Reaping the whirlwind

I was going to write a post on some of the strange things that have happened elsewhere in the world over the past year, but having started with the EU, it might be better to stay on the subject.

The obvious question is what relationship the UK should seek, or expect, to have with the EU.

For me, the starting point is to look at the options that were presented as being available before the referendum last June. Although these options weren't on any ballot paper, the media and the Leave campaign presented us with about four or five alternative options if we chose not to remain in the EU. For example here and here.

I don't want to go into the merits of the different options, but only want to make this point. 51.9% of the vote was to leave and 48.1% to remain. For me, it is impossible to imagine less than 2% of that 51.9% would have wanted us to have a similar relationship to the EU as the ones that Norway and Switzerland have, i.e. to remain an integral part of the single market, paying a fair fee to be part of it and accepting its four freedoms. In other words, I'm quite sure that a majority of those who voted in the referendum would have been in favour of the UK remaining in the EU single market.

In my opinion, what should have happened after the referendum was for David Cameron to have remained as Prime Minister and negotiate for that sort of model. The UK's model wouldn't have needed to be exactly the same as that of either Norway or Switerland, but either would have been a good starting point. But he didn't, even though he could easily have claimed a mandate for doing so on the basis I've just outlined. Instead, he chickened out, leaving the hard-liners in the Tory party who wanted a more extreme form of Brexit to fill the vacuum he left.

Sadly, Labour did not argue for that alternative either. So we got to a position where there was no effective opposition to a hard Brexit, even though there could easily have been one if the Labour, SNP and Tory MPs who wanted us to remain in the single market had come together to vote for it as a pre-condition for triggering Article 50.

Under a scenario where Cameron had not resigned, he would have been in a fairly similar position to that of the Norwegian government following their similarly narrow vote to stay out of the EU in 1994 (they, like him, wanted to their country to a be a full member of the EU). I am sure that the other EU member state goverments would have looked favourably on such an approach and granted the UK that sort of arrangement.

-

But we now have to accept that this isn't going to happen. The UK government has chosen to confront the other 27, rather than co-operate. And there are no prizes for predicting the outcome: whether you look at it as 27 states against 1, or 450 million people against 65 million, the EU will get its way because it is in a much stronger position. Anyone who thinks "they need us more than we need them" is deluded.

The UK government (aided by the lack of any concerted opposition in Westminster) has led the people of the UK into a hopeless position where there is no chance of getting a deal with the EU that is anywhere near as good as the one we have now. To be honest, I think the Tories realize this, and that they've called the general election on 8 June as a smokescreen to mask a different agenda. For even if, as they hope, they get an increased majority, it is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the other members of the EU. Their negotiating position will, obviously, be based on their interests.

So what, then, is the real reason behind calling this general election? I believe that it is to give Theresa May a mandate for creating a radically different type of UK. In order to survive economically outside the EU, the UK is going to have to be much more aggressive in the way it seeks to trade with other countries. As they hinted at before, it means reducing workers' wages and workers' rights in order to make UK goods cheaper, so that companies can still sell them after tariffs have been applied. It also means getting rid of environmental protections because, in the same way, it's cheaper for companies not to bother about polution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU is based on the European values and standards that a vast majority of European countries share, including at least one (if not more) of the countries that currently make up the UK. Trying to undercut these values in the hope of giving your country a competitive edge is a cheap, tawdry thing to do, and the pursuit of this sort of UK will inevitably result in the disintegration of the UK.

If you reap the wind, you sow the whirlwind.

What a year!

It would probably be a good idea to make some sort of comment on what has been an extraordinary year in politics. So I'll start with the European Union.

I don't suppose anyone will be surprised to learn that I voted for the UK to remain a member of the EU. On balance I think the EU is a good thing, and in particular good for its member states ... although not so good for those countries who deal with it from the outside. It is protectionist in nature and, as a block of half a billion people in some of the richest countries in the world, it can afford to be.

But I wasn't totally surprised at the outcome of the EU referendum. The state of politics in the UK, and perhaps in the West as a whole, has reached a low ebb in which reasonable debate and discussion is drowned out by slogans, soundbites and personalities. In these circumstances politicians can get away with telling more blatant lies than they would usually be able to get away with. That was true on both sides. But the main factor was that the ground for Brexit had been carefully cultivated for decades, in particular by the media. However the media aren't to blame for pushing any particular agenda. If people on this island choose to pull the wool over their own eyes, then we have no-one to blame but ourselves for the outcome.

-

Talking of "big picture" things; until the EU referendum campaign I used to think that the ever-rightward shift in political opinion that we've seen in the UK over the past thirty or forty years was primarily the legacy of Margaret Thatcher and her heir, Tony Blair. Now I'm more inclined to think that it is just as much to do with our membership of what is now the EU. In particular the move away from the state being a major player in economic activity in favour of the private sector. It's not hard to see why. For the EU to operate properly as a single market, to the extent that a member state of the EU is involved in economic activity, it becomes very hard to separate what the proper boundaries of such involvement should be, and it is all too easy for it to cross the line (wherever that line is) and become state aid. The denationalization of our state-owned industries and mass privatization of state assets owes as much to the EU as it does to Thatcher and Blair. In fact the two go hand-in-hand. We shouldn't forget that Thatcher was ardently pro-EU, and one of the main drivers of the move to create the EU single market.

It might also be worth saying that, so far as the EU is concerned, it has never "imposed its will" on us. The EU is much more of a democracy than the UK has ever been. Its policies are decided by the governments of each member state in the Council of Ministers, by the Commissioners that each government appoints, and by its citizens through those we elect to the European Parliament. I'm sure most people reading this will know that already.

I'm definitely on the left in terms of my politics and I listened carefully to, and had quite a bit of sympathy towards, the argument made by some on the left that if the UK left the EU, we would be able to do things that we would not currently be able to do as EU members: such as renationalize the railways or the power companies. But in the end I was much more persuaded by the arguments of people like Yanis Varoufakis and DiEM 25 that it is better for us to reform the EU through its democratic institutions than to walk away from it. Equally, if you agree with me that the EU treated countries like Greece shamefully, the way to change such policies is from within.

-

But all that is water under the bridge. The UK did vote to leave, and that decision should be respected. I do not have a lot of time for the position that we should have another referendum to decide whether we want to accept the terms of any settlement of agreement. For any that do, I would simply ask whether you would want the same two-stage procedure to apply to a positive vote in a future referendum on Welsh or Scottish independence. It isn't right to change the rules half-way through. If, say, Scottish independence were to be subject to a two-stage vote from the outset, it seems clear to me that a large majority would vote for independence at the first stage in order to see what sort of constitution and institutions Scotland would have, and what sort of settlement could be negotiated with the RUK ... knowing full well that the only vote that really mattered would be the second. The whole exercise would just be a waste of time, effort and resources for all concerned.

That said, I would certainly not rule out another "straight" referendum on EU membership, if it became clear in future through opinion polls or general elections that enough people wanted to rejoin. It might be two years away, or ten years away, or never. In other words, I reject the idea of a two-stage vote, but don't object to another vote. That's democracy. In case anybody thinks I'm being inconsistent, I would apply the same principle to independence. I would have no objection to people in an independent country voting to rejoin the country from which they gained their independence ... but I would note that none of the 54 countries that have gained independence from rule by Westminster has shown any interest in doing that.

-

I don't think it is likely that the UK will ever vote to rejoin the EU. But please don't think I'm being pessimist. Quite the contrary, it won't happen because I don't think the UK will exist (at least in its present form) for much longer. Scotland will be independent and Ireland will be reunited. I believe both of these events have always been inevitable, but the EU referendum will act as a catalyst to make both happen sooner rather than later.

This is the silver lining to the dark cloud of collective stupidity and self-harm called Brexit.

Perhaps an England whose leaders have finally been disabused of the idea that it is entitled to greater privileges than other countries will come to its senses and rejoin its neighbours. I hope so ... but that will be up to England. It's up to us in Wales whether we are content to go along with whatever England decides to do, or make our own decision as an independent country.

Back home again, blogging again

It's been nice to see that one or two people have missed Syniadau while I've taken a break from blogging. I never did give any sort of public explanation for disappearing over the horizon, and I'm sorry about that.

My main reason for not blogging is that I decided, just over a year ago, that it was time to move back to Wales. This is something that I'd always intended to do but, like many other exiles I know, you put down roots in the place you move to and, with each few years that pass, it becomes that much harder to leave.

I realized that it was now or never for me, and I thought it would take a few months. So I put everything on hold to concentrate on the move, including Syniadau. I was wrong about the timescale. It all proved to be far more complicated than I thought it would be, and it took me more than a year to sell up in London and sort everything else out. But in the end everything did get sorted, and I finally made the move about six weeks ago. I'm loving it. It has definitely been the right thing to do, and I really should have done it years ago. Gwell hwyr na hwyrach.

These are some views from my balcony. For those of you who don't recognize the best place in Wales, I'm back in Llanelli, my home town.

     

     

     

I still haven't really settled yet. Most of my stuff is still in boxes, and I reckon that about 3,000 books need to find a space on new shelves, as I wouldn't dream of throwing any of them away.

-

Anyway, why am I writing something today? The answer is that I've spent the day at something called a Hackathon organized by Yes Cyrmu in Abertawe. The others (Leia, Sandra, Tricia, Owain and Chris) have been making videos, but I'm nowhere near photogenic enough to believe that I could enhance the cause of Welsh independence by a posting a video of myself ... in fact, it would probably have the opposite effect. So you'll have to make do with words instead.

Although there is a twitter account called @YesLlanelli, I've been told that there isn't actually a Yes Cymru group that meets in Llanelli. As lovable as the Jacs undoubtedly are, I'd like to be a part of a group on this side of the Llwchwr if there are enough other people who'd like the same thing. So please get in touch with me at michaelhaggett@live.com and let's see whether we can make it happen.

Happy St David's Day

Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus i bawb ohonoch chi.

     

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

 
     

Nadolig Llawen

I'd like to wish everyone who reads Syniadau a peaceful and happy Christmas.

     

Beware of complacency

When Les Républicains held the first round of their primary to select a candidate for the French presidency, I was happy enough with the result. The last thing I wanted was to see Sarkozy make a comeback.

A week later, and I'm much less happy. The choice between Juppé and Fillon was a choice between a relatively centrist, inclusive candidate and a candidate who, both in economic and social terms, has shown himself to be as rabidly right wing as Sarkozy.

With the left in France in disarray, I tend to go along with the consensus view of most political commentators: namely that the two candidates who will now make it through to the second, deciding round in May next year will be Fillon and Le Pen. However, where I disagree with that consensus is that it will not be, as so many have described it, a contest between the "right" and the "far right".

-

The landmark political events this year, particularly the votes for Brexit and Trump, are not easy to understand. Our accepted ways of thinking have been turned on their head. But I would say this: that although UKIP, the prime movers behind Brexit, and Trump both advocate unmistakably right-wing policies, they have pitched their appeal at the disillusioned working class (the Americans use the term "middle class" to refer to the same group) who normally think of themselves as being on the left, and both won because a large percentage of this traditional left believed that narrative.

The essence of their appeal, in both cases, was to identify who/what to blame for their current predicament. Immigration and globalization were close to the top of the list with sub-text that both the UK and the US, if left to their own devices, would do better on their own than by interacting and being integrated with the wider world.

It is not hard to see how, with even a modicum of savoir faire, Marine Le Pen and the Front National will not pitch the same sort of appeal to the same group in France. And I believe that, if she does so, she will win in the same way as the Brexiteers and Trump have won. Make no mistake, Fillon is very right wing and has just won this primary precisely because he is so right wing. Getting rid of half a million public sector jobs and doing away with the 35 hour week and the workplace protections that make it extraordinarily difficult to get rid of employees is dismantling the very things that make France one of the most civilized countries in Europe. In my opinion, he has made a fundamental mistake by positioning himself more and more to the right in order to match Le Pen. Le Pen is as unscrupulous and inconsistent as Trump, and she will now respond by switching her appeal to traditionally left-leaning voters instead, leaving him flat-footed.

So, on the one hand, there will be a candidate who says: France is in trouble, and we can only solve our problems by making radical economic reforms which will hurt, but will make France more competitive in the long term. But on the other hand there will be a candidate who says: France is in trouble, but we don't have to give up the things which make France a civilized and humane place to live and work, we can achieve the same thing by stemming the immigration which drives down your wage levels and makes it harder for you to find work ... and instead of having to open ourselves up to unfair competition from poorer parts of Europe and the world, we can, if we leave the EU and the trade arrangements with the rest of the world that the EU forces us to accept, take steps to protect our jobs and industry. Of course I don't believe that either of those arguments holds any water, but the appeal won't be pitched at people like me.

The conundrum is that—by any objective measure—UKIP, Trump and Le Pen espouse right-wing policies. But two of them have now won what they wanted by getting those who traditionally saw the left as best representing their interests to switch sides, and I'm afraid that we are going to see it happen three times in a row.

We who comment on politics find it hard to appreciate the raw appeal of unscrupulous politicians who direct their appeal to gut feeling rather than reasoned argument ... but we can get a taste of how well it works by reading the comments section of the Mail or Express. I'm quite sure that the intellectual left in France will hold their noses and vote for Fillon rather than Le Pen in the final round next May, but they would be mistaken to think that the angry, marginalized and disillusioned working class left will do the same. In their complacency, they just won't see it coming. A simplistic, but superficially convincing, narrative aimed squarely at the gut rather than the head is likely to result in Le Pen becoming the next French president.