Queen Elizabeth II
I wrote and published a piece about this briefly, and I realized I was wrong, so I took it down.
Johnson has prorogued (suspended) Parliament from about the 11th of September. It’s clearly a maneuver intended to make Brexit more likely, and shady as hell.
Under the Westminster tradition, Parliament is supreme. Not the Prime Minister.
Some years ago in Canada, Prime Minister Harper prorogued to avoid a vote of no confidence (which would have toppled the government and triggered an election). That was clearly against the unwritten rules of the Westminster tradition. When the Queen’s representative, the Governor General allowed it, she failed her duty.
I originally thought the Queen had done the same thing, and if she had, I’d want her–and the royal family–gone. They have a duty, they need to do it.
But, as Parliament will be in session for long enough to allow a vote of no-confidence (if MPs want to do one), I find this act, while clearly shady and abusive, just barely on the right side, and I can understand why the Queen let it happen.
If Parliament doesn’t want this to happen, they have plenty of time to make sure it doesn’t. If they don’t prevent it, this means they aren’t willing to topple the Conservative government. That is on them, they know the consequences.
This is back in the hands of Parliament, where it should be.
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.
Ten Bears
I stand by my earlier observation, a harbinger of things to come. Putin is pleased.
Mark Pontin
Ian wrote: ‘But, since Parliament will be in session for long enough to allow a vote of no-confidence … if Parliament doesn’t want this to happen, they have plenty of time to make sure it doesn’t. If they don’t this means they aren’t willing to topple the Conservative government, then that is on them, they know the consequences.”
Leaving aside the morality part, do you understand the potential maneuver the Johnson government is setting up here?
If I understand matters correctly, Boris _needs_ Parliament to call a vote of no-confidence in order to set up a general election because under the Fixed-Term Parliament Act of 2011 he cannot call one himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
‘The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 September 2011, introducing fixed-term elections to the Westminster parliament … The Act sets out the timetables for parliamentary general elections and dissolution of parliament. Under the act a general election is scheduled for the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election, although there are situations where an election can be called earlier.
‘The two most important situations where a general election can be earlier are a vote of no confidence in the government, and a vote of two-thirds of the House of Commons. ‘
Right now, Johnson has wedged Parliament into such a short slot of time that, following a no-confidence vote, he can ensurethat a general election only happens after a no-deal Brexit (October 31). In a general election immediately after a crash-out Brexit, Johnson can reasonably hope both to see off Farage’s Brexit Party as a threat to the Tories — because he’ll have given Brexit true believers what they wanted — and also , if he’s only slightly lucky, to gain a big enough majority to rid the Tories of depending on Arlene Foster’s six DUP members of parliament from Ulster.
Right now Johnson only has a majority of one. If he’s got a sufficient majority to kick the DUP to the curb — and all he needs is seven more seats — Johnson can then wheel around and sign a version of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement that moves the effective EU-UK border to the Irish Sea.
Most Brits will be absolutely fine with effectively dumping NI on Dublin and the EU. If the EU has problems with such an arrangement, then Johnson’s government can then threaten to take the EU to the World Court if the EU attempts to build customs and border controls in Ireland in violation of the Good Friday Agreement.
The flaw in the EU and Varadkar’s focus on demanding a backstop from the UK was that it’s always been the EU’s need to preserve their Single Market driving it. Johnson can make clear that unless the EU is agreeable, in the months and years till the World Court makes its decision, there’ll be as much chlorinated chicken, etc., rammed across the border from NI into the EU’s precious Single Market as possible.
What about the WTO? Well, I know less about that, but the WTO has no enforcement mechanism of its own, as I understand it, and somebody would need to file a suit with the World Court against the UK f0r anything to happen there. I believe that, thanks to Trump’s shenanigans, the WTO court has only two judges now, and the chances are that any action at the WTO against the UK would be months to years in coming.
To be sure, there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip. For instance, Theresa May set up a general election, too, and thereby lost enough seats that it backfired on her. Still, Johnson’s strategy — if he’s doing here what he seems to be doing — seems in principle quite realistic.
Hugh
From thewiki,
“Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a passing of a motion of no confidence is one of only two ways in which an early election can occur (the other is a motion to hold an early election passed by at least two-thirds of MPs). Following a successful motion, Parliament must dissolve, unless the motion is overturned within 14 days by the passing of an explicit motion of confidence. This procedure is designed to allow a minority government time to seek the support of other parties (as a formal coalition or with a confidence and supply arrangement) to avoid having to face re-election, or to allow an alternative government to be formed.
In principle, the alternative government could be led by any MP who can draw together enough support for a legislative programme that secures a vote of confidence and, by convention, a request from the Queen to form such a government. In practice, it is likely to be the leader, or a senior member, of a party with a significant number of MPs in the House that can achieve this.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom
Mark Pontin
Hugh notes: “In principle, the alternative government could be led by any MP who can draw together enough support for a legislative programme that secures a vote of confidence … In practice, it is likely to be the leader, or a senior member, of a party with a significant number of MPs in the House that can achieve this.”
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? If the opposition leader were anybody other than Corbyn, then, yes, in theory parliament might draw together around them and oppose Boris’s government in the time available. In practice, a majority of MPs across all parties seem to fear and revile the notion of Corbyn as PM more than they do that of no-deal Brexit.
And I have to say: while Corbyn may be a nice man and he’s certainly been opposed bitterly at every juncture by the Blairites in Labour, he’s no Bernie Sanders and in these last three years since the surprise turnout for Labour in the last general election he’s been startlingly ineffectual at turning the Tories’ failures to his and Labour’s advantage.
Tom
Corbyn isn’t a scrapper, and he is useless. This is Boris’ show and for good or ill, he will lead because he can scrap and leave blood on the floor.
Labor needs to get its shit together and find a scrapper to replace Corbyn.
Hugh
An out of control leader dominating a party of political whores, a willfully ineffectual opposition … Where have I seen this before?
John Poynton
An alternative to abolishing the monarchy, which no one wants, is to set up an elected constitutional council responsible for a written constitution and to advise Her Majesty on constitutional and other matters in which Parliament has too much of a vested interest.
Bill H
And people here complain about our Congress “not being able to get things done,” forsooth. Britain voted more than three years ago that they were to leave the EU, and their leadership has not only not yet done it, they have been trying to prevent the will of the people from being carried out for the whole three years. Our government may be pretty nasty in some ways, but it seems better to me than the nasty horror that England suffers under.
Ché Pasa
The Queen got Herself bashed pretty thoroughly for that assent, but she’s used to it by now, and besides, what is a Monarch to do when the children in power misbehave? She can’t say “NO!” can she now?
Yes, children. The whole parliamentary goof off over Brexit has been more like a childish prank than governance, and so now the loudest, baddest of the children wishes Silence! so that he may “think” properly of the next scene in the show. Well, good luck, Bucky.
This or something like it seems to be a core problem with politics throughout the English-speaking and much of the non-English-speaking world. Clearly something a bit beyond out ken is motivating it, but what? Nationalism? Fascism? Corporatism? Denialism? What could it be?
The near universality of whatever-it-is is striking, tho. These crackpot goonies are getting away with it, too. There’s apparently no way to stop them. We’re stuck on a merry-go-round that’s spinning out of control.
And no one will save us.
The petition to stop proroguing parliament is inching up to 2,000,000 signatures. That’s probably its max. And of course nothing will happen, no more than anything happened when millions took to the streets to protest Brexit or any number of other dreadful/deadly absurdities out of the Leadership. Those in power don’t care.
They will do what they want and the rabble can go hang.
NoPolitician
In the US, Trump is allowed to exist because he is making very rich people very happy with his tax cuts and regulation rollbacks.
Can someone explain to me why the rich and powerful in Great Britain are allowing Brexit to happen? What do they have to gain? Is it as simple as them trying to crash the British economy so that they can come in and scoop up assets at fire-sale prices?
DC
People still use the argument of “will of the people” nowadays after knowing the Leave side violated all kinds of campaign finances laws?! Violations that in a normal election/referendum would invalidate the result. On a 50-50 result based on all sorts of lies where the choice was between “stay the same” and “something we don’t know that could result in a dozen different scenarios that we aren’t going to put on vote”?
Will of the people? Really?! What are you guys high on?
@NoPolitician in the short term they are killing it by shorting the pound.
In the long term the City will be making a killing by ramping up their status as a tax heaven.
Check timings of EU anti-money laundering laws being proposed, approved and coming into effect with the timings of talks about Brexit, referendum and hard-Brexit deadlines.
UK’s economy relies heavily on a junior Wall Street that launders and manages money from all sorts of dirty businesses through UK tax heavens (more than half of the world’s tax heavens are UK jurisdictions). EU laws would severely affect The City’s business.
DC
Oh, forgot to add the referendum was non-binding. So, there’s that…
God Save the Guillotine
\”abolishing the monarchy, which no one wants\”
More\’s the pity.
Stirling S Newberry
Off-Topic:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/america-s-middle-class-is-losing-ground-to-canada-s
The average Canadian is, arguably, better off than the average American.
I noted the magazines are not running Game Theory. The GT is right, but the magazines are written by boobs. The simple question is: How do we get a tax-cut for billionaires?
different clue
( Off subject but . . . I see that after being absent for almost two months, the stern visage of Mustapha Kemal is back again among the pictures that come up under ” Ian Welsh Images”. How does this happen?)
metamars
Don’t know much about British politics. Don’t care to. I really like George Galloway, and Nigel Farage, though.
If invited to enjoy tea and strumpets with the Queen, I might accept. Then, again, I might not.
Now, without further ado, I present Alex Mercouris on this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snf9dSruKYE
Gunther Behn
Somewhere, the gods (and Sad Vlad) are laughing, fit to bust: ‘Better than hoped-for results expected.’
dbk
@NoPolitician
“Can someone explain to me why the rich and powerful in Great Britain are allowing Brexit to happen? What do they have to gain? Is it as simple as them trying to crash the British economy so that they can come in and scoop up assets at fire-sale prices?”
I think that’s part of it, but there are other benefits: shorting the GBP, parking all their liquid assets offshore, getting dual EU citizenship wherever practicable, etc. The 1% won’t suffer, it’s safe to say.
The Queen did what Queens do – the members of her Privy Council were in Balmoral prontissimo, and their meeting with her must have concluded in like five minutes. She’s knowledgeable and, I suspect, politically very well-versed, but she’s 93 and it was unlikely she would break with precedent after more than 60 years. And what was she supposed to do, delay the inevitable?
The backstop is a puzzle to me. Have the Brits just grown weary of NI, and decided to throw it to the dogs? A border in the middle of the Irish Sea will, it seems to me, lead to the fraught but ultimate unification of Ireland. And Scotland will break off as well, as a staunchly pro-EU country. Nicola Sturgeon is really, really angry.
@MarkPontin
“In practice, a majority of MPs across all parties seem to fear and revile the notion of Corbyn as PM more than they do that of no-deal Brexit.”
This. Corbyn is so reviled by Tories/Lib Dems/Blairites that many seem to believe “anything but Corbyn, including a no-deal Brexit” is preferable.
It’s pretty amazing, really.
bruce wilder
The wailing and knashing of teeth over a five-week prorogue (after the longest continuing session in living memory) seems like exactly the kind of nonsense the Democrats on MSNBC and CNN get themselves all worked up about — much ado about (alleged) procedural norms, which are neither rules or even precedents, let alone principles of high morality.
Tony Blair lying Britain into joining the unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq — that was a violation of actual morality. The morass of money-laundering that is the bread-and-butter of The City (of London financial sector) — that touches on questions of morality. Boris asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament so he, as a new Prime Minister, can bring in revised policy agenda — not really something to get excited about.
The rallying cry of the opposition to Brexit is something like, “No Brexit without a Deal”, but the only deal on offer has a poison pill in “the backstop”. Parliament in the current session rejected that deal — the only deal — three times. This determination to stop a “no-deal Brexit” seems to be a bit hollow, given that the deal-on-offer has been rejected.
And, what’s with the determination to not understand why the backstop was rejected? The backstop will leave Britain in a strange netherworld, neither in nor out of the EU, powerless to affect EU decision-making and powerless to complete its exit on its own motion. It is a Brexit that accomplishes nothing.
And, while we are on the subject of a determination not-to-understand, how is it that neither the parliamentary calendar nor the simple fact that enactments of this Parliament have made a no-deal Brexit the default option escaped the notice of these august Parliamentarians? No one forced Parliament to take its Summer recess.
And then there’s the whole anomalous status of Northern Ireland: what is that about? Northern Ireland is not integrated with Britain, politically or culturally. If the EU boundary is in the Irish Sea, so what? Northern Ireland is in . . . (wait for it) . . . Ireland! Always has been. What’s with the pearl-clutching over simple facts of geography, physical and political?
metamars
Off Topic:
The Chinese are bringing their first molten salt thorium reactor online in 6 months (see about 17:00 into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh5rl4127eY ).
They have been assembling an elaborate supply line, also.
I worked in China, 1999-2000. In the winter time, the air was so thick with the smoke or smog from coal fired plants we couldn’t see more than about a block or two, away.
Since I worked there, I believe the Chinese have built hundreds or thousands of coal fired plants. Assuming they are economical, I also assume the Chinese will make the switch to thorium reactors and cease making coal plants, completely.
Such an eventuality SHOULD make CO2 catastrophists happy (or happier)…. but I suspect it won’t. The Chinese have worked off reactor plans from the US, from the 1960’s. There is nothing they did, that we couldn’t have done, sooner.
Think about that….
Hugh
In the US and the UK, we are seeing traditional Establishments clothed in all their pomp and circumstance degenerate into vicious clown shows. This descent into moronic posturing pulls the curtain back on the whole structure of their entitlement. So the monarchy is sold as the symbol of the nation, but its principal role is to sit atop and legitimize an unproductive and anachronistic class system. The British would be better without it, just as here in the US we would be better off without our billionaires and the credentialed hereditary “meritocracy” which sustains and defends them.
The bright light that Brexit shines on the failures of the British Establishment takes attention off the bigger story of the pervasive failure of the EU. It is a very, very big deal that the EU’s second largest economy is trying to break free of the EU. This doesn’t happen without severe repercussions within the rest of the EU, not just economic, but also political and philosophic. Some are a bit odd. English is the lingua franca of the EU. But with the UK out so is English, and this is likely true even if Scotland (Scotch English) decides to stay in. The EU can’t even handle the obvious well. Brexit isn’t just an EU failure. It is more particularly a German failure. Germany isn’t just the EU’s biggest economy. It is its leader. And the history of the EU is a history of the failures of German leadership. We saw the first major instance of this back in 2009 in the Greek debt crisis. The creation of the EZ, the eurozone, meant that German products became relatively cheaper even as those in less developed EU countries became relatively more expensive. This resulted in a mercantilist siphon of wealth to Germany. Germany did not recycle this accumulated wealth rather it lent it back. And when things predictably went splat, Germany didn’t write off the bad loans of its banks (as in what is supposed to happen with bad loans). No, it destroyed Greece resulting in about ten thousand excess deaths of Greeks since. And for what? To bail out the improvident German banks that had made the bad loans. You can call this a lot of things, but leadership is not one of them. What is so bizarre about this is that after having killed ten thousand Greeks, EU citizens, to feed its banks, Germany took in hundreds of thousands of non-EU Syrian refugees (although admittedly it had intended on dumping most of them off on its neighbors).
Greece was, of course, not the only casualty of German mercantilism. It was simply the first of the problems in what was called the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), or the EU’s Southern Tier, plus Ireland, plus Cyprus. I would note that Italy and Spain are the EU’s 4th and 5th largest economies.
And then there is the whole Eastern Tier which under German non-leadership has been going authoritarian.
Finally, there is Germany itself. The Hartz labor “reforms” weakened the social safety net. At the same time, infrastructure investment has declined. And scandals like the diesel emissions scandal and the never ending disasters at Deutsche Bank, a criminal enterprise if ever there was one, even among banks have taken the shine off the German reputation for engineering and efficiency.
It is a source of amazement and amusement to me that during almost all of this time Angela Merkel and that despite all this wrong-headed destruction, she remains a synonym for responsible “leadership.” I think we need to remember this when looking at the UK’s floundering clown show. It’s not just the British.
Hugh
“Angela Merkel” should read “Angela Merkel headed Germany”
bruce wilder
If Britain does exit, the language issue will be an odd point, but don’t you think some other country could volunteer to nominate English as their chosen “native language”? Ireland would be the obvious choice to legitimize continued use of English as the working language of EU institutions. Malta could do so, as well.
It is an interesting side-light. The only EU institutions that use a working language other than English are the legal institutions, which use French. I think it would be quite disruptive to change working languages. India became independent of Britain 70 years ago, expecting to lose English by 1965 (that was the sunset date written into the Constitution), but with only a few exceptions at the state level, English is still the language of law in India.
bruce wilder
Hugh, I wonder if you have any comment on the thesis that Macron’s extreme centrism is carrying France in an authoritarian direction?
Hugh
France has a very centralized state, and the President has a lot of power. So the French Presidency is inherently more authoritarian than Executives in most other countries. I think Macron is neoliberal to the bone, and simply doesn’t give a shit about the gilets jaunes, the people they represent, or their concerns.
As his wiki says, he is a product of “Université Paris Nanterre, later completing a Masters in Public Affairs at Sciences Po and graduating from the École nationale d’administration.” This is a very elitist pedigree akin to doing an undergrad at Harvard, attending law school at Yale, and graduating from some prestigious Advanced Center for the Study of blah-blah.
Needless to say, he’s pro-Europe because the construction of Europe is the ultimate in neoliberal, elitist experiments. and the gilets jaunes like many others, the Greeks for instance, are the ones who have paid the costs of it. It oozes from Macron that he would really like all these losers just go be quietly miserable somewhere out of his sight. Hey, “On ne fait pas d’omelette sans casser des oeufs,” and the eggs in this case are ordinary French people.
Ten Bears
Will be interesting to watch as the just-in-time supply lines break down. The thousands of trucks (lorries?) that transport everything from car parts to water bottle-necked at unmanned ports, deliveries delayed and canceled. Statistically, it’s a captive population, dependent on imports for just about everything. I’ll venture it’ll be about a week before violence breaks out, ten days for the veneer of civilization to slip away.
As a harbinger, a whisper of things to come, we don’t need drumpf uck’s dissolution of an “obstructionist” congress and declaration of martial law, postponement of an election … our supply lines are not all that secure. Will be interesting to watch, make notes.
Ten days, they’ll be eating each other.
Mallam
Why should anyone give a shit about the GJ, a largely fascist movement that was only concerned with raising the cost of gasoline and “ruining their way of life” which is dependent on cars, trucks, and diesel fumes? Their only victory was in securing reduced diesel taxes and breaking redlight cameras, both of which increased deaths from vehicles and respiratory-based diseases.
That’s not to say that all elements of GJ are bad, but the core of the movement was protesting diesel taxes, half of them supported Le Pen, black/brown protesters were largely absent from the ranks (I wonder why), and it had nothing to do with the rest of his neoliberal project. They’re fine with that. They just want their cars and to burn the planet in peace.
Hugh
French membership in the EU and EZ resulted in the devastation of the industrial North and Northeast creating a French version of the “Rust Belt.” The gilets jaunes come from the towns around these former industrial centers. Jobs no longer are near where they live. If they can find one at all, they often have to use a car and drive further to it. Macron’s attempt to hike gas prices was a typically neoliberal solution. It was a regressive tax and fell most heavily on those who couldn’t avoid, if they wanted to keep their jobs. So neoliberalism ended their former better paying, nearer to home jobs, gave them fewer, crappier alternative ones, and then sought to raise significantly the costs (in transportation) on those. So they’re being pissed off is totally inexplicable and indefensible.
French of North African descent, the Maghrébins, are more urbanized and don’t live out in the countryside where the gilets jaunes do. The Maghrébins have been screwed over and discriminated against for generations. There is a fair amount of racism toward them by both the gilets jaunes and French society in general. In the case of the gilets jaunes, it is much as it is in the US, they see them as competition. And at the same time and somewhat contradictorily, it grates that they don’t fully integrate into French society, which is an even bigger deal in France than in the US. The Maghrébins and the gilets jaunes have many interests in common against the French Establishment which has disadvantaged and ignored them. But divide and conquer is the neoliberal kleptocratic way and been very successful so far.
As for Marine Le Pen, you have to understand that there is this enormous hole in French politics. All of the political parties are neoliberal and elitist, including the Socialists. Le Pen and the Front National are about the only ones who deign to speak to them, or even recognize their existence. Even so, the gilets jaunes seem to prefer their role as a popular uprising and have not shown any particular interest in formally allying with the Front.
Tom
While on the subject of the Queen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsVzDf-KhXU
Funny part is, the rightful heir is a believer in Republican Government and against Monarchy.
Of course the royal family will deny this claim and truth be told, the British Government would have no choice but to deny it or lose all legitimacy.
Moot anyway with climate change.
Mandos
I dunno where to start. I should post more but I hardly have the time these days. Exit from the EU is the ultimate in neoliberalism, frankly. The reason why is that the UK is not autarky-capable currently. Everyone is fixated on the EU as a bad neoliberal institution. Yes, it is, it “came of age” in the time of peak neoliberal dominance, so of course the people who did the insittution-building came at it with neoliberal assumptions. The problem is, the world outside the EU was also developing in a neoliberal manner (WTO, IMF, etc…), but with even weaker assumptions of labour power and social safety nets. A UK dependent on imports is going to have to swallow even more neoliberal pills, reinforcing the dominance of the privatization agenda, it will have to participate more fiercely in US militarism, etc, etc. There isn’t and there could never have been a Brexit that represented resistance to neoliberalism.
For all its faults, the EU’s position has been essentially correct in all of this — the main desire of British Brexiteers (with actual power) is revealed to be market access without regulation. How is this good? If the UK wants access to EU markets without being a member of the EU, it had bloody well better take rules. Otherwise, the UK will become the lever of anti-consumer deregulation.
As for Northern Ireland: it is yet another matter of “having ones cake and eating it too.” The UK does not want to give up Northern Ireland. Therefore, it must renege on the underlying principles of the peace that was established 25 years ago. Or, it must continue to take rules, ie, the backstop, until it can figure out a way to keep NI without a border in the Irish Sea. Which UK Brexiteers apparently do not want, or are too reliant on the DUP to admit wanting.
Supranational institutions established without direct military force are basically a good idea, even if they may not be established under perfect ideological conditions. We must transcend the nation-state.
Mike Barry
I’m afraid we can’t do that, Dave.
It violates the basic principle of self-determination. In its EU incarnation, it forces immigrants down the throats of each member state – a clear violaton of its original role as a trade organization. That simply will not stand.
Hugh
Shorter Mandos, UK neoliberalism = bad, EU neoliberalism = good.
“If the UK wants access to EU markets without being a member of the EU, it had bloody well better take rules. Otherwise, the UK will become the lever of anti-consumer deregulation.”
Sample translations of Mandos-speak:
If the UK wants access to EU markets without being a member of the EU, it had bloody well better kowtow to the diktats of its anti-democratic, neoliberal bureaucracy. Otherwise, the UK will become a challenge to it and German mercantilism.
or
“We must transcend the nation-state.”
We (that is muppets, rubes, saps, common people) must learn our place and embrace the new anti-democratic world order.
Or even shorter: Oligarchy rules!
Mandos
Aside from the general desirability of ending borders and militarized control over human movement (hint: it’s highly desirable, an absolute border-enforcement right is the stepchild of absolute property rights), there is no “forcing immigrants down the throat” here. Labour mobility is part of the package that all the member states sign up to, they did not have to sign up in the first place. Labour mobility and regulatory equivalence reduce much of the harm that free trade does. Free trade without labour mobility is peak neoliberalism — wrapped in “cultural” nationalist clothing.
Mandos
Hugh:
Um . . . no? The UK is not going to be a challenge to German mercantilism outside of the EU. UK EU membership is basically irrelevant to German mercantilism, insofar as it is not a member of the Single Currency (which a number of EU states are not). The limits of German mercantilism are revealing themselves quite apart from the EU.
The UK is not leaving the EU because it wants to institute a better regulatory scheme. If anything, it is doing so because it thinks that EU consumer regulations are too strict — which they aren’t . . . so you can imagine what the drivers of Brexit really want. Also see: the desperation to get any sort of post-EU trade deal in short order, all of which will come with the major string: “loosen your regulations to let our cheap products in.”
The answer is deepening democratic institutions in supranational entities. A world civilization with our degree of technology and all its attendant environmental risks cannot exist without regulatory frameworks that apply at least at the continental level if not full-on world government. When I hear from left-wing Brexiteers how they plan to achieve that, I’ll agree that left-wing Brexit might not necessarily be a bad idea. It’s difficult, I know, but all the other options are more difficult. (Aside, I guess, from anarcho-primitivism after a rapid population crash. Maybe? Probably not.) But until then, Brexit is a neoliberal project if there ever were one, and any left-winger is deluding themselves to think otherwise!
Mandos
I guess the common left-wing fallacy is that if something is “neoliberal,” then destroying it is a blow against neoliberalism. It is not, when that thing is embedded in a superstructure that has been designed to be even more neoliberal than it, or has a series of anti-democratic failsafes. Which the EU does. The only way “out” is “through.”
Mandos
Correction:
“… themselves quite apart from the EU.” should read “… themselves quite apart from the UK.” but actually both are true to varying degrees.
Hugh
Labor mobility: translation “treating workers as a fungible commodity.”
Undercutting local wage structures, an added plus. Leaves unexplained why the famous Polish plumbers that went to the UK didn’t simply go next door to Germany. What, German plumbers make even less than German plumbers? I don’t think so. So what we are talking about is labor mobility in some places and not in others. And all of this ignores the language and national issues that have written the history of Europe for the last two thousand years. And no, ignoring does not equal solving.
Hugh
More gobbledygook. TINA. Up is down.
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.'”
Mike Barry
That’s not an argument for labor mobility, it’s an argument against free trade. Thanks,
Hugh
“What, German plumbers make even less than German plumbers?” should read “What, German plumbers make even less than Polish plumbers?”
Mandos
Therein lies the rub: the UK is not autarky-ready, and in fact deeply depends on frictionlessly trading services for cheap, fast imports of sundry manufactured goods and raw materials. That is why the main exponents of Brexit, the ones in the driver’s seat, constantly push how easy it will be to establish a “Global Britain”, how quickly trade deals (that dispense with EU consumer regulation) can be signed, etc, etc. If Brexit were about ending free trade, you might have a point, but right now it is about a fantasy of one-sided trade that will be continue to be at the expense of the working class, propped up by dogwhistle politics and cultural nationalism.
Mandos
Oh but they did! I have deep experience of multiple central and western European countries and Eastern European tradespeople are hardly absent from these countries!
No.
These issues are not “ignored”, they are the entire point . . . aside from the “history of Europe for the last two thousand years bit.” The nation-state with militarized borders is not that old.
Mandos
TINA is a favorite go-to, of course, but in this case, it only makes sense if you believe that Brexit is an “A”, so to speak. I have not so far seen anyone describe any serious strategy or outcome that makes Brexit “worth it” to the left. The most I can see is some questionable claims that British EU membership prevents rail renationalization. I support rail renationalization, but not at any price. Brexit is entirely driven by the Boris Johnsons and Nigel Farages of the world, charlatans and grifters.
Hugh
Mandos should stop while he’s behind because the more he talks the worse his case gets. Then he just starts making things up. Polish plumbers were so ubiquitous in Great Britain that they became a meme in the Brexit debate. It would be interesting to know how many EU workers were in say the UK and Germany broken down by country, profession, and wage. Instead out of nowhere and with no evidence at all, Mandos asserts that Polish plumbers are all over Germany too. Why? because it helps his argument. My understanding of how things worked in the EU was something like this. The British when they accepted a rule, they abided by it. So they ended up with a lot of tradespeople from the EU. In Germany, they simply defined themselves out of it: wrong credentials, need to be a member of, etc. So they ended up with far fewer.
From there Mandos goes on to deny most of the last two thousand years of European history, unsurprisingly in much the same way. We can only count the modern nation-state which is only about 3 hundred years old. The idea is, I suppose, that there is an equation being made between the nation and linguistic unity, but this argument quickly falls apart. Even in a centralized state like France, you have German, Breton, Occitan, Italian Spanish, and Basque speakers as well as millions who speak Arabic. In Italy, you have a major division between Northern Italian and Southern Italian. You can split North Italian into Tuscan and what is spoken further north in Milan. And of course, there are also the German speakers in the Northeast. In Spain, you have Catalan, Basque, and Galician (all distinct languages) as well as another division between North Spanish (Castilian) and South Spanish. All these populations have existed for centuries, and they have existed because they lived in geographically distinct communities. But this is inconvenient for Mandos, so they get thrown out the door.
Mandos finishes with equating anyone who supports Brexit with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage forgetting that a majority of UK voters supported Brexit and many did so because of the devastation that EU membership did to places like the industrial British Midlands. But they are muppets and rubes like the rest of us, so easily written off.
Mike Barry
If so, they can fix the problem. They can re-industrialize and retool, working through their society and their national government. Not saying that\’s an easy fix, but working through the openly and explicitly unaccountable EU would be impossible.
Mandos
There is no intention to do so, and no popular support for the idea that Brexit merely presages a long period of re-industrialization amidst shortages of imported goods. Quite the contrary, the full expectation of the Leave camp, left and right, is either that there will be no disruption, or that there will be short disruption resolved by hastily slapped-together trade deals with terms harsher than anything involved in current EU membership. Under these conditions, not a single opportunity will be given for re-industrialization.
The EU is not unaccountable — it is accountable to the elected leadership of the member states. Precisely the aspect of the EU that preserves national sovereignty is the thing being complained about here. The UK already has tools to re-industrialize, it is the preference of British elites — including the part that supports Leave — to rely on services and blame immigrants.
Mandos
You are describing precisely how racist panics happen — it just “becomes a meme” that the foreigners are stealing our jobs, raping our women, etc, regardless of the facts.
This is not only completely wrong, but the information that undergirds it is extremely easy to find on the the internet from reputable sources. Immigration, including labour immigration, from Eastern Europe to UK and to Germany are very similar, with differences in proportions from Romania vs. Poland etc.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
The employment profile of immigrants from Eastern European countries and the UK are on similar orders of magnitude relative to the employed population.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/
https://www.dw.com/en/eastern-europeans-filling-hundreds-of-thousands-of-new-german-jobs/a-45790776
The EU gives provision for local certification requirements for employment as well as numerous ways for national and local governments to implement local policy priorities. It isn’t a matter of the Germans breaking rules — it’s a matter of UK politicians making the choice not to establish rules that they were always allowed to establish. Instead, UK politicians railed against European human rights law.
*facepalm* This is almost totally wrong from the beginning. Only the degree of deep linguistic (and cultural) diversity is true. The nation-state is only 300 years old, but the militarized border and system of visas and passports, under the expectation of a hermetic seal between territories, is even younger than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_visa#History
The linguistic diversity point, if you actually understand the geography of these places, makes even less sense as a buttress for Hugh’s argument. The basis of cultural conflict of Europe is precisely that there were never any clear “natural” geographic divisions between any of these communities beyond the village level. Hence precisely, during the era of nation-state building, the need for expulsions and population exchanges (ethnic cleansing by treaty). There is no limit to how long this can run because European cultural and linguistic groupings are still impossible to separate geographically (see, for example, the constant Hungarian weeping over Trianon). The only sustainable solution to this is to, once again, transcend the presumptions of the nation-state.
EU membership had little to do with the devastation of the industrial British Midlands. Almost all of this was self-inflicted and started before EU enlargement. It’s like everyone has forgotten that the UK is the very cradle of neoliberalism and its Brexitty leadership the intellectual heirs of exactly those people. Johnson, Farage, and their backers are in the driver’s seat — it’s theoretically possible to support leaving the EU without being their supporters simultaneously, but it is only theoretical. A left-wing Brexit that involves closure of British markets to goods, such that Britain can re-industrialize, is not on offer, and EU membership is at best a very small issue here.
Mark Pontin
Regarding the British (non-)handling of EU immigrant inflow into UK, two factors (as far as I can make out) were primarily at play in the failure to implement EU regulations, which do say that if after three months an immigrant hasn’t found work in the EU country to which they’ve moved that country can tell that individual that they’re no longer entitled to reside and receive benefits there.
These two factors were: –
[1] Long-standing British resistance to any legislative attempts to impose compulsory requirements for individuals in the British isles to carry ID cards during peacetime, on the grounds that this would be an imposition on the freedom of individuals and a first stage before further totalitarian encroachments on British people.
Seriously. Think of this as a deep UK cultural idiosyncrasy somewhat like the attachment that American gun-owners have to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. (Though it’s more benign, obviously.) There’ve been many attempts over the decades by UK governments to implement compulsory ID cards, and as of 2019 the British people have resisted and forced the repeal of such laws. For some history, see forex:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_on_the_British_national_identity_card
‘The United Kingdom last had compulsory national identity cards during the Second World War when they were introduced for security purposes. Wartime ID cards were finally withdrawn by the Churchill government in 1952 because of the tension they created between the police and innocent citizens. The last person to be prosecuted for refusing to carry an ID card was Harry Willcock.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006
‘Compulsory identity cards were first issued in the United Kingdom during World War I, and abandoned in 1919. Cards were re-introduced during World War II under the National Registration Act 1939, but were abandoned seven years after the end of that war, in 1952, amid widespread public resentment.’
‘As of July 2019, Britain does not have a national identity card scheme. This article is about an Act in 2006 to establish such a scheme but it was repealed subsequently without being generally used …’
[2] If a government can’t implement ID control, it can’t easily identify and determine whether foreign individuals in the UK are either legal or non-legal immigrants.
Given that, at around the time of the ID Card Act of 2006, Mervyn King, then-governor of the Bank of England, advised the Blair government that the economic benefit of having all those foreign immigrants was, anyway, overall far preferable to attempting to clamp down on the immigrant inflow. This was the standard neoliberal argument, in other words.
There’s little reason to feel sympathy for Angela Merkel. Still, you have to appreciate that she must have been exasperated when David Cameron came to her in 2015 insisting that the EU water down the EU’s Freedom of Movement’s requirement in the UK’s case. As far as EU regulations go, the tools certainly existed for the UK government to mitigate the inflow of EU immigrant workers. In any case, Cameron didn’t get what he wanted and the Brexit referendum resulted.
Hugh
The problem wasn’t that Polish plumbers weren’t finding work in the UK. It was that they were. The question remains why they couldn’t in Germany next door. An even larger question is why they couldn’t find work in Poland. That question gets us back to the complete lack of German leadership with regard to both the Eastern and Southern Tiers and the the economic drain that German mercantilism has visited upon them both.
Meanwhile the EU is the Titanic and Mandos is telling everyone the only smart move is to stay onboard. Don’t get in a lifeboat. They’re too small, the ocean is too big. Mandos is very Trumpian: conclusion first, facts if any second. Linguistic communities occupy geographical space. They need a certain critical mass of speakers in a geographical space to survive. Some degree of isolation (Galician in northwest Spain) or special status (like French in the Vallée d’Aoste in Italy) helps. I should point out that most European languages, although not all, have taken on their modern forms in the last 4 to 5 hundred years. Various political entities have exercised political control over these language communities: monarchies, empires. The most recent of these was the nation state. But the nation state is a fiction in that it was never, as I indicated above, a monolith, certainly not in language terms. Since the Germanic invasions toward the end of the Roman Empire, movements of people in Europe have been fairly rare until the twentieth century. And most of these last were forced. The free movement of people through most of European history though has not been an issue because mostly it didn’t happen.
But there is a vast difference between people in the EU crossing borders without passports on vacations or for their education, and job seeking in other countries, undercutting local job markets and wage structures. The first fosters bonds, the second, as Brexit shows, breaks them. The EU is not the United States. And even in the US labor mobility was not promoted for the good of workers, but so corporations could ship jobs to union-hostile states where they could pay workers less and eliminate most of their benefits. Mandos thinks the European version of this is just great however. But then Mandos is a neoliberal and he would.
nihil obstet
As nearly as I can figure out, U.S. labor law does not protect workers as well as EU law — the U.S. has employment at will and no required leave with pay, in addition to social benefits like decent unemployment, universal health care, and provision for pensions with dignity.
However, the architects of the New Deal resisted the undercutting of wages by movement of workers. They established labor standards law, which requires that workers on projects with federal funding be paid the local prevailing wage. If you’re going to have free movement of labor, you must have something similar to prevent a downward wage spiral. Requiring not minimum wage but prevailing wage, along with stiff requirements/benefits that prevent the abuse of workers by employers preying on their lack of rights is essential to address the problems of desperate immigrants immiserating native workers. If the EU can set standards on finance as it does to protect the rich, it can set standards on labor.