The arch Brexiteers on Twitter have
been quite quiet of late. It seems almost as if some of them have
accepted that trying to shoehorn Remainers like me into accepting
their form of Brexit without trying to put forward persuasive
arguments has backfired on them. PM May's credibility level is far
from glowing and with the rift between moderate, liberal Bright Blue
Tories and Mogglodytes becoming ever more transparent, there's a
desperate scramble to try and convince the electorate at large that
the Tory form of Brexit will be far removed from a Faragiste one.
What do the “nationalists but not UKIP nationalists”decide to do
when the chips are down? They wheel out the “liberal” unifier in
chief/bumbling buffoon Boris Johnson, the man who is famously prone
to using flowery rhetoric to say the most facepalm cringeiest of
things.
The speech, delivered at the right-wing
Policy Exchange was not exactly packed to the rafters with substance.
There was some recognition of the anxiety that Remain voters have
felt with regards to Brexit: I have experienced both economic and
cultural anxiety and none of the reports released by Brexiteer
leaning groups have eased my feelings of anxiety. The recent
revelations emanating from the Brexit Impact Assessments makes me
even more fearful of what might happen, not less. There was no new
information with regards to economic policy or trade negotiations
going forward (surprise, surprise) nor were there any new commitments
with regards to Irish border arrangements. Bojo talked about the
potential for a few giveaways for voters, namely cutting VAT on
“domestic fuel and other products” as well as simplifying
planning procedures by cutting the number of environmental impact
assessments done
(he must have been speaking to his
frenemy Gove about that one). Of course there was no mention about
getting rid of the tampon tax or reducing VAT on products as a whole,
arguments have been advanced by socialist proponents of Brexit. Then
again there was no mention of the additional VAT burdens that
businesses may face following Brexit, when an estimated 130,000 may
be expected to pay VAT upfront for the first time on goods imported
from the EU. As Nicky Morgan, MP for Loughborough remarked last
month, the implications of Brexit on the tax system “are yet to be
fully explored”
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/brexit-government-urged-to-stop-cost-of-vat-rule-change-hitting-uk-firms).
The “Take Back Control” narrative
was trotted out, albeit cloaked in philosophical liberal idealism
with what may appear at first vague sentiments about national common
sympathies and ensuring that citizens consent to being ruled by the
Government that serves them. Bojo has interpreted Mill's words as
meaning that only the UK as a nation, can be seen to be “united”
amongst ourselves “by common sympathies (feelings) which do not
exist” between ourselves and others that can legitimise the work of
the state. This ties in with the idea that the Leave vote was a
withdrawal of consent to be involved in the making of EU regulations
and directives thereby rejecting membership of the Single Market.
John Stuart Mill's concept has been
applied in discussions about sovereignty for donkeys years. Mill did
believe that nationality primarily comes from political identity and
a common national history. The success of the European Union comes,
as Simon Glendinning has argued, “from cultural and national
diversities across the continent”. Mill's liberal theory has been
used to discuss the possibility of a federal Europe: I read an
excellent article by Corrado Morricone from Durham University where
he argues that “whilst Mill thinks, as a general rule that free
institutions are only possible in a country constituted of a single
nationality, (Mill) leaves room for the possibility of a sort of
multinational state” yet such a state would be very difficult to
achieve and may even go against the idea of the EU being diverse and
liberal
(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/02/13/the-work-of-js-mill-shows-the-importance-of-a-common-identity-to-the-principle-of-european-federalism/).
It's not an idea that has gained traction in European countries
despite what Brexiteers may be stating.
I can understand the desire for
self-determination, that some people want to believe that laws should
only be passed by MPs (and helped by the Lords, who, are ironically
not elected by the UK electorate at large but in my eyes should be).
Yet it is pure fallacy to argue that EU regulations and directives
would necessarily be any less understandable because they may be
drafted in more than one language or that voters would not be able to
understand the motives of MEPs who help draft regulations and
directives. It's also rather strange that Johnson seems to suggest
that EU laws are worse because they are “expressly
teleological...there to achieve a political goal”. There are plenty
of UK laws that may be interpreted as being in place to achieve a
political goal (censorship laws, anyone); it depends on how you
define what a “political goal” happens to be.
As for Bojo asking people to name their
MEP, I conducted a survey in Lincoln back in 2016 asking people on
the High Street to name the MP for Lincoln (who at the time was Leave
supporting Karl McCartney) and 60% of the people I asked had no idea
who the MP was. That should indicate that increasing political
engagement through more community engagement is important for
national and European elections (should we have anymore in the
future): I'm sure if more voters had understood how the European
Parliament worked and had gotten to meet their local MEP candidates,
the higher the participation rate in European elections would have
been.
Any areas of consensus referred to in
the speech were pretty much to be expected: most voters on both sides
of the Brexit debate would have expected the Tories to state openly
that they will continue to co-operate with our allies in the EU on
national security matters and very few voters would disagree with the
UK continuing to participate in academic exchange schemes, with the
University of Lincoln hopefully working with European counterparts.
That being said, Bojo wants to see the UK diverging from EU policy
with regards to medical research, stating Britain will require a new
“regulatory framework, scrupulous and moral, but not afraid of the
new” that embraces new stem cell technology. What that actually
means in practice is far from clear.
The comment about Brits continuing to
be European “both practically and psychologically” probably
didn't go down all that well with UKIPpers but nonetheless it is the
truth. There will always be Brits, like myself, with European
heritage who will always define themselves as British European. My
Twitter handle even points out I am half Irish, half
Norwegian-Swedish. Yet Bojo couldn't leave the subject alone. Ever
the hypocrite, Johnson follows the comment with some bizzare diatribe
about British people living abroad as being akin to God's chosen
people in the 21st century, the “points of light
scattered across an intermittently darkening globe” (let's not
forget Bojo compared Theresa May to Moses in the speech....I'd say
she was acting more like Rod Hull trying to look for a pledge of
loyalty from Emu). Such an example of Brexiteer arrogance. Then again
throughout the speech I couldn't help but raise a smile and think how
absolutely up his own arse Bojo and Brits like him must be, thinking
they are the best at nearly everything and screw everyone else. I'm
prepared to admit us Brits are amazeballs but let's not pretend we're
free from fault when being abroad. The recent disturbing Oxfam
revelations unfortunately prove otherwise.
It infuriates me to see Bojo claim he's
not against immigration per se and yet not only does he boast about
rich French people spending money in London when he was Mayor but he
chooses only to praise the EU migrants who enter the country who are
doctors when he should also be praising EU migrants who come to this
country to help care for older and severely disabled people in
nursing homes and clean his hotel rooms when he checks out. It
reinforces the notion that his form of Brexit and the people he and
his lot represent, is going to benefit the richest in our society at
the expense of the most vulnerable and most hard-working families of
this country. It makes me sick to my stomach.
Bojo boasts that the fortunes of UKIP
have “gone into a long deserved eclipse” and yet conveniently
forgets the record of certain Conservatives when talking about
immigration. Remember PM May's 2015 speech to the Conservative
Conference where she told delegates that immigrants could make
society “less cohesive” and peddled the myth of immigrants
job-stealing, something she was critiqued for by the Institute for
Directors: “The myth of the job-stealing
immigrant is nonsense. Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill
vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs.”
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-policies-speech-conference-2015-tory-conservative-party-views-a7209931.html)
Then let's not forget that leaked disgusting draft immigration policy
document that was being touted as Britain's position post-Brexit the
final version of which we will not see until Autumn 2018.
Conservative members are determined to see reforms to the system
which will limit the amount of so-called “low skilled” workers
from coming to the UK which is pretty much the same as what Farage
wants to see. Lord Green for example, chairman of MigrantWatch UK,
moaned that EU migrants cost the UK taxpayer £4.4bn in 2014/15
(https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/12/andrew-green-the-immigration-policy-that-we-need-after-brexit.html)
yet would never dream of openly stating he'd be in favour of cutting
the working age benefits of British workers. Remainers liberals like
myself who are in favour of maintaining freedom of movement will
never be swayed by such banal immigration arguments. Then again Bojo
and his brigade must think voters have short memories. Not quite that
short, Bojo!
For Brexiteers, the Brexit process is
grounded in a politics of hope. Remainers, Leavers, people who
couldn't vote and those who didn't want to vote all share a hope for
a brighter, more prosperous future, one where there is enough money
to pay for appropriate NHS and adult social care. Bojo wants PM May
and the Cabinet to present an optimistic vision and believes that “it
is the government's duty to advocate and explain the mission on which
we are now engaged”. It has to mean more than “going
global”....the Government needs to explain how its mission is going
to effect our domestic policy, not just our trade policy. Bojo and
his “merry” band of Brexiteers defend the Government's record
reasonably well. John Redwood, MP for Wokingham has claimed that
voters should be cheerful when it comes to the long-term economic
outlook for the country. The level of growth has been sluggish:
preliminary figures released by the Office for National Statistics
showed that growth in 2017 was 1.5%, compared with figures released
by Eurostat which confirm that the Eurozone grew by 2.7% in 2017
(http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-uk-economy-grew-slower-than-europe-for-the-first-time-since-2010-2018-2).
The UK's economy is now growing more slowly than the Eurozone economy
and yet Brexiteers think leaving the EU will somehow solve our
economic woes. LOL. If that doesn't make you grit your teeth, it's
important to point out that last month the International Monetary
Fund has downgraded the UK's economic growth forecast down to 1.5%
for 2019 (down 0.1%), whereas Germany's growth has been upgraded from
1.5% to 2% for 2019
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economic-growth-imf-forecast-brexit-leave-eu-g7-international-monetary-fund-a8172231.html).
These Tory Brexiteers claim their policy platform already allows for
the economy to boom, yet the figures do not back that claim up. And
yes, talking about the current Tory policy platform matters in
discussions on Brexit. The effects of years of austerity on our
public services and community cohesion is clear for all of us to see,
yet there are voters are prepared to continue to back the party
responsible for that austerity because they think Brexit will help
reverse some of those austerity measures is quite frankly baffling.
They are prepared to trust the same party who has presided over
ridiculous cuts to local authority budgets: the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism examined the finances of 150 councils and
found the average deficit to be £14.7m, with many councils under the
greatest financial pressure being under Tory control
(https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/john-mcdonnell-councils-used-human-shields-funding-cuts).
Our public services are being underfunded, our wonderful public
service staff are becoming increasingly demoralised and yet it's
strange how Brexiteers just want to focus on getting more legislative
powers for Parliament and not lift much of a finger to help local
authorities, NHS Trusts, Police Forces, Ambulance Trusts and Fire
Services, many of whom are struggling to keep themselves afloat.
Bojo may talk about the lack of
opportunities for British born young people. Yet it is his party that
has failed to invest adequately in growing the number of highly-paid
job opportunities, especially in the North East and it is his party
that has been far too slow off the mark to encourage businesses to
invest in high quality apprenticeships not just for 16-24 year olds
but also for those workers who want and need to retrain in order to
access a more secure career. Bojo wants international students to be
able to come to the UK but they need to be able to do so without fear
of being deported within a few months of finishing their course (and
we need to take students out of the migration figures too). Bojo
talks about wanting to change Britain from “a low wage, low
productivity economy to a high wage, high productivity” one yet it
was Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had the
audacity to blame an increase in the number of disabled workers for
low productivity growth in the economy. It's his party who refuses to
ban exploitative zero hours contracts, to ban unpaid internships
lasting over a month or introduce a living wage that would allow
people to afford to pay their rent without breaking into a cold sweat
every 5 minutes. Why can't Bojo and his lot talk about social housing
or the NHS with the same level of enthusiasm as Brexit?
What's even more baffling is there are
still Labour voters who think leaving the EU will somehow reduce the
level of austerity. I remember reading in The Guardian back
in 2016 Frank Field using the same language as Bojo used in his
speech today with regards to immigration, praising highly skilled
migrants but failing to acknowledge the hard work done by care staff
and housekeepers. Dennis Skinner, the “Beast of Bolsover”
considered a hero by socialist Labour party members, attacks the
Tories quite rightly on their record in Government, yet fails to
realise the dangers posed by deregulation; instead he dreams of the
possibility of a socialist state becoming a reality under Corbyn, a
dream looking increasingly unlikely given the drop in support in the
polls for Labour. At least Skinner has been consistent in his
opposition to the EU- he's voted consistently against every treaty,
including the Maastricht one. His disagreement with the EU is based
on worker exploitation (despite the introduction of worker-friendly
policies like the Working Time Directive 1998). Yet I'm surprised
Skinner, Field et al don't feel at all nervous about the EU
Withdrawal Bill becoming a Tory power grab or them being in the
driving seat during this Brexit process but then as long as we're out
of the EU I guess he's not particularly that bothered. More fool him
and Field and Labour Brexiteers in general I say.
Another issue with the speech was the
implicit indication that the Government would be prepared to preside
over a “bonfire of regulations”. A consistent narrative used by
those who favour a Clean Brexit (i.e. free trade agreement or at
worst using World Trade Organisation rules) is one that a deregulated
Britain would automatically be a better Britain for businesses. One
person who commented on Paul Goodman's Conservative Home article Why
our European neighbours think we're a basket case, stated
that Brexit shouldn't happen unless there was deregulation
(https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/02/why-our-european-neighbours-think-were-a-basket-case.html).
It didn't take long for business organisations to rebut any
assertion implied from Bojo's speech that businesses agree with mass
deregulation. John Foster CBI's Director of Campaigns for example,
which is trying to encourage members to ditch Remain and Leave labels
used his response to make it clear that some businesses value the
current regulatory framework they operate in: “our aerospace,
automotive and chemical sectors, to name a few, all have highly
integrated European supply chains that benefit from consistent
regulation”
(http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/businesses-aren-t-looking-for-a-bonfire-of-regulations/).
Brexiteers are terrified at the
prospect of a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal gaining
traction with voters. Bojo dismissed the wishes of such Remainers,
saying any referendum would be “a disastrous mistake.....bringing
another year of wrangling and turmoil and feuding in which the whole
country would lose”. Nothing new there then!
This speech was really about Bojo
showcasing his leadership credentials in readiness for a potential
Tory leadership election. He may have demonstrated his unwavering
loyalty towards PM May in public, stating that she is someone who
“can do a great Brexit deal” but that's only because she's
prepared to stick to the idea of leaving the Single Market and
Customs Union. Bojo knows he can rock the boat if he wants to and
he'd love to be given another chance to become Tory leader and PM in
one foul swoop. I'm far from alone in coming to this conclusion. The
New York Times ed on Bojo's speech talks about Bojo hankering for
another chance to become PM: “Mr Johnson may be sensing another
moment of opportunity, as Mrs May struggles to control her cabinet
amid calls from some of her own lawmakers for her to step aside”.
Of course Bojo faces stiff competition from Mr Victorian, himself,
Rees-Mogg and a Tory leadership election would no doubt be absolutely
fascinating to watch unfold but the end result of any such election
should be that a general election is called: we don't want yet
another undemocratic pass with the Tory leader automatically becoming
PM without facing the electorate at large.
Valentine's Day may have left plenty of
couples feeling the love, but I can hazard a guess Bojo failed in his
aim to unite the Remain and Leave camps behind a Tory Brexit vision.
I don't think he'll be particularly heartbroken but the whole debacle
demonstrates just how difficult it will be for any political leader
to articulate a vision for the future that is hopeful and inclusive.
The Remain vs Leave debate remains very much alive in constituencies
across the UK.
