I have watched events in the UK with interest in the last day or so. Being well over 2,000 miles away, and in the company of people from many nations who view Brexit with bemusement at best, and outright bewilderment more commonly, adds a different perspective.
Three thoughts emerge, being picked up between conference events. First, what the heck is Labour doing? Is John McDonnell right to say that it will back a second vote or are those near Corbyn who say that is not what he said correct? Who knows? What I do know is it does not help them to deny what is obviously true: they are bound to be in favour of a second vote if and when the ‘meaningful vote' on May's deal rejects it, as seems likely. What is the problem with talking about political realities is the question that needs to be asked of Labour?
Of course May will say that Labour are ignoring the referendum result. And I would argue that she is like the satnav user who believes that they must follow it even when it instructs them to drive through a flooded ford, or down a road that is very clearly unsuited for vehicle use. When the facts change so must the decision. The facts have changed. Labour should say so, and that to ask again is to respect the referendum and not udnermine it: having another one is to say referenda are trusted, right or wrong.
Second, that fact that the ECJ is going to rule on the legality of Article 50 renunciation by the UK as soon as possible is good news: it is essential that all options are put on the table.
Thirdly, there were the economic forecasts. I will not pretend to have read all the detail: that has not been possible in the time available. Messages do emerge though. Whatever the option, and whatever the forecast issued yesterday, the message was that Brexit is going to reduce income in the UK. I am presuming that hard Brexit will not happen as there appears to be absolutely no real parliamentary will for it. In that case Mark Carney's dire forecasts for the Bank of England do look to be largely irrelevant. And it can be argued that none of the Treasury's are much use as none models the Brexit option May has negotiated. But there is a statistic that to me says that argument about which measure of scale is right is largely irrelevant: in October this year UK car production was down 10% on a year ago. Suggestions of a Brexit impact cannot be avoided: the downturn is already real.
What does all this say? I'd suggest that between all the political posturing - and like everyone I know I am really bored by that now - there is a reality that is emerging. That reality is that there is a choice available that will prevent the losses - financial, political and social - that Brexit will create. That the choice to remain is still real is what that reality is. And, as John McDonnell said before Seumas Milne denied he had done so, Labour has to embrace that possibility if it is to remain relevant to a large number of the people who might vote for it. So too will the Tories have to do so if they are also to have any chance of remaining as a credible political force. The fact is that unless Labour and the Tories do recognise Remain as an option now then they will fail so many people that their political credibility with half the population will be destroyed for a generation or more.
That's he reality that is being fought now. It is a fight for credible choice, which is at the heart of what democracy requires. The question is whether, given the obvious need for it to be presented to the people of the UK, politicians will actually have the courage to offer Remain to the UK. The answer is not clear as yet, but it seems increasingly likely. And that has to be good news. And there's not much to cling to in this mess.
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:
When considering Brexit I remember my dad’s advice ‘hear what is said but judge what is done’.
I noted a statement about universal credit by a DWP spokesman and I think it reveals something of the mindset of the government.
“Neil Couling, from the Department for Work and Pensions, said the system [UC] relied heavily on automation to process claims, and that less than 1% of claimants lost out as a result of the problem.” It would cost “hundreds of millions of pounds” to re-design.(1)
That 1% could have been expressed differently. It could instead have indicated that 400,000 people are currently affected(2) or that it includes 26,000 cancer patients (3). It could point out that it is going to become a larger percentage when in 2022 half of the working population will be receiving UC and that 2.1 million will be worse off (4). It is ironic that yet another government technological solution is unfit for purpose and bodes ill for the Irish border situation. The message is clear these people don’t matter but money does.
If such a cavalier and callous mindset exists how can I trust the unsupported word of a woman who felt her decisions on Windrush were justifiable. Can I rely on her looking after ‘the nation’s interest’ when she lacks the empathy to visit the Grenfell survivors. The assurances that say the future is rosy sound like a rerun of the privatisation campaign. That gave us Thames Water who knowingly pumped 1.9 billion litres of untreated sewage into the Thames and after decades of higher than inflation price rises have only reduced water leaks by 30% (5). It gave us a rail system that now costs the public purse more than double what it did when nationalised (6) whilst at the same time increasing fares way above inflation in return for being granted a space to stand in a crowded carriage on a delayed journey. The assurances that the NHS was of primary concern to this government has resulted in thousands of unfilled posts and difficulty attracting people to train in the medical professions. May says she’s dealing with the housing market but 230,000 are homeless and affordable homes are anathema to government policy. We supply arms to the Saudi regime in spite of UN protests and simply shrug our shoulders at assassination. The message remains clear, most people don’t matter money does as long as it goes to the ‘right’ people.
I could go on but you’ll no doubt get the point. I do not trust what I am being told and if brexiteers want to persuade me that I am wrong I will require proof. Not worthless assurances, not spurious opinion, not an appeal to xenophobic patriotism, I require proof. I don’t know who Brexit will benefit but my bet is it won’t be me so I will not support it, I may have to suffer it for a while but I will not support it. If Scottish independence gains traction I will stand at the border post at Gretna, brandish my birth certificate and seek entry (even if the winters will kill me).
(1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46355306
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/12/universal-credit-flaws-mean-thousands-will-be-worse-off
(3) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/universal-credit-hit-terminal-cancer-13479428
(4) https://wearecitizensadvice.org.uk/universal-credit-must-adapt-to-support-working-families-9de645173b45
(5) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39352755
(6) http://actionforrail.org/the-four-big-myths-of-uk-rail-privatisation/
Thank you
I like the SatNav analogy!
The current clusterfxck is as much Corbyn’s responsibility as May’s. If it was smart (?) the Labour leadership could turn the current chaotic situation to its advantage and come out with an unequivocal policy to stay in the EU. According to the polling information that’s available, a majority of the country would now vote ‘Remain’ (https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote). With a professionally presented, fact-based argument my instinct is that the margin could be even greater. It would be necessary to address logically and unemotionally the legitimate issues of many ‘Brexiteers’.
It seems the business community is crying out for strong political leadership. Its natural instinct is to look to the Tories but May’s ‘solution’ is clearly not what the majority can sign up to. The trouble is Corbyn’s team isn’t trusted and lacks credibility.
Then there are the equally important non-commercial reasons for remaining, which neither of the major parties appear to be advocating with any real commitment or clarity. The minority parties are lone voices, largely ignored by the MSM and hence unheeded by the majority of voters.
On a positive note: “Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves.” (Henry David Thoreau).
Thanks
Bill Lawrence, I agree with all you say (and with Richard). Just to say you will be welcome in an Independent Scotland, should that come to pass, as will anyone who chooses to live here.
Very well put – and I will personally meet you at Gretna to welcome you home.
Very good.
Our friend Larry Elliott says that most of the consequences the Treasury raised about the Leave vote have not materialised.
I think that that is not correct. I have been picking up from others (neighbours, contractors, friends) of plans for expansion and investment having been shelved because of what happened in 2016. Elliott does not have the complete picture about the damage caused.
Also, look how long it takes the Government to actually pick up the trends in economic reporting? There is always a delay.
What I think is this: the uncertainty of it all means that business is like a rabbit caught in the headlights and suspending all decisions – even those to cut. This indicates that there is still hope out there that BREXIT will be avoided. Or it maybe that the vast amounts of cash in the private sector will jut be used to absorb the economic hit ? Or that business will move when it knows that the decision to leave is done.
What I find interesting though is that everyone – even Elliott – is talking about a lack of evidence of cause and effect or increases in cause and effect (i.e. Hammond).
But the severance with the EU has not taken place as yet. What we should be talking about is the RISKS we are taking by leaving. But it is not spoken of in those terms. Instead the good and bad aspects of BREXIT are spoken of as certainties.
The level of the debate in the country is over-emotional. No wonder we are in a mess.
The question is – should we take the risk?
Personally – even taking out my concerns about the illegal conduct of the vote – I do not think that we should risk leaving the EU at this time because (1) we are still recovering from the 2008 crash and (2) we have a government in power who are ideologically driven to take the country back to a pre-war, Edwardian style economy with all its social problems and BREXIT will give them even more power to take us back in time more rapidly and (3) we may be destabilising a treaty framework that has given a land mass with a bloody history peace for a very long time that all of us should surely want to continue?
Honestly – these are risks and they are big. And I have not even mentioned those that will arise from the new (and possibly unequal) relationships with other traders. But the ‘Big 3’ as I call them (could be the Big 4 because the just in time manufacturing system needs to be dealt with as a special case) are just not worth it in my view.
Larry is wrong – and I will say that whilst acknowledging him as a friend and co-author
He is ignoring the collapse in growth
The fall in investment
The fall in the exchange rate
The rise in debt
And so on
The Brexit shock is already under way
It was just assumed that it would happen overnight
Very little in economics happens overnight
Markets rarely clear that way
I really don’t get Larry Elliot any more – he is in danger of joining Patrick Minford in his efforts to deny what is happening under his nose
I was with a friend last night who is a prospective parliamentary candidate for one of the inner South London boroughs. Lots of poverty, currently Labour, but strongly remain. Good background in the real world having worked in business and charities, in UK and abroad and has lived there for years. She has been out talking to lots of small and medium businesses and organisations in the area and is getting a very consistent message. Drop off in levels of business combined with an inability to find and recruit skilled and semi-skilled labour, accentuated by European migrants leaving and taking their skills with them. People wondering how they will keep their businesses going so no appetite for investment
Elliott needs to get out of the office a bit more
That is business reality Robin
Or they recruiting for offices in the EU
Its certainly my impression of reality. These were all small local business, so the staff they are talking about skilled/semi skilled, bakers, tradespeople and the like, no longer seeing a future in the UK but as a result making those businesses unsustainable (for all the employees) and reducing local demand.
Everything that analyses that Jonathan Portes and others have done have been saying – now seen in practice. But then we don’t have to listen to experts any more do we … what my mate down the pub says seems to count for more
The conversation before was with someone who has built, managed, chaired various manufacturing and engineering businesses, in the UK and also in Germany (such a contrast). A very similar message about what is happening in larger businesses in that sector.
But Leavers will deny it
And say that UK wages will rise as a result
They forget someone always has to buy what is produced…..and at higher prices they won’t
Thanks – you’ve cheered me up!
From the e-mails I’ve received from many friends all over the EU, they’re still hoping we might change our minds and remain.
The lack of anything sensible on Brexit other than “stay in and commit to a green future” – and much similar on politics and economics that don’t make sense – has long had me on the fringe, looking for genuine applications of science. There has been a discipline for the last 10 years at least, output often looking like this from the European Journal of Physics: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aaeb4d
Seeds and stony ground atm. A key feature of the quest is a kind of ‘quantitative history’. To be honest the good results I’ve seen are in the “biology of noise” where we have found useful ways to fill and interrogate databases to a point where we can model structure from what was missed in old work. Work like this would not be needed if there was direct language in the social-political-economic. If they ever get the AI working I could see it being asked what was going on in Brexit and responding “has anyone said anything pertinent yet?” after nearly three years. Or even “has that odious woman left yet”?
I will try to read that….
in America, at the turn of the 20th century, struggling people yearned for a mythical place that would let them escape their troubles,
it held such appeal that Harry McClintock wrote a song about it,
The Big Rock Candy Mountains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqowmHgxVJQ
for Britons there has always been the allure of a shining citadel atop the peak of the Big Rock Candy Mountains with a fable of a King Arthur who will rise again to save Britain at a time of great peril,
Camelot!
unfortunately on closer inspection,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGvxoWytMig
” well on second thoughts, let’s not go to Camelot, tis a silly place”
my main concern is that the ‘pantomime farce’ of Brexit has wasted 2yrs and distracted us from planning to meet GFC 2.0 which is inescapable and bearing down on us now,
although I’m sure much of the current gloom is Brexit induced there is also a masked undercurrent that is the bow wave of GFC 2.0 ploughing towards us.
whatever happens, the next few years ‘ain’t gonna be pretty’ so hold on to to your hats folks, we’re in for a rough ride.
the EU would be a safer harbour to weather out the storm, better than being out at sea, alone.
‘Ain’t gonna be oretty’ is being kind to it
Fintan O’Tooles latest book – Heroic Failure, on Brexit is just brilliant on English conceits and fantasies. When he draws parallels with ’50 Shades of Grey’…
Common sense is in short supply within in the BREXIT brigade:
http://blog.spicker.uk/the-bank-of-england-wants-us-to-make-sure-the-ship-has-lifeboats-in-case-of-need-it-hasnt-asked-us-to-man-them/
I still say though that BREXIT does create risks that are just not worth it at this moment in time in my view.
My fear is that I think that BREXIT has been co-opted into the Tory/Neo-liberal objective of eviscerating the State. That is why I want it stopped ideally. BREXIT is a win win for those who want to take us backwards.
@Bill Lawrence — you’re right to highlight the corruption of our society, but I’m not sure which of those catastrophes would necessarily be ameliorated were we now to remain. I can’t offer much in the way of ‘proof’ in a reply to a blog comment, other than to note the fact that all of your list of mis-deeds occurred while we were members of the EU.
So what could we address inside?
Water possibly (but it is and remains a specially exempted case as far as the EU & privatisation is concerned).
The sale of arms to the Saudis etc. could have been curtailed, and is actually only now possible because of UK & French pressure — which was pushing at an open door (a number of Eastern European States have been caught funnelling tones of weapons to the jihadis in Syria with no EU censure). This is just one of the many cases where relegating the UK to a ‘rule taker’ might actually be a very good thing.
Your comments about the rail system are spot on, and the UK can and could do more, but the EU is also wedded to many of the concepts inherent in our botched, rentier friendly, system.
The disentanglement of the most corrupt private infiltration of our public services will be very much easier if the companies in question cannot cry off to the ECJ at every step of the process — this is one of the opportunities of leaving the EU.
Which brings me to @Pilgrims big four’ risks.
1. Yes ‘we’ have failed to reform — but how is continuing to expose ourselves to the tyranny of the FoM of Capital & the captured EU institutions going to help? Outside the EU we will have many more tools immediately available come GFC2.
2. Our current Government is corrupt, but they can be removed every 5 years.
3. The EU’s dissolution will continue with our without us — EU economies continue to diverge, the far-right continues to be emboldened and there’s absolutely no indication of the necessary reforms occurring in time to sort it out (see the already-shelved Meseberg dogs-breakfast).
4. That JIT systems may be disrupted is a good thing. One thing that is almost always overlooked in the debate around this is the fact that it encourages (I’d say forces) labour to be seen as just such a JIT resource too — with all the stress & ill-effects that brings. That so many don’t join the dots here continues to bemuse me.
As far as a second referendum goes, be careful what you wish for. Yes it appears that Remain now have a slim poll lead, but they did in 2016 too. Who knows what a second Leave campaign might look like. On the table would be a remain deal on conditions significantly worse than the 2016 offer (the EU have confirmed Cameron’s opt outs no longer exist). It would be held in the context of the EU having now demonstrated conclusively that their preferred response to the shock of Brexit is greater integration (an no sign of reform). It would be in the context of wanting to remain in an institution who has been happy to use the threat of chaos at our borders to drive a hard bargain (‘with those kind of friends…’) and where, for the most part, the dire warnings of the Remain campaign have so far not come to pass.
We’re two years down the line and there’s still not a very coherent positive case made for how things can be better (as opposed to ‘not worse’). Add to that the plain fact that none of the issues that led so many to vote leave in the first place have been properly addressed (and far too many of those people derided as stupid and/or racist in the meantime too).
I’d say it’s too close to call.
Adrian you are factually correct but the point I was making was I have reached a stage where I do not trust Westminster anymore. They gave us the disasters I listed and continued to support them even when the truth was staring them in the face. This week a rail network executive was given a CBE that was kept quiet, the news was followed by another fare rise of 3.1%. Better rail services? Jam tomorrow (again).
Can anyone say Boris isn’t guided by his personal ambitions to high office? Has Fox reformed from the days when he was the highest expenses over claimer or changed his ways since having to resign for breaching the ministerial code? Has he dropped his sights from No10? Mr Gove. Can’t quite work him out is he in or out or is he yet another one awaiting May’s fall from grace? Steve Baker has been cagey about funding, blamed others for his mistakes and is a climate denier. Can I trust him with future reforms to care for the environment? Rees-Mogg? Please don’t get me started he’s backed both horses and opened offices in Dublin. And no I am not going to whitewash Labour. Blair & Mandy keep sticking their oar in, is it to guide us to Nirvana or is it to get ‘their’ Labour Party back from Red Jerry? With their records of using ‘alternative’ facts who knows?
I am not saying I know the truth nor that the EU could have prevented the disasters I listed. What I am saying is these are exactly the people who supported the continued predation of us by neolib corporations and they want freedom from any controls. Now they and Farage are telling me Brexit is wonderful, that their mate Trump will ride to our rescue – really? Bad as the EU may be I wouldn’t trust that man to tell me what my name is.
So the Brexit campaign (Leave and Remain) feels like manipulation, it smells like private interests at work, it looks like self serving ambition. What is best for me? Scotland is closer to the communitarian culture I prefer and holds views on climate change and nuclear weapons that are closer to mine than the Westminster MPs owned by the corporations. If Scotland was independent I could make a strong case for a thriving economy producing wealth that is shared more fairly. That would be even more likely if they were allowed back into the EU and opened an EU corridor to Ireland. After 50 years away maybe it’s time to be with my ain. Those little englanders trying to resurrect the Empire can carry on without me.
Isn’t the problem about Labour seizing the advantage by coming out unequivocally in favour of staying in the EU that the leader is a Brexiteer? I thought that was why it has failed to come up with a coherent position so far? Or have I got that wrong? I live in Hong Kong now, so I’m not as close to the action as I once was.
That certainly does not help
As a staunch Remainer, I have little faith that any kind of Brexit will be good. However, I have been trying to envisage what a realistic ‘successful’ Brexit might look like. The following is a VERY optimistic scenario.
If May’s deal, or a version of it, comes into force, there may be an economic hit (as forecast) but it will probably not be disastrous, perhaps not even noticeable in real time. If enough Leavers come to accept May’s deal as a true Brexit, and not a cop-out as the hard Brexiteers are trying to frame it, there may indeed be an important psychological shift for the better.
Brexit has always been about sentiment rather than facts, so the key to a successful Brexit is one which addresses the sentiment but does not bring with it too many disastrous facts. Symbolism matters, to both Remainers and Leavers. As a French citizen, I will be annoyed when I have to get a permanent resident card to continue living and working here, but in reality that is merely a symbolic burden; at no point was I ever in any real danger of being deported. Similarly, if there is a separate queue to get through always-annoying passport lines, this is mostly a matter of symbolism rather than actual detriment to EU citizens.
I am a Remain true believer, but I have to admit that my attachment to the EU is just as emotion-based as Leavers’ fantasy of ‘taking back control’. If Brexit can be engineered in such a way that there is massive symbolic change, but little damaging real-world change, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if it gave people a renewed sense of control.
An analogy might be with a professional working in London deciding to quit and move to the country-side for ‘better quality of life’. The move may involve a pay-cut, losing friends, missing career opportunities, and missing out on the vibrancy of a world city, but if it allows the person to regroup and avoid a painful mid-life crisis, it may be just what is necessary for their mental health.
There may be something to be said for countries deciding to opt out of the current globalisation game and choose different priorities. Now, I do not for a second think those different priorities in the UK are well thought-out at the moment, but I can appreciate that, in principle, it might be the right decision for a country to isolate itself to rebuild.
Adrian
Interesting but I do not agree.
I think that you have missed a number of salient points.
The first being that the opportunities you say that will emerge after BREXIT quite frankly will not because the nature of the two main parties seems to be Neo-liberal in intent (especially the Tories whom we have to take seriously the possibility that they may win a general election). Therefore you ignore fact that the EU is made up of like minded Governments all of whom think generally the same (even if as of now that is starting to fray at the edges). The EU will be reformed when the member Governments themselves are reformed by convincing them/making them surrender their Neo-lib programming. Reform of the EU starts at home.
Secondly I cannot see a post BREXIT Tory admin dealing with any of these factors mentioned by Bill or myself to be honest. How can that be the case when even though they have lied and said the austerity is over, it clearly is not. And the best one could say of Labour is that their minds will be on other things because there will be much for them to do if they get in. And even then they may not be the radical Government we need.
Thirdly the JIT system is production system that enables workers to keep an assembly line running. It exists so that costs are lowered or eliminated on the storage of parts for use so that it reduces the costs of operation (and thence the product) in a very competitive market that also needs to reward shareholders. You treat its demise or potential failure far too cheaply Adrian. The best job creation tool is to keep the bloody jobs we have not to loose them and see that as some sort of reasonable cost of transition. And our wonderful benefits system with its Universal Credit can help out of course! Manufacturing is not like flipping burgers Adrian. It provides good jobs and pay even for agency workers that those flipping burgers can only dream of.
Your attitude here is I’m afraid typical of this country which just does not seem to like making things anymore.
Fourthly, for the second vote I agree that another vote is fraught with problems but because of unresolved illegality in the first vote (something you seem unconcerned about).
Fifthly, you say no evidence has come to light about the concerns of the Remain side about BREXIT. If you know how a dam fails, it starts off like a trickle (and that trickle of issues has started Adrian) and then eventually it fails catastrophically. But no one might even notice until that catastrophic point. That’s the problem.
Finally, you say that there is no coherent case for staying in. What I think you mean is that there is no simple case for staying in because I think that that is what you are after really – something nice and simple and black and white.
Well, tough Adrian. It’s not simple – it’s complex. And you – like many pro-Leavers need to deal with it. When Alexander cut the Gordian Knot with his sword, the world was a simpler place, less connected and less interdependent.
You and other Leavers really do need to get beyond your English exceptionalism and realise that we have never stood alone anywhere – especially in the 20th Century onward. The world now is about interdependence – within a nation’s societies and between nations themselves. That is the future and you need to come to terms with it.
The only other thing I’m going to say is that I do not like the over confident and dismissive tone of your comment. It is redolent of the type of thinking that has reduced the global status of this country and the living standards of it’s people.
The Guardian are doing a lot of fear mongering about Brexit. Fortunately The Guardian’s crusades are as effective as a cat flap in an elephant house. Do you remember their vociferous campaigning against Jeremy Corbyn and the consequences? (Corbyn-led Labour did five percentage points better than Brown-led Labour and eleven percentage points better than Miliband-led Labour).
Whatever teething problems the UK experiences in the course of Brexit will be resolved.
The people of the UK will be able to look forward to a future in which a neoliberal constitution no longer binds their hands.
That is an unambiguously good thing.
But you assume there will be a UK and that Corbyn will win and survive forever
A Tory win in rUK is as likely
I have no love of neoliberalism
But you need to talk to real people about Corbyn. Move outside your bubble
If the Parliamentary Labour Party hadn’t been so treasonous towards their twice emphatically elected leader, they would have won. Those losers would rather fight over the spoils of Opposition than do something constructive for their country. Now they want to give the EU legitimacy that it does not deserve. If you are a knowledge worker with a career that involves European travel (and that therefore prompts you to place a premium on EU membership), you are somewhat insulated from the effects of the policies promoted by the EU. The UK Labour Party is supposed to represent more than just knowledge workers. When considering political outcomes it is important to take a broader view rather than simply one’s own self-interest.
This is really boring
You do realise the parliamen art Labour Party is part of the party you support andvwas selected by it?
Canididly, please go and play your student politics elsewhere
The fact is Nicholas is that we are now in a position where if people vote (whether they be MP’s or voters) they are essentially involved in a big gamble.
Our politics has now more in common with say the derivative and futures market of the financial sector than properly informed political debate and reflection.
The information that has been provided in the referendum (NHS millions or concerns about Turkey for example) is no better than the info provided with mortgage backed securities that caused the last credit crunch. It is misinformation being used to provoke a decision that actually hurts the decision taker.
If you are happy to see even the Labour party benefit from such a situation then good for you but you can keep it. How an earth is a any supposedly progressive party going to cope with the immediate effects of a badly planned withdrawal from an economic treaty? Let alone one as timid as Corbyn’s Labour?
The only real answer is to stop this BREXIT nonsense dead. It should never have happened and if it was to , then not now.
The answer: Parliament must stop it. It must make the decision. And then uphold it if the Right (with its history of violence) kicks off.
The only way the effects of BREXIT can possibly be mitigated is with huge injections of real cash from Government (a ‘Real Economy QE’ or ‘BREXIT Relief QE’ I would call it but it could also be Richard’s ‘People’s’ or ‘Green QE’).
I have not heard the Tories or Labour say that they would do this. And I am none too happy about that. Especially from Labour who are just SO cowered.
Hi Pilgrim, you and fellow citizens who share your views have more agency than you suppose. If you all lend your voices to a clarion Lexit position, the Corbyn Government will be much more likely to use fiscal policy for the public purpose. The problem at the moment is that the pro-EU left keep absolving the EU of responsibility for its catastrophic mistakes on economic policy. Deferring to the EU yet using fiscal policy actively (and in defiance of the EU’s rightly maligned stability and growth pact) is possible but it is a very difficult needle to thread. It’s a lot clearer to exit the EU and show by example that fiscal policy is far more powerful than interest rate adjustments.
The most effective campaigns usually have a clear and compelling message. The message you are trying to send – fiscal policy is important but we need to stay within a supranational organization that frowns on fiscal policy – is too muddled to persuade people who are looking for guidance and reassurance at a confusing time.
Give them the Lexit argument they crave. Prove that fiscal policy is extremely important. Tell Juncker where he can shove his sociopathic austerity.
Tar the Tories with the same austerity brush as the EU. Castigate the Tories for selling out the nation in a craven display of deference to the EU’s preferred policy stance. Put the Tories in the position of having to explain why they are on a unity ticket with the EU on cuts to public services, elevated rates of precarious employment, and neglect of public infrastructure.
The EU jumped the shark when the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in 1992. Since then, it has had a baleful impact on the lives of Europeans.
Don’t blame the EU for what is not the EU’s fault
You are
Which is why you will deeply disappoint us