I am heading for Brussels today for reasons that will become apparent tomorrow.
To me this seems like a normal thing to do. I am well aware that it is for other tax justice campaigners. John Christensen is there with the Greens today. I will be presenting a report with the Socialists & Democrats tomorrow. Working with such groups, who have helped drive the tax justice agenda across Europe in ways that would not have been possible otherwise, has made sense to us.
Just as the fact that tackling an international problem at a co-ordinated international level has also made complete sense.
I am not for a minute saying that the EU has always done what we want, when we want and how we want. It has not. But having it has made international action on tax abuse easier to achieve. I think that is beyond dispute.
It will continue its work without the UK. That is clear. But balances will tip. And the UK will be impacted, for sure. The evidence is that seven British tax havens are currently changing their laws to comply with EU requirements or face threat of sanctions. We will be in that boat in the future. So much for taking back control.
And I can continue to think myself Irish. I have been an Irish citizen for a long time. But for those of from the UK who want to effect change in Europe as a whole and who have, it could be argued, done so, this will be harder. And that I regret. We could achieve more staying in. There is no doubt about that.
So this trip will gave a certain sadness attached to it. It may be the last I make to the European Parliament when the UK is represented there. I wish it was otherwise. It cannot but be said that our horizons will shrink as a result. And that is not good for anyone.
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:
Leaving simply isn’t practical. On that basis, then, as Leavers try to save face I imagine we’ll see extension after extension of A50 until such time as an open decision to stay can be combined with an election so Corbyn has to deal with the resulting civil disorder.
All very unpleasant.
Politically practical, though, unlike Leaving.
“Leaving simply isn’t practical.”
Yes, this!
Perfect description and without any dogma behind it. Thank you Bill 🙂
I have been reflecting very deeply on current events in Parliament and on my current reading about the history of the UK in Europe.
My view is that we are seeing an extreme right way coup of Parliament by the Tory party in order to render it ineffective in order to pander to Brexiters in its own party and to keep the party together. It is a ‘very British coup’ – it has been legislated for and legitimised within our democratic rules (I’m talking about The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011) whose demonic aims and objectives for a minority Tory Government have been reified as far as I am concerned.
I would now with your permission Richard submit my thoughts that were originally to be a response to my fellow and much valued respondent ‘Schofield’ on a previous blog that was closed down by you earlier this week (BTW, I have no problems with you doing this – I am not complaining. I am a guest, it’s your blog). So, it does not record Labour’s recent movement towards RefV0.2. I get a bit passionate in places and I ask Schofield that I am passionate about the subject matter and not towards him personally.
Schofield
You deserve a response to you earlier post (13.57 yesterday) and I am emboldened by Marco pointing out your consistently axiomatic antipathy to Corbyn anyway (I agree with Marco – nothing Corbyn could do, could please you).
You’re talking about logic are you? You’re demanding logic? Well, maybe Schofield old son, this is not a logical situation. Or maybe it’s someone else’s infernal logic that has trapped us in an illogical situation? Or maybe its an emergent logic that we are coming to terms with even?
Your wish it seems to me is to become an unwitting accomplice of George Osbourne and the FTPA – that , malevolent bouncing betty of a piece of legislation designed by the Tories……..
………a legislative, steeply walled, well defended keep made of paper and print, a final stand for the unprincipled, lying on file on a word processor somewhere, a rear guard action for obduracy in politics blighting the statue book – OUR statute book damn it – against the sort of logic you call for. Especially the democratic logic of dissolving a parliament that was stymied by division. But you know, if your intent is to divide and conquer – to even divide and conquer Parliament – what the hell!! Good job George – good man that George Osbourne! What a genius! There is May and her fellow Tories, peeking out through their fortifications, sticking two fingers up to us and showing us their arses. And still saying that a No Deal is an option. This is not the country that you and I grew up in Schofield. Not anymore. It’s gone. Maybe forever. But it is definitely not here now. And the democracy wrecking Tories are its creators. But no — we can ignore all that and get Corbyn to resign instead.
And you call for Corbyn to go? What attitude do you think May has got toward anyone who is in opposition? Do you think that she would change? How many opposition leaders must we go through before it dawned on YOU Schofield (yes – just you) what was actually going on? She is not going to go – OK. Unless she is pushed.
You think that is logical? That Corbyn steps down? Surely you know that Tories would have a field day if that happened. Corbyn would be made to look weak. The Labour party too. The Left – such that it is – would be in disarray. The Remain vote could wilt. It’s too risky. And then no doubt the Blair Lackeys would come out of the woodwork with their political and economic orthodoxy (which means that the right wing Tories will do just fine with the right wing arm of the Labour party to work with – aaaah – they do make a handsome couple don’t they? Photogenic but effing useless at addressing the real problems people face — just like the U.S. Democrats the Blairites copied ).
Look Schofield – I’ll come clean. When I first heard the Referendumb result, I was crestfallen. But almost immediately I felt – look, lets get it done but I’m sure we’ll end up going back.
However, as more has been revealed about how the vote was won – to me its an untenable verdict that cannot be used to determine such a momentous decision. However, BREXIT is like a locomotive without enough brake force power to stop its train it seems. So it looks like we are going to leave in some way.
So, I have reluctantly come to accept and endorse that we must also consider leaving seriously. I hold ‘ Stop BREXIT’ and ‘Leave BREXIT’ in each hand equally balanced like a pair of scales. But we must Leave the right way if we leave and I have outlined how that should be done elsewhere (hint – over along period of time).
So when Corbyn says that he will negotiate a better deal – I think he should be given a chance. If I were in that position, my overtures to Europe would be conciliatory, but also making it clear that the previous Government had set in train forces that cannot be held back within the legislative meddling they have done by taking away the ejector seat that was the possible dissolution of Parliament when it became too divided to rule. I would beg their understanding, even shed a tear to get them to understand. I would not hold back from saying that we Brits had seriously messed things up. “Forgive us” I would say, “We fucked up” . Sod logic. It’s all about emotion now Schofield. Have you not cottoned onto that yet? Europe is a very emotional subject . Even John Major knew that.
But underlying this is the unwelcome realisation that our membership of the EU has perhaps been a mistake. Yes — that’s what I said. A mistake. We should never have joined really or more likely had some sort of special deal – joined differently – a looser arrangement that focused on trade but left us out of the closer union stuff which seems to be the cause of our current problems.
Why?
We simply do not understand the Europeans because we did not suffer like they did in the second world war. Try reading for example ‘Orderly & Humane’ by R. M. Douglas about how German speaking people were expelled from across Europe if you want an idea of what post-war Europe was about. Therefore the ‘dream’ of European Union (now utilised by the neo-libs) has less emotional resonance for us. Sure, we had London and the southeast bombed very badly, then Coventry but none of it of the scale that was endured on mainland Europe. Europe also knows something in recent history that we do not: invasion. Not because we are good at resisting it of course but because we have a natural defence in the form of the English Channel. We now know that plenty of our elite would have welcomed wearing a Hugo Boss designed SS uniform with oak leaves — so would a contingent of more ordinary folk in East London. But the Channel — and a Parliamentary unwillingness to appease Hitler God bless them — saved us to be later saved with the help of others (including Hitler who turned towards the East instead).
But, as the lights went out over mainland Europe, as the Nazi’s took control and the only thing that looked to be an alternative was an equally odorous regime in Russia, how the French, German, Belgians, Dutch etc., must have looked toward our little island as some sort of beacon of democracy and decency. And hope. The last bright light of reason to a continent swathed in darkness and evil.
I think that the European desire to have us in the Union stems from that period. The fact that we were steadfast and were responsible (but not entirely) for the eventual sources of Europe’s emancipation from Nazism and being a base from which their leaders could endure and rebuild it results in Europe having an affection for us. It’s not just that we are good at making money or can act as a middle man between the EU and America. There is genuine affection — after all, it was (according Hugo Young) Churchill himself who advocated the EU as an idea for a peaceful Europe.
Luigi Barzini’s book ‘The Europeans’ (1983) — is a warm, affectionate look at the character of the main nations in the EU. He describes the British as ‘imperturbable’. That is, unable to be upset or excited; calm.
Would that label suit us now? I know what I think!
Anyhow, this calmness, this reserve that we showed the Europeans , this detachment and pragmatism of the past they talk of might be a trait that stems from the physical division of Britain from mainland Europe. And it is paradoxical. We may be all these things but the flip side is that these strengths that are admired by our allies may make it impossible to think in terms of a closer union and its sacrifice of sovereignty. We are too independently minded to go that far perhaps?. We are too self-contained? It just does not sit well with us. The physical presence of the Channel is also an psychological presence in many Englishmen. And you are right Schofield — our imperial past that had us in charge — that instinct to export our authority and our democracy is still there and it also crops up in Young’s book about the EU.
And as a result I think that we do need a looser agreement with Europe than we have now and have a BREXIT that reflects that. A Norway deal? Norway +? Why not? As long as the trade side of it runs smoothly as it does now, and whatever social protection is left, I could cope with leaving. The EU might well baulk at this. But what about the EU’s industrial base? It needs customers, it wants to trade, it wants bigger markets. If the EU set the rules, will their own industrial base object? Lobby? Ask them to think twice? I think so. It may lead to more disgruntlement if they do not listen when there is already a nascent growth in right wing populism against the EU on the continent.
So, to recap:
1. Parliament must refuse to carry out BREXIT because the vote was deeply flawed and unsafe. Sovereignty belongs to Parliament – to that place. The referendum was an advisory — not an edict. Fear has been whipped up. Not reason. Cancelling BREXIT is my first choice.
2. Another referendumb is not the answer. No lessons have been learnt from the first flawed and poisoned vote and applied that I can see. Result — maybe the same result and still division in the country.
3. We must seriously consider leaving. The Leave win conforms to the FPTP system we use in GE s, (a crap system I know) but it is familiar to voters — they seem to be able to live with it. But it has to be orderly and gradual as it need to be to reduce the shocks on all sides. All sides — OK? We need to ask and help the EU to understand the damage that has been done to our polity, play on their affections for us even and leave as gently as possible.
4. The new Leave deal to be negotiated by Parliament (and not necessarily the Government who are I am afraid to say are right wing extremist crooks who have conducted a coup at the centre of our democracy ) should look at a deal that preserves the trade/economic and social benefits but means looser ties with political union. Continuous trade is where happiness truly lies.
5. ‘No Deal’ should be off the table. ‘No Deal’ is where the real failure of BREXIT and the EU lies. Both sides would be culpable. Both sides would hurt themselves. It’s MADE (Mutually Assured Destruction of the Economy).
I’m sorry this has been a long comment. But how we got here with BREXIT has a long history. But a reluctant Leaver I have become simply because I cannot see Parliament asserting itself and stopping it.
The people of this country may only realise what they have done when they see the results for themselves. Even then, it will just seem like any other economic downturn that they have lived through since the the late 70’s. In other words, it’s more of the same, how life is. They accept it. It’s sad.
I hope that Andy Crow can put in an appearance to lighten the mood or offer one of his concise contributions. Where are you Andy lad?
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
“I agree with Marco — nothing Corbyn could do, could please you.”
Well he just has! He’s fallen into line with Labour Party policy. Is that a sin for you and Marco? Surely not?
Here are the key words of that policy in the motion passed at the last party conference:-
“Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.”
Amazing to find myself bad-mouthed because you’ve missed my point that I want a party leader to adhere to party democracy! I must be old-fashioned in my morals!
There are days when old-fashioned morals are OK
Days, I said
Schofield
‘Bad mouthed’?
Please do read what I wrote. Note my comments about you in the preamble before I pasted in what was to be my original comment. There is no intent to ‘bad mouth’ you as I explained/excused myself.
It’s all there Schofield. I let it stand.
We must realise that Dominic Grieve (a Tory MP) is right when he raises questions about the Government’s conduct and the fact that some in it do not understand how Parliament works. That is, that they do not understand or even care for Parliamentary democracy itself.
I say again that there has been a coup – well orchestrated and strategically cunning. Having given us double locks on economic and social policy, the Tories have done the same to our democratic processes too.
How is even a reasonable opposition to deal with that? Labour/the opposition have been reduced to picking their way through a political minefield having to look both ways (forwards at the enemy and behind at the enemy within) as they go along. It’s fraught out there, it really is. Fraught by political design – Tory political design.
The dice are loaded in our biological genes for the “utilities” of caring, democracy and morality. They cannot be switched on and off from one day to the next. This applies to everybody including Jeremy Corbyn. Many of the human races’s troubles stem from not understanding this.
For the tireless masochists among us that want to get into the awkward detail of Brexit divides there have been a few interesting revelations (?) of late re. labour’s dilemma. For those that may have missed them here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/20/corbyn-to-back-no-deal-brexit-block
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/corbyn-could-face-string-of-resignations-if-he-backs-peoples-vote
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-poll-support-for-staying-in-eu-at-highest-level-since-referendum/
And beware the headlines and content with these articles aren’t always consistent. The upshot seems to be that Labour will continue the charade of “exploring all the options” for a while yet because shadow ministers and MP’s from Leave constituencies have threatened to defy the whip or resign if Labour backs a 2nd referendum.
So the likely outcome may be a parliamentary vote on the 2nd Ref. without a whip. Which leaves the question: are there enough Remain Tories and minor party MP’s to outnumber the pro-leave labour MP’s? Probably (?) and if not, what else does the parliament think it can do if it eliminates its last remaining option?
There will probably be a lot of horse-trading and arm-twisting going on at the margins of this internal divide. Something has to give.
Can I also add that one of the reasons why the ‘continentals’ wanted the UK to be part of the Union was their respect for Parliamentary democracy. According to Hugo young, Jacques Delors thought that our Parliamentary committee system was rigorous, fair and contributed to openness. He wanted these values in the EU processes too with the Brits contributing.
He also admired the level of debate in our press. Honest.
Note that I am speaking in the past tense given the rise of euro-scepticism and our current issues with Parliament.
I think that a lot of damage has been done recently to our reputation in Europe and to the English people’s distorted views of the EU. Elitist political issues like sovereignty/power that the elite of both Left and Right have struggled with since the early days of the EU have now been effectively socialised in much the same way as the financial elite socialised their losses from their greed and stupidity.
This is why I have reluctantly conceded that we might be best if we left after all. The UK will need a remarkably gifted politician in the wake of this mess. All we seem to have with the exception of say Caroline Lucas is politicians ( a politics) that is moulded in the shape of one Margaret Hilda Thatcher – dogmatic and aggressive.