Labour and Brexit

The Remainer resistance is hoping that the difficulties of the Brexit negotiations will force Britons to change their minds , realise that they were wrong to reject the advice of the elite in the first place, and crawl back into the EU. Now they demand that Labour must come out against Brexit and demand a re-referendum to allow the nation to stand on its head.

Since  all those asking Labour to lay down its future for Europe one has to ask, as they magnify every difficulty, defend every EU policy and criticise every British approach, whose side are they on? Labour's sacrefice would certainly please Polly Toynbee  and the others who urged the party to campaign for their objectives, then the bomb and EU membership, in 1981 .When it refused they broke away in the SDP and kept Labour out of power for eighteen years. It would also please Yesterday's Men, Tony, Mandy and the rest, and bring us into line with those goneburgers,the LibDems. It would even gratify the pundits like Steve Richards by proving that they'd been right all along.

The only group it wouldn't help is the Labour Party. It would be faced with new divisions and difficulties if it gave giving  EU membership a higher priority than power ,national regeneration or democracy. Labour could  hardly win back the left behind people, many of them Labour supporters all from sections of society and regions which normally vote Labour. They voted to come out, and who knows what they'll think after being buggered about for two years by an EU which can neither negotiate nor balance the relationship better.

It won't get us any better terms. Poor old David Cameron got nothing  to help him win the referendum and after forcing  Britain to jumping hurdles rather than negotiating, the EU it then can't agree anything. A 27 headed hydra is totally inflexible. Such intransigence is no way to win friends and influence Brits, particularly if it's coupled with threats and dirty tricks like cutting back on grants to Britain, stealing our banks and financial services and plotting the downfall of the City of London.Giving the EU hope that Labour will crawl back to the fold isn't going to make the hydra more accomodating

If the last ditch Remainers get their way Britain will be asked to go back, humiliated, tail between our legs and swallowing our pride, not to a position of leadership in the EU, but to a pathetic periphery. All the action in the EU  now focusses on the French proposals to reform the Euro to make it work, rather than deflate. Those outside the Eurozone are relegated to a periphery outside the action and the few proposals for redistribution to help the laggards will be minimal and restricted to Euro members. Those on the periphery won't count.

Labour's concern must be for jobs and growth, but we wouldn't be able to  defend them by stopping the drain of money and jobs to the EU. Membership charges are  £11 billion and certain to rise. Our deficit with the single market is £60 billion and the costs of the CAP, a further £15 billion, all of which we have to borrow, because Britain can no longer pay its way in the world.

There's no way of stopping that drain unless we rebuild production in our lop sided economy .That involves government investment,  support and planning of the type Asian competitors have used to build powerful exporting sectors .The EU proscribes all that, so the only alternative will be to cut costs, reduce wages and taxes and join the race to the bottom . Does Labour want that?

It's too late for Eurowishful thinking. The only way forward is to negotiate hard for what the people voted for, forget the futile claims that they didn't vote for this, that or the other and fight for Labour's traditional priorities of jobs, betterment, growth and a strong economy which works for the people. To  throw up our hand in fear of the difficulties and saying that the people are wrong, the EU has beaten us before we can even get to round one and Britain is now so feeble it couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. 

 Building the better society was never going to be easy but we cant even lay the foundations because we're drained by an EU run in the interests of Germany then we've given up altogether.

Trumpania versus Eurania

TRUMPANIA VERSUS EURANIA

Those who see Trump as a conventional President who's failing because he's temperamentally unsuited to the job have got it wrong. Trump is a populist genius. He's developing an entirely new style presidential style by  following a classic, populist, right wing approach pioneered in Europe.

Call it fascism, populism or Trumpism, it's a simple technique. If blocked by the conventional authorities and institutions or frustrated by advisers and pundits (aka the adults in the room), the leader appeals over their heads to the people. The people probably don't understand the issues. They might not even see that the leader's policies are damaging to their interests as Trump's tax proposals and the abolition of Obamacare surely are.

 It doesn't matter. There are enough people alienated from the ruling elites and the conventional authorities, because recession, poverty and frozen living standards has made them feel left behind and angry to back the leader. They see a populist figure as their man, like them and on their side. They identify with him and he with them.They trust the leader more than those who've let them down.So it's easy to rouse them in mass rallies to rally them against the elite as Trump is now doing.

This was the technique used by Hitler . He never got a majority of votes, became Chancellor because the right thought he'd be their puppet,was distrusted by the army, the existing authorities and opposed by the Social Democrats, but appealed to a population hard hit by depression and unemployment from which the powers that be had been unable to protect them. Result ? Hitler overruled them all by unleashing public hostility, took a firm grip on power, built the fascist state and led Germany into war. Or take De Gaulle, brought to power by the Algerian revolt then consolidating it by referenda to get the powers and the constitution he wanted.

 Europe learned the lesson which was don't trust the people. That's why the European Union was created, as a deliberately undemocratic structure in which the bureaucracy of the commission decides what's good for the people, then imposes it on them whether they want it or not. The Commission is committed to building an ever closer union, which neither national governments nor the European people want but which the Commission knows will be good for them. It  maintains the appearance of democracy in what is really a plutocracy, by having a Parliament which has no effective party structures to give it power, and by referenda where the electors are asked to vote again if they vote for something the commission doesn't like.

That's why the Commission, Europe's  elites and all the jumble of authorities which make up the EU are as hostile to Trump as they are to Britain's desire to take back control. Can't have populism. Trump will get out of control and the British people can't be trusted. Heaven knows, they might want to do something the Commission doesn't like. Give them power and other people might want it too. Can't have that. Better just to say no. Simpler too, because no is the only thing a 27 headed hydra can get agreement on. 

European democracy isn't what the people want. It's what the Commission wants . If you don't like it, you can't even be allowed even to leave because it's all  done for your protection and in your interests.. A country which takes back control may catch Trumpism and do what the Commission doesn't want.

Does Britain have a national interest?

The repeal of the Corn Laws in the 1840s and Irish home rule at the end of the nineteenth century are the only precedents for the kind of disruption threatened by  leaving the European Union. Both split parties, divided the nation and inflicted such deep damage on the Conservatives in 1846 and the Liberals in 1886 that they took decades to recover .

Like Brexit, both were arguments over interests; land versus industry in the corn laws, imperialism versus little Britain in Home Rule. But these great disruptions differed from today's in one key way. The arguments then were clear and basically about the national interest.Today's are nebulous, hypothetical and all about vested interests not the nation's.  Few today have any clear idea what Britain's national interest is.

The argument is unreal because the nature of the deal we may be offered  is  still not known.The EU's negotiating tactic is to make negotiations so protracted ,  and to impose so many hurdles that it deters anyone from leaving its happy band. It's all  a game of bluff and bluster, a phoney war in which Remainers parade terrifying fears like  David Miliband's claim that Brexit would be "an unparalleled act of self harm". Every vested interest trembles at the unparalleled horrors to come, and Brexiteers talk of opening up to the world  without explaining what that means. Neither side can justify its claims because it ain't over until the German lady sings.

Result? Maximum confusion,in which the national interest comes nowhere. That's always been a problem of our membership. The EU It began as a deal between Germany's manufacturing interest which needed wider markets and France's agricultural interest which demanded protection.

 We gave little consideration to our national interest because no one was sure what it was. We were told that the benefits would be primarily political, meaning it offered a new stage for Britain's elite to strut on .The economic arguments were said to be more evenly balanced, but were  sold as an opportunity to show our courage, determination and inherent greatness..

It was an astonishing degree of complacency backed by homely images which showed little understanding of industry.  Cold showers would stimulate our competitiveness. We would be hitching up to Europe's faster growth. Unfortunately the showers produced pneumonia, EU growth slowed and foreseeably (but not foreseen) it proved easier to penetrate our smaller market from the larger  than vice 

versa.

We were duly penetrated. The balance of trade with the single market became a huge and growing deficit and it became clear that we had assumed damaging obligations, the loss of our fishing grounds, the rupture of our trade with cheaper agricultural producers and a burden of payments far greater than our GDP per capita would justify, to join a club which offered us little. Except maintaining  peace in Europe which NATO was already doing

 Those at the top loved Europe and the EU and its puff pastry politics but the consequences hit the less well off, along with globalisation,austerity and stagnant incomes, so it was hardly surprising that the people left behind took advantage of David Cameron's over confident referendum to protest.

Which begins round two of the Great Debate, a phoney war which is even more of a clamour of  vested interests but should be about dosh.The cost of staying in the single market is a drain of approximately £90 billion a year with the trade deficit the membership fees and the CAP all of which we're now borrowing to pay. Yet there's no thought on whether an economy which cant pay its way in the world can continue to bear such a heavy Euro-Geld

 The costs of leaving are variously estimated by the EU at up to €100 billion.Is this worth paying and for what? Every interest claims that its own  is the national interest. They get away with it because Britain is the only advanced country  which has no idea of what its national interest is.

 What sort of economy do we want?  Free trade was in the interests of the world's first industrial economy but now of a society which consumes much but produces little. So what are the alternatives?Racing to the bottom with a cut price, low wage , low tax economy? A service economy driven by consumer demand and selling assets just to survive?  Or a high skill, high investment industrial competitor. Should we sustain the City or rebuild the industrial economy which is better balanced than lopsided dependence on finance?. Do we want free trade  or  insulation by a competitive exchange rate and state investment to build strength in the way our competitors  have?.Should we welcome or restrict foreign ownership, already greater in Britain than in any competitor?

Other nations make these decisions in the light of their national interest. Britain seems unable to understand what that interest is or what the pursuit of it entails. The EU's is clear given Britain's value as an easy market and a over generous contributor, but if Britain can't agree on what it's interest is, it's impossible to negotiate for it. 

This is not a rational discussion but a clamour of vested interests. Importers fight producers, the City fights industry, foreign owned businesses see things differently to British owned, consumers fight producers and employers argue with unions. So many battles that irreconciliable Remainers hope that it will all look so difficult that we'll give up and slink back into the EU. Yet they can't tell us on what terms, and experience with Greece indicates that the EU is not exactly designed to help lame dogs over styles.

It's a gloomy prospect. Not because withdrawal is wrong or right but because our elite, has no clear view of the national interest or how to pursue it. We'll probably muddle through getting the worst of all worlds, but in or out, the prospects for a weak economy unable to pay its way, can't be all that bright in a world  growing ever more competitive. Unless our leaders suddenly discover the national interest but I've got the dreadful feeling that they don't know.

Sent from my iPad

Does custard curdle faster with Brexit?

TIME TO REVERSE THE ARGUMENT

The rampant remainers and their journal, the Guardian, are never going to be able to forgive the British people for voting for Brexit. They just can't accept that our electorate might want a strong British economy rather than being the poor adjunct of Greater Germany they've reduced us to.

Every day they bring us news of fresh disasters. Is crime rising ? Is the health service under strain? Is the economy slowing?Does custard curdle before it used to? All due to Brexit. With much worse to come.

The hidden agenda is of course to defeat Brexit by the back door. They hope that this endless diet of fears and problems will cause the electorate to learn sense, give up on its crazy whims, and agree to  crawl back into the safety and warmth of a benign European Union. Vince Cable has already made this explicit ,Vernon Bogdanor has added his more magisterial approval and Polly Toynbee wants the Labour Party to do the job for her. Doubtless it's what the rest of Yesterday's men, Blair, Mandy, Cameron, Clark and Ashdown, Dad's EU army, all think. They may have fallen a little silent of late but that's only because they're  waiting for their prophecies to turn into the real disaster they're hoping for, to teach the electorate a lesson. Then they can re-emerge as the nation's saviours and offer the EU they love as the solution.

One might have hoped that some sense of patriotism might have pushed them to do a little more to stop such a disaster, however mythical, rather than gloat at the prospect. Rather than attacking every move Britain makes, exagerating every difficulty and taking the EU side in negotiations which the EU has deliberately made as difficult as possible, they might have used whatever influence they have in their beloved EU to argue for a sensible deal and more realistic negotiations than Barnier's three stage waterboarding.

They do neither. Strange things happen when you love Europe more than your own country. Which makes it time to challenge this political archeology. Forget all their ghastly warnings. Recognise that negotiation is a game of bluff which won't be over for months. Switch the debate round by demanding that they tell us whether, and in what way, Britain could do as they want and go back into the Euro-swamp

First they need to tell us whether we can just give up and resume our place on the periphery. Or does invoking article fifty and then deciding we're too scared/stupid/weak to take the risk, require us to beg our way back as a new state, required to join Schengen and the Euro, give up our rebate, accept the refugees and accept all the centralising processes Macron wants to make the Euro work and accepting accept the same bum's rush the EU gave Cameron?

Second. If we can go back on the old basis, how are we going to stop the drain of money jobs and demand which is sucking Britain dry? Our trade in the single market is £60 billion in deficit, our membership fee is £ 11 billion and the CAP costs us perhaps £17 billion in higher food prices and we're now borrowing all of that to belong.

 So how do we stop the drain, rebalance trade more fairly and stop Germany accumulating huge surpluses which it then refuses to spend or redistribute. Do tell because as far as I can see the Single Market isn't a form of salvation  but a suction pump draining economic strength out of Britain.

Third how do we tell the British public that we can't do what they want and its all their fault for putting us in this mess in the first place?  The second hand German water cannon Boris has bought may be useful but we'll surely have to hope that Tony will use his influence with Macron to get several detachments of French CRS over here as a fraternal gesture from Europe. That'll teach the bastards