3

Brexit, a Cause Without a Case. Why Did It Happen?

BREXIT IS THE result of complex and interrelated factors which ultimately came together, like a unique constellation of planets, and pushed voters in the UK/Britain to vote, by a slim margin, to leave the EU. Ranking with Suez and Iraq as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the post-war period, Brexit is a spectacular reminder of the political and constitutional chaos Britain is about to enter. The significance of the EU campaign and its consequences cannot be overstated. It is a reminder of the risks facing our politics and our democracy. Poor governance, broken politics, treacherous and delusional behaviour in the form of the cheap patriots of the right of the Conservative party and a lack of any constitutional safeguards are driving a divided Britain to the edge and again casting doubt on Scotland’s continued membership of the UK. Post-Brexit Westminster is light years away from four nation governance or any form of federalism or home rule or even abandoning the archaic idea of absolute Westminster sovereignty.

Very much a reflection of our declining union, weakening democracy and broken politics, the outcome of the EU referendum, has also laid bare any sense of national unity, purpose, or solidarity. Britain is tearing itself apart over a cause without a case, a national exercise in self-harm. To unravel how we find ourselves in such a catastrophic mess and why we need to escape from this madness, we need to look at a number of issues that are woven into the narrative, including:

The outcome of the EU referendum was a commentary on the state of Britain, not the EU or our membership of this highly successful institution, celebrating its 60th birthday and still a work in progress. This raises a key question, also the title of Thomas Frank’s 2004 New York Times Best Seller book What’s the Matter with Britain?. The narrow majority for leaving the EU, which has divided Britain even further, does not confirm that this is the settled will of the people. Voting for a sealed box makes no sense without knowing the contents, unless you are of a mind that you unconditionally despise the EU and are unmoved by any consequences that might follow. The mere fact of leaving the EU becomes the supreme outcome, a triumph in its own right. This is an absurd state of affairs. Surely the EU referendum result cannot be the last word on this epoch-making decision.

The political logic of this means that over the next two years the House of Commons, in partnership with the legislatures in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, derail the paving legislation – the seven Bills now before Parliament. There is a natural majority at Westminster for remaining in the EU. Progressive alliances at Westminster also have the option to reject the outcome of the EU negotiations in Brussels. In this scenario, the economic, social and political consequences of a hard Brexit are thrown out and we remain members of the Single Market and the Customs Union. This would effectively mean retaining membership of the EU. Depending on what evolves over the next few years, some or all of this could be put to the people in a referendum, or by a vote in Westminster and the other national legislatures, or all of the above.

This is a battle for Britain and to win the EU back. There is no doubt that there are countless permutations to consider in what is the most important decision facing us since 1945, but it seems inconceivable that we walk away from the present crisis and allow the right wing of the Conservative party to do our country what they have been doing to their party.

The Rust Belt Analysis, Trump and Brexit

To understand Brexit, Trump and right wing populism, look no further than Naomi Klein’s new book, No is Not Enough and Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?, which reads like it was written yesterday. The books describe and explain what lies at the heart of some of the biggest political upheavals in post-war western democracies. This section of Citizens United sets out in stark and unapologetic terms the dangerous and divisive nature of Trump and Brexit, and similar developments in Europe, bringing to the fore again the discredited ideas which pose a real threat to our politics, democracy, and governance.

The US, the EU and the UK are in the grip of right wing populism, a threatening set of ‘isms’ and a virulent strain of economic nationalism which has echoed down through the post-war years.

Trump’s campaign was emboldened by Brexit. These catastrophic victories have excited and enthused the right and far right in many European countries. The similarities of the Trump and Brexit campaigns are striking. Their shared aspirations, dislikes and political tactics are not a coincidence. Their political language may offend sensibilities and sensitivities, but no one should be in any doubt about what we are dealing with: these are people with serious intent to wreck much of what has been achieved in the last 80 years.

Contempt for the EU is the barely concealed desire on the part of the right in the US and Britain. Their fear of regional trade blocs, increasingly the norm in the globalised world of today, fuels their economic nationalism and reinforces their desire for unfettered free trade to make the US and Britain ‘great’ again. The free marketeers’ ideology that politics should never get in the way of economics sits well with their notions of small government, small state involvement, low taxes, low welfare and ever greater access for market capitalism into the whole social and public realm. Extreme Brexiteers place their faith in the US as a saviour in a new Anglosphere. But in reality, these kindred spirits look set to ruin their respective countries, all in the name of the market.

This is not where Britain should be, but leaving the EU is, in astronomy terms, black hole territory where anything is possible.

On its publication in 2004, Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? predicted the arrival of a Trump-like figure in the US. He based this conclusion on his analysis of the rising number of people in the state who had lost their faith in the American dream. Frank anticipated a backlash of anger, fear and resentment involving millions of people across the US, their alienation reinforced by the perception that they were being betrayed by the Democrats, and that the Republicans were not interested in working people and couldn’t be trusted. Frank’s argument was prescient, but by 2016, after a further 12 years of globalisation, technological change, austerity and automation, the arrival of a Trump repeated a now familiar pattern of events in post-war democracies, in a process involving the following elements:

In this context, the certainties of life have disappeared for many people. With the present trashed and few dreams to look forward to, nostalgia of the past kicks in. Even in the realisation that nothing might be on offer from either Brexit or Trump, people in their millions voted as a statement of protest.

Trump, the brand and businessman, shares the view with the right of the Conservative party that countries should be run like companies in which the market substitutes for democracy, wealth is worth, greed is good and people service money instead of the other way around. Trump has taken matters further by turning the White House into another piece of real estate in which all the family and business interests can prosper. He is the head of his own parallel universe. Business as usual. The more he veers from the ‘normal’, the more his base is drawn to him. Public truths are being obliterated and he has his own truths and alternative facts.

Trump pretends he is the enemy of elites and presents himself as the voice of downtrodden and forgotten Americans, claims that as a consummate deal maker and job creator he is capable of fixing the broken economic system. A self-styled Twitter expert, he uses social media to speak directly to his base, constantly denigrating the ‘fake news’ spread by the mainstream media. (Whereas, for hard Brexiteers, a predominantly anti-EU press in the UK obviates the need for an alternative communications channel.)

For over 40 years, dominant UK press attitudes towards the EU, ranging from ambivalence to hostility, have starved people of balanced views on Europe. This was fake news, rampant before the term was even coined, has been severely damaging to the European cause. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Britain is in such a mess now because of a fake referendum.

The Extreme Right in British Conservative Politics

The Conservative party has had a civil war raging for a generation and this has now spilled over. Not content with nearly destroying their own party, they are using Britain as a new battleground. They promulgate the nonsense that the mere act of leaving the EU will solve every problem? Brexit represents a completely pointless exercise, a waste of valuable time, resources and energy. Rather than undergoing a wonderful transformation, Britain is tearing itself apart.

The hard Brexiteers on the right of the Conservative party are the true enemy within. Destroying Britain seems far too high a price to pay for allowing this group to wreak havoc as part of a wider assault on Britain and its way of life. The Tories have form on this issue. David Cameron and John Major both saw their careers destroyed by the hard right euro-cynics and it seems likely that Theresa May will soon join them. For the hard-liners, leaving the EU is only the first stage in their mission to push Britain towards isolationism. Bilateral trade deals with other economic nationalists, cutting back government, diminishing the role of the state and allowing the market to undermine our democracy will reinforce neoliberal austerity measures for the many and continue the feather-bedding of the few. Removing Britain from the protectionist clutches of an intervening Brussels bureaucracy is the first, but absolutely vital step in changing Britain.

Their narrative is recreating the idea of the Anglosphere, including the special relationship with the US. They see the US as more than a special friend, market believer and home of individualism: the see it as our saviour. The arrival of Trump has emboldened the right of the Conservative party, who see his presidency helping to create Britain in the image of the US. What a troubling thought.

A hard Brexit, out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, would force the Conservative government to give substance to this idea of an offshore bargain basement Britain. The idea of a special relationship, now past its sell by date as far as most diplomats are concerned, is laughable, but the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ mantra could push Britain that way.

The destruction by fire of Grenfell Tower in London illustrates the potential outcome of regulations contrived not to upset the so-called freedom of the market. The Tory right hates regulations and they are obsessed about removing them and minimising their application. This lies behind their commitment to cutting back big government. Regulations run counter to their market philosophy, add costs the market doesn’t want to bear and create more bureaucracy – from this perspective, one of the reasons why the EU must go.

Protecting Britain in times of Tory Governments has been one of the benefits of the EU. There should be real concern about the EU Repeal Bill now before the House of Commons, as some of the vital social, environmental and employment protections may not be incorporated into British Law.

Looked at in isolation, leaving the EU is problematic enough, but when you consider the real agenda of the Conservative party there is a great deal more to worry about. Would the same Leave result be obtained if the simple binary question was postscripted with the statement that, on leaving, we will move towards more market, more commercialisation of our social and public realms, the scrapping of thousands of regulations, a removal of social and employment laws, less government, more economic nationalism and isolationism, and closer links with the US, Turkey, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. If so, the result might well have been different.

The present political chaos within the Conservative party and their shambolic handling of Brexit leads to the conclusion that Britain would be a better place without either.

What’s the Matter with Social Democracy?

Understanding fully why Brexit happened, allows us to make a stronger case for the UK to remain in the EU. The Brexit campaign was passionate, vocal and visible, and unconstrained by the facts about what the EU has actually been doing in the 60 years of its existence. The daily megaphone cheerleading from partisan newspapers was wholly destructive of balanced debate. At best, an ounce of half-truth was accompanied by a ton of lies, distortions and pure fantasy.

This raises the question of the Labour leadership during the EU campaign. There seems to be no doubt that if Labour had mounted a half decent campaign, Remain would have won. A leadership still clinging to old ideas of the EU and echoing some of the doubts of the early post-war period went AWOL for most of the campaign. The rest is history. Labour voters, confused about the party’s message, were swayed by anti-EU rhetoric from other sources who had been preparing for this campaign since we became members in 1972. This point is only of significance in terms of the future.

To save Britain from a catastrophic future, the Labour party should now change course and make amends to the British people by fully committing to remaining in the EU and building a progressive alliance with other parties, including the sane element of the Conservative party. This is what democracy means.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he respects the decision to leave. That doesn’t mean that others have to accept or agree with it. Labour is an internationalist party with strong links to the left in Europe, where trades unionists want Britain to remain in the EU. Young people see their future in the EU.

Britain is Changing

Public opinion is changing. People are asking, what are the benefits to be gained in leaving the EU? Some have decided that Brexit is a mistake after all. We are witnessing preparations for Brexit that are evidently shambolic, made by a Government that lacks any clarity, direction or real understanding of what is at stake. Progressives in both the US and Europe think that Britain has taken leave of its senses.

Theresa May is supposedly reaching out to the other parties for help in her time of need. She deserves no help. It is her party that has created this mess. The die is not cast. People must not allow themselves to be browbeaten into thinking that nothing can be done.

The Tory Brexiteers feel secure because of the failure of their leadership to evict them. They are running amok, bankrolled by a network of rich backers who share the same deranged policies. Brexit has been, to date, their greatest success.

If this spirit of invincibility is to be crushed, then remaining in the EU would be a significant start in ousting those who are taking advantage of broken politics, a declining union, a very weak democracy and a dysfunctional system of governance that is not fit for purpose. If you throw into this mix the decline of liberalism, socialism and social democracy, not only here but throughout western democracies, the struggle to Remain can be seen as part of a much bigger effort to halt the march of economic nationalism, authoritarianism and isolationism. We need to out the right of the Conservative party and expose the real damage they are inflicting on this country.

Dealing with Democracy

If we are to remain in the EU, we have to deal effectively with democratic reality of the vote that created a narrow margin for Britain to leave the EU. There is no doubt that we have to acknowledge and respect the integrity and sincerity of the people who wanted to leave at a moment in time, based on a set of conditions and knowledge. That vote reflected their reality. There should however, be a way of moving that debate forward. When Brexit is given its actual meaning and substance, the wider fraud will be exposed as the biggest mistake in Britain’s post-war history; genuine concerns have been comprehensively exploited. Then the British people should be entitled to a new chance to decide.

There is no serious reason for a defeated party in any vote or referendum to just walk away. Recent experience of the EU and Scottish referendums have shown how bitter, divisive and unforgiving they can be. Referendums are a dangerous political weapon where the outcome of a massively complex issues is reduced to a binary choice. This unfortunately creates binary mindsets. There is no written constitution to guide us and we are left to the whims of a Westminster government and parliament to decide when a referendum is to be deployed.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding referendums is couched in terms of informed choice. Even accepting the most generous interpretation of that, you would be hard placed to say that the EU referendum satisfied the criteria. This issue highlights wider questions about our democracy and raises doubts about how the UK could take such an enormous decision in the most ill-informed and divisive manner, on a whole range of issues which have more to do with the condition and mindset of Britain today, rather than any relevance to the EU. Never in the field of political endeavour has so much vitriol and abuse been hurled at one institution by so few with such potential catastrophic consequences for the many. Brexit is about the state of Britain, not the EU.

Absolute Sovereignty and the Primacy of Our Laws

In a world of interdependence, internationalism and global interconnectedness, absolute sovereignty as a concept has little meaning. This idea has figured prominently in the EU referendum and in subsequent debates, with the clear inference that if we could only remove ourselves from the EU, we would get our sovereignty back and everything would fall into place. Britain could be great again. We would have our country back. We would make our laws again.

Where has the country been since 1972?

What does absolute sovereignty really mean?

For centuries, Westminster has believed in the idea of absolute sovereignty of the institution and has repelled any notion that this is not a secure idea. There are significant implications for our politics, democracy and governance. In the absence of any written constitution, this has allowed Westminster, supported by both major parties, to argue that nothing in Britain happens without their expressed agreement; while they might cede some authority, devolve some decision-making to the nations of the UK, they will never give power away or share power. Notwithstanding the political outcry this might create, Westminster, with a one-line Bill, could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow and take all the powers back to Westminster. This is unlikely to happen, but it could. From the world outside the Westminster bubble, it seems ludicrous that they would want to hang on to an outdated idea that clashes with the Realpolitik of the 21st century. And while absolute sovereignty means absolute power over everything, a quick survey of the political world we live in would show sovereignty, in its purest form, to be a redundant idea and a major obstacle to success in the more progressive environment of the EU and western democracies.

Germany, a more powerful and more successful country than the UK, with a world-class leader in Angela Merkel, seems to cope with sharing sovereignty and aspirations with 27 other nation states. Why does Britain have this unique condition among social democracies? Does absolute sovereignty have more to do with where Britain has been in the past rather than where it is going in the future?

Because Britain is run without a written constitution, Westminster can virtually make it up as it goes along, with no competing power base. This is one of the reasons why some of the fanatics resent Brussels. In every other country in the EU, a written constitution means power to the people, not to politicians. Even in the US, Congress does not have absolute sovereignty and works by diktat of the constitution with the president, the Supreme Court and the 50 States. There is no reason why the parliamentary system in Britain should continue to operate in such a medieval manner, sanctifying the exclusive politics of Westminster. When people were being fed with the notion that they needed to win their country back, this was all about Westminster, not them.

Absolute sovereignty is a plaything of the political classes at Westminster and, in particular, the right of the Conservative party. Dressed up as the saviour of the national interest with a pride of Britain sentiment, this concept has stirred the hearts and history of people. But if Brexit ever becomes a reality, it will mean absolutely nothing to the millions of people who voted Leave.

Staying with the myth of absolute sovereignty, a particularly virulent strain of paranoia has been aimed at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Theresa May seems obsessed with making sure Britain has no links with the ECJ. This piece of fanaticism is linked to the supremacy of British Law. Once again this is reminiscent of the partisan war chants at Westminster after the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum where David Cameron led the charge on English votes for English Laws. The ECJ only rules on strictly EU matters in the form of regulations, directions and, importantly, the treaties upon which everything and anything that happens in the EU, must be based. These treaties, are unanimously agreed by all 28 member states, including Britain. It also plays an important role in the operation of the Single Market, especially in relation to the four fundamental freedoms of people, goods, services and finance.

The House of Commons Library, one of the most impressive and objective institutions of research, has confirmed that about 18 per cent of our legislation comes from Europe. So where is the problem?

The European Courts

Another institution that irks the fanatical is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Based in Strasbourg, the ECHR oversees the work of the European Convention of Human Rights and has played a remarkably successful role in the vital area of upholding human rights; the 47 countries represented on the Council of Europe now lead the world in this whole exercise of looking after each other. Created by the Council of Europe in the early post-war years, both the Convention and the Court were amongst the inspirational ideas of Sir Winston Churchill who played a leading role in their formative years.

For the predatory Tory right, once they succeed in junking the European Court of Justice, who or what is their next target? Might it be the ECHR? Why not? If the isolationists get their farcical way, why not remove ourselves from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court? And why stop there? Trump doesn’t like the UN for the same reasons the right of the Conservative party here objects to foreign aid, immigration and the flight of refugees to Britain. Our membership of the Security Council may be a block on that. So, like Trump, do we have a problem with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), especially when so many countries in his eyes are dragging their feet in terms of achieving the 2 per cent expenditure on defence?

Sharing sovereignty is the most natural thing in an interconnected world. It would be absurd for Britain to dismantle our global interests, diminishing ourselves as the victim of the delusional at the expense of our European allies who, despite our odd behaviour, want to be close.

There is no absolute sovereignty in a world of interdependence. It makes sense to share our aspirations, spread our risks and partner up to tackle opportunities. Brexiteers seem to think that this is a worthwhile strategy, as long as the EU, especially the ECJ, is excluded. But pursuing economic and political nationalism is the antithesis of any notion of making Britain great again.

At the heart of this is the lack of a written constitution. This allows successive British Governments to act like ‘elected dictatorships’, with no checks or balances. Our politics, governance and democracy are shaped in the image of a Government at Westminster that will not cede power and pays only lip service to the opposition parties or the national parliaments and assemblies of the UK.

The Lies, Fake and Fraudulent News

People are alive to the fact that politicians, elites, experts and the establishment can be economical with the truth and often egg the pudding to gain some advantage or sell a story or idea. However, the EU referendum campaign descended to spectacular depths in terms of deceit and distortion on an industrial scale, deceit.

Despite our membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), the European Commission (EC) and now the EU, dating from 1972, there has never been a European golden age where any EU business has been given positive coverage by the right leaning press, which has provided a litany of trivia, exaggeration and prolonged and consistent denigration of anything to do with Europe, the ECHR or the ECJ. With so many in their ranks at best ambivalent and unwilling to give credit for the benefits Britain has received, the political classes have allowed an anti-Europe culture to emerge.

For 45 years the EU was portrayed as the enemy of Britain, so it is little wonder that the EU became a friend we didn’t get to know. It paints a picture of Euro neglect where successive British Governments, never good team players, allowed nearly 50 years of EU vitriol and poison to pass without any serious opposition.

Law Making

‘We need to make our own laws and not be run by Brussels’ has been the war cry of much of the Brexit assault on the EU, with the Brussels bureaucrats getting the blame for running and ruining our lives. This very much smacks of the ‘English votes for English laws’ David Cameron was so enthusiastic about after the Scottish Independence referendum. The UK parliament has not stopped making laws. Every piece of legislation passed in Brussels has to conform to the purpose and intent of the various EU treaties that govern every action of the EU. Every treaty has to be unanimously agreed by every member state. Listening to Brexiteers, you would be forgiven for thinking that foreigners are lining up day after day to legislate against Britain’s national interests, with us nowhere to be seen. Not true. The European Parliament has no power to initiate legislation, which makes it one of the weakest parliaments among western democracies. This was the deliberate intention of each member state, including Britain. One of the main criticisms of the EU is that it is undemocratic. Yes, that is true but this situation reflects the conscious will of all the member states to keep it in that condition. That hasn’t prevented the Brexiteers hypocritically criticising the EU for being undemocratic when responsibility lies with the member states not the EU.

Legislation, mainly regulations and directives, is created by the European Commission, with UK representation and the Council of Ministers, again representing the 28 member states. The European Parliament will then start the legislative process and, of course, there is a massive presence of British MEPs representing our interests. There is a European Council overseeing the strategic direction of all of this, where again the Prime Minister participates. Finally, there is oversight from the ECJ, again involving British judges. This may seem like an elaborate bureaucracy, but this is what successive British Governments have participated in and agreed to, at the same time having denied any real democratisation of the process. The long-term ambivalence and at times indifference to the European project by successive British governments has, by default, allowed few reforms to take place. It is worth noting that as far as law making is concerned, the EU Parliament is weak and heavily shackled by Member States.

The EU is the product of its members, something conveniently forgotten by British governments. Other governments have helped shape these institutions, but Britain has never been at the centre of any serious attempt at reform, and has instead shouted from the sidelines; we have accepted membership without taking any real responsibility and created the conditions for the crisis that is Brexit.

Immigration and Borders

Regaining control of our borders became a powerful mantra during the EU campaign. For the sake of accuracy, it must be said that Britain has never lost control of its borders. The lack of a coherent and strategic immigration policy and borders strategy is a completely different matter and has more to do with British inertia than with the EU.

What those who supported Leave seem to be against is the free movement of European people, which forms one of the four key themes of the Single Market. Margaret Thatcher was at least was honest about her embrace of the unfettered free market, the current right wing of the Conservative party is content to link many of our national problems with EU migrants and also to ‘out’ them. In the referendum immigration was exploited. The genuine concerns of the many were used for the benefit of the political and personal ambitions of a few on the right of the Conservative party.

Of probably more significance was the decision of Prime Minister Blair to waive the offer of a seven-year transition for new migrants from the EU after the accession of eight Eastern European countries in 2004. The subsequent period of rapid growth in the number of EU nationals coming to the UK has undoubtedly made managing this number of people much more difficult. Again, this problem was made in Britain.

But again, the right wing blitz against migrants and open borders misses the fact that we are not members of the Schengen agreement providing for open borders. We do control our borders. What Britain does with its borders is not decided in Brussels. Once again, the weakness of Britain – our inability to spend because of austerity, the cuts in the workforce and our general incompetence – is being blamed on Europe at a time when half of Britain’s inward migration is non-European.

Opt-outs

Schengen is one of the four opt-outs from the EU negotiated by previous British Governments, information sank without trace in the campaign. Britain has more opt-outs that any other country in the EU, once again contradicting the widely held view that Brussels bulldozes us into everything.

In addition to Schengen we have three other opt-outs: membership of the eurozone, Justice and Security (where we pick and choose) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These opt-outs show the extent to which flexibility does exist to secure national interests, a fact of which most people have no idea – which of course fits the much pedalled impression of the EU as the tyrannical inflexible ogre doing us down at every turn.

The Trade Myth

The saying goes that you can judge a person or party by the company they keep. The Conservative party’s enthusiasm for economic nationalism and their ‘make Britain great again after we win our country back’ slogan has seen Ministers and the Prime Minister cosying up and selling their wares to economic hard men such as Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Duterte of the Philippines and the Saudis. Illustrating the desperate plight of what comes next after leaving the EU, the Government seems eager to impress, regardless of human rights, climate change and other important considerations. We are seeking comfort with other economic nationalists and taking big risks with Britain’s future.

The uncertain world that Theresa May wants to be part of puts Britain at the mercy of bilateral trade and basic World Trade Organisation (WTO) conditions. It means losing the security of the largest single market in the world, giving up on being the top trading regional bloc in the world after China, absorbing tariff increases with the EU and being exposed to the hostile trading climate outside the Single Market.

What is Britain’s reward in all of this self-inflicted pain? Has the Conservative party identified one single trade benefit from Brexit? President Trump, our new best friend equates world trade with the casino operations in his hotels, where outcomes are unpredictable, but still provide much fun. He wants to run the US as a company, which is the impression you also get from Theresa May about Britain. Both believe in unfettered markets. It is incomprehensible that anyone can invest trust in the unpredictable Trump or fail to see that his America First line relegates every other trading partner to second place. This is not the company we want to keep. There is no prospect of recreating a new Anglosphere. A misplaced, sentimentalised sense of history may yet become the rock on which we perish.

It is complete madness to suggest that membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market are holding us back, or that escaping from the jurisdiction of the ECJ will free us from a judicial tyranny.

Only recently, the EU completed the first stage of a deal with Japan and completed a deal with Canada. Although the trade deal with the US has, for now, failed, there were hopes of if it being recast and further developed. Trump has ensured that this is unlikely to happen. The US president is unhappy with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a trade deal that involves Canada, Mexico and the US, and has withdrawn from the new trading bloc being established in the Asia Pacific region. Trump is unreliable and unpredictable. He has diminished the US in the eyes of the world, handed a new leadership role to China after they seem likely to take over the US’s role in Asian trade agreement and has passed the mantle of the leader of the free world to German Chancellor Merkel, after his crazed remarks about NATO and the EU. Again, you cannot escape the obvious conclusion that the Tory right are trying to dictate the destiny of the UK. In place of a secure, stable, and predictable trade arrangements within the EU, extremists want to exchange certainty with the uncertainty and swear allegiance to economic nationalism, the delusional benefits of unfettered market capitalism and Trump.

Despite the efforts of the Brexiteers to obscure the timescale for this new trading paradise to emerge, very few deals will become a reality in the timescales being predicted. Trade negotiations take a very, very long time. The WTO operates at a snail’s pace because trade issues are so complex and despite Trump’s enthusiasm a trade deal with the US could take up to a decade to achieve.

The lack of honest and transparency on trade suggests that the Tories haven’t a clue as to what they are doing, or that they are keen to hide the realities from the public, or both. Trade is the life-blood of Britain and any interruption to current patterns of trade relationships and membership of the Single Market would be disastrous and diminish Britain as an economic force. Trade Secretary Liam Fox, on a recent visit to the WTO, blundered into saying that politics gets in the way of economics. Fox is a free marketeer whose stance would weaken our already fragile industrial base and undermine our ability to address the continuing challenges of globalisation, automation and technology against the background of austerity and deepening inequality.

Britain is on the cusp of a technological revolution in which profound labour market changes, robotics, Artificial Intelligence and communications will change the face of Britain for ever. Instead of being preoccupied with building a better future, the parliaments and assemblies in our four nations are dealing with the pointless distraction of Brexit.

In this broad sweep of trade issues, it is worth remembering we haven’t touched on the challenges faced by the different sectors of business, commerce and industry, whose practical needs are very much intertwined with the EU. Immigration is a problem of Britain’s own making. We have never had a sensible immigration strategy or policies and the genuine concerns of British people have been left unattended for decades. Tory MP, Enoch Powell gave us an insight into the politics of hate, race and colour a generation ago.

Trade isn’t just about moving products from one place to another. The context for this is extremely challenging requiring well-crafted rules, regulations and laws which cover a remarkable range of technical details, safety regulations and consumer rights and much more. There is also the question of borders and customs, which currently don’t exist for trade within the EU, but will soon be in place if we leave and have a hard Brexit. How will people deal with border crossings between Ireland and Northern Ireland? The history of this previously troubled part of the UK suggest this is another potential consequence of a bad idea.

Immigration and Trade

It seems a pity that Brexiteers have elevated and exploited immigration as their main weapon of choice. The poisonous impact on Britain has created bitter divisions. Acts of racism, religious intolerance and xenophobia have grown in the aftermath of the EU referendum. More lies have been told about immigration than on any other EU issue.

Leaving aside the wider implications of immigration, the scrapping of the free movement of people as part of leaving the Single Market lies at the heart of economic and trade issues. We need foreign workers for our construction and service industries, farming and NHS. We also need foreign students, technologists, scientists, researchers, educationalists, and countless others. This is how the modern world works and it is the same for the other 27 EU countries. We can’t live outside reality. The consequences of turning immigration into the key Brexit issue are the responsibility of the right of British politics. There are concerns to be tackled, but once again a single destructive issue is blinding us to the benefits of an interconnected world, a sense of internationalism and a broader humanity. But we must also face up to the hard reality that successive governments have ignored genuine non-racial and non-religious concerns about the geographical impact of inward flows of migrants.

Confronting the Tories

The Labour party is trying to decide whether they should contest or coexist with the idea of leaving the Single Market. Too often the party’s policies are very similar to the Tories.

Business is too conservative and reserved to speak up and slap down the ideologues who are behind this mayhem or to make waves against a Government it is sympathetic too.

The right leaning press are unwilling to criticise and are still championing the diminishing of Britain in the eyes of our allies, and seem silent on the damage that will be caused to our economy if a hard Brexit becomes a reality.

Broadcasters are too polite to comment on what is really happening and call it as it is. In their search for fair and balanced coverage, they invariably give too much weight to the plausible and the delusional.

The other parties at Westminster are up for a fight, but need Labour and the true patriots in the Conservative party to give a lead.

A vacuum has been created in which the natural enemies of Brexit remain unsure of the public mood. Although it is shifting against Brexit, they worry about how bold they can be. The burden of a referendum result weighing heavily on their minds, Labour MPs are concerned about a backlash from Brexit voters.

MPs at Westminster are enjoying the summer break of 2017 in the full knowledge that they will soon be back to a nightmare of seven Bills and a vote in September on the second reading of the Repeal Bill. For our legislators, nothing else of real substance or significance will interrupt this pointless exercise for two years. Brexit is casting a long shadow over our future and needs to be derailed, deconstructed and eventually destroyed. Remaining in the Single Market (and preferably the Customs Union) will be key to unravelling Brexit. It will require acceptance of the free movement of people, a financial payment to the ongoing work of the EU and remaining within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Britain Not a Team Player

Setting aside the ideology of the right and the politics and psychology of the EU referendum campaign, it has to be asked: Why can’t Britain be a good team player? Why can’t Britain learn lessons from Germany? There, the social partnership model is yielding higher productivity, more investment in capital goods, giving morality a say alongside the market, offering serious protections for workers, priority for manufacturing, not just for financial services, and an industrial strategy. How novel. All of this achieved in a country comfortable with its membership of the EU and, horror of horrors, part of the eurozone. Why can Germany cope?

Britain has an attitude problem and its governance, constitution and politics are holding us back. Blaming all our ills on the EU and claiming that leaving would solve all our problems is a bit of a stretch. Evidence suggests the opposite. Our problems are made in Britain and we should stop ‘outing’ others for our weaknesses and deficiencies. The EU is not holding us back. We lack any sense of a progressive partnership mentality, there is an over-reliance on the market, a lack of national confidence in what we do, an absence of assuredness as to where we are in the world, and an emptiness of purpose and intent. We seem more content to find scapegoats rather than solutions for our current malaise. Our sense of future seems to be receding, but we can’t keep embracing the past and call this progress.

The EU is the whipping boy for Britain’s failures. Forensic scientists are not required, the evidence abounds. The right of British politics have created a tsunami of baseless ideas which washed over Britain in 2016. If these cheap patriots are left unchecked, what next for a struggling Britain or a UK in decline?

Leaving the EU is a defeat for Britain not a victory. It doesn’t have to be like this.