in the long term you just might with others expunge the greed, corruption and stupidity in the EU.
Policy should be
1) Allow Brexit to be defined, and attempt to influence that definition to make it the least worst deal. This process has been ongoing
2) Once Brexit is defined, allow parliament to assess it. This comes hopefully in October (or before should there be no deal). Labour have constantly attempted to qualify what powers parliament have on this assessment, parliament recently denied itself a meaningful vote on the deal, however that isn’t the end of that story. Labour have been clear about their six tests, the main one being
DDs words mirrored back to them (the exact same benefits)
3) Should parliament decide that the brexit deal probably doesn’t match what was voted for in 2016, they have a number of options
a) renegotiate – this is unlikely due to time, the EU has indicated that it would be unwilling to extend purely to allow more negotiation space
b) stop brexit – it is within parliaments power to compel the PM through an Humble Address to revoke the notification, there would be time to do this, there would be a lot of
subsequent legislation change
c) put the deal to a referendum, the EU has indicated that it would probably permit an A50 extension should the political direction change. goto b) if the referendum says stop brexit, crash out
or accept the deal otherwise. other options such as EFTA EEA could be there
Last year the Tories took the leave vote for granted, they assumed Labour would fight the GE as a referendum, they fought it on everything else instead. All the so called “anti-brexit” parties lost vote share, the Tories and Labour gained vote share. I don’t take that as in indication of support for brexit by the public, but that there are other things and they weren’t forced to fight on brexit. Should Labour follow your plan, there is a danger that the 17.4 million brexiters plus around 5 million loyal tory remainers could give the government a vote share that dwarfs their current 13.6 million.
It’s a long way from over
@John S Warren
(there’s no reply tab)
I would point to Hong Kong before the takeover and Signapore as good examples of small and effective government. The Austrian’s concept of sound money is not the gold standard as we have known it but is an alternative to fiat money extant today. They suggest that a reference to ‘gold as base money’ is sensible because it is the one monetary unit that has no counterparty and has limited risk of inflation and default as per the 2008 GFC.
The NeoKeynesians rule the economic waves for the present, and there is much to recommend their approach, but the Austrian Business Cycle Theory has my vote for the time being, although in this complex matter of human action, I am open to alternative arguments.
One a colony
The other, in effect, a socialist state for domestic policy purposes (that’s Singapore, by the way)
You think 83% state owned housing a sign of small government?
And most of the largest companies being state owned a sign of small government?
Do you know much about Singapore?
It’s also wise not to criticise the regime in either
So much for small state…..
As for Neokeynesians – 2008 was a success was it?
I really think you’re trying hard to be a joke Peter.
Yes, I do think 2008 was a success of sorts compared to the alternative. I have read Paulson’s book on the exercise and it makes for instructive reading. I am no Keynesian but there is virtue in some of the theory and QE instigated by Prof Richard Werner has proven effective so far, not withstanding poor and falling productivity, which is probably initiated by EROEI more than anything else.
Sadly your personal comments do not a good argument make and leave you rather less credible; but then, joking aside, I have no reason to rise to the bait but this repartee is rather fun nonetheless :-))))
You did not answer the question
I did not ask if the reaction to 2008 was any good (and it clearly as not)
I asked if the creation of 2008 was of merit
@ Peter Underwood
You wish to run the world’s economies on the basis of how much gold is dug up in the world (say per annum)? Are you insane? Do you understand that money at root is a caregiving claim? How therefore do you relate humanity’s endless need for caregiving (not to mention life on the planet as a whole) to the relatively small quantity of gold dug up each year. Can you also explain how equitableness in caregiving directly relates to a finite extraction of this mineral?
“Do you understand that money at root is a caregiving claim?”
No I hadn’t thought of it that way but it is an interesting proposition. I have always thought of money as a means of exchange, a measure of account and a store of wealth in its truest sense but not so much for the third definition in our fiat world.
What is ‘sound money’ in a fiat world?
Or do you mean ‘ p[reserving the value of the wealth of the wealthiest’ is your objective?
Hong Kong was a Crown colony, and a small if dynamic entrepôt economy trading on the margin between the West (earlier the Empire) and China. It rose to prominence though the activities of the ‘princely hongs’; the opium trade (Britain facilitated large-scale drug dealing, officially supported; India-Hong Kong-China; into the 20th century). It was, like Singapore a ‘niche’ player (a function of its location and history) and very unlike Britain or other ‘mainstream’ advanced economies.
I am struck by your response to Richard over 2008; it is all the fault of the Americans or banks in league with government. Not an answer (actually some of the worst excesses took place in the London offices of international banks; not an accident). Your “abomination” was not an aberration or accident; it was rather a function of “free market” ideology given free reign and no effective regulation. It is not an accident that risk-taking “freebooters”, reckless chancers and much worse are all attracted to zero regulation “free markets”. It is obvious.
Perhaps you can begin to see a pattern emerging here; but not a happy one for unregulated “free markets” (in the past, or now). This “abomination” is precisely what happens when your solutions are given free reign. You do not represent the solution, Mr Underwood. You represent the problem.
There comes a point when the failure to recognise the consequences of unregulated free market becomes detached from rational analysis and falls towards Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance.
For some reason I keep typing ‘reign’ for ‘rein’.
If only that was the limit of my typos…
@John S Warren
You make some good points and I agree with much that you say. As regards to free markets, I would not advocate totally free, but offer some regulation to mitigate the worst effects of hubris, the application of technology and some of the evils of financialisation and financial engineering. There is much to be done for an effective system to emerge and that may well take another GFC style crisis before we are done.
Mr Underwood,
I have less ‘sang-froid’ about the effects of a crash than you. It is rarely the chancers who cause it, or the regulators who fail, or the politicians who allow the environment to flourish; who pay the most serious consequences from the collateral damage.
Boom and bust is the modern economic system, not a false representation of its purpose; as Hyman Minsky understood (a far wiser economist than Ludwig von Mises, in my opinion – for what that is worth). It is the vulnerable, the weak, the disabled, the least able to assert their entitlement (they have none), who always suffer most and longest for our commitment to the current mainstream economic dogma (much of it influenced by the Austrian School); the indignity is that it is nothing to do with the exploited, manipulated and criticiesd, but somehow they are to blame; the scapegoats.
I have had quite enough listening to comfortable indifference, sugar-coated with a superficial sense of condescending wisdom. For more years than I care to remember I have been waiting for my country seriously to root out the effects of poverty and deprivation that ruins lives and stifles potential; but now it is sufficent to be anti-immigration, and anti-EU. This is all quite vile. Brexit will lead to Britain establishing the ground rules for undermining the EU: divide, split and exploit. The old British ‘balance of power’ politics I thought, hoped and believed was gone forever. It is back, like a nasty virus.
Richard Murphy’s proposed advice to Labour is, from what should be a real Labour Party’s point of view, flawless good sense (including the, to me, unpalatable pro-Union element). The problem surely is the absence of any sign that those in effective central control of that party are, in any substantial way, similarly inclined.
I fear that, even if less apocaliptically expressed than in one post above, there is a competition going on in UK politics between two sets of dogmatic ideologues – the ‘Brexitainian’ far Right among the Tories and still worse forces beyond Westminster on the one hand…. and what Harold Wilson once erroneously and exaggeratedly called ” a tightly knit body of highly politically motivated men ” on the narrow and sclerotically-minded Labour/Momentum-ish Left. Neither party – or indeed Party – has any real-world focus on economic reality, social deprivation effects and, least of all, consequences for European homogeneity and peace – and that could well mean world peace.
We suffer, particularly, from having a political class devoid of the actual personal experience of a European caused World War (just imagine Harold Macmillan’s eyes rolling with disbelief at all of this), in a country whose political class and cultural elites have – often for repressive contemporary political motives – wallowed in an increasingly bogus, self-consoling, British-nationalist, exceptionalist history. The post above pointing to the glaring mismatch between the official ‘commemorations’ of the end of WW1 and contemporary politics goes to the heart of why, for all its excellent good sense, Richard’s ‘Advice to Labour’ will, I’m afraid go nowhere. Quite apart from Corbyn’s clique being impervious to its economic and constitutional realism – they will part fear, and part share, the current wave of British-nationalist delusionism Our elites are trapped in their own false memories which they have aided to a destructive popularity – and we are about to pay for their arrogant illusions.
Much good common sense being written by Richard in his original treatise and by Nigel. Like Nigel, I agree that Labour is unlikely to act on it, but there is another compelling reason why Labour’s chances of winning power at Westminster are low. For decades, Labour could count on a sizeable number of MPs being returned by Scottish seats, but those days are past now.
Some of this is down to SNP getting its act together and becoming a credible political power, but (and not taking anything away from SNP’s achievement) some of that is down to the mediocrity of Labour representation in both Westminster and Holyrood over the past two decades. With SNP’s governance in the last decade being a marked improvement on their Labour predecessors’, the genie is now out of the bottle and I see no short-term prospect of Labour regaining its ascendancy in Scotland. The impact of this loss of Labour seats at Westminster is already visible and will make the numbers game hard for Corbyn’s team even if they get the strategy right.
I think that 2008 was created by those with financial power in the USA, namely the banks in league with government, creating financial instruments of many colours including CDS, which is an abomination as far as traditional insurance contracts go, with the net effect of destabilising the financial system to the point of collapse.
I don’t think it had any merit but could not have been avoided once Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 repealing the portion of Glass Steagall that separated commercial and investment banks. It gave government protection to wild speculators and created moral hazard as the ultimate risk nullifier. Combined with the over reaction of the Fed to the dotcom bust by reducing interest rates and conditions for the GFC in 2008 were baked into the cake.
But Neo-Keynesianism let that happen. So why sing its praises?
Well, I hope that I am not exactly singing its praises, I am saying that there are merits in the first concept of governments borrowing in times of need and saving in times of surplus according to the economic cycle that Keynes had identified during and after the great depression.
He was a genius in many ways IMHO but of course the theories have been corrupted over time from the big bang in the 1980s and the emergence of HFT in the ninties with the internet etc. I feel that a combination of various economic theories might offer an improved global financial and economic system to meet modern 21st century demands – but this is yet to be seen. I think that the Austrians have something to add too (at risk of raising your ire!).
In the meantime we have QT and rising interest rates which might well instigate yet another recession in the coming years – it is a central bank experiment, the end of which is yet to be experienced.
Because, as an amateur, this is my hobby and I have the luxury of being able to stand back observe and learn without the trappings of professional confidence, I am beholden to those such as yourself who are clearly much better informed.
And what have you learned?
“Or do you mean ‘ p[reserving the value of the wealth of the wealthiest’ is your objective?”
I think that preserving wealth is no bad objective as it simulates savings and adds stability so perhaps finding a system to do this and underpin the roots of capitalism may be worthwhile.
“What have I learned?” Lots form your blog, thank you and it is most informative.
I am learning all the time from many and various blogs and good-meaning people and have discovered that there is always something new to learn and progress to be made. It is fun and sometimes exhilarating when cracking a problem, of which in economics there seem to be many IMO.
Do you have any clue, at all, how economically useless an activity saving is?
Well, my brother in law (big leftie – no party – like me, but smarter) says: “What I think the Labour Party is completely misunderstanding is the character of the opposition – even enemy.
The extreme right of the Tory Party is essentially carrying out a Coup. Look at what they have already done in Parliament, and propose with the new constituency boundaries. They have been building towards this for years, have already destroyed much of the country’s social infrastructure and will not stop until they achieve their ideological Nirvana. Being regarded as democrats is just what they want, look at the way dictatorship have taken power during the 20th Century. I think the only hope for the country is the Tories own incompetence and disfunction being countered by a focussed and visionary opposition which will force them to tear themselves apart and allow the country to build for the future whilst the Tories are cast out to wallow in their own mess.
Will the Labour Party do this? No. it is too focussed on its own little theorising, and ignoring the desperation of so many people for some leadership, for the sake of the country, not party.
The opportunity is there, will they take it? I despair as they fiddle while the country hurtles to destruction.”
Here’s another useful paper from Thomas Palley to add to the Manufacturing and Outsourcing Neoliberal toxic poison list. Interestingly he argues there’s been three globalisation surges in the last 150 years:-
https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_fmm_imk_wp_18_2018.pdf
You have to watch this terrifying bit of informed sense on Brexit. Goodbye our economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4AF-3Rd44
Agreed
May be on the blog in the morning