Skip to main content

Out of Brexit a new beginning?

One thing that strikes me about Brexit is how readily people entrenched in the in-out camps.  For either side, the reasons were 'obvious' - so obvious that neither side could see the point of view of the other.

One oddity is that the Left had more reason to vote leave and 'destroy' the European dream than had the right. Yet, on the whole, the liberal left was taken on the mantle of knights in shining armour to defend the EU.   It left Jeremy Corbyn on a limb - his instinct was to Leave.  But his party had become overwhelmingly pro-EU.

Once upon a time, it was mainly the Left who campaigned against British membership.  For Tony Benn, it was a question of sovereignty.  The left entrenched into an anti-EU position.  An 'ever closer union' based on capitalism was not for them the utopia they sought.

During the referendum, I campaigned to remain in the EU, but I always understood the arguments for leaving.  Remainers wonder what went wrong.

What went wrong was the European project.  We boasted of its success.  We hoisted up our flags of principles.  The case was put - The EU had brought peace and prosperity where once there had been war and economic failure - and to leave would bring about economic ruin.  The EU was a worthy project with laudable objectives.

But, arguably, the European project had failed the people.  It was a neoliberal dream - and the neoliberals turned against it.

This was brought into stark relief in the aftermath of the financial crash of 2008/9.  Governments moved heaven and earth to rescue the banks.  Of course, because if they had not the global system would have collapsed.  But they also turned on the poor and protected the wealthy.

The poorest and most vulnerable would pay for the 'bankers greed'.  Books had suddenly to be balanced, and the age of austerity was heralded.  Running deficits, which governments had done for decades became a political sin.  Balancing the books became the new objective.  Old objectives of creating full employment were abandoned.  At last, the right-wing got their chance to dig their teeth into the welfare system.  It was a systematic attack on the poor.  The poorest were to be blamed for their own poverty.

So, who lived the European dream?  Is it the 4 million across France living in poor housing conditions? Is it the 12.5 million Germans who are classified as poor?

Almost one in six people in Germany were assessed as living in poverty or other forms of social exclusion in 2019.   

Or perhaps the five million living in 'absolute' poverty in Italy.  Do they live the European dream?

Is it the hard-working people of our northern towns of Britain whose communities had been neglected for decades?  Too late, politicians in Westminster talked of the 'northern powerhouse'.

The cosy elite dug their trench and said their position on Europe was a matter of principle.  They told the poor that the UK had benefited from its four decades of EU membership.  They then had the crassness to tell the poorest that they would be worse off if we left the EU!

Brexit is a consequence of the inability of the EU to side with the people and in particular the most vulnerable.   That is why we have the oddity of so many of the most vulnerable voting to leave. What did they have to lose?

Where the left should have spoken up for them, they dithered and spoke of a dream - an unreality.  There lies the disengagement, and the feeling of betrayal.

All across Europe, it is the right-wing who are filling the political vacuum, as they stoke up the chaos, while the left is in disarray.

In the UK the poorest have been ignored or downright trodden on, and meanwhile, many more feel their concerns have also been ignored, as their towns and communities feel threatened.

Unless the left once again reconnects with them, then they will be powerless to influence events.  This is why the Labour Party in the UK needs leadership capable of regaining the trust that they can deliver.  That requires leadership to unite the party and reach out to voters.

If socialists simply vote for what they want to hear, then they will repeat the mistakes of the last decade.   The left needs a positive message and a clear set of policies to deliver, and not a wish list. It must now play its part in a future outside the EU.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As