The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Britain Page 3 of 9

Seven MPs Quit Britain’s Labour Party

Per the BBC:

Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, Mike Gapes, Gavin Shuker and Ann Coffey.

They claim it’s due to anti-semitism and Corbyn’s approach to Brexit. (The anti-semitism charges are, to my mind, essentially bogus. There is no more anti-semitism in Labour today than under Blair—-unless, of course, one thinks that criticizing Israel is anti-semitic.)

What’s interesting to me is simply that there are only seven and they aren’t starting a new party, but sitting as independents.

That means, frankly, that they’re almost certainly done: They’ll sit until the next election, when they will be replaced.

A LOT more than seven MPs supported the coup against Corbyn a year after he was first elected. A good two-thirds of Labour MPs did.

That this group could only find seven willing to leave the party means MP opposition to Corbyn, while it still exists, is no longer particularly serious. There was a point where people thought 30 MPs might leave. (Though I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a couple more leave, held back to extend news cycles.)

This makes headlines, but I think it’s more of a good thing than a bad one. These people were constantly attacking Corbyn, having them out of the party is good, and their replacements will almost certainly be loyal.

Whether Corbyn can win the next election remains to be seen. As for Brexit: He doesn’t have enough MPs to force anything. However, Europe has consistently said that it likes Labour’s ideas and would be willing to re-negotiate with it. Whether they’ll do so after Brexit, I don’t know, but there’s a better chance of Corbyn fixing things than May.

A good day’s work.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

What May’s Brexit Deal Tells Us About the EU and Britain’s Future

So, May has a Brexit deal. It’s a terrible deal, which makes the UK subject to many EU laws, and which doesn’t allow Britain to withdraw from the deal if the EU doesn’t want it to.

This has caused ministerial resignations, and Corbyn has come out against it.

But the interesting part is what the EU and May have negotiated. This clause, for example:

Corbyn’s policies include straight up re-nationalization of the railways, regulation of housing prices, and the government outright building vast numbers of flats, among many other similar policies.

In other words, Corbyn’s policies interfere with liberal market rules. They are, actually, forbidden by the EU–but on occasion exceptions are made.

Of course, retaining privileged access to the EU market was going to require some rule taking, but May has chosen to take more rules that are “no socialism” and less rules that are “treat your people decently.”

What May has done is negotiate a deal which ties Corbyn’s hands: He can’t implement his policies if he becomes Prime Minister, and he can’t leave the deal. (Well, in theory, and perhaps in practice.)

Of course, Britain can still leave the deal: Parliament is supreme, and one parliament cannot tie the hands of another parliament. Nonetheless, leaving the deal would be damaging to Britain’s relationship with the EU, to put it mildly.

These sorts of efforts to tie future government’s hands so that are forced to preserve neoliberal policies are common. The now-dead Canadian Chinese trade deal had a clause which required a 20-year withdrawal notice, for example. The Canadian-EU free trade deal forbids the Canadian government from many of the same sorts of policies that May rejected as well.

This is the great problem with the neoliberal world order: It is set up to force countries into a specific sort of economy, and to punish them if they resist or refuse. That would be somewhat okay–but only somewhat–if neoliberal economics worked, but they don’t.

What neoliberal economics does, instead, is impoverish large minorities, even pluralities, in the countries which adopt its policies. Those pluralities then become demagogue bait. (Hello, Trump!)

Meanwhile Macron has proposed an EU military, and Germany’s Merkel has said she supports the idea.

EU elites are absolutely convinced their way is best, and that anyone who is against it is wrong. They are not primarily concerned with democracy (the EU is run primarily by un-elected bureaucrats), and do not consider democratic legitimacy as primary. If people vote for the “wrong” thing, EU elites feel they have the right to override that. They have overseen what amount to coups in both Greece and Italy in the past ten years.

The funny thing is that orthodox neoliberal economic theory admits there will be losers to neoliberal policies and states that they must be compensated. The problem is that this has never been done, and indeed, with accelerating austerity, they’ve done just the opposite: At the same time as a plurality is impoverished, the social supports have been kicked out from under them.

Macron has been particularly pointed in this, gutting labor rights in the name of “labor market flexibility.”

Neoliberalism, in other words, creates the conditions of its own failure. It is failing around the world: In the US, (Trump does not believe in the multilateral, neoliberal order), in Europe, and so on.

Even in countries that “support” the EU, there are substantial minorities, pushing into plurality status, which don’t support neoliberalism.

So Europe needs an army. Because Eurocrats know best, and since neoliberalism isn’t working for enough people that things like Brexit happen; that Italy is ignoring rules, that the East is boiling over with right-wing xenophobia, well, force is going to be needed. A European military, with French nukes, is the core of a great power military. And soon countries won’t be able to leave.

That, at any rate, is where things are headed. We’ll see if the EU cracks up first.

In the meantime, May’s Brexit deal really is worse than no deal, and in no way should be passed. In fact, if I’m Corbyn, and it’s been passed, if I became PM, I’d get rid of it. Because it either goes or he’ll have to substantially break all of his most important electoral promises.

The EU is loathsome. I won’t say it’s done no good, but it’s now doing more harm than good (indeed it has been for at least a decade). As with the US, because the EU is misusing its power, it needs to lose it. That process will be ugly, as a lot of those who are rising to challenge it are right-wing assholes (because the left has abandoned sovereignty).

You simply can’t fail pluralities of your population and stay stable without being a police state and holding yourself together with brutal force.

Those are the EU’s two most likely futures: brutal police state or crackup.

Pity, but that’s what EUcrats, with their insistence on neoliberal rules and hatred of democracy have made damn near inevitable.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Britain’s Conservative Government on Verge of Breakup

So, the expected has happened. Prime Minister May’s minority government has been unable to deliver a Brexit which keeps her MPs happy. Two senior ministers have resigned, and should there be a confidence vote over Brexit, it is likely that May will not muster a majority and her government will fall.

The figures who have jumped ship are hard Brexiteers, but the tightrope for May is that many of her own MPs want a soft Brexit. With almost no margin in the commons, she cannot please everyone, and likely cannot stand.

If the UK government falls, there will be a new election. Its outcome is uncertain. Both Labour and the Conservatives are pro-Brexit, with only the Lib-Dems as anti-Brexit, but the Lib-Dems, after their coalition government with the Conservatives, are unpopular and distrusted.

Brexit has been bungled from the beginning: May’s third option was never going to fly, neither enough of her party nor the EU want it. There are only two real options: Something close to Norway’s arrangement, in which Britain will have to pay for access to the common market, or a hard Brexit and reliance on World Trade Organization norms and enforcement.

I personally hope Corbyn wins. I believe he is the best chance for Britain. Various claims otherwise, being in the EU does compromise what an actual left-wing government can do in terms of unions, re-nationalization, and many other issues. The European Union, as it is right now, is a neoliberal organization and its laws and regulations enshrine neoliberal economic relations. That it is also socially liberal obscures this point.

We’ll see how this plays out, but it’s important. Remember that the current world order started in Britain, not the US, with the election of Thatcher. Britain is a bellwether for the Anglo world.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Left-wing Case for Brexit

Jacobin recently had an excellent article on left-wing Brexit, which I suggest you read. But this is the graf I want to focus on:

for a Corbyn-led Labour government, not being a member of the European Union “solves more problems than it creates,” as Weeks notes. He is referring to the fact that many aspects of Corbyn’s manifesto — such as the renationalization of mail, rail, and energy firms and developmental support to specific companies — or other policies that a future Labour government may decide to implement, such as the adoption of capital controls, would be hard to implement under EU law and would almost certainly be challenged by the European Commission and European Court of Justice. After all, the EU was created with the precise intention of permanently outlawing such “radical” policies.

That is why Corbyn must resist the pressure from all quarters — first and foremost within his own party — to back a “soft Brexit.”

This is the issue. As Jacobin’s European editor wrote:

I have pointed this out multiple times before. The European Union, in its current form (post-Maastricht) is neoliberal at its core. The Euro (which Britain at least did not adopt) was also intended to break local labor power and gut wages.

Watching the EU break Greece upon the wheel to bail out German bankers indirectly, so that they wouldn’t be seen to directly bail them out ought to have been the corpse on everyone’s doorstep that alerted people to the fact that the people running the EU, are, in certain ways, really, really bad people.

The main reason to fear Brexit isn’t “economic apocalypse,” it’s that the EU elites will do everything they can to make Britain pay to send a message.

In other words, mafia logic: “Once you’re part of the family, you don’t ever leave.”

I agree with Jacobin: Britain’s best hope of an economy which works for most Britons is Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister and instituting the policies he has said he would. Moreover, having this work is the best hope for the left in a world where all major multinational institutions and treaties are coercively neoliberal–intended to take economic decision-making out of the hands of voters and to enable free movement of capital above all other considerations.

None of this is to say that Brexit will be without some dangers and costs, but those dangers are mostly of the “save us from ourselves” variety: Tories and Blairite Labour MPs are even nastier than EU elites. And the loss of the ability to work freely on the continent, or for continentals to work freely in Britain is also a loss (though one that need not be inevitable).

But equally, the EU makes it impossible to pursue a lot of actual left-wing policies.

You can have the EU, or you can move to the left.

It’s that simple.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Russia May Not Have Attempted to Assassinate an Ex-Spy in England (Recently)

So, I’m behind on a lot of stories, but let’s talk about the Novichok story, in which Russia is said to have tried to assassinate ex-spy, Sergei Skripal, using a nerve agent which is part of the Novichok family.

There has been much hysteria over this, because Russia is behind everything these days. The problem is that the Novichok nerve agents probably don’t exist, and if they do, England (nor anyone else) doesn’t know how to detect them.

Craig Murray has been good on this, if you want the chapter on verse on “Novichoks probably don’t even exist” and “No, the Porton Down labs didn’t confirm they were used,” (paraphrasing) go read  him.

The current hysterical tendency to blame Russia for virtually everything is dangerous and stupid. Russia is both very powerful, because it has nukes and a decent army, and really not all that dangerous because it has a GDP less than that of California’s and Russia much weaker than Europe.

The EU’s population is 508 million. When the UK leaves, it will be 447 million.

Russia’s population is 143 million.

Minus Britain, the EU has a GDP of 18.1 trillion (purchasing power parity), Russia has an economy of 3.5 trillion (ppp). Germany alone has a GDP (ppp) of 4.0 trillion.

If Russia is doing all that it is blamed for, it has the most competent government in the world and the West is ruled by incompetent boobs.

(Hmmm. The second part is credible.)

The West’s problems are primarily the fault of the West. Trump, Brexit, whatever it is you want to blame on someone evil, look at home, not to the mysterious East and its scary despot (or whatever).

Further, the West is still rich and powerful and has the wherewithal to fix its problems. That, unfortunately, will require either the kind of surveillance/police state that would make the Stasi blush, or actually letting ordinary people have decent lives with less inequality.

Or, I suppose, we can blame all our problems on a nation that is only a great power because of a disproportionately powerful military and which has far less people and resources than we do.

Oh, we’re going for option #2?

Okay, then.

(To be clear, Russia may have killed him. But I don’t consider it proven.)

Update: Story and title edited to correct that Skripal isn’t dead.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Paradox of Brexit

(YEP IT’S A MANDOS POST)

Hardly a week ever goes by when I am not alerted to the increasingly absurd cruelty of the social welfare services of the UK. I’ve lived in economically below-average, minority-populated parts of the US, off and on, and the US has a bad reputation for social welfare—mostly due to its absence—but in all that time, I never heard of the kind of sheer, deliberate twist-the-knife cruelty that is apparently daily life for some of the UK’s most vulnerable citizens. I’m starting to think that no welfare is better than evil welfare. Which I suppose was the entire point of the exercise.

The very same people who advocated for this cruelty and have had years to make it worse are the people now in charge of making Brexit happen in the UK. And everyone knows they’re making a mess of it—predictably, with the same twist-the-knife cruelty that is certainly no ward against incompetence. As I have written before, even if they were to run the Brexit show well, what they want from Brexit contains no redeeming value whatsoever. They’re still proud of their austerity and are only at best grudgingly willing to restrain it when it looks like they might lose a critical handful of voters here and there. Yes, even such a debased character as the British Tory voter can show rue where his drivers, on their own, cannot. The British Tory voter, however, will still let his leaders guide him into the sewage lagoon of the tax paradise which they are chomping at the bit to build.

A Brexit with less dislocation was possible, give or take an Irish peace accord or two. That Brexit requires a Britain that did not stake its economic foundation on being local banker to a currency union it didn’t join. This would require a Britain that, long before the Brexit referendum, had not gone down the neoliberal route in the first place, had not succumbed to the ideology of austerity, and had not perfected welfare cruelty.

But therein lies the paradox of Brexit. Brexit was only going to come after a referendum for it. But the conditions to reach the “Yes” vote are precisely these conditions of frustrated failure, if you are inclined, as many are, to see the phenomenon fundamentally through an economic-stress lens. In a non-austerian, non-neoliberal political alternate history—one that, I emphasize, has always mostly been within the UK’s power to execute, despite EU membership—a “Yes” vote would probably have been unachievable. That is why you could never really have a good Brexit, and why, when Brexit really takes place for good, a possible future Corbyn government is going to be left holding a nasty bag of failure that will likely preclude any major reforms in a left-wing direction.

From a progressive/left-wing/whatever perspective, from the perspective of a humane political economy, the flaw in anti-EU/pro-Brexit thinking is one of “dictionary-definition” conservatism. I was mostly opposed to the pro-globalization policies for goods and capital on the whole. But now that it has occurred, it’s a reactionary mistake to attempt to roll it back, rather than assess where the world is now and consider new ways of creating a humane economy in the future. That reactionary mistake plays into the hands of the Rees-Moggs and Boris Johnsons of the world, and worse.

The Left Improves Control of Britain’s Labour Party

Picture of Jeremy Corbyn

Picture of Jeremy Corbyn

Three new seats on Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) were created and filled through voting of members. All three went to Corbyn-supporting members of Momentum, a grassroots organization created after Corbyn was elected leader.

They then replaced the chair of the disputes committee, Ann Black, with Christine Showcroft, another Momentum member.

Black, the replaced chair, had ruled that 130,000 Labor members who had joined for five pounds couldn’t vote in the last leadership election (the one called to unseat Corbyn), but had to pay another 25 pounds. This ruling was clearly anti-Corbyn. There were also a lot of purges of members throughout that campaign, purges which virtually all seemed to hit Corbyn supporters.

Corbyn’s margin of control of the Labor party’s adminstrative apparatus is still scant, but it exists.

The next step appears to be a review of whether or not all Labor Members of Parliament should be subject to mandatory re-selection: i.e., whether they have to win the right to represent Labor in their riding. Most MPs strongly opposed Corbyn during the leadership challenge, and party members feel that those MPs do not represent them.

I believe this should be done, or Corbyn is likely to be hamstrung if he does win election as Prime Minister.

All of this may seem very insider baseball, but control of major parties is vitally important in democracies. Thatcher said that her most important victory was Tony Blair’s election: Because Tony Blair, as a “third way” politician, would not undo what she had done. He agreed with her on the deep questions of how Britain should be run, even if there were differences at the margin.

With the two main parties both neoliberal, there now truly was “no alternative”. Corbyn’s victory, and the left gaining control over Labour, now means that there is an alternative.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Was All-Powerful Russia Responsible for Brexit, Trump, and Catalonia?

Vladimir Putin Official Portrait

Dark Lord Vladimir Putin

I am given to understand that, in addition to causing Trump to win the US election, Russia is responsible for Brexit, and for the Catalonian independence vote.

Russia, with a GDP of less than half that of California, has, in other words, the most effective election tampering program, in the form of internet trolls and fake news, the world has ever known (or at least since back in the 50s, when the CIA was pretty good at this stuff, and willing to overthrow the government of any country that voted the wrong way).

Is this credible?

Or is Russia being used as a scapegoat for election results neo-liberal elites don’t like?

This isn’t to say Russia may not have tried to influence elections. Sure as hell, the US spends a ton of money influencing foreign elections, but is Russia “the reason”?

It seems unlikely to me, and to whatever extent it might be true, it would only be true in the sense that truly close election results have a thousand parents. If it’s close, any number of things made up the margin.

But I think it’s largely bullshit. That it is an attempt to evade responsibility by domestic elites for screwing things up, or in the case of political opponents like Clinton’s Democrats, for running terrible electoral campaigns (or both).

Trump was possible because a lot of people are very unhappy. Brexit was possible because a lot of people are very unhappy. Catalonia was possible because a lot of Catalonians are unhappy with how Spain treats them.

Or, if you wish, two out of three are driven by racism, or regional anger, or…your choice of reason. They were possible because there were already serious problems.

Something like Trump or Brexit or an independence referendum doesn’t happen primarily because of foreign interference, it happens because a lot of people are unhappy with the status quo. In such circumstances, perhaps foreign interference might make the difference, but it wouldn’t do shit unless it was already razor close.

Look home, not abroad, for why people are willing to vote for actions which elites consider unthinkable.

The primary reason for it is always, always, elite mismanagement of some sort or another.

 

Page 3 of 9

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén