Any port in a storm

The Guardian, in what is admittedly a slow week for newspapers, has had to publicise and support Jeremy Corbyn! He gave them an exclusive interview. What a scoop! It got a front-page splash as if it were world news. Why? Because a small section of the interview contained a criticism of May over so far denying Parliament much more of a role in Brexit, summarised in a medium-to-poor soundbite about Henry VIII, AND offered the Remainers hope again.

Parliament may well have voted to trigger the Leave process, but Jeremy thinks that they will still get to vote on the final plan in 2019:

“It [a final Brexit deal] would have to come to parliament. She cannot hide behind Henry VIII and the divine rights of the power of kings on this one,” he said.

 

A last resort?

A great deal of heat went out of the various Remain campaigns after the House of Commons voted to trigger Article 50 to leave on 7 Dec..The Government called the bluff of the rebels and got a large majority for their composite motion (461-- 89):

The vote came following a motion from the Labour party, which stated that it is “parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union,” adding that there “should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered.”

And this was supplemented by a Government amendment:

parliament “recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.” 

There was some media quibbling about whether this meant the Government would or should  publish a full plan and expose it to Commons scrutiny and vote. Overall, the effect was that the Remainers lost heart and could find barely a Remainer MP to interview. The motion also sidelined the ongoing Supreme Court hearing, which some of the media had hoped would force the Government to seek a Commons vote before triggering Article 50: naturally, MPs would see the light and vote to reject, they hoped.

So what remains for Remainer organs like the Guardian?

Two items today might indicate the direction of commentary on the long dying of the light:

First,in a flight to the familiar ground of the personal, a story about the social divisions brought about by Brexit told sad stories of family arguments that are still not fully resolved. Overwhelmingly, the accounts were provided by Remainers, and overwhelmingly the stories told of the stubborn, patronising, selfish racist views of the Brexit-supporting families. No need to 'balance' or moderate or even question vox pop pieces.

Then a bit of cultural sneering from Rafael Behr. Predicting fruther attacks form Brexiteers next year, Behr announces the need for a Great Struggle over the emotional dimensions of nationalism. He explains that, basically, Brexiteers have the wrong sorts of (vulgar) emotions:

Nationalists do not have a monopoly on patriotism, but they always claim one. The distinction is important. Patriotism is an emotional attachment to one’s country, expressed as pride in belonging to a discrete cultural community.It can be justified or irrational; gentle or aggressive; nuanced or crude; passionate or fond.

He goes on to explain that he is fully patriotic in this nicer sense: 

The strongest surge of patriotic feeling I had in 2016 was in response to the death of Victoria Wood. Her ear for the inflections of the language, exploring contours of class and regional identity, and her gift for communicating that insight with self-deprecating humour were quintessentially British. She made me feel lucky to be British, so I could be in on the joke.

And ends with: 

Brexit is as dull and soulless as the EU institutions it opposes. As a referendum campaign it struck a chord. As a process it is without music or poetry or any of the cultural depth on which nation-building depends. As a vehicle for the assertion of British exceptionalism it is exceptionally joyless: the creation of uncreative politicians who have nothing special to offer but belief in their own specialness. The more their mediocrity is exposed, the harder they will try to bolster their cause with appeals to patriotic duty.....But there is also a patriotism of nonconformity that cannot be bullied into allegiance. It is not the flag-waving, oath-swearing kind of patriotism, but it is no less indigenous to these islands. Its anthems might not be rousing, but they are more fun. How do we assert this gentler version of British greatness?

Guardian writer gets it right!

A good article in the Graun today by A Chakraborty that nearly got it right! He has been developing more and more marxist angles in his reporting (so has G Monbiot, who occasionally even talks about class divisions). Big moves for liberals!

Anyway, Chakkers says that behind all the hoo-hah and agonising, the British Government has been quietly advancing the agendas of international capitalism as if nothing has happened, so the whole schtick about Brexit neaning 'independence' is crap. Couldn't agree more. The point has always been to advance one small step at a time towards resistance, and for me, leaving the EU ws the first one -- but only the first one. We all have to watch out for attempts to push agendas in the name of the unrest caused by Brexit

The article says the Brexiteers will be very disappointed when they find they have not leapt into autonomy straight away but still remain in thrall to banks and globalised capital. Indeed they might, although I doubt if many were total utopian idiots. My hope is that further clarity will be sought -- the EU can no longer be blamed so who or what is reponsible?

Meanwhile, Paul Mason (same issue) attempts to discuss the latest example of Remainer Revenge Fantasy --automation will replace jobs. This has been floated for the last 45 years at least, to my knowledge, but it has resurfaced lately and linked to Brexit. Newsnight's creepy political correspondent was suppressing a sly smile when telling us last night that machinery will have to be developed to replace the cheap EU labour that does things like harvest fruit and veg. No Brit workers will benefit then! No doubt he is hoping mechanization will punish labour in general - and it will all be the fault of those wretched Brexiteers.

Mason flirts with an alternative scenario that mechanization will be good if it ends low-paid work. That reminds me of Ranciere on the enthusiasm of the French workers in the 1840s (and some members of the original Brit CP, to the annoyance of Marx'n'Engels) that mechanization will end unskilled dangerous and underpaid work and free up resources to pursue more liberating kinds.

The subtext, still undeveloped, is the crisis that excessive mechanization would bring if it led to even wider levels of poverty.

Still an awful long way to go for me and I have lilttle hope really -- but on the right lines.

4% of what?

Very good satirical interview of the victor of the Richmond byelection here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs

Back to nagging then...

Lovely piece in the Guardian today by a still-frustrated Remainer, Martin Kettle (Associate News Editor). The Remainers' hopes are heightened by the promised intervention of none other than Mr Tony (War Criminal) Blair, and by the renewed interest in legal delays and the inevitable economic forecasts of gloom. The Richmond by-election cheered them up no end too -- a Remainer LibDem beat a Brexit Independent (former Tory Zac Goldsmith, standing as an anti-Heathrow expansion Independent)

Kettle leaves no stone unturned in his desire to blame Brexit for stuff, including the increased numbers of people from the EU coming to Britain. Good job he explained that because otherwise the news of record immigration might just prompt a demand for swifter action on Brexit.

His main point come at the end though: 

The third point is to remember Cato. Chip away, every day. Every time something new and troubling happens, make it clear that things would be different if Brexit were stopped. This week’s immigration figures showed a pre-referendum surge. Without Brexit this wouldn’t have happened. Hate crimes have proliferated. Brexit shares the blame for that. When inflation rises and growth slows next year, make sure Brexit’s role is spelled out. If ministers abandon the single market in favour of migration curbs, make Brexit’s responsibility clear. Unless anti-Brexit campaigners have established in the public mind that there is a clear and viable no-Brexit alternative, they won’t be in a position to make the most of their opportunities.

The fourth point is the other side of the same coin. The leave campaign lied through its teeth about the benefits of Brexit. It said there would be £350m extra every week for the NHS. Last week the chancellor said precisely nothing about any extra NHS spending in the next four years. And look what is actually happening to the NHS. The leave campaign landed the May government with a huge promise that it cannot deliver. The opposition parties need to link the two at every opportunity.

So much for news values. At least he warned us what he was going to do  -- no need to read him at all now then.