United Kingdom

[quote=epaulo13]

Britain’s impossible futures

/quote]

quote:

Labour’s dilemma

Opposition to membership of the European Union has a long history inside Labour. The alternative economic strategy of the Labour left in the 1980s involved capital controls, tariffs and leaving the EEC. But that is not primarily what is behind Corbyn’s lukewarm opposition to Brexit. Instead it is the moral authority of the referendum’s Leave vote in the working class areas Labour needs to win to gain power. Labour campaigners, including me, tried internationalist arguments on the doorstep during the 2016 campaign and found them ineffective. What persuaded large numbers of Leave supporters to vote Labour in 2017’s general election was the assurance that Corbyn would honour the referendum result.

This strategy of satisfying Brexit voters and trying to move on ran into a big problem in November 2018, when it became clear no possible form of Brexit was acceptable to all Brexiteers. If the Conservatives could not make Brexit happen, any deal that passed through parliament would have to rely on the votes of rebel Labour MPs.

Suddenly, a section of English Labour MPs were in stark opposition to the desires of their membership and voting base; this opened a crisis of direction within Corbynism itself. This was never a single ideology, but an alliance of the old, statist left and the younger generation oriented to social justice movements.

A polling analysis commissioned by trade unions from the anti-racism advocacy group Hope Not Hate shows that overall the electorate has swung against Brexit, with 55% now saying they want to remain in the EU. The analysis claims that if Labour were to go into a snap election promising to enact Brexit, it would lose, not gain, seats, and it needs at least 31 additional seats even to form a minority government.

According to this poll, it would lose five out of seven seats in Scotland, where the working class is strongly pro-EU, and up to 14 seats in London and the southeast, where educated, young, globally focused, Labour voters might desert Corbyn for the LibDems or Greens. By contrast, even if Labour supported Brexit, it would gain no seats at all in Brexit-supporting areas, where the politics of English nationalism and xenophobia are out-shouting traditional concerns over jobs, wages and public services.

The problem for Labour is that in England and Wales, Brexit had been (to borrow an economic term) ‘priced in’ to politics. It was assumed that prime minister Theresa May would deliver Brexit, Labour would vote against her proposal, and two-party politics as usual would be resumed. As this began to look impossible, Corbyn faced competing demands.

Among Labour’s members, according to this same poll, 87% are pro-Remain, while 65% of those who voted Labour in the last election want Remain. In September 2018, the membership committed the party to opposing May’s Brexit deal, fighting instead for a customs union plus alignment with the single market, triggering a general election and, if that failed, supporting a second referendum. But by late December, in the face of the party’s official position and despite the polling evidence, both left and centre Labour MPs had begun to rebel against this strategy.

Individual members of the Corbyn parliamentary team, including education spokeswoman Angela Rayner and party chair Ian Lavery, expressed concerns about a second referendum, claiming it could be seen as a betrayal of the first. This emboldened those on the traditionalist right of the party to contemplate voting for a version of May’s deal.

Zero-tariff Brexit: Another step towards Singapore-on-Thames?

Leaked government proposals to slash tariffs to zero in the event that Britain crashes out of the EU in just 55 days’ time have left farmers and businesses aghast. This morning Trade Secretary Liam Fox refused again to rule out this possibility in front of parliament’s International Trade Committee.

This is big news, because currently large parts of British manufacturing and agriculture are protected by EU tariffs. If we crash out of the EU at the end of March, we lose tariff-free trade with the EU and fall back on WTO tariffs, making life very much harder for British exporters. The UK could levy tariffs on importers too, and try to reduce them through trade deals over time, but under WTO rules would have to initially levy the same tariffs on every country in the world. Prices of imports would sky rocket, especially as the pound would collapse in the wake of EU exit. 

So Fox is examining what, for many parts of the British economy, would be a nuclear option: applying zero tariffs to every country unilaterally. No other country is likely to follow suit, so life for exporters would be just as hard. But under zero tariffs, life for many domestic producers here would become much much harder overnight. Stripped of protection, their goods would face competition from a surge of cheaper goods grown and made all around the world..

Many would simply go to the wall. For farmers producing beef or dairy, or many basic crops, or for manufacturers of clothes or cars, for instance, Fox’s plans would likely wipe them out of existence. The only way they could compete with much cheaper goods would be to adopt much lower standards, worse conditions, lower pay.

Hang on though , say the Hard Brexiters, don’t zero tariffs work well in places like Singapore? To some extent, maybe, but then again Singapore is a services-dependent city state, with very high and climbing inequality, ruled by an authoritarian regime. Surely not the model most of those  who voted to leave the EU expected.....

George Galloway, MOATS, February 15, 2019 (1900-2200)

https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1550257200

 

..5 torries voted against the motion and 4 labour for.

How did your MP vote on the latest Brexit motion?

Theresa May suffered another defeat on Brexit tonight as both pro- and anti-European Tories helped vote down a motion supporting her approach to negotiations.

Ken Burch wrote:

It still won't ever be possible to force the Tories to allow a second referendum, though.  

..if what you mean by this is that may is trying to run out the brexit clock so that it becomes her deal or no deal..i agree. that is not to say something else won't cause something to change between now and then.

Isn't the next election 3 years away while Brexit is looming in a month or so?

epaulo13 wrote:

..5 torries voted against the motion and 4 labour for.

How did your MP vote on the latest Brexit motion?

Theresa May suffered another defeat on Brexit tonight as both pro- and anti-European Tories helped vote down a motion supporting her approach to negotiations.

She clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. This is a subversion of parliamentary democracy. She's a zombie prime minister.

cco wrote:

She survived an explicit confidence vote. Brexit's not a budget bill, so she has the House's confidence even if she loses the vote on the deal. Harper proroguing to avoid a vote was a subversion. Her not being able to get her deal through isn't.

She's a Prime Minister in name only.

Labour: On Britain & the Common Market

https://twitter.com/winstane1/status/1097201150745550850

"...For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain...That is our commitment."

George Galloway, TMOATS, Friday, March 8, 2019 (and podcast)

https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1552071600

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, Brexit, IWD2019 and more...

Yes and keep calling referendums until the British people vote the way they are supposed to!

..what brexit are you talking about ken? may's brexit, labour's or no deal brexit. there is no such obligation ken. why would they have that obligation when the brexit idea came from the right and the far right. that in itself sends up flags in abundance. who is producing proof that brexit isn't anything but a neoliberal trap that ends the eu protections that do exist.

..that is a non response ken. truth is you have no idea what brexit really means. no one else has. what you have is red flags everywhere. if a working class brexit is to happen it needs to be built from the ground up. i say this over and over again..corbyn says the eu can't prevent the manifesto. it is from this place that a genuine brexit can be built if neeeded. 

Britain Risks Becoming Like Yellow Vest France As the History Boys Predicted (and vid)

https://t.co/3YhaSHpTmN

"Whilst UK Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular Brexit deal has once again failed to win support in Britain's Parliament, what lies ahead may be far more impactful than yet another of May's customary defeats. Over the next days, the UK parliament will vote on whether it will reject under any condition, Britain's withdrawal from the European Union under a so-called 'no deal/WTO rules scenario. If a WTO Brexit is rejected outright, a following vote to delay the scheduled (29 March) withdrawal of Britain from the European Union will take place. If this vote wins, millions of people will feel as though they've been stabbed in the back, betrayed and spat upon.

This is not just a dangerous situation because it smacks of elites changing the rules of the game while the players are still on the pitch, but it likewise opens the floodgates for mass protests, the likes of which have played out (often violently) in the streets of France for months.

The best way to curtail the likelihood of civil unrest is for parliament to reject any extension of a negotiation period that the EU has said has long been over in all but name instead of trying to salvage a clearly broken relationship between Britain and the EU. It would be better for British policymakers to make a WTO Brexit work. This is why, instead of delaying what the people voted for the UK should busily engage itself in working on new free trade agreements with non EU powers, most especially China..."

BBC had a flow chart that the UK is near the end of. Next up -- vote on no deal. If that fails, as is likely, a vote on extension. If that fails then what?

It seems to me that the UK may find that it has not enough support for no deal and not for any possible deal. They may find that they also have not enough support for remain.

The government of the UK has a damaged mandate to go without the practical ability to get a deal.

They also do not have a mandate to stay in the EU as they were.

It is possible that the UK will find the way forward through the remain-reform option and that was not voted down in the past and it is neither leave nor remain. Given the last two eyars the UK has a pretty good negotiating position with the EU to reform and remain. They have not tried to negotiate that and it may be much easier to do so.

All that said, I cannot imagine the Conservatives seeking the kinds of reforms really needed.

The really positive scenario would be for the Conservatives to fall, a new election. A new mandate by Labour to be permitted to have a delay -- after the fact (not sure what happens March 29 if the UK gov has fallen). then have Labour negotiate with the EU for a deal -- allowing for either a Brexit deal or a remain deal for reform. And ideally come up with a good remain deal.

This is the best path I think.

I do not know what happens if the government does not fall and parliament rejects the no deal and the delay.

 

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

epaulo13 wrote:

..i see nothing but my quote in your last post ken.

Oh, yeah.  Had a response but somehow it vanished from my screen.  The group I was referring to in the "obligation" remarks are those arguing for Remain, or for another Remain Vs. Leave referendum.  They are the ones, I was trying to say, who have a duty to address the economic and budgetary issues in the current EU set-up which drove a large faction of working-class and Left Leave voters to votes as they did.  They were the ones Corbyn was acknowledging as having legitimate grievances regarding the EU status quo-not the xenophobes, the austerity victims.  I don't claim to know exactly what will happen if the UK does go through with some form of Brexit, and as I've said, I'd have voted Remain strictly on anti-xenophobia grounds.  I've argued against the push for a second referendum on whether the UK leaves at all because A) Doing so strikes me as antidemocratic and B) It seemed to me that most of the push for trying to stay in the EU after all was from the antisocialist, anti-worker, anti-Corbyn wing of Labour-who were pushing that mainly to sabotage his chances of unifying the party-from the LibDems, who can now fairly be called a party of the right on economic issues(on those, I think they are basically on the same wavelength as the FPD in Germany), and from the corporate sector in Britain.  It's genuinely difficult for me to even imagine a socialist case for trying to reverse Brexit.

B) It seemed to me that most of the push for trying to stay in the EU after all was from the antisocialist, anti-worker, anti-Corbyn wing of Labour-who were pushing that mainly to sabotage his chances of unifying the party-from the LibDems, who can now fairly be called a party of the right on economic issues(on those, I think they are basically on the same wavelength as the FPD in Germany), and from the corporate sector in Britain.  It's genuinely difficult for me to even imagine a socialist case for trying to reverse Brexit.

 ..this is not how i see it. a large portion of the labour party rank and file have been pushing it. the first suggestion of a vote came from progressive folks re may's brexit. inspite of the anticorbyns trying to use it to fuck with corbyn you can't say this isn't what the population wants looking at the polls.

..and there is a socialist/militant perspective that has the joining up with others in the eu to press for change a different europe. that is thought to be a better way to move forward than from a disconnected uk. look at what happened to greece or even more recently venezuela. how easily it was for capital to isolate these countries and do real damage at a sustained level. the uk politicians are not prepared for brexit nor is the population. not today maybe in the future. which is why the right introduced brexit in the first place.

..a couple months ago the tories began working on changing how people voted. like in the us they are looking at the need for an id card for starters. there need to be an understanding of what this all means. thus my asking for proof by those who want brexit that the uk isn't just jumping into a pot of boiling water. 

eta..in any case ken it is up to those in the uk. and it looks to me like one of those rare moments in time where there seems to be a participitory thing going on. everyone gets a voice.

josh wrote:

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

The people never voted for a no-deal Brexit. The majority never supported a no-deal Brexit.

The Full Brexit

https://twitter.com/tfbrexit/status/1105091483978399744

#LeftBrexitTour hits London on 25 March. C Lapavitsas, Tariq Ali and more...

NDPP wrote:

The Full Brexit

https://twitter.com/tfbrexit/status/1105091483978399744

#LeftBrexitTour hits London on 25 March. C Lapavitsas, Tariq Ali and more...

It's funny that these people feel it neccessary to advertise themselves explictly as LeftBrexit. Presumbaly they think the public might have gotten the wrong idea from seeing the thousands of other brexit-boosters who are screaming racists and bigots. 

NDPP:

This has nothing to do with Bill Browder, the Russians, or Hillary Clinton's ill-advsed insults. It's got to do with the fact that most of the brexiteers I've heard, from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson down to Pat Condell ranting on You Tube, are racists who sell brexit as a way of curbing immigration and freeing Britain from supposedly tyrannical government regulations.

FWIW, I suspect that Putin and his RT/Sputnik hacks like Brexit, but I don't think they're a significant reason why it passed in 2016, or maintains whatever popularity it still does.

What new information has come to light?