A weekend of reflection leaves me still bemused by Brexit. Or at least by Brexiteers. Let's leave aside all the nastiness of some who claim to represent those interests. Let's instead consider what Brexit is supposedly about. Except I cannot. Because I do not know.
The claim that Brexit is about the freedom to negotiate trade agreements is obviously wrong: we cannot get a better deal that we have got from the EU.
The idea that it is about English nationalism is also incorrect: the country it would create is nothing like that which those who promote this idea think they recall, as I argued recently.
Whilst the democratic deficit of the EU is very obviously no worse than that which we are suffering in this country at present.
And we all know that almost no Brexiteer can name an EU regulation that they would actually want to repeal.
Or a decision of the ECJ that they actually dislike.
So what is it that those who support Brexit really want?
I will not resort to comment on race: again, I think that overstated, although freedom of movement is an issue despite the benefits it brings to this country, which is why little effort has actually been made to control it.
The reality is that no one really knows what Brexiteers want, except to be out of Europe for reasons unspecified.
So I come to three conclusions. First, the virtues of Brexit are mythical: there simply aren't any.
Second, in that case a lie has been perpetrated: the consequent question that has to be asked is why?
Third, this all fits into a model of exploitation that is as old as life itself. This model is of a powerful group drawn from an elite that itself feels alienated from power propagating a myth to win support from those they also feel isolated from the advantages of society to win support, indifferent as to whether they meet the need of those others or not.
In other words, Brexit is a giant con trick. It has been made possible by the fact that a powerful elite, who feel as though society does not understand them (which is wrong; it does and treats their ideas with justifiable contempt) has control of a significant part of our media precisely because it is not as competitive or open as their preferred economic model would deem desirable, and use that control to peddle lies. The aim has been to misinform, and it has succeeded.
Of course I know all, the problems with this analysis.
It suggests that there is an alienated elite behind Brexit, but I think that beyond dispute.
Just as I think their far-right thinking is the indisputable reason for their being alienated.
And the idea that they have captured the media, partly though their own histories within it, is incontestable.
Whilst they have undoubtedly and deliberately arbitraged regulation intended to create media impartiality to their own advantage, and without compunction.
Just as some have shown little regard for the law.
So far, so good then: the sell-in of the myth has been effective.
But is it fair to say that there was an alienated section in society open and willing to buy the myth? Isn't that patronising?
I suggest not. The politics of neoliberalism, accepted far too widely across the political spectrum (still) created that alienation. I think that indisputable.
And it went on for too long and too perniciously for those subject to it to ignore it. I think this fact, although bizarrely the leadership of Brexit bare-faced denies it whilst seeking to exploit it.
And could the resulting resentment be exploited? Of course it could. We know that. If exploitation of opinion was not possible advertising would not exist and modern society would be very different from what it is. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Which all then leads to the question, so what?
The answer is threefold.
First, the credibility of the purveyors of the lie has to be shattered: there is no better world outside the EU, save for those who lied and their disaster capitalism. I think that is becoming apparent now.
Second, their narrative has to be replaced: there has to be a better story to tell. And, of course, it has to be backed with a credible plan for delivery.
And third, the systemic failings that allowed this very obvious minority to seek to hold a majority to account have to be addressed.
The shattered Tory party cannot do this, and will not for a long time. Their wounds are too deep and their confusion too great.
The Brexiteer parties are the problem, and not the solution.
The Lib Dem's helped create the problem. I do not anticipate their re-emergence. They are, in any event, answering yesterday's question.
I wish Labour was fully engaged in this issue. But its current leadership is obsessed with mid-twentieth century mechanisms and process for controlling the means of production. That's a big problem. What matters now are what is made, what is said, and how the political process is managed. These are what will determine whether the threefold needs of sustaining life on earth; ensuring all benefit fairly if that is to happen; and delivering truly representative democracy can be achieved. Against these criteria ‘if only' has still to be what is said of Labour; if only it could not just reject neoliberalism (which it is seeking to do) but replace it with a meaningful alternative.
And of the rest? The SNP leadership is moving worryingly and determinedly neoliberal, austerian and banker-friendly. But there are those who do oppose that and the membership appear aware of the risk.
Plaid do not seem to be making that mistake.
And the Greens seem most in touch with the agenda we need. But the world watches and applauds Blue Planet and carries on as before.
All of which means displacing the Brexit myth remains hard. Until the left looks to itself and realises that it has to tell a very different story - an epic of survival, transformation and reform worthy of any multi-part series - we're stuck fighting the massively powerful but false narrative of Brexit with visions of rail nationalisation.
And that will not do. Lives are literally on the line now. When will the left realise that it remains their job to transform prospects for all, or it has no purpose? But limited exceptions apart, that's not the story it is selling.
If we want to beat Brexit a People's Vote is not enough: little short of a revolution in thinking will do.
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:
“Madness is rare in individuals – but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
“Groupthink is the means by which humans make their worst
mistakes. Because when power is concentrated among a small group
their mistakes are bigger and more costly. When power is diffused
across the population no one bad decision can lead to disaster. ”
“Janis also identifies the traits common to all groupthink. The
group’s discussions are often limited to a handful of alternatives
— there is insufficient choice. The group fails to survey the
objectives of the task and the values implied by the favoured
plan. The group fails to re-examine the consensus choice in
the context of risks and drawbacks never initially considered.
And the group neglects courses of action initially considered
unsatisfactory. They spend almost no time discussing whether
they have overlooked anything. And members of the group
make little or no attempt to obtain information from outside
experts. Members of the group also disregard information
from outside the group. And they spend little or no time
considering how the chosen policy might be hindered by
bureaucratic inertia, thrown off course by political opponents
or derailed by accidents. So they don’t make contingency plans
that could help them cope with any setbacks.”
Extract from ‘The War On Cash’ By Tim Price.
You are an anglophile idiot.
That’s an interesting suggestion
If there is one thing that this piece suggests it is that it is likely that I am not an Anglophile.
“That’s an interesting suggestion”
It’s a bizarre thing to say !!
Nigel maybe read a ‘Google Translate’ version ?
You are also not an idiot. Disagreeing with some statement that you make is not disagreeing with an idiotic statement. Nigel, wtf do you really mean?
A very thought-provoking analysis. Many thanks.
A question enters my mind – Could it be that our affair are being manipulated from beyond the shores of the UK?
I personally Bally doubt it
I think there may be funding and support
But I think Brexit was home grown
I think brexit was caused by the simple act of giving people something to vote against – it was unfortunately the EU, thanks to the simple fact that it was a source of division in the Tory party. Cameron complacently thought remain would win and it didn’t. It almost seems like an accident. But it created an ad hoc coalition of people pissed off about disparate issues (immigration, crap wages, Daily Mail nonsense, fishing rights etc.) that led to a leave result.
Simon says:
April 15 2019 at 2:36 pm
“I think brexit was caused by the simple act of giving people something to vote against…”
Hmm Game Theory eh?
People certainly are not perfectly rationale, but the assumption seems to be is that they are.
M
Phil McGlass says:
“A question enters my mind — Could it be that our affair are being manipulated from beyond the shores of the UK?”
In a sense I think it fair to conclude that we are deeply manipulated from beyond our shores, but in terms of direct intervention only by tacit acquiescence.
We may not have started the Neoliberal experiment here philosophically, but we have certainly espoused it with great enthusiasm. Thatcher and Reagan set the snowball ball rolling between the two of them and neither, I suspect, had the faintest idea where it would roll to or just how big and unstoppable it could become.
Of course we are manipulated by the US. Which nation is not ?
What Brexit shows is when a large mass of the poor, the less educated, some middle class and some elite are run roughshod by rapid change, the loss of jobs in what was steady industries, do when taken for granted,
when the middle class lose out from AI and offshoring,
combines with the madness and unfairness of overlarge committees,
on top of a global recession where a small elite of bankers and accountants run rough shod over the courts, fairness and decency,
plus the diseconomies of scale of bureaucracy even in a trade organisations brute forcing through legislation,
plus a jigger of vested interests,
one side being deliberately hamstrung by creating single person negotiating teams against 53 international level trade negotiators who have already worked out the scenarios and chosen to enable and block outcomes,
go against the British sense of fairness and rule of law,
when the stress events are set out to cause a reptilian brain response in elected MPs to make irrational choices,
when the false hope of a new ‘Maggie Thatcher’ will go handbagging is up against a fully remain set of key cabinet posts,
when the EU threats against the city of Londons wealth via a Tobin tax,
when mass migration becomes bluntly obvious despite the increasingly false reassurances of the leaders whilst the evidence is on the street at about 15% and are ignored,
when the UK ministers dont apply the laws because they go for vain GDP figure vs GDP per person
when you realise project fear 2 has less effect the second time round,
when the stupidity of having a mixed cabinet instead of a war cabinet then both the EU and the UK would of had a fairer deal.
However now we have the joy of 1/3rd of UK taxation going to Brussels and I bet a far more than a net £10Bn going to the rest of Europe. Sadly the UK as ever with more accountants than the rest of europe combined against all the native UK entreprenurial spirit goes further down in the world aided and abetted by bad bankers and bad accountants.
When playing against a big opponent, its best not to underestimate the power of 250mil desperate to keep hold of their cash cow, the spies, traitors and quislings and the lure of EU jobs to join with Blair and become another President even if you never made it from your home town/country.
By the way I expect most not to of got to the end of this its painful to read. . . . but factually based . . .
You realise that you are talking complete nonsense?
How on earth do you think one third of U.K. tax goes to Brussels when about 1% does?
If you talk drivel expect it to be called out as such
I call you out
gavin says:
“By the way I expect most not to of got to the end of this its painful to read. . . . but factually based . . .”
Well I did but I’m none the wiser. And you’re right it is painful to read because you sound quite overwhelmed by it all. Light on facts I think. I don’t believe any of the numbers for a start.
I hear your confusion and frustration, but I don’t see Brexit as doing anything that will make your life, mine, or many other people’s any better at all. In all probability it will do quite the opposite; except in so far as there might be some response to the abject failure of our domestic political system to have coped with this foolish exercise.
Gavin said –
“What Brexit shows is when a large mass of the poor, the less educated, some middle class and some elite are run roughshod by rapid change, the loss of jobs in what was steady industries, do when taken for granted,
when the middle class lose out from AI and offshoring,
combines with the madness and unfairness of overlarge committees,
on top of a global recession where a small elite of bankers and accountants run rough shod over the courts, fairness and decency,
plus the diseconomies of scale of bureaucracy even in a trade organisations brute forcing through legislation,
plus a jigger of vested interests,
one side being deliberately hamstrung by creating single person negotiating teams against 53 international level trade negotiators who have already worked out the scenarios and chosen to enable and block outcomes,
go against the British sense of fairness and rule of law,
when the stress events are set out to cause a reptilian brain response in elected MPs to make irrational choices,
when the false hope of a new ‘Maggie Thatcher’ will go handbagging is up against a fully remain set of key cabinet posts,
when the EU threats against the city of Londons wealth via a Tobin tax,
when mass migration becomes bluntly obvious despite the increasingly false reassurances of the leaders whilst the evidence is on the street at about 15% and are ignored,
when the UK ministers dont apply the laws because they go for vain GDP figure vs GDP per person
when you realise project fear 2 has less effect the second time round,
when the stupidity of having a mixed cabinet instead of a war cabinet then both the EU and the UK would of had a fairer deal.
However now we have the joy of 1/3rd of UK taxation going to Brussels and I bet a far more than a net £10Bn going to the rest of Europe. Sadly the UK as ever with more accountants than the rest of europe combined against all the native UK entreprenurial spirit goes further down in the world aided and abetted by bad bankers and bad accountants.
When playing against a big opponent, its best not to underestimate the power of 250mil desperate to keep hold of their cash cow, the spies, traitors and quislings and the lure of EU jobs to join with Blair and become another President even if you never made it from your home town/country.</i)"
AT LAST, a Brexit supporter who's willing to explain in clear terms why they want to leave the EU. I've been after this for ages. Now I can start to try to make sense of what's going on in someone's mind when they support Brexit. Thank you for that, Gavin.
Your list of complaints and concerns are perfectly legit. I'm angry about many of the things you cite as well. But do me a favour and read down the list… tell me honestly, hand on heart, do you really think any of those – ANY of them – are the fault of the EU? The elite cabal of bankers and politicians that are making the decisions that lead to the misery you correctly describe are undoubtedly home grown. The immigration issue arises because successive governments have failed to use the powers at their disposal.
I suggest that people are angry about the things you list (to name but a few). I also suggest that they finger has been pointed at the EU by Cameron when he offered the referendum. I think he might as well have said "I'm going to ask you all if you're pissed off or not".
Brexit doesn't mean Brexit. Brexit means "I'm f**king angry". Brexit is howling at the moon. It's a primal scream.
That's not a good basis for making policy, especially "no-deal" policy, which would cause massive amounts of economic damage and in all likelihood hand the UK economy, wrapped in a ribbon, to US business interests.
Stop and think about what it is that's making you angry, cos I guarantee it isn't Europe.
And thanks again for your comment. I really did find it helpful.
It’s too late to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of Brexit. It’s done and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. The countries democratic freedom is now the only debate in town. If the metropolitan’s think they can resolve this by telling the provincial’s they were tricked by the educational elite, then good luck with that one. The only safe democratic route for you now is to let Brexit run it’s course and then plan your return to a full membership of the EU.
I’d suggest Brexit is now unlikely to happen
The appreciation is growing that we simply cannot do it
And if [peoplew think second referenda are not democratic – sorry, but you’re wrong
Mike Foster says:
“It’s too late to pontificate over the rights and wrongs of Brexit. It’s done and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. ”
I don’t think it’s too late at all, Mike. And it’s certainly not ‘done’. Far from it. Though there are some very unpleasant genies abroad which will not easily be be returned to the bottle. Some things can not be unsaid.
March 29th was the ‘deadline’. The ‘Red line’. The deadline has passed and nothing is resolved. None of May’s red lines are of any more substance than that one.
The referendum was a sham exercise in democracy. Brexit is a fantasy and the only recourse which now makes sense is to admit it and revoke Article 50.
We can do better than Brexit.
The “powerful elite” were pro remain!! Cast your mind back to the press and all the major political parties all advocating remain. You can hardly call Farage and UKIP the political elite
They are the elite who feel alienated
Please read what I said
I wrote with care
I think the ‘elite’ is not one entity. There is the business (manufacturing / industrial / professional services) one that is heavily pro-EU. There is then a separate financial elite (hedge funds, private equity, casino capitalism, etc) elite that is much keener on the preservation of tax havens, money laundering in the City (and I gather that London is the World centre for money laundering so long as you have a few hundred million that need cleaning up), etc. This financial elite are much more likely to see the EU as a threat rather than a benefit. For example a crackdown on tax havens, corporate bonuses, corporate tax improvement, etc.
I am currently reading ‘The Finance Curse’ by Nicholas Shaxson which covers the role of hot money in the City of London and how it affects the rest of society in deleterious ways. You may enjoy it if you are interested in the subject.
I know Nick….
The BIG BIG kick off action IMO and the city turning was against the EU was when some wise arse in the EU decided that to get more money they should apply a financial transaction tax across the entire EU. The Tobin Tax.
Whilst knowing that London is by far the dominant banking and trading centre of Europe so that 90% of the revenue raised would come from the UK and all of that money raised would be spent abroad and distributed by Brussels.
London may not care about the fisherman up north losing their boats and jobs but they do care when getting ripped off royally in the City.
Money makes power happen. The last person to attack the City of London was called Charles and he lost his head over that issue.
Hang in: we had an opt out on that and used it
So this is another complete non-issue
May I ask, where do you get the idea that the Labour leadership is “obsessed with mid-twentieth century mechanisms and process for controlling the means of production?”Do you have any sources to validate what you assert?
I am an intelligent observer
Just look at the obsession with nationalisation and go on from there
Well personally I think there are sound arguments for nationalisation in some cases. Germany’s major rail company is wholly government owned. There are many well run publicly owned utilities around the world yet this isn’t generally held up as an example of an obsession with controlling the means of production.
But will that really change anything?
Or save the planet?
No……
Saving the planet I’m all for too, I’ve read plenty of discussion that nationalisation could be a component, or maybe just better regulation?
I am not opposed to nationalisation but better regulation would solve most of the issues
And we have no time to waste on ownership when the issue is so much bigger than that
Would it be the end of the world if the UK broke up? I don’t think so. The present electoral and constitutional arrangements are not fit for purpose.
Do we see any reform programme from Remain advocates proposing to turn the current parliament building into a museum and move parliament to the North, establish an English parliament, negotiate a federation, redirect investment from London, reform the electoral system, political funding, the House of Lords etc? Not a chance.
PJ says:
“Would it be the end of the world if the UK broke up? I don’t think so. ….”
Neither do I PJ. It seems increasingly inevitable that it will, and there would be considerable benefits all round from doing so. Given time Ireland will inevitably reunite. Scotland will continue to want much more say in its own affairs and independence is the only way that is likely to happen. And England will have to learn to stand on it’s own two feet instead of blaming anybody else in sight for the mess it’s in.
“Do we see any reform programme from Remain advocates proposing ….. ”
Nope. We have had no vision from Leavers and we have no vision from Remainers. The choice before us seems to be two fantasy versions of the status quo ante; one somewhat more archaic than the other. Both backward looking and neither with any hint of an idea how to go forwards into an uncertain future.
Agreed.
My observations are as follows:
At the level of of ordinary everyday people, BREXIT has got traction because these are the folk who feel left behind or not listened to and a country that is being changed by the world rather than changing the world as we did with empire.
Further cognitive dissonance is provided by our ever present past – the Blitz and our ‘lone stand’ against the Nazis.
I think many of these people can be seen as the ‘precariat’ who all too readily are looking for explanations as why they are on zero hours contracts and low pay a fall prey to some of the myths about immigration perpetrated by the upper social and economic level people in the BREXIT cause.
You then have your over 50’s many of whom I find to have an utterly miserable outlook on life, despite many being cash rich. As their health begins to decline and they find out the true cost to the health service of so-called New Labour and Tory reforms, they too fall for cod-explanations such as ‘health tourism’.
This group – being amongst the eldest – also begins to see more clearly evidence of our decline as a nation over time. A nation that has an aircraft carrier but can’t afford to put planes on it for example.
All of this can be wrapped up in a big dose of promises about ‘world class public services’ even though taxes and budgets have been cut and since 2010 we have had austerity and the false narrative of ‘balancing the budget’ which has not worked.
Many of these people therefore have what the Marxists would call a’false consciousness’ about what the problems with the country are and a lack of ‘critical consciousness’ – thinking for themselves – because they are not capable of such thought because day after day they are being programmed by the media with lies about immigration, BREXIT etc.
There is something else this group shares with the precariat is faithlessness; they have no faith in the institutions that are meant to help them anymore and asking for help is a battle where they are competing with each other or with immigrants for less of a service. These sort of people are those who quote Daily Mail headlines as if they were facts but will quickly tell you that you have been indoctrinated into Left-wing bullshit when you challenge them.
What the BREXITER at this level wants is the past – where the country works, where there were well paid jobs, a health service that was more comprehensive than it is now, were there is less of a threat to their economic and social standing and a welfare state that works. The tragedy is that those on the Left want the same.
The proponents of those lies as I see it are the upper echelons of the BREXIT brigade – those in Parliament, business and the media who see BREXIT as an opportunity to make money from chaos, to break into markets where they see too many rules and want to upset the apple cart and benefit for themselves in an untrammelled way.
This group divides and conquers. They want the past too – a past Great Britain where ingrained wealth and lack of social mobility gave them an unassailable position in society.
They want an economy and social order in constant lock down, isolated from a more liberal Europe still in the throes of learning to live together to avoid the constant threat of war. But most of all, the upper echelon of the BREXIT class wants Britain all to themselves.
Instead, they cast admiring glances towards that most dystopian and dysfunctional of places – the United States – where greatness is measured by how wealthy individuals can become instead of how wealthy the country as a a whole can be.
Somehow our fate is tied to what America does.
But you are right about the Left over here. It needs to be more bold – and clever with it.
Pilgrim
Thank you for your considered reply to my post. I missed a slot for posting this under the correct thread but I thought you post warranted a response.
Yes, the Labour Party principally a large section of the PLP have no time for Jeremy’s leadership and have done their best to undermine him. However, the Parliamentary Labour Party is but one strand (I admit an important one) of the broader Party. The Party belongs to the whole membership, not just one section. The broader Party as demonstrated in two leadership elections and a general election are solidly behind JC and team.
Tom Watson recently stated that there is a struggle for the soul of the Party. He is right on that score. Tom has put his finger on the problem but whether he represents progressive, or reactionary forces generates heated discussions.
The movement for mandatory reselection of MP’s is but one example of the struggle that Tom refers to. Mandatory reselection is not to have a PLP consisting of clones, in fact, the opposite. It is to ensure that the PLP represents the diversity of membership within the party and hence of the country. The forces of reaction don’t like democracy. Some would rather all decision making be in the hands of small cliques. The danger with that is that small cliques are easily corrupted. Note how large sections of the PLP fell for that austerity crap and how easy they are persuaded to beat the drums of war.
In the last 40 years, we have witnessed the rapid decline of Industrial Capitalism within North America, Europe and Japan and the rising influence of Finance Capitalism which many people refer to as globalization.
The traditional left in the form of strong unions, influential communist and socialist parties were the products of Industrial Capitalism. These traditional movements are specialist organisations formed as the countervailing forces to resist the exploitation of Industrial Capitalism. With the decline of such industries as mining, shipbuilding steel making the traditional industries of Industrial Capitalism, those organisations have also wained.
Although still able to exert influence they are mere shadows of their former selves. That doesn’t mean of course that society has lost its appetite for change, or that people have mislaid their moral compass. Conversation Theory (a theory in Cybernetics) states concepts once they are public are indelible. Social concepts can no more be expunged from our body and social politic than can any DNA be eliminated from our biological history. “Concepts exert force. Like concepts repel, unlike concepts attract”. (Gordan Pask). Concepts are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Concepts do not function just one way. We have the capacity to shape the concepts we encounter, just as equally they help shape how we function. It is not a simple casual relationship.
The fathers of economic thought (except for Marx) modeled their writings on the central abstraction of the 17th century. Their modern successors continue to do so. That abstraction is the concept of simple location. To quote A N. Whitehead “To say that a bit of matter has simple location means that in expressing its spatio-temporal relations, it is adequate to state that it is where it is, in a definite region of space, and throughout a definite duration of time, apart from any essential reference to the relations of that bit of matter to other regions of space and to other durations of time” A brilliant abstraction for the understanding and solution of problems in mechanics, physics, chemistry and so on, but one that has proven totally inadequate in dealing with those spacio-temporal relations in the wider context of a more concrete universe. Yet such outmoded thinking is actively promoted in shaping economic policy and political thought. This thinking is no respecter of ideology; it affects equally those on the right as it does those on the right.
On the right the concept of simple location can be found in such neoliberal attitudes as the problems of the poor both globally and domestically are to be located within the ranks of the poor. The poor choose to be unemployed and unemployable. Therefore, they become welfare dependent. For their own good, they must be weaned off government handouts and returned to the dignity of employment and self-reliance. This is to be achieved not by raising wages, or the government providing jobs, but by cutting social security to levels below poverty wages. The broader economic, social, psychological and medical consequences of such policies on the community are merely ignored.
On the left the targets are different. But the analysis can be equally simplistic. The problems of our economic system are to be located within such culprits as the employing classes, notably their greediness, the cowardice of our political leaders, the waywardness of our working class, the stupidity of those in government and a supine mass media. Plausible narratives backed up by anecdotal examples will be supplied on request to back the full spectrum of views held. It is not that these viewpoints lack any truth value- they have a truth value. It is just that in all cases those truth values are observer phenomena. It is stretching the evidence beyond its legitimate remit to locate it in only one region of space and one duration of time. In other words, to demonstrate causality. That follows from the Principle of Relativity. Relativity applies to all systems.
Michael Hudson in his brilliant book “…and forgive them their debts” relates how in the Bronze age society was kept in equilibrium over many thousands of years by the kings regularly proclaiming clean slate solutions to the (if left unchecked) destructive effect of interest-bearing loans. What Hudson and team have unearthed at work in those Bronze age times is the operation of a homeostat. A homeostat holds critical variables of the system stable within physiological limits. The limits are fixed by the capacity of the whole system to operate satisfactorily within them.
The term homeostat is familar in the science of Cybernetics. When the excesses of Finance Capitalism threated the viability of Bronze Age society the debts were merely annulled. This kept those societies working.
Cybernetics is a holistic science. It is a meta-science under whose umbrella all knowledge concerning our universe seeks to be ordered and related. Our world is one system and cybernetics is devoted to its study. The recognition of the essential unity of all things makes cybernetics a very practical subject. Cybernetics, therefore, is also a theory of design.
There can be no practical solution to any problem without also a theoretical one. Cybernetics is thus ideally suited to cutting through the knots of confusion that outmoded concepts present.
What our present age lacks is the modern equivalent of that earlier remedy used in ancient Suma and Mesopotamia. Hence the current travails (Brexit, Trumpism, etc) which are all symptoms of the search for appropriate solutions.
But science is always work-in-progress and in science you must always experiment. The philosophy under Thatcher et al TINOW prevented any experimentation, hence the mess we find ourselves in.
The Labour Party despite all its difficulties and contradictions is the only political movement with the pedigree and foot soldiers to effect the necessary change. Hence all the criticism and panic in some circles at the prospect of a Labour administration. It has the potential, whether it can deliver depends on all of us, not just one man. Yes, it is all over the place. It’s not there yet in terms of theory but IMO it just needs a little tweak here and there and a bit of bold radicalism. It needs concentrate on the algebra of the system we inhabit and pay a lot less attention to the arithmetic to make the cut.
John
An interesting piece of writing – I too am conversant with cybernetics but the prevailing issues we have in our world are driven these days by emotion and not the rationality that many of us crave.
Cybernetics has a disadvantage in that in its attempt to systemise (or rationalise) the inputs into a system it reveals serious limitations when it meets emotional resistance from without that system. In this sense I’m talking about those who unduly influence the democratic systems which are meant to support health, economic and social security systems for the masses – the 1% – the very rich, those who fund political parties and whom want their pound of flesh. And these people are very good at mobilising the emotions of those further down the food chain – look at Farage for example.
Cybernetics works only when everyone in the same situation agrees about what is the right thing to do. If not, irrationality rules. And it does. Right now.
We know the Tories are finished – and they have been since 2008 And All That.
But Labour – the only viable chance for change? In terms of Marxist theory – I totally get the analysis of power and production. But the remedy – revolution? No. State dominance over production? Nope.
Labour – the Left – spends too much time seeking permission to rule. Offering to keep to Tory spending plans or expanding market principles into the public sector in order to increase ‘efficiency’.
Labour must dump a lot of ideology John – including Marxist ideas about production.
The commanding heights of the economy and social justice is sovereign money John – finance – and with that regulation and over sight in the name of democracy. That is where Labour needs to plant its colours and commence battle.
Think the desire for Brexit has to be seen in these terms:
“The modern Conservative is engaged in one of mankind’s oldest excercises in moral philosophy — that is the superior moral justification for selfishness”. (JK Galbraith)
There was actually perhaps a straw in the wind when one (Labour) MP on the radio last night apologised for triggering Article 50 saying she now knew she did not know enough at the time.
And who among us actually realised that our government really did trigger Article 50 whilst having no idea of any future plan? I’m certainly guilty of imagining that ‘they must know what they are doing’ at the time, when it is now quite obvious they didn’t. And people less interested in politics than most on here are, I suggest, also presumed that they, as voters, would not have been offered Brexit if there had not been a post Brexit plan. They imagined politicians had a clue.
On balance, except for the Euro, the EU has been reasonably progressive, which has to be why Conservatives dislike it so much. They cannot admit the losses of leaving because it endangers their selfish ‘moral justification’.
The Brexit execution process and the actual aims were never thought about by Leavers (or by Remainers) but if anbody had known about ‘the iron triangle’ then it shows that Brexit in order to be successful, has to be done another way. http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/the-iron-triangle.
In this nervous breakdown of a country I still see the only clear way out as a second vote and provided remain is on the ballot (and I find it inconceivable that it wouldn’t be), I think the People’s Vote campaign have now got such a good national organisation (in many town centres most weeks) that I also find it very difficult to believe that remain would not win. Then hopefully there would be the necessary government collapse.
Your analysis is insightful, rational and logical. And therein lies the problem in trying to explain the mind-set of people who ‘sincerely’ believe in Brexit – as opposed to the manipulating, opportunistic élite who, as you say, have thus far been relatively successful in achieving their goals. Clearly immigration has been hyped emotionally to tap effectively into latent xenophobic sentiment that exists within a not insignificant percentage of the white English population. Tritely, we are where we are – in uncharted territory without a feasible long-term plan in sight. Hence your concluding sentence with which I agree but leaves us as frustrated as at the beginning.
Trying to explain ‘Brexit’ rationally is a fruitless exercise guaranteed to drive one to the verge of insanity. The nation will simply have to deal with the consequences of Westminster’s incompetence however arrived at – by another vote, an election or whatever. It’s going to be messy (understatement) for many years hereafter.
So, picking up on your revolutionary conclusion – and if you have some time on your hands (haha) – you might find this recent conversation between Russell Brand (he’s no intellectual slouch) and Prof. David Runciman relevant. At 1h 21m it’s long but it’s easy listening. While there is much I don’t entirely agree with and, inexcusably, the macro-economic framework is not discussed, Runciman raises important issues for the future, some having been triggered by ‘Brexit’: ‘Democracy Is Dead. What Now?’ – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dLN3cvOEZg&t=610s.
I will take a watch
I have to disagree with John D I’m afraid.
Understanding BREXIT is essential because it reveals public sentiments that did not just ‘come about’. They exist for a reason and to me at least act as a mirror to Government policy and attitudes to issues demonstrated in the media and the online world.
If you accept Chomsky’s views about ‘manufacturing consent’ and Dunn’s views on partiality (The Cunning of Unreason), then it is essential to understand what ‘they’ are thinking and ‘why’ – especially if you are trying to bring something new to the table.
@ Pilgrim Slight Return who says: ‘I have to disagree with John D I’m afraid.’
PSR, you’re right to disagree. I posted in haste and out of frustration. Facetiousness leads to sloppy thinking! If an effective sustainable remedy (as opposed to BandAid) is to be found then of course it’s essential to understand causes behind symptoms.
The many identifiable and complex causes/issues that have brought the nation to this historic moment have been well articulated both here and by many astute observers elsewhere, so no need for me to waste people’s time with reiteration.
The frustration, on both sides of the argument, comes from a lack of inspired leadership at such a critically contentious time. However, to expect otherwise would be naïve – and leads to further frustration.
I believe Chomsky, Nader, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, et al. would advocate that radical reform can only come from well-organised grass-roots – which David Runciman seems to confirm with his observations regarding our tired democratic institutions that are no longer for for purpose and the new mindset of Generation Z.
An aside – Richard, what feed-back are you getting from your students on this and related topics?
Although much over-quoted, it’s always worth reminding ourselves of Einstein’s (alleged) insight that ‘no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.’ Hence, I think I was correct to say it’s going to be ‘messy’ for some time to come.
Anyhow, thanks for the deserved admonishment, PSR. Barista, un buon caffè per il signore 🙂
I wish I could say that I have lots of enlightened feedback from my students. I do from postgraduates, mainly in other universities, when I teach them. There I get a sense that they see their study as part of a process of change, as I did (I think) very long ago when studying for my degree.
But student fees make undergraduate study transactional now: the aim is a mark and not much more. It is one reason why I am happy that this part of my career is coming to any end now.
Agreed, Richard – but a People’s Vote, called by whatever name will get it into being, is absolutely necessary as a starting point (assuming that simple revocation cannot be expected in current parliamentary circs.).
The overthrow of the Brexitanian coup by an act of popular electoral will, would mark at the least the possibility, that both the so-called ‘major’ parties would have to recast their political offers – and do so amidst the chaos of bitter internal cross-currents that such a rejection will unleash.
As to the new thinking which needs to replace the current and bankrupt neo-liberal economics, the Green New Deal is as good as anything going but it remains hard to see – even with the growth of the alternative news/current affairs internet culture – how that will flourish without the unsettling of the establishment’s control of the MSM. One of the main benefits of the break-up of the UK, in my eyes, will be the end of the BBC’s stranglehold on Scotland’s media. A Scottish new TV culture and an expanded Irish one (?) might give better – and more open – platforms for new thinking to reach and engage the new polities.
Your second point is key. I’m not sure a revolution in thinking will suffice. First and foremost, whatever Brexit means, it is an emotive topic. My personal experience is that I’m yet to meet anyone who voted for Brexit did so based on robust logic (obviously). Instead, as I think you’ve previously discussed, Brexit resonated with them emotionally. I think many still haven’t got beyond this which is why the polls are still quite close. Sadly, Brexit gave people hope. I think that until the left (because I don’t see where else it will come from) offer people an alternative with equivalent emotional resonance we’re stuck.
Hence the required revolution in thinking….
I think what Marx described as false consciousness is pervasive. In other words people being persuaded to support or vote for things that are manifestly contrary to their own interests. So e.g. somebody on median income supporting tax cuts for the rich, or Nissan car workers voting for Brexit. I think, though, that a lot of Brexit was a protest – voting for whatever was the opposite of what the London elite said. We are a bit insulated in Scotland, but London has been like a out of control parasite feeding on the body of the rest of England. That has gone on for a century, though from 1950 to 1980 there was an attempt via regional policy to counter-act it. Of course Thatcher thought regional policy was a nasty socialist plot and got rid of it. There is, though, absolutely no reason why you need to locate 600,000 civil servants in London. I also saw some figures for public capital investment (railways, roads, schools, etc) which in 2016 came to £2,200 per capita in Greater London and £20 in Newcastle. I think Brexit and the EU was just a distraction for what is really a regional inequality issue in England. A solution is probably impossible until the Wastemonster voting system is changed to make it proportional. However, a good start would be to turn Westminster into a museum, hotel, etc and build a new fit for purpose (e.g. enough seats!) English Parliament in Birmingham. I say English as Scotland won’t be around by then.
Agreed Tim, except to say the new Parliament would be best placed in Newcastle.
Surely Truro would be better?
Another of Labour’s problems is that their response has been muddle not policy. Perhaps that was inevitable given that their leader could at best be described as “luke-warm” with regard to the EU. They have also been complicit in creating the toxic zeitgeist exemplified by phrases such as “shirkers and strivers”, “hostile environment”, and a society in which hard right demonisation of groups is now legitimate. And, most fundamentally, they have not opposed Brexit categorically, but have found themselves in the straitjacket of another myth, that of “the will of the people”.
The whole debacle has been a monumental failure of Labour, Tory and Libdem politicians to oppose and expose the fantasists, the compulsive liars, the illegality – exemplified by the arch hubrist who got us into this mess fleeing politics for a cushy life rather than deal with the consequences of his stupidity.
Yes, a revolution in thinking, but can that happen without a revolution in kind of people who set the political agenda?
“So what is it that those who support Brexit really want?” As I’ve already pointed out, they want to feel important and Brexit, allowing them to cover themselves with mythical glory by association with an imaginary former Britain which was somehow ‘Great’, allows them to do that. Take that feeling away and they’re nobodies again, so they don’t want that. However, they really are nobodies, so when Brexit’s revealed as the impractical fantasy it always has been, after a bit of grumbling they’ll settle right back in to doing what they’re told. It’ll all pass.
GDPR is a particular poorly written piece of legislation. I’d want rid of that. Not saying I don’t want privacy laws. But I fundamentally dislike THAT piece of legislation as written. Happy to give reasons if asked.
And as for freedom to do trade deals: EU takes forever to get trade deals with the big players. Canada and Japan deals have been only recently concluded after having taken ages. FTAs with US, India, China and Australia are still waiting. Bilateral trade deals can be done a lot quicker – often in a bit more than a year. I don’t think the UK would have a problem finding partners – a view of Prof Crawford Falconer who knows a thing or two about this.
Bilateral trade deals would gut the UK….
And leave is with much higher migration
And is GDPR really worth trashing the economy for?
The EU would have had a trade deal with India already but for the UK. The UK blocked it rather than give more visas to Indians. After Brexit an EU India deal will be agreed before one between India and the UK.
Crawford Falconer is to trade what Patrick Milford is to economics. A man with extreme minority views. Hence much loved by Duncan Smith et al.
I’d take his opinions with a truckload of salt.
As for GDPR, the EU has been way ahead of the rest of the world in tackling the issue of data ownership and privacy and the abusive behaviour of the large tech companies. Opposed by the libertarians who are unconcerned about that abuse, and have exploited it for their own ends. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook spring to mind.
Strangely enough Brexit and Trump feature highly in that abuse so one might expect opposition from that quarter. See also threats from the EU to their tax avoiding activities.
we all know that almost no Brexiteer can name an EU regulation that they would actually want to repeal
Which Brexiteer did you have in mind when you wrote that sentence.
All the ones I know, but that’s ordinary voters, could tell you a regulation or directive that they would like to repeal.
I have engaged with countless people and heard many do the same and never heard a serious answer as yet
Your comment is as credible as your name is likely to be false
The people who give the answers are serious though, tough their ideas may be ludicrous. I’ve spoken to two people who voted brexit because the EU “took away our pounds, shillings and pennies” and they scoffed when reminded of the fact that decimalization occurred before we joined the EEC. So there we go, they want to repeal decimalization.
Shall we not be silly?
Just the silliest example of the non-serious responses from Brexiters. I’m not making it up.
I’ve just given you one example: GDPR. Happy to debate the merits of this badly constructed law.
So one imperfect law – which protects people from abuse – is enough to opt out of a system of government? Really? No one would ever be in on that basis
Of all the absurd claims I have heard for leaving the EU this one takes some beating
Have you got over throwing your toys out of the pram yet?
Your claim is ‘we all know that almost no Brexiteer can name an EU regulation that they would actually want to repeal’.
It is a manifestly incorrect claim.
And the issue isn’t about one law (I can name others). I am just giving a prominent example. To dismiss it as an imperfect law that protects people from dispute is an indication you haven’t acquainted yourself with this law.
The issue is whether the system of government allows laws to be changed from below (ie from complaints or dissatisfaction of the people). The EU is incapable of accepting change from below. That’s the flaw.
I am registered under GDPR and have dealt with the ICO on it
Next issue?
Brian S says:
“The issue is whether the system of government allows laws to be changed from below (ie from complaints or dissatisfaction of the people). The EU is incapable of accepting change from below. That’s the flaw.”
Standard Brexiteer bleating here I think. Blame the EU for the woes of Westminster. We all know that Westminster will change laws in a trice in response to dissatisfaction expressed by the people……..if you are one of the people with fat enough brown envelopes…. 🙁
But ‘change from below’ ….You are joking of course. Sometimes a joke is an effective way of making a point…..
I find the one particular law argument quite common. In the complaints I’ve heard it generally runs, “this particular law interferes with my business (i.e. irritates me) and that is just typical of the EU”. If asked most people will be able to tell you of a law that irritates them. But I suppose if it’s a home grown law it’s less objectionable as it was implemented under our sovereignty. If it’s an EU law it’s justification for a no deal brexit and any (exaggerated) economic harm it may bring in the short term.
I’m not sure that registration and dealings with ICO gives you more than superficial knowledge to judge the quality of this law. I lodge a tax return each year and once or twice called HMRC with a question – does that make me a tax expert?
Can we agree there are Brexiteers can cite laws to which they object?
Also, for some reason you’ve ignored my main point: it isn’t the laws themselves but how the laws are made (and therefore changed) which is important. Much easier within a nation state than in a supranational organisation. That’s the issue for a lot of Brexiteers (not all, people voted for Brexit for other reasons).
If you continuously ignore what Brexiteers say and make flippant responses, you won’t understand the case for it. You don’t even appear curious to find out the Brexit case.
As Westminster has recently proven – and does with May still being there – it is less accountable in many ways than the EU
The EY Parliament actually has powers
The Commission is appointed by elected governments.
The Council is elected Minsiters
Your problem with this is?
Bill do you play for Saracens?
Since you claim you and your friends can name EU regulations or directives that you would like to repeal, can I ask you to name some. I don’t think it furthers any argument to claim something and then fail to give examples. Thanks.
EDITOR COMMENT
This comment has been deleted as I have no doubt this person is trolling
My problem is that it is harder to change laws from the bottom up in a supranational organisation (where protests and grass roots campaigns are uniformly ignored) than in a nation state.
The nation state is still the best way to govern – the supranational organisation hasn’t worked going back to Alexander the Great and the Romans, all the way through via the various empires to the Soviets and Yugoslavia. Never worked.
People went to London to protest Brexit. Nobody goes to Brussels to protest anything. This is because everybody knows it is a waste of time.
Anything coming out from the EC, Council or EP is effectively a compromise across 28 countries with their unique cultures, traditions, histories, geographies etc. – all of which have a bearing on how law is made. The Greeks and the Finns (and the 26 others) effectively have to compromise to get directives etc. which don’t necessarily fully suit either of them. If these things were kept devolved to the nation state, the Finns could do things their way, the Greeks could do it their way. And I’m sure they could get along just fine that way.
You mean 2,000 (at most) went to protest Brexit? And 1 million protected against it?
What were you saying about people being ignored? It seems you are very good at it
Brian S says:
“The nation state is still the best way to govern — ….”
Judging by the way the UK is governed I’m wondering what you are basing this on.
Subsidiarity is what is lacking. There needs to be a national framework , and there needs to be a supranational frame work (essential for international trade, and thus world peace) but many of the decisions which need to be taken to organise societies effectively need to be taken by the people they affect (within those basic agreed structures).
From what I can gather from reading about, (but admittedly never having been there) Scandinavian countries have much more grassroots involvement in government at a local level. To what extent this is responsible for Scandinavian countries consistently coming in high positions in comparison tables of social well-being is perhaps worthy of consideration.
If the nation state is so great it is curious that the UK is so attached to the idea of refusing to devolve control to its northern neighbour, and so reluctantly gave away its empire, One might say the same of the US which seems according to its foreign policy to believe that only Americans know how to organise the world.
The UK had, and still has, considerable latitude for self determination within the EU structure but unfortunately we have had governments with little idea how to use that power responsibly for the wellbeing of the entire nation.
I think your thesis is deeply flawed.
Anyone who believes Brexit is the answer is addressing the wrong question, I suggest.
Oh come on, come on please!
Our ministers or minister would have been there when the law/regulation was discussed, debated and formed. How much subsidiarity do you want in a representative democracy?
From what I’ve seen, if HMG does not agree with a certain law or policy the EU puts forward, it opts out. We always have where possible. The UK are renowned for it.
The EU values our membership and lets us get away with it (it tolerates us because it wants us in).
This reveals a fundamental issue with BREXITERs – are you/they against the EU or are you reacting against your own Government agreeing to go along with the EU?
When that very same Government (and supposed Government in waiting) also say they have problems with the EU things get really complicated but do you not think that it does something even more fundamental?
That is, it makes us look stupid and insincere, cynical even. The sort of people whom one cannot do business with. That is where are we are now.
We may not be taken seriously ever again by other countries. That could have a huge impact on our future.
Did 1m (or whatever was the number) go to Brussels to protest Brexit? I understood they were in London.
That’s my point – people go to their national capital, not to Brussels to protest because they see change as easier to effect within the nation state than in the supranational organisation.
How easy would protest have been for a Ukrainian in the USSR? Or a Bosnian in Yugoslavia? Or someone living in modern day Israel during the Ottoman empire? Or an Indian during the British Empire?
Why go to Brussels when we’re fully represented there and so the change required is in London?
“The main hazard in an affair of this nature always has been, and ever will be, of a rash, raw, giddy and headless direction”.
No, not Brexit but the observation of Sir Willam Paterson (1658-1719), banker, venturer, and a founder of the Bank of England; writing here about the catastrophic Darien Scheme that he had rashly promoted, and which eventually drove Scotland into the Union of Parliaments of 1707.
It is perhaps especially ironic that Paterson, in peculiarly unbankerly character, personally hazarded the adventure to the Darien isthmus in Central America, where he found out just how raw and headless his own sense of direction had been; finally to be carried off the disintegrating colony in 1699, having lost his wife, and suffering from malaria, or some other of the unpleasant tropical diseases native to the colony, and the only return the adventurers brought home to Scotland for all their efforts. The ship that carried Paterson to Darien, and which may also have carried the stricken Paterson back to Scotland was aptly named, for all such ventures, then and now – the ‘Unicorn’.
Brexit runs much deeper than Brexit.
John S Warren says:
” “The main hazard in an affair of this nature always has been, and ever will be, of a rash, raw, giddy and headless direction”.
Brexit runs much deeper than Brexit.”
It certainly does. Brexit has all the makings of a national identity crisis and a ‘nervous breakdown’. We have a bi-polar problem and we’re using all the lithium to make batteries. 🙁
Why do you think “The Lib Dem’s helped create the problem”? Because of a neoliberalism stance?
Yes
Read the Orange Book
And they’re not over it yet
https://macalbasite.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/scottish-independence-and-the-brexit-party-trojan-horse-read-to-the-end/?fbclid=IwAR0ueKpBOzltbuPqSTQ0mwiroGZpZUbHd_8gpzzXvTbmN1NZQe3Ee1lSW1Q
Anyone like to comment on this..?
Looks like a plausible claim to me
Re EU regs, there are so many…but I always reach for the Biofuels Directive which managed the triple whammy of increasing food prices, increasing fuel prices and, most damningly, leading to a net increase in the CO2 emissions it was meant to reduce.
Evidence?
And so? It needs reform.
You reaction is akin to the person who wants to change a television programme and throws out the set to achieve that goal
But you said there isn’t a single regulation a brexit supporter wants changed… I can think of plenty in my area if work, equally as irrational as the one I have identified and I voted to remain albeit very very reluctantly and well aware of the shortcomings of the EU.
You prove my point
You aren’t a Brexit supporter
So they hadn’t thought of one….
Richard, are deliberately winding people up? I enjoy reading your blog, I rarely post but decided to on this. There are many Brexiteers in my place of work equally as familiar as I am with irrational EU regulations and that is the same up and down the country. This line of response does you no favours at all.
Not at all: I ask people time and again I cannot get rational responses
And I note you have not supplied one either
For the record: I can think of masses or regulation I do not like. I never think it provides a good reason for abolishing the government – or the EU
This debate somewhat misses the point that on the big issues – try climate change or corporate tax for starters – they cannot be tackled at nation state level. It requires countries to work together and the EU is the best available vehicle for achieving that. Unless you are putting your faith in the US, or think you can be an isolated state like North Korea. Or that your parish council should be setting all the rules and the county should mind its own business.
Also, there is helpful data from the House of Commons that points out that the number of our laws that were even influenced by the EU is about 10% (I don’t have the reference to hand) and the proportion directly determined far smaller. Then note that as one of the biggest members we had one of the biggest influences. Outside of the EU we will have to follow many of the regulations if we wish to trade without having any influence over them.
And not just with the EU as EU standards are widely adopted by others. Not surprising given that the EU is the worlds largest and by far the most developed market. The medicines agency moving out of London is just one illustration of the UK losing influence with a negative impact on industries located in the UK. That are now moving to EU countries.
It’s also telling that the number of times the UK has lost at the ECJ is tiny and about the same as other major nations. Guess what, top of the list of issues on which the UK was over-ruled? Environment and employment. And it wasn’t that the UK was arguing for higher standards.
Is it perfect? Of course not. But this is one tent it’s definitely better to be inside micturating out of… outside we’ll be micturated on. As Jeffrey Lebowsk would say…
You are right Robin
Well I am now a Brexiteer and the Biofuels directive is my case in point of an absurd EU regulation.
Bad regulation is not a reason for ending government
It makes the case for better regulation
If you can’t see that I am worried
Of course its a case for better regulation but its regulation imposed on the UK which they cannot change – that is all part of brexit..surely you can see that
You are clearly unaware of the power the UK has in Europe
Don’t you know just how much cooperation there is?
And a parliament is required to approve laws?
Where does this utter nonsense come from?
You have the blinkers on..and I’ve seen you are very clearly the type who can cause an argument in an empty room. A real oddball
Perhaps you are unaware that all change is dependent upon the person who refuses to comply
The Biofuels Directive (of which I do not claim any expertise) is one regulation. One. In over 80 cmments on this thread; one regulation produced, and claimed to be absurd (but without the required precise, specific evidence to support the claim – which, of course may be challenged).
Leave Biofuels aside; is this all really about the details of regulations? Do we really intend to resolve this issue by swapping anecdotes about imagined or real, absurd regulations delivered either by the EU or the British Government? A comparative list of bureaucratic stupidity? I suspect Britain would win the race to absurdity, ‘hands down’. Such arguments are futile. Allow me to turn this upsided down: the EU provides regulations over goods that effectively protect the health and safety of all EU citizens, as consumers. The most telling contrast for me is with the lack of commitment to regulation over the supply of goods and services in Britain, or the abject weakness of British regulators, which is notorious; in financial services alone, if you care to recall the financial crash. Richard writes with trenchant purpose on the inadequacies of regulation in the UK financial sector. Cheap shots are easy to make abour regulation – but when the preference is to have none, the costs to citizens are usually high. All that is, however beside the point. My fundamental issue is – what is the point of such comparisons of regulations?
Are we suggesting that the Biofuels Directive is the core justification for Brexit? I think not. If it is not about regulations, what is it about? The UK is not about to discover 40 huge trade deals with major economies. The EU has concluded a deal with Japan that we will not be able to match for ourselves. India is in no hurry to conclude a deal with the UK, and has already implied as much. It has bigger fish to fry with the EU first. China and the US, currently engaged with each other, will not be sidetracked by us. We will come last across the board with the major international economies.
It surely cannot be about immigration, in spite of the blustering Brexit rhetoric of the tabloid press; because ONS statistics for the close of 2018 already show the fall in EU immigration to the UK; but being offset already by rising immigration from outside the EU. Non-EU immigration we are already able to “control”: but we don’t. All we are doing is rearranging the source of UK immigration, not reducing it. It is in immigration alone that we can safely say that post-Brexit: in numerical terms, almost cetrainly, NOTHING will have changed.
None of this is to the point. By all means believe in Brexit if you must; but I think we are entitled to know what this dreadful upheaval of the constitution, politics and the economy of the UK is really for; what you really want, why you demand our commitment to your ideology so aggressively: because, as those of us who are described contemptuously by Brexiteers as ‘Remoaners’ are dragged out of the EU, losing our EU citizenship, our free movement across the EU, our sense of participating in a European Peace project – against our will; we would, in all conscience like to know what on earth OUR sacrifice, and all this misery and stress throughout the UK, based on a narrow, threadbare, transient political referendum majority, committing us in perpetuity to your idea of ‘taking back control’, IS FOR?
Because I haven’t the foggiest clue what it is you want.
Well said
John S Warren very well argued, thanks for putting into words exactly how I feel.
Some of the points made in this thread remind me of a Doctor who is happy to have has successfully removed mole but has completely forgot that the patient is dying. The blinkers will be removed soon enough once reality sets in, I wonder who they will blame then.
Mr Murphy, I often find your arguments interesting but somewhat slapdash.. For instance, you “know all the problems with this analysis.” But then aver that it is correct. A few niggles:
1. “a powerful group drawn from an elite that itself feels alienated from power “ — oh, really ? The failures like Duncan-Smith perhaps: but most Tory MPs, and most of the oligarchical / capitalist / tycoon / rich / insert-adjective-here Brexit supporters are unlikely to feel themselves far from the levers of power (cf. your later remark about “has control of a significant part of our media”). & cf. Tim Rideout apr15 @ 12.29
2. “society does not understand them (which is wrong; it does and treats their ideas with justifiable contempt)” — this makes drastic and perhaps misleading assumption about who is “society”
3. I agree about “a model of exploitation that is as old as life itself”. But that raises the question of whether neoliberalism really exists or is just a front for greed; which is a separate matter — but PilgrimSlightReturn is eloquent and lucid on this. Peter May gets public ignorance right and also when he says, “Conservatives dislike it …They cannot admit the losses of leaving because it endangers their selfish ‘moral justification’. “(even if he asserts that “except for the Euro, the EU has been reasonably progressive “ — Ceta, Maastricht anybody ?
And John Adams is more lucid and more informed than I could ever be (I do not pretend to understand how homeostasis may work, although I may have used concepts like hysterisis — but when it comes to random fluctuations within the system lending stability ….), even if he momentarily muddles up right and left; and I think he claims more for relativity with respect to causation than it can bear. But the cancellation of debt has perhaps been picked up in the example of refinancing the baby-sitting co-op. And his suggestion that “experimentation” has not been tried ignores for instance the Thatcher era experimentation with (misapplied, if that is possible,) monetarism.
4. “ Labour … its current leadership is obsessed with mid-twentieth century mechanisms and process for controlling the means of production”
“I am not opposed to nationalisation but better regulation would solve most of the issues. And we have no time to waste on ownership when the issue is so much bigger than that”
It is not obvious to me that regulation would cure the franchising of the railways, the dissipation of the market for other natural monopolies like water and electricity supply. Not to mention the desire / need to redirect production in various sectors, whether for employment or technical or societal advance (or of course, both). I cannot agree with PilgrimSlightReturn on this point. Finance is not the only answer, surely we have learnt this by now ?
Ardj
I see where you are coming from about the hard cash angle – I really do and I empathise with it.
But we have been in a situation where hard cash – real money (not debt or credit) has been withdrawn at a heck of pace since 2010 through reductions in wages, benefits and investment (which actually is the headwaters of all income arguably) and one cannot ignore the causal consequences of that and its impact on BREXIT etc.
And as I have tried to make clear (so please be reassured) , spending that money must be different than before – this why I support the creation of cash into People’s Quantitative Easing, Green New Deal, Jobs Guarantee and Universal Income ideas rather than printing it into private banks as has been done previously.
Money really does help to make the world go around – as does love, affection, affinity, empathy, peace, co-operation and hugging trees .
Too often, money has chased the wrong return. If a Government takes seriously its money creating power and works harder and smarter at distributing it, we could very soon be living in a happier place.
We should at least try.
And my final point is this: money was created as a utility – not as a source of power. It was created and adopted as a good idea for a reason – a common form of tender to enable us to exchange good and services over great geographical areas. A Government distributing its money more widely through the economy with a bias towards new green technology to deal with the environmental issues we face for example would be using money for a really useful purpose – would you not agree?
@PilgrimSlightReturn
Yup.
Geoff says:
“John S Warren very well argued, …..” Agreed. Nicely put John.
“The blinkers will be removed soon enough once reality sets in, I wonder who they will blame then.”
Well I’ll blame the Americans, as usual 🙂 but it won’t do me any good. It’ll be game over by then.
Caitlin Johnstone recently wrote “Cognitive dissonance which is the psychological discomfort we experience when we try to hold two strongly contradictory ideas as true at the same time, like the idea that we live in a free liberal democracy.”
I think this thread is a good example of this can be seen to work .
Uncomfortable and well argued counter arguments tend punch giant holes in the stories about the kind of world, nation and society that most people have been taught to believe they live in since school age. These kinds of beliefs are interwoven with people’s entire ego structures, with their sense of self and who they are as a person, so narratives which threaten to tear them apart can feel the same as a personal attack, insults generally follow when the argument is lost or fails to gain traction. This is why you’ll hear ordinary citizens talking about Brexit often with extreme emotion, and why they seek to defend that notion often against all evidence to the contrary.
Always interesting to see it in full flow……..congratulation Richard for your ability to instigate and provide an opportunity for full expression, even if it mostly serves to draw the lines of difference rather than a bringing together those difference in resolution. Long live debate but I prefer to see respect rather than insults.
PS I really just wanted to make the 100th contribution on this thread, hope I made it.
I agree with John S Warrens’ sentiment above but I feel that I should point out that he has already answered the question with what he says earlier when it comes to the detail:
‘Brexit runs much deeper than Brexit’
To me this means that BREXIT itself is just a symptom of deeper feelings about other issues in the country. BREXIT was a scab to a pus filled sore that got knocked off clumsily by a posh idiot called David Cameron and it has not stopped flowing and infecting society.
I say again that (1) those voting Leave are those who just want our past back – a time (immediate post war period and even the Thatcherite 80’s or pre-2008 or 2010) where the country seemed to work or be something and (2) that sentiment has been picked up by the Far Right (as it always does) and manipulated ruthlessly and recklessly by the upper echelons of the anti-Euro brigade who up to that point had been a minority.
People who are abused John do not know what they want because they are confused.
In 2010 they were told that we were bankrupt by a lying Tory government and that austerity would restore prosperity. Taking money out of the economy is like draining the oil out of a car and still expecting to drive it on a motorway at speed over a long distance without it seizing up. It does not work.
Everyone else has been blamed – teachers, immigrants, the EU, public sector workers, the NHS – everyone but the real culprits (David Cameron, Oliver Letwin, France Maude and the rest of the reactionary revivalist Thatcherite Tory Party and its media cronies who have not forgiven this country for keeping them out of power between 1997 and 2010).
To me it is very simple. Our people (and even if they are Leavers, they are ‘our people’ – us!) are unhappy, down trodden, neglected, depressed, angry and without hope John.
Even if they see a lifebuoy nearby they think it too far to swim to safety; they just give up.
This abuse and manipulation has been going on for years – years! – and what we are seeing is the end game of it all – the culmination of a de-politicised politics that became obsessed with managing presentation, impressions and ‘messages’ rather than substance in the name of ‘modernity’ and the Third Way and not upsetting the markets. And a culmination of a country obsessed with reliving the past but seemingly unable to grasp the future.
I’ve spoken about Jesus on this blog (and remember I’m not religious) but He said ‘Forgive them father for they know not what they do.’
I’m not going to blame my friends, colleagues and neighbours for being misled. I will however blame well paid politicians, dodgy unaccountable businessmen and a faulty constitution instead otherwise I am just another victim of the long term new right project to divide and conquer my country so that we become another US style state.
Previously on here I’d said that we need to not just know what the Leavers are thinking but also, why?
With that thought in mind, those of you keeping your fingers crossed for another people’s vote need to consider this: I have seen no evidence that the lying, cheating and manipulative behaviour that helped push the Leave vote over the line has been dealt with. None. Zilch. And others are saying the same on the late night TV shows that non-one watches.
We have a number of MEPs who are obviously anti-EU but still get a seat in EU institutions (they should be deselected – sorry – but Hannan and Farage should be removed and the others too).
In other words although there is more information, the conditions for another Leave victory or a too close to call Referendumb 2 are there waiting to be activated. And then what?
This to me is now the biggest overlooked threat.
But the question as to what the Leavers want is easy: they want back what they feel they have lost. And like all of us, they have lost a lot.
Dear Pilgrim
I very much agree and although I am more privileged than most, I feel for them, because I am in direct contact and feel the changes/impact on so many sides directly affecting my life far more than any academics. A voice to the silent sufferers.
Historically after the 1929-1934 Depression once a bit of security gets in a desperate workers pockets they want to lash out at those that have caused or they think did well out of their long suffering and hardship.
Match that with Hitlers rise to power and you have the emotional time we are in now with the tech age, information age, robotics age, smart phone addiction, mass 15% migration, coalescing with bankers abuse of powers and the neglect by shareholders in choosing who ethically runs the PLCs. The forces for instability are far higher than the old correcting forces for stability of social pubs, fat pensions, secure jobs, strong majority government, clubs and societies, localised trust in local businesses, safe locally owned businesses, sensible and thought over broad newspaper news readers.
There is a group distinguishing those two and the world is losing stability.
I agree with you regarding confusion, and I hold out that Brexit is deeper than Brexit.
Nevertheless, the confusion must be explored and faced by those who indulge it; and the challenge must be made to those promoting Brexit to say what they really want, beyond the rank puff and wind. The rest of use must oblige those who ‘pull the Brexit strings’ to explain and justify themselves to US. It is for the rest of us, who do not want this, who did not ask for this, who are being forced into Brexit against our will on the basis of a wafer-thin majority, and an untrustworthy referendum campaign, to explain patiently that it is not enough to say ‘you lost’; get in line, rejoice, unite with the Brexit vision, accept that only the Brexiteers matter. This is not acceptable; and if you do not know what Brexit is ‘for’, that is simply not good enough.
I have said before: no wise constitution should ever be changed on the same, loose, transient basis as a general election, which elects a here-today-gone-tomorrow government. If the electorate realise they made a mistake they can change the government. You can’t change Brexit. This is a fundamental constitutional change. A major constitutional change of this kind should only be allowed on the basis of broad consensus.
As it stands Brexit is electoral dictatorship. Brexiteers have to understand this. It is unacceptable; constitutionally unacceptable. If this goes wrong, then the Union will be over; and will deserve to be over.
Addendum. PSR (forgive the acronym),
You made a passionate plea for the ‘confused’, and I understand your purpose and acknowledge its wisdom. There are no doubt ‘confused’ out there; but are the ‘confused’ you describe so compassionately, sitting at their keyboards, scoring points? Please note that the Brexiteers to whom I directed my comment have not responded. The silence is typical of the Brexit debate. A Brexiteer throws in a wild assertion, stirs the pot of divisiveness, and disappears into the ether; no engagement, no debate: assertion, assertion, assertion. The points they make rarely, if ever stand up to scrutiny.
This is the age of Twitter, the soundbite, the headline. There is no substance, but they leave their indelible mark on the debate. The problem is that this Brexiteer method is much more publicly effective than rational debate. Are we really having to deal with the ‘confused’; or merely the manipulative, the cunning, the devious?
The Brexiteers methodology is the reason we have so many ‘confused’. I submit we are not dealing with the ‘confused’, but rather the ideologues, or the mercenaries.
Agreed
John SW – a great response and appreciated.
I think that you are correct to point out that the 48% (or what ever it is now, hopefully larger and with people like Thee, Me and Richard and other honourables here – bless you all) are being dragged into something that they cannot accept and never wanted. It is undemocratic. And with No Deal on the table as an added insult?
The terms of that ‘drag’ however was set by untrammelled Tory leadership (‘BREXIT means BREXIT’) with an opposition party (with their own anti-EU ‘previous’) wanting to keep up with the Jones’.
But remember – if you read Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’ – all this was set up a long time ago and has always been the elephant in the room (but also the elephant hiding behind the curtains in the room). BREXIT has been here for a long time – once again your ‘Brexit is much deeper than BREXIT’ meme is much more prescient than you can ever imagine – antipathy to Europe runs through our political parties like ‘Skegness’ runs through its stick of rock – it’s always been there – lurking, waiting to devastate our fillings.
‘Are we really having to deal with the ‘confused’; or merely the manipulative, the cunning, the devious?’ you ask?
John – my dear John – it is not either, or: it is BOTH John. Both. They feed off each other in some demonic dynamic – a new version of unreason – turbo-charged as you accurately portray by online ‘social media techniques and practices that Jaron Lanier explores in his book ’10 Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now’.
Our friends and neighbour BREXITERs don’t have to justify themselves John because people higher up the social ladder (the Rees Moggs, BoJos and Banks’s et al) have already done that for them on line and in the media. All many are doing is forming an orderly queue behind. Those in the media validate those who follow. Therefore they are not answerable to the likes of me and thee!
John Dunn in his classic book ‘The Cunning of Unreason’ (think about the title John) says in his conclusion
(p. 361) ‘Politics is the balance of conflict and co-operation between human purposes on any scale on which you care to look at it’. Chantal Mouffet says much the same thing in ‘On The Political’ in her advocacy of a real Left and her anger at the pacifist, depoliticising Third Way – an essay on the need for conflict to be present in politics in order to at least make social progress; the value of tension in ideas and policy – push and pull and all that.
Accept that definition and then think about how May has dealt with BREXIT? She has kept it all to herself seeking to make political capital out of it at the GN ballot box. But also out of fear with what is happening with Corbyn – she does not want to reach out to him as she does not accept him – he is a threat. She has avoided tension and conflict with Labour that might have made an orderly BREXIT and made for a worse BREXIT instead. But also look at Labour itself – it has its own ERG problem – it always has.
But what comes first? Individual Party anti-sentiment about Europe or, how Europe benefits the country – the people whom our well paid parliamentarians say they care about?
BREXIT has allowed too many parliamentarians not to think about the country and about their own EU prejudices instead. Free votes my arse!! I contend it is Parliament that has become like an internet chat room or platform for hyper personalised ways of thinking. Parliament is a 4D virtual website of personal views when it comes to BREXIT (and too much social policy too from Tory minsters). It has become a platform for what Dunn identifies rightly as ‘partiality’. Ruling through partiality? We might as well reinstitute the absolute monarchy and abolish parliament.
It all comes down to Parliament now. The revocation of A50 is really the only game in town. This has nothing to do with Leavers or Remainers. It has to do with Parliament being made to examine the facts and making a decision.
At some stage we are going to have to deal with Parliament. As a democrat I have no idea how this will be done. But make no mistake, Parliament’s days are numbered as it is now. It has failed.
But the buck stops there. Make no mistake. BREXIT is a failure of the political class – not ordinary everyday people – as exasperating as they are.
BTW – A message to John D I think – there is no way I am ‘admonishing’ you – I wouldn’t dream of it – I’m just saying that I disagree and you of course you’re entitled to your opinion. Sorry I’ve forgotten how to put Smileys in.