Yesterday was a weird day. For the UK. For Parliament. For Europe. For democracy. For the rule of law. I could go on. All were challenged. Some will survive.
I was sad to watch events from afar. I had intended to be on the People's Vote march: my continuing inability to shake off a bug suggested that unwise and issue continues. But maybe taking a day out where I just observed on occasion was a good idea: a blow-by-blow account was not a good way to see the day.
It is easy now to see Johnson's agenda. The ERG gave it away. It was to blackmail on the basis of a cliff edge to get the appalling agreement we are now offered through and to then allow leaving without a deal within a year or so. The desire to be non-compliant, whatever form of words was used, was made clear when the Benn Act letter was sent unsigned with an almost certainly illegally signed side letter asking that it be ignored. That the so-called Agreement, the negotiation and the next stages are all charades being pursued to enable a far-right crash out agenda is now apparent. Johnson has no place left to hide.
The choice is now between the NHS and US health care.
Worker rights or US-style employment arrangements.
Care for the environment or no future at all.
Concern for the whole country or the interest of tiny minority, some of whom control too many of our newspapers.
One person had a good day. Keir Starmer shone out from the Labour benches. He was reasoned, considerate, fair to all sides of the House, and tore to shreds the Tory claims - which, despite his invitation that they do so, they did not defend. You could just say it was a lawyer's speech. It was more than that. It was excellent politics. I admit that for the first time I am persuaded that he is the leader Labour now needs. He made a political case for saying no to this deal.
Some others intervened to good effect. Ian Blackford appeared to deliver the Scottish case well, and appropriately. In fairness, for once Sammy Wilson's anger on behalf of the DUP was appropriate: no-one is at their calmest when they realise they have been badly betrayed. The chance of the lost Union was laid out for all to see. And Sir Oliver Letwin, the most unlikely of Tory rebels, continued to earn a place in history for this, even if little else he has ever done deserves a favourable note.
Others, from Theresa May onwards, made even bigger fools of themselves.
But what did it mean?
I suggest several things. First, the departure of Bercow is to be deeply regretted. Parliament needs him for a lot longer yet. He made the wrong decision to go.
Second, there will be no election as yet. I am well aware that Johnson well get a boost in the polls from claiming he has a deal. Labour would be foolish to ignore that.
Third, there is a more pressing objective for Labour. Corbyn has to listen to McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry and others and go for a second referendum. That is the election to be won. Then a general election can be held. And Remain could win this vote now.
Fourth, the bitterness of the UK wide politics of this is only at a start now. Big money is not getting its way. In the death throes of neoliberalism, when any innovative capacity it ever had has gone, the monied class were desperate for deregulation as their last opportunity to exploit for their own gain, and this Brexit deal gave them that. Now it is being taken away from them. They will unleash all the weaponry, fair or foul (I fear), that they can in an attempt to secure their way. We are now in the Struggle for Britain.
I sincerely hope our politicians - those with wiser heads and the willingness to act in the national interest - realise this.
They need to work together. They need to reach out too: to big business, to unions, to wider society and spell out what this is all about, all over again.
Brexit is not about taking back control for people in this country.
Nor is it about controlling migration.
And it's definitely not about healing wounds.
Or asserting national identity.
And the idea that it's about democracy is ridiculous - or a second referendum would be the Brexiteers' choice.
This is instead all about deregulating so that the spivs and speculators who now fund the Tories and the Brexit Party might have the choice to exploit the state to pay themselves out of state funds for supposedly supplying the services that people want, which services will be reduced in quality or quantity to pay for the cut that those supposed financiers will loot from the population at large. This is what Brexit is about. It is about finance going feral.
This is now clear. This parliament has to stop it by delivering a People's Vote. It's clear Johnson had not planned on that option happening. He got it wrong. This parliament has to build on that. And he has to be completely defeated - by the people of this country as a whole - to ensure that he and those he represents never again get the chance to ruin the four countries within our Union. I am sincerely hoping they are up to the task.
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:
My view is that Bercow has to go because he is the next target for the ERG and the Johnson administration. I can see things getting rather nasty – as do you. We all know how personal weaknesses or indiscretions can be used against individuals by organisations who have objectives. And the two orgs in Parliament I have in mind are the ERG and the Government – and we know who they stand for.
As I have said, the thin veneer of respectability that the grasping Tories have operated behind for so long is now gone. They are now truly naked in their ambitions. This may work against them.
Politicians working together? I was looking at the voting behaviour yesterday and listening to John Mann outside Parliament. The Labour MPs who have obviously gone native and do not understand the system they are in need to be retrained or be shown the door. It is as simple as that at any work place – and Parliament too.
The Lib Dems need to realise that they will always be a protest vote party and stop thinking about delusions of grandeur. Their role should actually be about making stronger links with all remain MPs and stop supping from the ‘Corbyn is a threat’ cup.
Watching May speak yesterday, after all the shit she has been through, (deservedly so – she was awful) she still had to back her corrosive party and snipe at the opposition (and she too spoke of the referendumb as being ‘a direct instruction’ from the electorate). This sickly display of loyalty needs to be noted. It’s the basis of how bad ideas endure.
The only silver lining is the proposition you and others here have referred back to. That as of 2008, the capitalist system did actually break for good and all that has happened since is that it’s beneficiaries have tried to fight back whist at the same time grasp as much as they can before it goes down the shitter where it belongs.
It’s a long way down I’m afraid.
@Pilgrim
“My view is that Bercow has to go because he is the next target for the ERG and the Johnson administration.”
I’m saddened to say that I have to agree with you there. I doubt if we will see a replacement of his calibre. He cannot allow himself to be put in the position where he is ‘the story’ and still function as Speaker; for his own well-being aswell as for the sake of Parliament, I think.
He ‘played a blinder’ yesterday through a long and very, ill-tempered and heated session.
Jacob Rees Mogg disgraced himself yet again with an extraordinary display of discourtesy to the Speaker and the House. Rich he may be, ‘posh’ he may be, but he has the ‘class’ of a costermonger. And not so much a GREENgrocer, more a dirty yellow colour.
[…] is an example of feral finance at work. But it is not the only one. Neil Woodford’s now failed activities in the funds management […]
I completely agree, I have just watched Kier Starmer’s excellent and forensic exposure of Johnson’s deal. It somewhat restored my faith in political debate. If only more people could hear his arguments, if only he were leader of the Labour party! I was also heartened by those on the front bench who spoke ater the vote and came out unequivocally for a people’s vote and remain.
Completely agree with all of this. I feel though that ‘Brexit fatigue’ is a real danger now, although personally anyone who feels fatigued by Brexit should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The country is facing the most serious crisis since the war. I could not believe what I was hearing listening to John Baron in that BBC interview but then it all made sense. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/18/no-deal-brexit-still-possible-under-new-agreement-says-mp?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Hope you’ll be feeling well soon.
I was there for the march (again) and indeed Keir Starmer was very impressive, in the House and speaking to the crowd outside. Struck also that he was joined in speaking by McDonnell, Abbott, Thornbury, and Jess Phillips. A shift at the top in direction?
Lexiters and hard core Brexiters aside though, there is still a huge task to convince a mass of voters across the spectrum that their interests will be massively damaged by Brexit, and that they have been thoroughly conned. Decades of insidious propaganda from the media and yes, lukewarm messaging from Labour when it really mattered have all done their damage.
If … Labour went all out on pointing out the damage that Brexit in any form will do, to jobs, NHS, and the rest, and were unequivocal about how the public have been conned by the real ‘elite’, maybe just maybe they could shift opinion. But I fear Corbyn and his immediate advisors will never let that happen
I can only hope….
Robin Stafford says:
“If … Labour went all out on pointing out the damage that Brexit in any form will do,….”
It’s a tactic, but as a strategy it won’t do. It’s not even half a job.
Millions of former Labour Party voters are gung ho for Brexit. Many of them will vote for Brexit soft, or No Deal whatever Johnson takes to the GE hustings. Labour have to have a coherent vision, now for a Brexit that is possible to deliver without being destructive of the UK economy and society for a generation. They have as a party committed to that …to respect ‘the (albeit spurious) will of the people’.
If they take anything else to the campaign trail I reckon they’ll get hammered. Too much of the floating middle class won’t support ….those who won’t (quite reasonably) vote Tory or Lib Dem (spit) will just sit on their hands without something positive to vote FOR. The old working class will vote for Farage as they did when he was UKIP., rather than vote Labour that won’t deliver something recognisable as a Brexit.
Labour has backed itself into a one way street on this. Now they have to deal with it.
For what it’s worth that’s my view, and it’s in part a reflection of ardently stated views of a left wing progressive activist who doesn’t want Brexit, never wanted Brexit, but knows her local population and understands its mood.
I think Labour is hearing its members now
And the country at large
They are Remain
“I think Labour is hearing its members now” Hmmmm….
“They are Remain,” That’ll be ‘revoke’ then ? (only twelve months too late.)
With the Lib Dems?
Or not?
Agree w all of this apart from the “four countries within our union”. NI isn’t a country. It’s 2/3 of a province of another country whose MPs in Westminster represent a minority of its people. It is a gerrymandered legacy colony imposed on the Irish people against their wishes by force. And, as the Tories have shown for over 100 years, they cared and care nothing for the neighbouring island except what they can extract from it – – rent or votes to sustain their power in Westminster. Nothing of what is on display now is new.
This is not simply a matter of semantics. The view of the English establishment of the components of the union as chattels and not in any way as equals is at the root of much of the UK’s dysfunctional governance. It is why the Irish would (& many did) laugh and roll their eyes at the question John Humphrys posed (crassly) on the Today Programme one morning “Why doesn’t Ireland rejoin the UK?”. Apart altogether from the abusive history which the Irish haven’t forgotten and have no intention of returning to, the Irish can see with horror & relief what they have now happily escaped.
I understand all that
And I reflect that in the title of the piece – and I know NI is not in Britain
PS The title of the post is worth reflecting on.
I did struggle with it and decided it correctly reflected the issue of NI
Firstly – sorry to hear the dreaded lurgi is still with you. A wise decision not to have joined the march. Regrettably I wasn’t able to be there either (for logisitical reasons). It was impressive to watch and with some good, impassioned speeches. I never thought I’d be on the same side as Michael Heseltine – lol. But sadly I fear it will have little or even no immediate impact in reversing the current disastrous trajectory.
I agree totally with your analysis. It’s a crisis the severity of which has yet to permeate through to ordinary people on the street who are understandably preoccupied with just getting through the week or month. ‘Let’s just get it done’ will resonate positively with those without the time, inclination or patience to dig deeper and read the small print.
I accept it’s lazy for me to repost another article but this recent essay from Mike Wayne (Professor of Media at Brunel University), when read in conjunction with your own observations, articulates my fears much better than I could myself : ‘The birth of a new English state’ – https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/the-birth-of-a-new-english-state.
A successful 2nd referendum would be an essential first step to combat these neo-Fascist forces which have thus far taken control of the (minority) administration, most of the Tories and – via the MSM – the framing of the debate. For the sake of the country, the environment and future generations one must hope that all the opposition parties can co-operate in a meaningful way in order to win this war, for that’s what it is. The stakes could hardly be higher. I just wish I could be more optimistic and more useful.
In the meantime … get well soon. The country needs you!
Good article
Thanks
It’s high time that UK citizens recognise that British Imperialism (now morphed into British Exceptionalism) was unadulterated fascism which has now resurfaced with Brexit. As always fascism is the mentally warped condition that I carry the entitlement to treat others as objects to get what I want!
Keir Starmer today is saying Labour could sign up to Johnson’s deal if it includes a Final Say referendum:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/20/labour-could-back-brexit-bill-if-second-referendum-attached-says-starmer
Yesterday McDonnell, Thornberry and Abbott all gave speeches at the Final Say rally declaring themselves in favour of Remain and their determination to keep the UK in the EU:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-march-labour-second-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-emily-thornberry-a9163181.html
The Labour Party very clearly speaks with forked tongue. Of course it could have held a written ballot of party members to prevent this forked tongue condition. That it hasn’t tells you real democracy is non-existent in the party it’s still in the dated and disfunctional autocratic “vanguard of the proletariat” mode. Retaining Clause V where whoever controls the NEC finally determines what goes in the party manifesto should be telling you autocracy is still alive and kicking:-
https://labourlist.org/2019/09/labour-remains-committed-to-work-visa-system-not-free-movement/
@Helen Schofield,
I think you’ve nailed Labour’s equivocation – particularly in your last para.
I’m also highly amused by John McDonnell’s sudden enthusiam for EU membership. Prior to June 2016 he and Jeremy Corbyn have either voted against in, or been absent for, many of the key votes relating to the UK’s participation in the EU and to the major EU Treaties in the last 20 years.
Most people mightn’t pay much attention to the minutiae of the UK’s previous relationship with the EU and how the various political factions have faffed around, but they’re not stupid.
“The choice is now between the NHS and US health care.”
How on earth did the EU force us to set up the NHS in 1948, 44 years before it existed? And how has the EU not forced France to have an NHS? And Germany, and Spain, and Italy, and, well, you see where I’m going.
And how on earth is the only alternative out of 200 other systems the US system? Why not Japan? Or Switzerland? Or Canada? Or Norway? Or South Korea?
Because we want a trade deal with the US
Why be so fatuous in the face of the obvious?
Jonathan,
A simple Google check will show that virtually all EU countries have health systems similar to the UK systems, most of pre-date their membership of the EU and most owe their existence to the predominantly socialist governments across the continent in the decades immediately following WW2. Healthcare is the responsibility of member states and you can find out all you need to know at
https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/docs/presentacion_en.pdf
To both Jonathan and Ken’s points; it does seem to me, and from talking to people deeply embedded in the sector, that the debate is unhelpfully polarised between the NHS staying as-is (or rather as-was before Lansley) and the binary alternative being the US fully privatised model with all its disastrous consequences. The current breed of Tories are obsessed with the US model despite its failings, whilst starving the NHS of resources with results we can all see. But is the alternative really no change at all, despite the changes in demographics, technologies and morbidities? Well, apart from reversing the damaging changes of Lansley et al.
Having a French brother and family and having personal heavy experience of the French system after an accident, prompted me to look more closely at the French system and then other European systems, and then to ask why so little effort was made to learn from the best of what they did. They have much more mixed systems than we have, with fee paying elements off-set by insurance and a safety net for those who cannot afford the fees. There seem to be a larger number of mutuals and not-for-profits as well as purely private. Their health outcomes are generally better and of course their doctor-patient and hospital bed ratios are far better. I do know that the speed of response that my brother’s family receive is in stark contrast to UK waiting lists.
Im certainly not suggesting there’s a single best answer and definitely not suggesting yet another programme of change inflicted on a massively over-stretched NHS. However, there is a lot to learn from other European models, and indeed from good practice within the NHS itself.
REPLY – to Robin Stafford
Whist I would not deny that there may well be some lessons to be learnt from EU health care systems, when the NHS is properly funded- as it was during Blair years it provides a first class service without long waiting times- at less cost than the EU models. The french system is more expensive and for some areas requires paying upfront. I’m not sure how poorer people manage that.
IF we could gt back to an NHS that did not have the market system firmly bolted onto it, but provided comparative information across different hospitals / regions as the “competitive” spur we could do wonders.
The NHS is stunningly cost effective
And exceptional at uniformity of access
Brexiteers constantly proclaim that the duty of government is to carry out the ‘will of the people# and that there is ‘Brexit fatigue’. However the result of the referendum was based on the 17.5 million voted yes to leave and 16.5 voted to remain but many UK citizens who live abroad were excluded even though it was a vote of national importance that impacted on their future. It was an advisory vote, not mandatory, because had it been so then it would have been ruled void as it contravened financial and other guidelines as set out by the Electoral Commission.
Over the last year Theresa May bought her withdrawal bill back three times , Johnson is considering bringing back his bill two days after it was withdrawn on Saturday, Harold Wilson, in 1974, held a second a election six months after being elected and Theresa May held another two years after her party had been elected and yet the people of this country are being denied a confirmatory vote because it is a ‘denial of democracy’, three years after the original vote, when they are now more better informed of the implications of any decision they may make. What are the Brexiteers scared of?
A general election before a referendum would be tainted by the scourge of Brexit overwhelming the airtime and printed media and crowding out the capacity of the people of this country to raise issues and interrogate those who wish to carry out decisions on our behalf.
However long it takes but a referendum, carried out under the aegis of the electoral commission, with the obligation on the party or parties elected to carry out the outcome of that referendum. Now that maybe, just maybe, a return to a democracy that we can have faith in.
And no direct or indirect private partisan funding nor government bias. “Just the facts, ma’am – just the facts.” (Det. Sgt. Joe Friday).
Very interesting article and comments – thank you. If a second referendum were held, I would vote remain again. But I would very much like to know your views about how to deal with the possibility of either a second vote to leave or a close remain vote of the 52/48 variety. Because I don’t see or hear any consideration of this in the Remain camp.
Good question
This time the whole framing would have to be very different is the only answer I can give
But it would have to be made clear in advance
This side of a general election, the framing of a second referendum would be chosen by the current government. It would go through all the approval processes that the last one did, including parliament. Then this government would frame it and the Brexit media would spin it. Given the horror show that resulted from the first one, I think it is remarkably courageous to consider trusting this government with the task.
Without going into too much detail it would have to be a super (qualified) majority – as of course the original one should’ve been. This is standard practice for referenda on constitutional issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority). And then you keep on having referenda, at appropriate intervals, until a supermajority is achieved. Earlier this year the Swiss government annulled a referendum because the info given to the public was deemed to be inadequate (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/11/switzerland-court-overturns-referendum-as-voters-were-poorly-informed). I’ve no idea whose advice was taken, but in so doing Cameron’s committee made a very basic error which has brought us to where we are today. It’s not rocket science. I have zero expertise in this field yet it seems quite logical to me. But the Tories are not attuned to deal with even minimal complexity.
For more info on the 2016 one – https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/17/the-brexit-referendum-question-was-flawed-in-its-design.
I am going to lay this out as we are at this critical juncture. Feel free to call me a conspiracist.
1. Letwin and co (and DUP, Tories, the LibDems, the turncoats, the pretend remainers) and all their media muppets really believe they have hoodwinked the country and this WA will get through AND deliver their No Deal.
2. Starmer has been doing the job he was appointed to do by the leadership – that’s Corbyn (for these who believe that we have a presidential system!)
For these who have just ‘discovered’ Keir – i refer you to all his speeches in parliament over the last two years.
They are a team. Get over it. Keir may one day be leader if he wants it and is chosen by the members and he is ready to be daily vilified and certainly not until the hard brexit is killed.
Don’t forget It was them that got a ‘Meaningful Vote’ that actually required May to construct a WA to then vote on and reject, instead of letting the clock run out on A50 on 29th March which was the only PLAN.
3. The referendum was not a fair plebiscite.
It was daylight ROBBERY by these biggest and oldest thieves in history.
The slim margin was calculated, so that people wouldn’t look too closely at the un-anticipated outcome. The polls (believe them still?) days before had 55-45 remain!
It was massive vote stuffing. It was built on methods used in the Scottish referendum and the 2015 election.
Proof? Here’s a clue.
Turnout — 73% average is high, but the average hides area by area turnout. Quite a few areas were well in excess of 73% — some in the 80’s! Levels not seen in an advanced democracy with free elections.
Only in dictatorships where vote stuffing is used.