Two sections of
this frankly-frightening piece on the state of modern British politics in today's Times caught my attention.
The first is this:
At this point no-one who has been paying attention can possibly be under the illusion that Brexit will lead to immediate prosperity, and most sensible observers cannot see a way that it will likely result in one in the long term either. However to admit out loud that Brexit will be a disaster is anathema in a world where the public have been lied to and still believes the lies they were told. The ministers who are not true believers remain in their posts either out of a sense of duty, or in the blind hope that something will turn up to either prevent Brexit or rescue us from its consequences.
The second section is this:
Theresa May likely never believed in Brexit, and was probably being honest when she spoke out against it before the referendum. Yet she first embraced it, then saw that it could not be done, and then her gamble in the election brought ruin upon her. She now stays in post even though the support she has within her government comes only from those who see no viable alternative and she herself seems to have no confidence at all in her own leadership.
As the piece also points out, the situation on the opposition benches is little different. Many members of Jeremy Corbyn's team are privately in violent disagreement with him and staying in place mainly out of ambition or the hope that one day they will rescue their party from him.
We now seem trapped, unable to go back to where we were before the 23rd of June, 2016, and unable to go forward from where we are either. Neither the government nor the opposition has any clear plan of what to do, only who to blame (the government or the EU). Only the public themselves could hope to break this deadlock, but
though there are signs of a possible shift in public opinion (let us put it no more strongly than that) it would have to transform into a tidal-wave of protest to prevent the economic disaster
predicted by the OECD.
[Picture: a view of the city of London under an ominously red sky, taken from the Shard during the strange weather we had on Monday last week]
7 comments:
I'm moving towards the position that a second referendum might not be a bad idea.
The only problem is it would make democracy look like more of a farce, and it would be seized upon by the Russian and Chinese media as an example of this. But oh well. The important thing is to stop this totally unnecessary act of leaving the EU from actually going ahead.
May had a chance to unite people around a soft Brexit, instead she decided to throw it away so as to net the support of the hard right. Her current state is the result of that.
Yeah, whilst ultimately I'd prefer for parliament to simply vote it down without having a referendum, it's becoming clear that MPs just don't feel they can go against a referendum result, even one that was officially non-binding.
Sure, the Russians (who likely helped the Brexit campaign with dark propaganda spread through bots) and the Chinese will complain, but who cares?
But for a referendum to have a chance of happening, we need to start seeing major moves in public opinion, not just minor shifts.
PS - Thatcher was right when she called referendums "a tool of dictators" (or words to that effect). The last referendum was a disgrace, the Scottish referendum little better, and in both cases the result changed few minds. If we do have a second referendum, I want that to be the last that is ever held.
The government voting down the results of the referendum would be a catastrophe. The referendum may have been non-binding, but this wasn't explained clearly to the public from the start. If the result wasn't respected, the leavers would rightly say that the elite only respects the popular vote when it is in its interest. Political instability would increase, not reduce. Another nail in the coffin of democracy would have been hammered, and the Russians and Chinese would rightly present this as proof that "Western democracy" is a joke.
Another referendum is a better idea. And I agree with you by the way, referendums in general are a bad idea.
I don't like the idea of referendums, because they lead to arbitrariness - especially when about "small" issues like bans on phenomena disdained by most of the - normal and normative - middle class (smoking in public, etc.). Whoever wants more than a vote in local, regional and nationwide elections, should run for public office, or for a public mandate.
Got a glimpse of the Catalonian celebrations after parliament had declared independence, on the BBC last night. It looked more like a party than like serious conduct. But the implications may be very serious, in terms of the economy, and wasted human lives.
Those who think that independence is a fluffy feelgood business should take a closer look at Tibet, at East Timor, or at Palestine.
"Those who think that independence is a fluffy feelgood business should take a closer look at Tibet, at East Timor, or at Palestine."
Palestine, of course, IS at least notionally independent. It's just that this independence is essentially meaningless when the West Bank is Swiss-cheesed with settlements and the IDF gets to use the Palestinian security forces as a speed-bag every few years.
By contrast Taiwan is independent in every sense except wide-spread international recognition (the blocking of which is to be deplored), yet much better off.
"I don't like the idea of referendums, because they lead to arbitrariness - especially when about "small" issues like bans on phenomena disdained by most of the - normal and normative - middle class (smoking in public, etc.)."
Yes. One of the most frustrating things about the EU referendum was that it became about things that had no relationship at all with our EU membership. One person I know voted to leave because she thought (based on a nonsensical post she read on Facebook) that it would be good for animal rights.
I remember, in one of my last acts as a member of the Conservative party, volunteering at a polling station during last year's local elections. The other person there from the Tories, an older man, said he was going to vote for Brexit, and when I asked him why said : "I'm just so angry" and then went off on a tangent about various thing he disliked about Cameron's leadership.
"Got a glimpse of the Catalonian celebrations after parliament had declared independence, on the BBC last night. It looked more like a party than like serious conduct. But the implications may be very serious, in terms of the economy, and wasted human lives."
Yes. I get the sensation that this is more a form of display than a serious commitment to founding a country, with an understanding of what that entails. I see no evidence that the Catalan government or most on the Catalan side are willing to pay the price of what they say they want.
Very reminiscent both of Scottish nationalism and of Brexit.
Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon is carefully trying to steer between the head-bangers in her party and the views of the majority of Scots by spinning everyone a line about how the SNP government thinks that the Catalans should have the right to a referendum whilst leaving unsaid the point that she does not think that this illegal secession should be recognised. Leanne Wood, of course, doesn't have this problem as Plaid Cymru aren't in government, so she can talk about how Catalan independence should be recognised by Wales.
Post a Comment