Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

The SNP is back on the agenda with early preparation for another independence referendum. Most polls show there is still a majority for staying in the union with the UK, in spite of the Brexit vote, but hard Brexit could change that. Only a movement on average of three percentage points would be needed. To keep the union intact will require a Brexit which looks at least as attractive as being in the EU when the benefit of being part of the UK is added. Can May deliver that?

Well we know so little of what her plan is we cannot say. But if we look at the evidence, the referendum vote was for curbs on immigration, a return of sovereignty and no more payments to Brussels. That is a hard Brexit. Unfortunately voters were also told that there would be no problem getting a cosy deal with Europe which would keep trade (and jobs) flowing normally. That is a hard Brexit with a soft centre and there is next to no chance of that. So what did Leavers vote for exactly? Would there still be a majority for Brexit if that meant higher prices and lower growth at least for a while, with job losses and no free access to the single market? You could argue that the warnings from Remain were so blood curdling that everyone knew the risks. Or you could argue that Leave told porkies and misled voters.

Parliament, which is sovereign, might have to decide. There are several problems here. The government is alleging that it has sovereignty, not parliament. This is being challenged in the courts. Parliament is squaring up to a constitutional argument with its own government. There is no majority in it for Brexit, let alone a hard Brexit.  The survival of the Union, an issue attached to hard Brexit, could become a very serious issue indeed. That then begs another question; where is England headed? Does it know? Boris evidently could only make up his mind by writing two conflicting articles before opting for Brexit. Really?

This is going to get very messy. The absence of a properly prepared plan for the biggest post WWII foreign and economic policy adventure is beginning to tell. There are obstacles popping up on every front, whichever way you want to go. There are strong rumours of serious disagreement in the government, causing paralysis at the top. Donald Dusk, President of the European Council, has put it very simply. Britain has only two choices. Hard Brexit or No Brexit.

Unless this government can bring some clarity to this confusion and improve its relationships within itself and with parliament, you may begin to hear more about the second choice.

If you are going to negotiate a deal, you are a fool if you do not carefully consider what the other side needs to get out of it. Me first negotiations take on the format of threats and work only if you have the power to threaten. So a look now at where the EU ought to be going might be useful.

There are a lot of problems in the EU. The Eurozone is not working fairly, neither can it with its present form of governance. The economic benefits of EU membership and being part of the Eurozone are uneven, favouring northern industrial countries led by Germany. Even in that group there is serious discontent with the economic outcome in France and Italy. All three have elections in 2017 which could throw up unwelcome surprises. The anti Brussels contagion has spread from the UK and the infection is growing. If the response is to loosen regulation and increase national sovereignty the euro will fail. If that happens the EU will unravel.

What has to happen in the EU is that all countries join the Euro, there is established an EU Federal government, elected by the EU parliament, because that is a properly elected body and should be invested with full federal powers. which then control a finance ministry and other ministries involving areas of policy now devolved to the Commission, which must be abolished. The Commissioners should disappear and the civil servants supporting them be dispersed into the ministries. EU wide taxes should be introduced and the current contribution system scrapped. The purpose is to inaugurate policies with a democratic mandate for the whole of the EU, especially for economics, which do not favour one country at the expense of another. The Council of Ministers could remain as a second chamber of government or Senate, with revising, but not executive, powers.

The effect would be a notable surrender of national sovereignty in exchange for a significant increase in democratic participation at federal level, which would usher in an era of improving prosperity and growth shared by all. In simple terms there would be a  proper transfer of sovereignty from national governments to the people who would exercise it at two levels, national and federal. There should be no exceptions or opt outs. You are either in it hook line and sinker, or you are out of it entirely.

If all that happens (which it will eventually, but not in the Brexit timescale) the Brexit negotiations would be quite short and clear cut. GB would be out, but Scotland would have a greater incentive to stay within the UK, where its influence and independence would be greater than in a federal EU.

There has never been a presidential contest in which one candidate was in as much trouble as Trump. Yet two new polls  put Trump 2 points ahead nationally (Rasmussen) and tied (L A Times). It is now clear that the voters, perhaps the majority, are determined to kick the establishment very hard and the conventional unsuitability of Trump makes him the right choice.  I heard of a four year old who told her mother that there was a man and a woman standing for president.  The woman told lies and the man teased girls. But the man would keep them safe, so she would vote for him.

So  the pundits may have got it wrong. It is not Trump who is in trouble, it is Hilary. She should be romping home not sliding back. If the Democrats had listened to the young people of America they would have picked Bernie Sanders as their nominee. He would now be on the home straight heading for a landslide. They made a terrible mistake. If Clinton loses it will be the greatest humiliation in the Party’s history. The voters will not just be rejecting the Democrats. They will be rejecting modern America. It will indeed be a Brexit moment.

The rather bizarre stand-off between Unilever and Tesco introduces an unexpected consequence of Brexit and its impact on the value of the pound. This blog has many times pointed out that the fall in the value of sterling is a good thing and there can be no economic recovery without it. However it is critical to point out that it must be accompanied by a major economic stimulus, without which we will not get much, if any, benefit. Instead we will be left with  the downside of  increasing cost of imports and their effect on the cost of living and inflation. Incomes will be squeezed and growth, which is at best meagre, will slow. This really forces Hammond’s hand and demands of him something very bold on November 24th.

That question is impossible to answer. By any conventional political measure, whether it is opinion polls, or experience of what can work and what cannot, the Trump campaign is over.

The Republican party has deserted him, women are now coming forward with groping tales, unwanted kisses and similar smut, the tax row continues to grumble deep down like a volcano soon to erupt and in any other country, certainly in Europe, Trump would have had to withdraw. Indeed in the Australian parliament, Australia is a faithful ally of the US, a motion branding him a ‘filthy slug’ was passed unanimously. This is all unknown territory in international politics, let alone the domestic set up in the US. Only is Moscow does his star continue to rise.

There are now three possibilities open to a world dazzled by what has become a spectacle rather than an election. Trump will win narrowly, Trump will lose big, or Trump, fearing humiliation emblazoned across the planet, will withdraw. I have absolutely no idea which is more likely, neither do I rule out something even more off the page.

Boris Johnson’s call for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy yesterday in parliament were childish. He has turned out to be a very big disappointment to many in his first cabinet post, demonstrating incompetence and poor judgement and appearing out of his depth.

The terrible suffering in Aleppo shocks the world. There are two sides in every war and the Russians and their allies clearly want to bring this one to an end as quickly as possible, achieving their strategic objectives with a good deal better focus that the shambolic military and political policy of the American led coalition. Certainly killing civilians on purpose is a war crime, but when the enemy is entrenched within civilian infrastructure, it is inevitable that it will happen.

The quickest way to stop the suffering is not by the unhinged proposal of taking on Russia in the air above the city with western air power, but to get the rebels who have clearly lost, to leave the city under safe conduct. Only an imbecile can suppose that somehow further military intervention by new forces with more bombing, as some suggested yesterday in the Commons, could make things better.

There is something of a fog wafting through international affairs at the moment;  the US election, Brexit, Syria, Globalization, Debt mountains, low growth etc. etc. What shines brightly in the gloom is the fall in sterling. Although this is causing anxiety among some parts of the global investment community, it is very good news for the UK. The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn (Lord) King gave a ringing endorsement from New York today. Of course there will be tears, because there has to be profound change in the shape of the UK economic model. The biggest argument in favour of Brexit (I voted Remain not for economic but for historical and political reasons) is that it forces major changes in economic policy. We are getting hints of these and will know more after the  chancellor’s November Statement, but they are unlikely to go far enough. To gain the main benefit of the fall in sterling requires a radical overhaul in fiscal and monetary policy as well as in the governance of both.

The money supply to the base of the economy should be expanded by Dynamic Quantitative Easing, the government must take back control of the levers of control of interest rates, the money supply and the means to influence the range within which sterling is traded, to make sure the devaluation is longer lasting. These are decisions with big political consequences and must be taken by elected politicians. There has to be huge public investment (£1trillion over a parliament) in the infrastructure weaknesses in transport, power generation and supply, information technology and social housing, to expand the ability of the private sector to generate new wealth rather than inflate fixed assets.

The financial sector is far too big, the taxation base is too small leading to starvation of essential public services, borrowing is far too high and too little real wealth is being created. Imports have to be cut, home manufacture of everything we use increased and exports expanded. A much more proactive approach to interest rates must boost saving, cut personal borrowing and control house prices so that they inflate in line with general inflation and not on a turbo charge of their own. The taxation structure is overdue for modernisation and reform, a process made easier by Brexit. The whole transformation will not be without pain, some wealth which was never really there will vanish, but in the end the result will be a game changer and the younger generation will at last have a decent future to look forward to.

We will know in November whether May’s new chancellor, Philip Hammond, is up to the challenge, or whether he will be a forecasting junkie who gets it all wrong like his predecessor.

The Government has rejected increasingly strident calls from senior MPs from all parties that the House of Commons must have a vote about the basic elements of the government’s plans for Brexit. Downing Street asserts that, following the referendum result it is right and proper to proceed according to the mandate given by the people, using the royal prerogative. Thus parliament does not have to be consulted, although it will be kept informed. This is rejected by many because the referendum was advisory and has no legal force. At some point parliament will have to give it force. This could be with the putting into law by parliamentary majority of the Great Repeal Bill, but the argument now is about a vote before Article 50 is triggered.

This does not look as if it will go away. It will be a test of this government’s ability to give effect to its plans. The history of backtracking since May 2015 is pretty unprecedented. The issue is constitutionally complicated. Our unwritten constitution mostly relies on precedents, conventions and so on and this is a new experience. We joined the then Common Market with a parliamentary vote but no vote by the people. Brexiteers hope that we can leave on a vote by the people and not by parliament, because in both Houses the majority is for Remain. It is made even trickier by the fact that although the country (actually only England and Wales) voted for Brexit, Brexit can come in many different forms and means different things to different people. On both sides.

The Parliamentary Labour Party, which its stalwarts claim nearly met its doom under the ultra left Michael Foot, is now having    tantrums about how the Shadow Cabinet was chosen and appointed. Never mind the detail; they are behaving like children. They mounted a rebellion and lost spectacularly and it is now time to knuckle down or get out. Michael Foot failed because during a time of change in the political weather when the centre moved sharply to the right, he took his party left. But now there is a change in the political weather again in full swing, with the centre moving sharply to the left. Although not in government Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of that shift in the UK and has attracted to the cause unprecedented numbers of young people, well educated and clever, who know and care nothing about Michael Foot, Trotsky et al, but who see clearly that the current economic model, which New Labour helped fashion, cannot sustain and is grossly unfair.

May, who turns out to be nobody’s fool, has followed Corbyn and moved the whole Tory party  to the left of anything ever thought of by Tony Blair. It is well to the left of the squawking right of the PLP. Utterly befuddled by the new political reality, these sad and sorry soundbite politicians of a yesterday now passed, call for ‘effective opposition’. They cannot see that Corbyn is more effective than any modern opposition leader. Not only has this 2015 Tory government had to abandon more legislation than any post WWII predecessor, it has had to completely reposition itself in the political spectrum. Because of a political agenda driven by Corbyn.

Or is he? There is universal condemnation, outrage and dismay about the groping tape. Trump is isolated without any defenders. He has come forward with a comprehensive apology. Things must be bad because that is new from him. And yet it seems always to be the case that he emerges from these terminal (for any normal politician) situations strengthened. Many think he is now too damaged to make it to the White House and Hilary is on a roll. Who can tell?

I can tell you this. If the sex tape does not sink his campaign and if he does not make a fool of himself on Sunday, he will win in November.