In
his speech at
the conference of the Labour Party in Wales on the weekend, the party's leader
told delegates that the real divide in Britain isn’t between Leavers and Remainers
but between rich and poor, and that “The
first question is what kind of society do we want to be”. In principle, I’d agree with all of that, but
I’m not so sure that it is that easy to separate the two issues. For me, Brexit is also largely about what
sort of society we want to be, and pretending that it isn’t, or is in some way
just an economic issue (the infamous “jobs-first Brexit” which he talks about
regularly) is ignoring the reality of the motivations behind Brexit.
Do
we want to be looking outward to an increasingly interconnected world, or do we
want to be insular harking back to the ‘glory’ of the past? Do we want to co-operate with our neighbours
in sharing resources and building common prosperity, or do we want to compete
with them by undercutting them on standards and regulations? Do we want to be open and welcoming towards
others, or do we want to pull up the drawbridge and keep others out? Do we want to be internationalists with a
firm footing in our own roots and culture, or Anglo-British not-nationalists-at-all
insisting on the uniqueness and exceptionalism of those who just happen to live
on a small group of offshore islands? These
are all illustrations of the ideological divide between those of us who want to
be part of a wider Europe and those who want to stand alone against the world.
To
ask “what sort of society we want to be”
in the current context without understanding the huge gulf between the answer given
by Brexiteers and that given by Remainers is to completely miss the point. Of course, the EU isn’t perfect and there is
much which needs to change, and of course being ‘European’ in outlook doesn’t
necessarily translate into being an enthusiast for all aspects of the EU. But it’s a much better starting point for
building the sort of society that I want us to be than opting out and trying to
turn the clock back. The way the question was posed simply underlines that Corbyn is himself a dyed-in-the-wool
Anglo-British not-nationalist-at-all.
Posts
2 comments:
Not at all sure that Corbyn is a Brit Nat. I suspect that he is simply classist. He believes, understandably in some ways, that a united working class is more important than anything else. But his class is, or is perceived to be, split on Europe. So he does everything he can to paper over that crack.
The result is defensive and no good for the wider UK or Wales.
Plus we have members of Parties electing the Country's Leaders. Defective constitutional thinking. Members can elect Candidates. The public should vote on whether they become the Leader of the Country. See US, 50 States and Lord knows everwhere else but the UK
I understand the argument. But when someone supports the idea of a "united working class" only within certain defined boundaries which just happen to coincide with those of what he defines as a 'nation', there has to be something else in play. From his perspective, 'Ireland' is a single nation which should be united under a single government, Scotland and Wales are not nations deserving of their own governments so the class argument trumps the national one because Great Britain is a single nation where class solidarity does apply; but such solidarity does not apply between the people of this island and those on the mainland of Europe, who are defined as being 'others'. I can surely be forgiven for interpreting the idea of a "united working class" a la Corbyn as referring solely to a 'united Anglo-British working class'? And what is that, if not a variant on Anglo-British not-nationalism-at-all?
Post a Comment