The General Election And The Future
The general election
result left me with feelings of sadness, frustration and anger which
I have to try to set aside in writing this. I felt sadness at the
result, frustration that the right-wing bias in UK media had not been
overcome by independent and other sources and anger that the UK is,
in my view, mortgaging its future and, most specifically, that of its
young people. Those are my feelings. But a new government regime
inevtiably poses a number of questions and here are my thoughts on
some of them. I shall also attempt a Nostradamus act; it’s close
to the time of year for one of those.
Will the UK stay as
currently consitituted? The Scottish Parliament wants independence
but has been denied a referendum on the subject. How will the Scots
react to that? I don’t forsee violence , although that may result,
and wonder what passive resistance can achieve. Neither of the
political axes in northern Ireland likes Johnson’s current proposal
for a solution to the border problem, Stormont now has a Sinn Fein
majority and amalgamation withe rest of Ireland (which would solve
the border problem) is an option. Johnson can prohibit that but, if
he does, the outcome is certain to be violent. English nationalism
helped win Johnson the election but other nations have their
nationalists too. I wouldn’t like to guess the outcome but there
will certainly be tension and conflict there.
Brexit on the 31st
of January will present the UK with numerous administrative
challenges. The EU has said, several times, that a trade agreement
between it and the UK cannot be completed in the 11 months currently
prescribed, No 10 disagrees. Will Johnson blame any failure on the EU
and go for the no-deal Brexit that he has formerly seemed to want? It
seems quite probable.
There will be some
50+ further trade agreements needed to replace those the UK now has
through the EU and a further 700+ treaties to be renegotiated. Trade
agreements trypically take 3-10 years to be completed and in many
cases the UK will necessarily be negotiating not with individual
countries but with established trade blocks. Most smaller countries
ally themselves with others to provide combined financial mucle in
trade negotiations and the UK has chosen not to do this. It
outmuscles most individual countries but possibly not most trade
blocks. And trade blocks require agreement by all in the block, not
just individual countries, which partly partly expalins the time
involved. This situation will not be resolved speedily, whatever
Johnson claims, and the interim is anybody’s guess. Johnson has
trumpeted a trade agreement with the USA but it would have to
increase trade between the two countries fivefold to replace the
trade we currently do with the EU (and to whose advantage, who has
the most financial muscle?)..
Britain has depended
for centuries on the effectiveness of its trade, still does, and does
40% of it with the EU. WTO trade rules will be applied if Trump
doesn’t succeed in destroying the WTO before then, as he is trying
to do. The WTO rules have been much discussed. What has escaped
attention is WTO’s rôle as a negotiation arbiter to avoid trade
wars so we may well see more of those. In a trade war, the country
or trade block with the most financial muscle invariably wins.
Immigration was an
issue at the heart of Brexit and the general election result. The UK
needs some degree of immigration; that is an undisputed fact. The
idea of selecting just those immigrants that are needed is seductive
but illusory. It presupposes a queue of desirable immigrants waiting
to enter the UK for which there is no evidence. Xenophobia and
racism also played some rôle in Brexit and race-related crimes have
escalated in the UK since the referendum. Potential immigrants who
wish to leave their countries may therefore find The UK a less
desirable option (than the EU, for instance) and leave the UK with
serious manpower deficiencies. I think we will see these in
healthcare and possibly science-related activities but I can’t
guess in what other sectors.
The NHS was a major
issue in the election and Johnson has said he will make it a
priority. That means he will give it his attention but little else I
think that private health insurance schemes are sure to play a larger
rôle and wonder at the cost and coverage of these. I forsee a
health system much closer to that in the USA 5 (where the mean
standard of healthcare is much lower; the USA is ranked 20th by the
World Health Organisation) than health systems in the EU.
The wealth gap
between the richest and poorest in the UK is wide and has been
getting wider for years. There is no evidence from Johnson’s
political past and stated opiniuons that he considers this a
priority, rather the reverse, and its continued existence implies
political instability. The UK has experienced zero growth in
productivity over the last 10 years (OECD figures) and a large cheap
labour force discourages investment in machinery and modern means to
boost productivity. The signs are all for a free market economy in
which, ironically, nothing is free. That means, among other things,
only very basic.public services, which are a means to share wealth.
The same is true of the EU development fund, used to ameliorate
conditions in deprived areas of Europe, including those in the UK. I
cannot see those initiatives being replaced in anything like the same
amount. That would run counter to a free trade economy. A free trade
economy typically relies on cheap labour and the life expectancy of
people is increasing. Cheap labour has no hope of saving enough
money to cover the expenses of retirement and old age and I forsee an
increased number of destitute old people in the UK, unable through
no fault of their own, to provide for their old age. (as there are in
the USA).
Finally, I worry
about the possibility of independent assessments and the rôle of the
media. Johnson has not exactly welcomed open debate and scrutiny up
to now (even discounting hiding in a fridge) and No 10’s attack on
the BBC TV and radio stations and Channel 4 looks ominous to me. The
proposed curtailment of courts’ scrutiny of government actions
upsets the long British tradition of the roles for government and the
judiciary and would make the government less accountable.. Will, for
instance, we be allowed to know the basis for government statistics?
Will the detail of trade agreements be published? The predominant
right-wing press won’t be interested in any of this but independent
journalists and commentators will be and so should every
democratically minded citizen. If government accountability lmeans
anything it depends crucially on the information made available. I
fear that the possibility for independent assessments and critique
is being curtailed and and may be more so and that is a serious
threat to any democracy.
Johnson, with his
majority, has a great deal of power. How will he use it? For the
good of the country as a whole, as Corbyn claimed to want to do, or
primarily for the already rich and powerful? I’ve made my own
guesses on that but you have to make your own.
A final couple of
questions. Even such a prominent Brexit camapaigner as Ress-Mogg has
estimated that the benefits of Brexit will take at least 20 years,
and possibly 50, to become apparent. If British people wake up in
five years’ time and find that EU citizens are experiencing a much
greater quality of life than those in the UK, what happens then?
What measures would be needed to keep UK citizens happy?
