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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,