Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

A grim warning from Martin Wolf of the FT: what future for Britain and our politics?

by Brian · 15 June, 2016

[This is the full text of a new post on Ephems, at http://www.barder.com/4680.  Please post any comments there, rather than in reply to this email.]

Today’s (15 June 2016) Financial Times publishes a column by their top economics commentator, the internationally respected Martin Wolf, who conveys the grimmest and most cogent warning of the likely effects of Britain leaving the European Union that I have seen so far. It’s essential reading: a fully documented forecast that Brexit, which seems increasingly likely to win on 23 June, will have even more horrendous economic and political consequences than the Bank of England and other pundits have been forecasting.  Wolf makes a rarely debated point about the political implications: 

A crucial source of fragility, on which the Treasury naturally says nothing, is political. After the referendum, the UK would cease to have a government in any meaningful sense. The Conservative party, with a tiny majority, would be deeply divided between its pro and anti-European wings. The opposition Labour party is already deeply divided on this and many other issues.
“Out of this morass would have to come a competent government with a view of what it wants to achieve in complex negotiations with the rest of the EU and the world. It would then have to undertake these negotiations with partners that have many other concerns and would regard the UK with a poisonous blend of hostility and contempt. It would have to decide whether to keep or modify the laws created by more than four decades of EU membership and, if the latter, how to do so. It would have to manage the impact of Brexit on the coherence of the UK and its relations with Ireland. While doing all this, it would have to manage the economy, the fiscal position and the minutiae of political life. Anybody who believes the leaders of the Brexit campaign could manage all this is surely taking illegal drugs.

I strongly urge anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the FT online or in print to go out and buy a copy today, if only for the full text of the Wolf article.  It seems to me too important a contribution to the debate to miss.  The political section of the article quoted above conjures up the totally plausible picture of a government led by Boris Johnson as prime minister (he is by a long chalk the public’s first choice to succeed Cameron and it’s hard to see how he could be deprived of the succession if Cameron chooses or is forced to go) and the ideologically driven Gove as Chancellor, with John Redwood and Iain Duncan Smith in key departments, and — if there’s a general election soon after the referendum, as seems increasingly likely — Farage with a newly elected contingent of UKIP MPs either supporting or in coalition with the Johnson government. To try to imagine such a government attempting to grapple with the fearsome agenda described by Martin Wolf is to bring tears to the eyes, and they are not tears of laughter. I’m not at all convinced that a Corbyn government would do any better, in the now looming possibility that either Cameron or B Johnson might call a general election in the aftermath of a Brexit win, and that Corbyn might just conceivably win it with the reluctant support of the SNP and any surviving LibDems, in the chaotic post-referendum mayhem.

However that pans out, and whatever the result of the referendum, it looks as if there is no future for the Conservative party or the Labour party as they have been constituted since the end of the second world war, the Tories irrevocably divided over Europe and austerity, and Labour’s leadership and membership in the south-east equally irrevocably divided from the grass-roots membership in the midlands and the north of England and Scotland which used to be the bed-rock of the party’s support.  It seems unlikely that in either case Humpty will be able to put them together again.  We face a fundamental re-alignment of British politics, in the most dangerous and confused situation for the country since WW2, with totally unpredictable consequences. 

I’m very apprehensive indeed about the referendum result.  I suppose this is the most scary prospect for our country since the end of the second world war.  That’s how it looks to me, anyway.

Brian

Search this site

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences 
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
  • Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
  • Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
  • The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
  • Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

  • Next story The Jo Cox tragedy has inevitably overshadowed a notable by-election result
  • Previous story Most of the factors threatening Britain’s place in Europe have nothing to do with the EU

Recent comments


    Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
    • Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
    • Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }

    The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
    • Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }

    A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
    • Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }

    The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
    • V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
    • Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }

    The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
    • Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }

    Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
    • xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }

    A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }

    More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
    • Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
    • Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }

    Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
    • Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
    • Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
    • William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
    • Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
    • Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }

    Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
    • Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
  • Older »

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. 2 August, 2017
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted 5 July, 2017
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos 20 June, 2017
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences  9 June, 2017
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome 2 June, 2017

Search this site

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog © 2021. All Rights Reserved.