BREXIT CONSIDERED by Vernon Bogdanor

ON June 23, 2016, British voters decided by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.  Since then, British politics has been convulsed by the referendum’s repercussions. Some Remainers do not accept the finality of the vote.  The margin, they argue, was too narrow to provide a mandate for fundamental change, while some of the arguments that persuaded voters to support Leave were mendacious.  The hope that Britain could, in the words of then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, have its cake and eat it has proved misplaced.

The hope that Britain could, in the words of then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, have its cake and eat it has proved misplaced.

If, to alter the metaphor, one leaves a tennis club because one does not wish to pay the subscription and does not like the rules, one will not be able to continue to use the tennis courts on the same basis as the members. Therefore, some Remainers conclude, there should be a second referendum, to discover whether the British people still wish to leave the European Union.

The European issue is difficult for Parliament to resolve for two reasons. The first is that May’s government holds only a minority of seats—317 out of the 650—in the House of Commons, meaning it must rely for its narrow majority on the 10 members of parliament from the vehemently pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. But, perhaps even more important, both the Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party are internally divided between Remainers and Brexiteers. That division reflects a geographical and cultural division in the country.

The large cities, together with Scotland and Northern Ireland, welcome globalization and are relaxed about the EU’s principle of freedom of movement. They voted to remain. But smaller towns and older manufacturing areas, in which many feel left behind, are hostile to globalization and freedom of movement, which, they argue, have kept wages down and put undue pressure on public services. These areas supported the Leave campaign.

Parliament has enacted that Britain will leave the EU on March 29. After long and tortuous negotiations, Prime Minister Theresa May in November 2018 secured a deal with the EU. That deal comprises a legally binding withdrawal agreement providing for a transition period until December 2020, during which Britain will remain bound by EU rules while negotiating the final relationship. The pattern of that relationship is outlined in a nonbinding political declaration that hints at an outcome in which Britain could negotiate independent trade agreements, while also providing it with some degree of frictionless trade with the EU.

May’s cabinet, despite internal tensions between Remainers and Brexiteers, accepted the deal. But the Tories’ DUP allies were fiercely opposed to it, as they claimed that it might separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom by preventing a hard border with the Irish Republic and potentially creating a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The deal was also opposed both by Brexiteers in the Conservative Party, who claimed that it tied Britain too closely to the EU, and by Remainers—primarily Labour, but also Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists—who argued that it allowed for too many barriers to the export of goods and services to the EU. This coalition of incompatibles imposed a crushing defeat on the government motion to accept the deal on Jan. 15. Just 202 MPs supported it, while 432 rejected it.

A defeat of this magnitude is unparalleled in Britain’s parliamentary history. No fewer than 118 Conservatives, mostly hard Brexiteers, voted against the deal, with just 196 Conservatives supporting it. And many of those who voted for it had no choice.  (Because approximately 100 Conservative MPs are ministers or on the government payroll, they were duty-bound to support May or resign.  This means that a majority of Conservative backbenchers were opposed to the deal.) May’s defeat, in what was arguably the most important parliamentary vote in Britain since World War II, creates a moment of acute danger for the prime minister, the government, the Conservative Party, and the country.

A harder Brexit to placate Conservative rebels would alienate Conservative Remainers. Conversely, a softer Brexit to win support from the opposition parties would increase the number of Conservative rebels.

The hope was that the deal could unite Brexiteers and Remainers. Instead it has driven them further apart. A harder Brexit to placate Conservative rebels would alienate Conservative Remainers. Conversely, a softer Brexit to win support from the opposition parties would increase the number of Conservative rebels. Indeed, there may be no deal that could hold the Conservative Party together; an alternative could end the cabinet truce and possibly lead to the disintegration of the minority government, with a general election to follow.

It has happened before. In 1979, the Labour minority government led by James Callaghan disintegrated in this way, in part because Labour was internally divided on the issue of devolving power to Scotland. Then, in 1951, Clement Attlee’s Labour government, which enjoyed a majority of only five, disintegrated because the party was internally divided between left and right. In both cases, long periods in the opposition followed.

The vote also creates a moment of danger for the country. Since Parliament has already approved a bill stating Brexit will occur on March 29, that is the default position. The exit date can, admittedly, be extended with the agreement of the other 27 members of the European Union. But those countries may be unwilling to agree if the only reason for extension is that MPs, 30 months after the referendum, still cannot make up their minds. In any case, an extension would only postpone the dilemma. It would not resolve it.

Unless Parliament passes new legislation—and there are now fewer than 40 sitting days before March 29—Britain will leave the EU without a deal.  That is regarded by most commentators as disastrous, since it would mean that EU customs duties and, even more disadvantageously, an intimidating host of EU regulations would be imposed on British exports.  It would no longer be as easy to send goods from London to Paris or Frankfurt as it is to send goods from London to Edinburgh.

The Jan. 15 vote showed what MPs are against. But there seems to be little agreement on what they are for. Theresa May is now seeking consensus through all-party talks, although she has not yet budged on her so-called red lines, namely that Britain should leave both the European customs union (in order to pursue an independent trade policy) and the single market (to avoid allowing free movement of people and the jurisdiction of EU courts).   And the opposition parties see no reason to help her. Labour is unwilling to allow its deep internal divisions to be publicly exposed by articulating a clear alternative policy. It seeks not consensus but a general election to remove the Conservatives from power.   The Liberal Democrats seek a second referendum, while the Scottish nationalists seek to exploit the government’s difficulties to further the case for independence.
There is no obvious resolution of the problem that could secure majority support.

There is no obvious resolution of the problem that could secure majority support.  Were Britain to remain in the EU’s customs union, it would be unable to sign independent trade agreements.  Were it to remain in the EU’s internal market, it would have to accept freedom of movement.  Yet control of immigration from the European Union was one of the main motivations behind the Brexit vote.
At this point, there seem to be just three alternatives. The first is May’s deal, perhaps in a slightly modified form.  The second is for Britain to leave the EU without a deal; even though most MPs are against a no-deal Brexit, they find themselves unable to agree on an alternative.  The third is for Parliament throw the issue back to the people in a second referendum, even though the prime minister has so far opposed such a move, and its advocates cannot agree on the question to be asked.  Finally, given that the country remains almost evenly divided, a second referendum would not necessarily resolve the conflict.

The issue of Britain’s place in (or out of) Europe has arguably destroyed five of the last six Conservative prime ministers—Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and David Cameron.  It may be about to bring down another.

Vernon Bogdanor is a professor of government at King’s College, London. His book Brexit and the Constitution will be published next year. In 2019, he will be giving the Stimson lecture at Yale University on the consequences of Brexit for Britain and the European Union.

************

BREXIT – an anarchist guide

 by Christopher Draper

1 THE EU is a bad thing

• Only Guardian readers regard the EU as a kindly club linking the lives of European citizens. In reality the EU is a profoundly undemocratic instrument of multinational corporations organised to overwhelm the defences of local communities against predation by untrammelled capitalism.
• Like all advanced capitalist enterprises the EU offers an array of “incentives” to complicit politicians, lecturers, news agencies and other assorted pipers who play their tune.
• It is not a federation as EU laws do not pass UPWARDS to Brussels from local or national assemblies but DOWN from Brussels to be rubber-stamped into UK law.
• EU policies redeploy workers around Europe in service of a single multinational market with no concern to create or maintain sustainable local communities. Post-Communist Romanian industry and agriculture was considered “overmanned” by the EU so Romania was invited in and a third of its workforce lured abroad, driving down local wages elsewhere and leaving behind “lean” farms and factories as rich pickings for EU “investors”.
• Politics shouldn’t be run by remote bodies and individuals living lives far removed from those they adversely affect. The EU is anathema to anyone who values localism. “EU Regional Policy” is a fig leaf, a distraction from the glaring effects of EU economics – cash galore for capitalist hubs like London, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt etc and the transport links between – whilst most of our local economies and communities are devastated.

2 BREXIT or BETRAYAL?

• Parliament claims to represents the people. Anarchists believe Parliament is a mere distraction device, diverting fundamental opposition down harmless channels.
• To contain increasing opposition to the EU, on 9^th June 2015 Parliament voted by 544 to 53 to hold a National Referendum.
• Government spent £9,300,000 publishing a glossy 16-page pro-EU propaganda booklet delivered to every household in the UK. This gave dire warnings against voting for Brexit; “Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty…” (pg. 8).
• The booklet advised voters, “The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision” (pg.16) and assured us, “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide” (pg.14).
• The referendum held on 23^rd June 2016 offered a simple, stark alternative, either – “Remain a member of the European Union” ( ) or “Leave the European Union” ( )
• Thirty-three and a half million people took part, the largest ever vote and more than double the usual turnout for UK Euro elections. Most voted “Leave the European Union” (16m stay, 17.5m leave).
• On the 29^th March 2017 Parliament voted by 498 to 114 to trigger “Article 50” and exit the EU by 29^th March 2019. It was a dishonest act of utter hypocrisy.
• MP’s are almost without exception wedded to the Corporate Capitalist system of which the EU is a cornerstone, a system rejected by voters yet most MP’s are determined to subvert the referendum result and continue business as usual.
• It truly is the “Hotel California” syndrome. At best, Theresa May’s pitiful “Agreement” means we nominally check out but can never leave without the permission of the EU!

3 Fooling all the People all the Time?

• Back in 1884 William Morris and his anarchist chums parted company with erstwhile comrades who insisted there really is a Parliamentary road to socialism. Morris and his newly founded Socialist League warned that Parliament offers nothing more than a career ladder for fake socialists and a smokescreen for the rich and powerful. Plus ca change.
  

  
  

  *********

Stop Rohingya Massacre in Burma

from John Wilkins:

Thanks for signing to stop another genocide.

Now forward this to friends and family -- let's build a massive one-million person call before the UN summit begins:

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/rohingya_crackdown_73/?tfSMhib&v=500348176&cl=13114816663&_checksum=9f6fd5b335d25988f21d8948917ed478cadfdfc6d9d39ffb70461008f2de4b45 

-------
Dear friends,

In the last week, Myanmar’s army has hacked hundreds to death, beheaded children, and driven thousands of families from their homes -- just because they’re Rohingya, a hated indigenous minority.

The man responsible, General Hlaing, doesn’t face any consequences -- in fact, this murderer gets red carpet treatment and millions in military aid from countries from the UK to Russia, Israel to Germany!

This army can’t survive without our governments' support, so let’s build a global outcry now, as media attention has put the Rohingya crisis on leaders’ agenda -- and roll back the red carpet for the murderer. Add your name:

Click to stop the Rohingya massacre

Governments around the world have engaged with Burma’s military -- hoping to prevent massacres like we’re seeing right now. It’s now clear that policy has failed, but they have massive leverage by breaking ties with these butchers!

The Rohingya are a peaceful, poverty stricken community who are denied citizenship of Burma, because of their darker skin and different religion. They’ve been persecuted for years -- but this is the worst crisis they have ever faced.

Burma’s generals don’t care about human rights, but they do care about their army. They rely on aid and alliances with other governments -- and if these countries start cutting ties they’ll stop the slaughter to save their future. Add your name now to demand our leaders stop supporting Burma!

Click to stop the Rohingya massacre

We’ve helped the Rohingya before -- when thousands fled a previous crackdown and were stranded at sea, our global community donated to support rescue missions to save them. Now they need us again -- more than ever. Let’s rise to their call.

With hope,

Bert, Rewan, Ana Sofia, Danny, and the entire Avaaz team

More information:

Rohingya: "Even a baby was not spared by the military" (Al Jazeera)
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/rohingya-babies-spared-army-170827192311109.html 

UN reports "devastating cruelty" against Rohingya (UN)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56103 

UN official says 'crimes against humanity' could be unfolding in Myanmar (CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/asia/myanmar-un-crimes-against-humanity/index.html 

'Anglo-Saxon embarrassment' in El Pais

 Elections in United Kingdom »

The Anglo-Saxons have ceased to be, if ever they were, a democratic example for the world

by John Carlin in El Pais

OF the ancient democracies. so admirable in their scientific progress, so dominant linguistically, but today the United Kingdom and the United States are presenting a ridiculous front before the world.  For Donald Trump we don't have enough adjectives; the absurd reality is greater than any possibility of parody. The political spectacle that presents itself by the British is not so grotesque but it's equally confusing.  The Anglo-Saxons have lost, for sometime now, the democratic example for the world.
It's the same for both the 'labourista', Jeremy Corbyn, as it is for the 'conservadora', Theresa May, the principle candidates in the British elections this Thursday.  The result for me is that its impossible for me to vote for either of the two.  Both are stuck in the past:  Corbyn in his revolutionary dreams of Cuba, sandinistas, chavanistas;  May in an imaginary Golden Imperial  época in which classes know their place in the world, the rich eat cucumber sandwiches, the poor, steak and kidney pie, and the Europeans have no contamination over Old Albion with its 'Spanish tapas'; Rioja wine; panettone, prosecco y leaving out cultural influences.
The journalist John Carlin writes:
'May se presenta, sin querer, como una estricta directora de colegio; Corbyn como un despistado profesor de geografía. '
'[Mrs] May, without wanting to, looks like a strict college director,  Corbyn looks like a clueless profesor of geography.'

But, in the end, [Mrs] May is frightened of the schoolchildren under her control, lets say - the electorate, and Corbyn has no more than a minimum idea of how to impose order in the class or help his pupils pass their exams.'

Both promise, of course, prosperity and equality; May based on cuts, Corbyn for more public spending. Few believe them. Partly because they do not convince as leaders, but mainly because neither has offered any concrete idea on how they plan to get the country out of the colossal mess it has gotten in with the vote in favour of Brexit in last year's referendum.

Talking about what they are going to do with pensions or public health when they do not offer any plans on how the hell the UK is going to leave the European Union without the economy collapsing makes no sense. If there is no money in the public coffers all talk about future prosperity or equality is pure smoke.
The banality of the British election campaign is a result of the deficiencies of May and Corbyn but, to be minimally fair to them, the decision of their English compatriots to leave the European Union has put them both in an impossible situation. They repeat the usual electoral mantras, try to project optimism, but the two know -May more clearly, because it has more information- that there is little to do: the future of the United Kingdom outside Europe is poor, irrelevant and obscure.

Noam Chomsky on the new popularist paradigm

NOAM Chomsky is a philosopher, social critic, political activist, and pioneering linguist. Having served as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955, Chomsky is the author of dozens of books, with his most recent book, Who Rules the World?, published in 2016. Chomsky spoke with Harvard International Review editors Kenneth Palmer and Richard Yarrow about his reflections on politics in the West, and what issues he thinks it has failed to properly address.

Question:  What would you consider the origin of the rise in populist sentiments, illustrated by the referenda in the United Kingdom...and the ascent of Trump in the United States?  Do you see a common thread between these developments?

Noam Chomsky:  What’s happening in Europe and the United States has certain similarities.  It fundamentally traces back, I think, to the new liberal programs of the past generation which have just cast a huge number of people to the side. These programs have improved corporate profit, kept wages stagnant, and highly concentrated wealth and power. They’ve undermined democracy. People have no faith or trust in institutions in Europe— it’s actually worse than [in the United States]. Decisions are basically made in Brussels; people can elect whoever they like, but [the EU elections] have almost no implications for policy. As [economist and Columbia University professor] Joe Stiglitz pointed out, it’s basically one dollar, one vote, and one of the reactions is just anger at everything.

So for example, Brexit interacts with the Thatcherite programs of de-industrializing England. Financial manipulations enriched southeast England and left the rest to wither on the vine. People are angry about that, but they picked, in my view, an irrational answer, since leaving Europe doesn’t help— Europe didn’t elect Thatcher, Major, Blair, or Cameron. My guess is that Brexit will even make it worse, but you can see what the source of the anger is.  On the continent it’s pretty similar: the austerity programs have severely harmed the economy, but they’ve also essentially undermined democratic functioning: the centrist parties are collapsing, and there’s no faith in institutions. You see it in both the Trump and the Sanders phenomena—different ways of reacting to this collapse of functioning policies that [once existed] for the benefit of the population.

Trump supporters are not necessarily very poor—some of them are moderately well-off, they have jobs, but then, the image that’s been used, which is not a bad one, I think, is that they are people who see themselves as standing in line trying to get ahead. That they’ve worked hard, they’ve “done” their place in line, and they’re stuck there. The people ahead of them are shooting off into the stratosphere, and the people behind them, in their view, are being pushed ahead in the line by the federal government. That’s what the federal government does [in their view]—it takes people who are behind them and who haven’t worked hard enough they way they have, and pushes them ahead by some supportive programs. They listen to talk radio, for example, and hear laments about how Syrian immigrants are treated like kings while “I can’t get my kids my college.”

Question:  Recently, economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton identified a marked decrease in life expectancies or increase in mortality rates among white, middle-aged Americans, often due to drug abuse or suicide. How would you say that change in mortality rates has been affecting American culture or society?

Noam Chomsky:  It’s the other way around, I think: the changes in American culture and society have led to the mortality rates. This is a sector of exactly the kind of people I was describing, mostly white and mostly male, in the sort of working age period of their lives, who are apparently suffering from depression, loss of face, lack of sense of any self-worth, and turning to drugs and alcoholism. Something similar happened in Russia during the market reforms of the 1990s. There was a huge increase in the death rate, and probably millions of people died. And a lot of it was the same sense that “everything’s falling apart, we have nothing, I’ll just drink myself to death.”

Question:  Do you think that the changes in mortality rates are necessarily connected with the changes in politics—that it’s all part of a similar phenomenon?

Noam Chomsky:  I think it’s a reflection of it. Very much like, in another way, the Brexit vote is. That is, “I have no way out, so I’ll scream.” It would be quite different if, say, there was an organized labor movement, which could mobilize people. In the 1930s the situation was objectively far worse, but there was a sense of hopefulness. I am old enough to remember—there was militant labor action, CIO organizing, left-wing parties, and a relatively sympathetic administration, and so somehow we were going to get out of this. And now people don’t have that. It’s a striking difference.

Question:  You’ve talked a lot about the use of drones and, especially during the Obama administration, have criticized their use. Do you think there are ever conditions under which drone strikes are justified? What would be necessary to meet a moral threshold?

Noam Chomsky:  For example, just recently, ISIS was blocked with a drone that had an explosive in it. Would that be legitimate?  It’s wartime, [the launchers of the drone were] under attack, they’re using a weapon for self-defense.  I don’t approve of it because I don’t approve of them, but in that kind of situation I guess you could argue that it’s like any other kind of weapon.  On the other hand, when it’s a technique of assassination of suspects, it’s a different story. I mean, it’s not a question of drones.  Suppose we sent killers to assassinate people who we think are planning attacks on us. Would that be legitimate?  Suppose they did it to us—would that be legitimate?   The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers have published op-eds saying we should bomb Iran now, not wait.  So would Iran be justified in sending somebody to assassinate the editors? How would we react?

Question:  Do you think that US politics has been changing in its attitude toward humanitarian issues, or toward using drones in a better way?

Noam Chomsky:  Take a look at US history.  We’ve been at war for five hundred years without a break. The people who lived here were driven out or exterminated. Up until the twentieth century it was clearing what we now call the national territory, with constant war and vicious, brutal war. Immediately after that it expanded to other parts of the world. It’s five hundred years, virtually without a break, and the policies really haven’t changed much.

Question:  Do you see potential for greater change, and by what means? How do you think the attitude towards humanitarian issues could change?

Noam Chomsky:  It has in some respects. Take, say, torture again. The popular negative reaction was sufficient, so that it’s now apparently not being used like the way it was being used under Bush. On the other hand, we shouldn’t exaggerate. Take maximum security prisons in the United States: they’re torture chambers. I mean, prisoners are subjected to solitary confinement, which is torture, for long periods, maybe a large part of their life, so torture still goes on all the time.

Question:  Psychologist Steven Pinker argues that over time we’ve been able to use reason and the “better angels of our nature” to make improvements in reducing violence. Would you agree with his analysis?

Noam Chomsky:  There’s something to that, but the story that he presents is pretty shaky. I mean, ninety-five per-cent, roughly, of human history is in hunter-gatherer societies. He claims that they were very violent and brutal, but the specialists on the topic don’t agree with him. There’s work by some of the leading people who work on indigenous societies—Brian Ferguson, Douglas Fry, Stephen Cory—they just claim [that Pinker’s notion about hunter-gatherers is] completely false. The large-scale killings are pretty much associated with the origin of cities and the state system. One [of Pinker’s] strongest arguments is in what’s called the “democratic peace,” that democracies don’t fight each other. Almost all the evidence for that comes from the post-Second World War period, but during this period non-democracies don’t fight each other either. Russia and China have been virtually at war, but never broke out into a war. They’re not democracies, but the United States and Russia also didn’t go to war, and Russia’s certainly not a democracy.  What happened in 1945 is that great powers, or powers of some scale, recognized that you just can’t go to war anymore.  If you do, everything’s destroyed.  So Europe had centuries of murders and internal wars, but not after 1945 because the next one’s the end.  I don’t think that shows anything about the better angels of our nature.  In fact, most of the wars since 1945 have been exported, and if you take a look at the way Pinker handles these, he mostly blames the victims. The wars, he says, are in Southeast Asia and Muslim areas. I mean, is that because of the Iraqis and the Vietnamese?

Question:  What do you think is the most important issue in international politics that is not being adequately discussed today?

Noam Chomsky:  Well, there are two huge issues, neither of them being adequately discussed.  One is an increasing and very serious threat of possible nuclear war, especially at the Russian border.  The other’s an environmental catastrophe, which is coming at us very fast, and there’s nothing much being done about it. These are issues of species survival, really, beyond anything that’s ever been written about in human history. Take, say, the [last US presidential] election campaign. [These two problems were] barely mentioned, which is just astounding. Here we have an election campaign in the most powerful state in human history, which is going to have a major effect on determining what happens in the future, and the most crucial issues that have ever arisen in human history are just not being discussed.  What we’re discussing is Trump’s 3 a.m. tweets and things like “did Hillary lie in her emails?”

Question:  Why do you think those issues are not being discussed more broadly?

Noam Chomsky:  I think there’s a kind of a tacit recognition that people should be kept out of the democratic system. It’s not their area, so divert them with something else. That can be consumerism, that can be obscene remarks about women, anything, but not the major issues. I don’t think that’s a conscious choice, but it’s just kind of implicit in a subconscious, elite recognition of the way the world is supposed to work.

Question:  Does that apply for these issues as well— the nuclear threat and the environmental threat?

Noam Chomsky:  If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions.