Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Some of this could be out of date by the time you read it such is the febrile state of Britain’s debate on Brexit with a crunch vote, or not, on Tuesday. The mood is constantly changing, sometimes it seems by the hour, and no-one knows where and how it will end, maybe within days.
These days of high drama have been years in the making and commentators are searching for the best historical parallels – the worst crisis since Suez in 1956, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the introduction of the reform acts in the 19th century, and more obscure ones.
Whatever analogy is chosen, it illustrates that we should avoid thinking that our politics was fine and dandy before now. Britain has long avoided revolutions and conservatives have heeded the maxim that conserving requires change. But the 1926 General Strike was bitter, as were the Hungry ‘30s and the miners’ strikes of the 1970s and ‘80s. There was talk in the 1970s of a military intervention and an emergency government of national unity, the latter now being mentioned again.
Before the rise of populism there was the same tin-eared dialogue of the deaf between political tribes and cack-handed proposals costing billions and the livelihoods and happiness of millions. The major difference is that politics is now increasingly shaped by the turbulent bubbles bred by social media and a degeneration in the quality of internal and wider debates on policy.
Take foreign policy formation. I often attend events organised by the Conservative Middle East Council and admire the intellectual strength of their proceedings and the willingness to take complex issues seriously, leaving aside my political differences and the party’s errors on Europe.
Labour’s own Middle East Council faded some years back and there is much focus on Israel/Palestine with an ugly resurgence of antisemitism, plus slogans on Saudi and very little on Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Dissent on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is beyond the pale for many and parts of the party even opposed the airstrikes that saved Erbil from Daesh. Foreign policy discussion after Brexit, or whatever we get, needs to be better than this.
We cannot take the politics out of politics. It is a hard-nosed game where success requires making positions interesting in a crowded field and preventing opponents from gaining traction. And that is often more vehement and vituperative when boiled down to Twitter-wars. But solid free thinking based on first principles and ideology is crucial in formulating policy, as is building long-term relations and dialogue.
Sober debate also requires a proper place for parliament, which was humbled by the expenses scandal and then sidelined by the referendum on Brexit, only the third national referendum ever, but there are good signs that parliament is asserting itself against a weak executive.
However, any option to solve the Brexit conundrum will be bad. May’s deal is widely seen as the worst of all worlds (though never say never in these times), a no deal departure could cause catastrophic disruption of trade for many months and encourage businesses to up sticks, and remaining could spark a generation of revolt against a cheating establishment. I wonder if some people are beginning to think of buying some yellow vests.
Those who advocate a fresh vote have to amass good arguments for doing so and one of the best ones emerging comes from Tobias Ellwood, the former Middle East minister, who says: “If parliament does not agree a Brexit deal soon, then we must recognize that the original mandate to leave, taken over two years ago, will begin to date and will, eventually, no longer represent a reflection of current intent.”
Remaining could be the best or rather least-worse option, assuming that the UK’s current terms of membership can be retained also. And if there is a fresh referendum then remainers need to be less pious and arrogant and make a much stronger case for how remaining can be accompanied by deep domestic reforms that answer the pain that caused many people to plump for Brexit in the first place.
We cannot go through this again and that means a concerted effort to calm things down and cultivate thoughtful policy-making and more inspirational leadership. Maybe this plea is spitting in the gale of anger, or I am doing a King Canute and offering a futile resistance to populism, which is probably not a temporary aberration but a permanent feature of our politics. But arguments for serious, muscular, and cogent policy formation have to be loud and clear. In the meantime, things can only get bitter before they get any better.
These days of high drama have been years in the making and commentators are searching for the best historical parallels – the worst crisis since Suez in 1956, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the introduction of the reform acts in the 19th century, and more obscure ones.
Whatever analogy is chosen, it illustrates that we should avoid thinking that our politics was fine and dandy before now. Britain has long avoided revolutions and conservatives have heeded the maxim that conserving requires change. But the 1926 General Strike was bitter, as were the Hungry ‘30s and the miners’ strikes of the 1970s and ‘80s. There was talk in the 1970s of a military intervention and an emergency government of national unity, the latter now being mentioned again.
Before the rise of populism there was the same tin-eared dialogue of the deaf between political tribes and cack-handed proposals costing billions and the livelihoods and happiness of millions. The major difference is that politics is now increasingly shaped by the turbulent bubbles bred by social media and a degeneration in the quality of internal and wider debates on policy.
Take foreign policy formation. I often attend events organised by the Conservative Middle East Council and admire the intellectual strength of their proceedings and the willingness to take complex issues seriously, leaving aside my political differences and the party’s errors on Europe.
Labour’s own Middle East Council faded some years back and there is much focus on Israel/Palestine with an ugly resurgence of antisemitism, plus slogans on Saudi and very little on Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Dissent on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is beyond the pale for many and parts of the party even opposed the airstrikes that saved Erbil from Daesh. Foreign policy discussion after Brexit, or whatever we get, needs to be better than this.
We cannot take the politics out of politics. It is a hard-nosed game where success requires making positions interesting in a crowded field and preventing opponents from gaining traction. And that is often more vehement and vituperative when boiled down to Twitter-wars. But solid free thinking based on first principles and ideology is crucial in formulating policy, as is building long-term relations and dialogue.
Sober debate also requires a proper place for parliament, which was humbled by the expenses scandal and then sidelined by the referendum on Brexit, only the third national referendum ever, but there are good signs that parliament is asserting itself against a weak executive.
However, any option to solve the Brexit conundrum will be bad. May’s deal is widely seen as the worst of all worlds (though never say never in these times), a no deal departure could cause catastrophic disruption of trade for many months and encourage businesses to up sticks, and remaining could spark a generation of revolt against a cheating establishment. I wonder if some people are beginning to think of buying some yellow vests.
Those who advocate a fresh vote have to amass good arguments for doing so and one of the best ones emerging comes from Tobias Ellwood, the former Middle East minister, who says: “If parliament does not agree a Brexit deal soon, then we must recognize that the original mandate to leave, taken over two years ago, will begin to date and will, eventually, no longer represent a reflection of current intent.”
Remaining could be the best or rather least-worse option, assuming that the UK’s current terms of membership can be retained also. And if there is a fresh referendum then remainers need to be less pious and arrogant and make a much stronger case for how remaining can be accompanied by deep domestic reforms that answer the pain that caused many people to plump for Brexit in the first place.
We cannot go through this again and that means a concerted effort to calm things down and cultivate thoughtful policy-making and more inspirational leadership. Maybe this plea is spitting in the gale of anger, or I am doing a King Canute and offering a futile resistance to populism, which is probably not a temporary aberration but a permanent feature of our politics. But arguments for serious, muscular, and cogent policy formation have to be loud and clear. In the meantime, things can only get bitter before they get any better.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment