What Now for the Green Party?

Written by David Taylor

The Green Party seems to be taking increasingly desperate measures to justify its existence. Yet climate change is now recognised, almost universally as the most serious issue facing humanity – so why the anomaly? As usual, to quote Harold Macmillan, its “events, old boy”: in this case the events put in train by Corbyn`s rise and Brexit. Both, I would say, compounded, by the origins and social composition of the Green Party itself. 

During the Blair years the party started to break out of the old Ecology Party niche, with its emphasis on lifestyle choices, and opposed not only the Iraq war but New Labour`s economic policies. After the 2008 financial crash and the election of Caroline Lucas as the first Green Party MP, this process accelerated and attracted many who had been politically homeless in the face of the New Labour/Tory/LibDem consensus for globalisation, privatisation and austerity. Many were former Labour Party activists and by 2015 the party had its best ever general election result – fought on a social justice and anti-austerity agenda and membership peaked at 68,000.

2015 General Election campaign postcard

Some say that the success of this Green Surge helped to open the door for Corbyn.  Most of the Green Party's policies of 2015 were in Labour`s 2017 manifesto and most of the activists who joined the Green Party from Labour returned to work for a radical Corbyn led government. The notion that such a government was now a real possibility focused the minds of many other Green Party members. Was supporting Labour now a more realistic vehicle for radical social change than just voting Green? 

Obviously Labour had the potential to be more effective, but only if the left won the battle in the party and its green policies were to be extended, prioritised and implemented. In spite of these caveats many did decide to join Labour (some saying they did so with a heavy heart). Nearly 40,000 left the Green Party during 2017/18 including many experienced activists and people who had held key positions on leading bodies. The current membership of around 36,000 reflects a more recent influx – mostly people attracted by the Peoples Vote on Brexit stance of the Green Party leadership.

In 2013 the Green Party conference decided to define the party “as a party of environmental and social justice, the two elements being inseparable”. The loss of many on the left of the party since 2016 led to calls to “go back to our core roots” ie scrap the social justice dimension. The days when Natalie Bennett could tell conference “ask not what the trade unions can do for us, Ask what we can do for the trade unions!” were over. 

The leadership were in a bind, unsure of how to position the party and it was clear that a difficult period lay ahead. This was to be amply confirmed at the 2017 general election when the Greens lost 700,000 votes, mostly to Labour. But in 2016, with Caroline Lucas back again as leader, the party concentrated its efforts on a “Yes to the EU” campaign for the Brexit referendum. This was a shift from the historical position of favouring localism “think global, act local” over ceding control to centralised, unaccountable blocs. In fact the party was largely eurosceptic from its foundation – until 2016!

One of the striking posters from former national

Campaign Co-ordinator Howard Thorp`s team

“With its elitist smears against Leave voters the Peoples

Vote campaign is as divisive as Farage himself”

Adrian Cruden, writer and blogger

The Leave result in the EU referendum was entirely predictable; the government having handed voters a cudgel, millions took the opportunity to bash them with it – for reasons often unconnected with Europe. This is where the class nature of the Green Party comes in. The party has a far higher proportion of academics, professionals and middle and upper class members than any other party – the very people who were horrified by the result. Some could hardly believe it, saying their lives were shattered whilst others thought about leaving the country. 

So no big surprise that the party piled onto the “Peoples Vote” bandwagon with enthusiasm, making it a top policy priority. This call for a second referendum confirmed the widely held view that the establishment wanted endless votes until the people “voted the right way” - as had happened with EU votes in several countries in the past.

“A series of missteps and strategic errors”

Green MP Caroline Lucas

Countless people have been inspired by Caroline Lucas who never seemed to put a foot wrong in her approach, her media appearances or her analysis. She still has wide public respect and will probably become a “national treasure” but the shock of Brexit resulted in a series of missteps and strategic errors. The Green Party seemed locked into a period of panic reactions to events – backing the divisive “Peoples Vote” campaign; panicking over anti-semitic allegations; not defending party democracy in the face of attacks by “identity politics” militants - and moving heaven and earth to make sure the Urgent Holistic Review (HR) proposals to change the Green Party structure took effect. 

The 2018 Autumn conference spent more time wrangling over internal party organisation  than debating the political challenges facing the party. The membership at large had little or no interest in the HR rigmarole or the referendum to agree the changes. Party staff and resources had to be fully mobilised to harvest enough votes for a 16% turnout and avoid an “egg on face” outcome.

The Green Party has some of the trappings of an NGO including a well paid CEO and a culture tending to favour outsourcing of tasks to “professional” companies and fundraisers rather than using the skills and expertise which many members have offered voluntarily. These same members are bombarded with financial appeals to support a head office bureaucracy whose internal workings are pretty hit and miss with constant changes in staff and systems. 

A review to make the party more efficient and member friendly would be a good idea but the HR is almost the exact opposite. Decisions on political activities will be centralised in an 11 member Political Executive (PEX) and the Board of Directors of a limited company will deal with staff, finance and day to day functions. A 45 member Council will take on all the work done by committees currently dealing with policy development, conferences,  publications and campaigning  and international affairs. 

Only a dozen of these 61 posts will be directly elected. This adds up to centralisation of control by the party leadership and bureaucracy. Members have described the abolition of the International Committee as “Our Very Own Brexit” as the changes do not accord with the rules of the European Green Party.

“There will not be a Green government in time to make the necessary changes. So we need

to work with as many others as we can”

Romayne Phoenix, former Co-Chair Green Party of England & Wales

The first fruits of the HR decision making process were not long in coming. In early 2019 a “WinterFest” was held to review policy and discuss possible conference motions. More of these forums are in the pipeline with the distinct possibility that Spring conference will be ended or downgraded. This is all too reminiscent of New Labour under Blair when policy forums, attended by a minority of councillors, wonks and spin doctors made policy and conference became little more than a rally. Labour have now scrapped the forums in favour of more democracy and a much more democratic conference. 

A new Green Party Political Strategy document says  “research on the 2017 general election has shown that the party does not “own” an important and popular policy in the eyes of the electorate. We will undertake further research to help us identify which of our policies might fill this gap”. If only we had George Orwell to comment on these immortal lines! A Green Objectives section defines the key objectives as environmentalism and “social liberalism” - a slippery term to replace “social justice”. 

Then we have the Strategic Objectives which include overtaking the LibDems to become the third most popular party; increasing councillors to 300 (out of 14,000 !); retain the Green MP; poll 1,000,000 at the next general election and reach 80,000 members by 2022. This wish list puts the party only slightly ahead of where it was in 2015, yet by 2022, on worst case scenarios, we will be only 8 years away from unstoppable climate breakdown. 

Many people thought that the Urgent Holistic Review would be confined to organisational tinkering but it has become clear that such a root and branch reorganisation reflects a political reorientation. The main activity of the Green Party has always been electoral and, with no prospect of more MPs in the near future, the party is now focused on competing with the LibDems – in mainly Tory held local council seats. If the motley crew of Blairites,Tories and Labour rejects of the “Independent Group” manage to contest local elections, they will also be competing for the same ground. 

All members have had an appeal from HQ assuring them that they would have to do nothing more than sign their name to become a “paper candidate”. The hope must be to contest enough seats to keep up the appearance of still ranking as a player. More generally the party is concentrating on “green thinking” people who are really concerned about climate change issues – anti-fracking campaigners, Extinction Rebellion etc.  

Taken together with the “Peoples Vote” axis, this denotes a distinct middle class orientation which inevitably moves the party in a rightward direction. No longer a social democratic anti-austerity party, but “eco-lib.dem” with councillors morphing into a band of LibDem lookalikes with a green streak.

“The climate movement must engage with the labour movement,

the only political force with the capacity to deliver the

transformation needed to avert catastrophic climate change”

Green Party Trade Union Group post

In a global context all this may seem like a sideshow at a far corner of the fair. It is, in fact, part of a pattern. The 2008 financial crash ended three decades of unstable equilibrium for the world economy and we entered a new era of uncertainty which has been described as a “post-modern” variant of the 1930s. In Europe opposition to austerity and the rise of populism has led to the near collapse of opposition parties identified with the Establishment. This includes Green parties in France, Italy, Greece and elsewhere. 

The Irish Greens are only starting to recover from their wipe out after entering Coalition with austerity parties. In the 2018 Swedish general election the Green party lost 10 seats (down to 15) whilst the Left party gained 7 seats (up to 28).  Where the Greens and the Left are united, substantial gains have been made. In the Netherlands local elections the Green Left topped the poll in several cities and came second in Amsterdam.

In the European parliament the UK`s three Green MEP`s are in the Nordic Green Left bloc and know better than most that the “Another Europe is Possible” campaign most closely resembled official Green Party policy. Yet in the Brexit debate the party seemed joined at the hip with the official Remain campaign. Even worse, the party leadership later made common cause with, and appeared on platforms with, leading LibDem, Tory and Blairite Labour MP`s, calling for another referendum – identifying the Green Party as part of the Establishment. 

Personally, I voted Remain, mainly in disgust at the xenophobia whipped up by the Leave campaign and sections of the media. There is another side of the story though. I have an old friend who lives on a large ex-council estate where austerity has inflicted an almost Dickensian level of poverty, where people are literally starving and where little kids rummage in bins for food before they go to school. 

He told me that he had never seen such solidarity and community spirit on the estate, as the residents turned out to vote Leave. After being ignored for years, with nothing left to lose, here was a chance to “stick it to the man”. A pretty well heeled crowd of people, draped in EU flags, later told them they were wrong, illustrating both the divisive nature of Brexit and the distraction it has been from the real issues.

The Green Party is not alone in facing an uncertain future – the other parties being equally at the mercy of unknowable events. Nevertheless we can be certain that concern about climate change will mushroom as people move from being aware to being scared and there will be a wider and more receptive audience for the Greens. Unfortunately, the Green Party has been particularly prone to attract those who regard membership as another item to add to their green portfolio, and after a bit of box ticking, they play no further part in party deliberations or activities. Caroline Lucas has described the Green Party as “necessary but not sufficient” stressing the need to engage with co-thinkers in parliament and campaigners outside. 

This is truer than ever. The climate crisis can be only be tackled at government level and with countries working together on a global scale and, if humanity is to have a future, an end to the capitalist model of never ending exploitation of resources to maintain constant growth. Bearing in mind the timescale this seems a tall order but we can only do what we can.  

For now this must include supporting the election of a Corbyn led progressive government while working with those such as Red Green Labour who are raising the profile of climate change and economic growth issues within the Labour Party, and demand that a future Labour led government will lead the move towards green policies.

“In a time of universal deceit telling the truth

is a revolutionary act” - George Orwell

*Thanks to Howard Thorp for his favourite quote

David Taylor former Sedgemoor Green Party co-ordinator and Chair of West Somerset Green Party is a Green Left supporter

2018 – The Year in Blog Posts

Below are the most popular posts on this blog, as judged by unique page views, by month, for 2018. The blog is closing now until the New Year.

Happy holiday to all our readers.

January

Is the Tory Party in Terminal Decline?

It is not just a lefty like me pondering this matter, the Tories are openly posing this question themselves. Rumours are circulating that membership has fallen to as low as 70,000, and this is causing some soul searching in the party.

February

Why I Hate the Tories

I am from a Labour party supporting background, raised in local authority housing, schooled and paid for and maintained in higher education by the same municipality, a Labour run council. My dad was a shop steward in the engineering union too, so it’s no surprise then that I have never even considered supporting the Tory party.

March

Theresa May’s Response to Outing Gay People is Cynical and Irresponsible

Being gay in Pakistan is a much bigger deal than in Britain, and this news could well endanger Sanni’s family. Why Parkinson decided to make public the fact he and Sanni had had an eighteen month relationship, is not entirely clear, but it certainly looks like an attempt to smear Sanni’s revelations in some way as unreliable.

April

Why Remainers Should Vote Green in the Local Elections

The local authority elections on 3 May, are the last full scale elections in England before our departure from the European Union in March 2019. Yes, it looks like we will get a transitional deal which will last for almost two further years, when to all intents and purposes nothing will change, but we will no longer be a member of the EU. So, this is the last chance to send a message to the Labour and Tory parties, whose leaderships are in favour leaving.

May

The UK Monarchy and the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists who Pay for It

After writing about the Royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently, I got to thinking about the overall cost of the Monarchy to UK taxpayers. Estimates put the cost of the wedding itself at around £32 million, but this is just an added extra. The more you look into the matter, the more you wonder why we put up with this historical privilege?

June

Football World Cup – England’s Triumph of Hope over Expectation

“It’s not the despair, I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand.” So says John Cleese in the film Clockwise. This quote rather sums up the attitude of England football fans as each World Cup and European Championship comes around. The 2018 World Cup in Russia began yesterday, and England fans and pundits are in familiar territory.

July

Could the UK be Self-Sufficient in Food After Brexit?

With stories circulating about the British government stockpiling food, as part of a plan to cover the eventuality of a no deal Brexit, there is talk that the UK should become more self-sufficient in food once we leave the European Union (EU). Of course all this would take time, certainly longer than by our exit from the EU, which will happen in eight months’ time. But as a longer term objective, this would surely be a sensible thing to do. It would avoid tailbacks at ports and environmentally concerned people should welcome it, too. But is it feasable?

August

Tory Brexiteers Finally Come Up With Alt-Brexit Plan

It is more than two years now since the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU), where of course we voted to leave. It has been a feature, during the referendum campaign itself and in the period since, that those who advocated Brexit haven’t come up with any sort of plan for life outside of the union. What kind of relationship with the EU do they want, if any at all?

September

Why the Green Party Should Not Adopt the IHRA's Contentious Examples

In fighting antisemitism for a long time, the threat has been adequately understood as ‘hostility towards Jews as Jews’.  But this simple definition does not suffice for a different political agenda, namely: conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel in order to attack the Palestine solidarity movement and intimidate its supporters.   This article will explain the attack, its background in a racist agenda and the necessary anti-racist response. For numerous sources, see hyperlinks in this piece.

October

Removing the Borrowing Cap on Councils Alone is not Enough – End the Right to Buy as Well

In her closing address, Theresa May, the prime minister, told the Conservative Party Conference removing the cap on local authority borrowing against Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) would help the Government achieve its ambition of building 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

November

Extinction Rebellion London – I was Arrested, but that’s Not going to Stop Me Protesting

Following my involvement, on Saturday 17 November, in Extinction Rebellion’s very successful Rebellion Day 1 in London, friends have said I should feel proud of what I did.  ‘Yes’, I was one of over 6000 climate protectors who, peacefully, blocked 5 of London’s central bridges for most of that day - my allocated one was Lambeth Bridge:

December

Emmanuel Macron & the Yellow Vests Protests: A Lesson in How Not to Mitigate Climate Change

Capitalist climate governance has always relied on pseudo-reforms that leave the richest free to accumulate capital, while dumping taxes on working people to nudge them in the ’right direction’. But as the protests of the gilets jaunes show, many working people no longer accept the moralising terms of capitalist approaches to climate change. In this article, Andreas Malm argues that if we really want to save this Planet, we must pursue a different kind of climate politics, one that could learn a great deal from the methods and tactics of the gilets jaunes. 

Is Trying to Deny Parliament a Meaningful Brexit Vote Taking Back Control?

The government is trying to bar amendments being tabled by MPs to whatever deal is struck on Brexit with the European Union (EU). MPs managed to amend the Brexit Bill to allow a ‘meaningful vote’ on the result of the negotiations, but the government seems to think that meaningful is a take it or leave it vote. The implication being that if the government loses the vote, then the default position will be to have no deal at all.

This was first revealed by Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, saying that amendments will not be allowed because amending it could prevent it from being ratified. He wrote to the Commons’ procedure committee hoping to secure its endorsement of this position, but Labour party members of the committee managed to convince the committee to seek opinions from independent constitutional experts, on whether this would be unconstitutional.

I think it would be unconstitutional and I can’t really see how the government can get its way on this. This was perhaps reflected when Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsome appeared to be accepting of this when she said yesterday that, the reality before the United Kingdom would ‘amount’ to an either/or choice on May’s deal, even if the Commons were to debate possible amendments.

It is just about possible that the government will try to use the ‘Royal Prerogative’ which is part of the British constitution, and used for mainly foreign affairs matters, like deploying the armed forces and making or unmaking international treaties. Basically, the government can use this prerogative to sideline Parliament. Although, with MPs specifically previously amending the legislation to have a proper say, it is debatable whether or not the government could bar them now.

The government used the prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, when notice was given to the EU of the UK intention to leave the bloc. Use of the prerogative remains subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason though. It is therefore possible to challenge use of the prerogative by judicial review in most cases. This is what Gina Miller did when she took the government to court, and won.

All of which leads me to think that this route will not be attempted by the government over the final Brexit deal. Some Pro-EU MPs are considering an amendment to the approval motion to authorise a second referendum, whilst hard Brexit MPs are thinking about an amendment to limit the timescale of any transition period. This is all normal constitutional and Parliamentary behaviour, if rather inconvenient to government, but it is 'taking back control' in action.

Whatever Brexiters say about upholding ‘the will of the people,’ constitutionally, the people are not ‘sovereign.’ Indeed, the referendum itself was only advisory, as all referendums are under the British constitution. Apart from where we have pooled our sovereignty with the EU, technically the Monarch is sovereign, but in practice sovereignty in the UK is held by Parliament, not ‘the people.’ You might disagree with this, but it is true all the same.

The rather vague but effective slogan of ‘taking back control’ deployed by Brexiters at the referendum, is surely meant to mean ending pooled sovereignty with the EU and returning it entirely to the British Parliament? But the way politics and politicians work, arguments are made on the basis of whatever agenda the politicians are pursuing at the time. MPs by and large know what our constitution consists of, even if it can be vague at times and is infamously ‘unwritten,’ or least not all written down in one place.

Parliament is of course divided over Brexit, and shows no signs of coming to a sensible compromise over the issue. I have argued before that joining the European Economic Area when we leave the EU would be such a sensible compromise, but there doesn’t seem to be enough support in Parliament for this. There is also no support for a no deal Brexit. So, what to do?

The way I see it, we have two options that could move the country on from where we are today. The first, is a general election, where either the government is changed or the complexion of MPs is, one way or another. The second option is to put this back to the people in another referendum, now that all of the implications have become clearer, with the option of whatever deal we are offered, or staying on our current terms. Realistically, a general election, and perhaps a referendum, will require an extension to Article 50 beyond 29 March next year.

The People's Vote March in London tomorrow (Saturday) will demand a final say referendum. Assemble at 12 noon at Park Lane, near Marble Arch, and march to a rally at Parliament Square at 2pm. More details here.     

May’s Charm Offensive to Labour MPs Smacks of Desperation

Theresa May’s piece in The Observer on Sunday, was ostensively aimed at Labour voters, with talk of antisemitism, threats to national security and the deselection threat to ‘moderate’ MPs, as evidence of Labour being unfit to govern. This narrative has been running for some time in the Tory supporting press, a smear campaign no less, of what May refers to as the ‘Jeremy Corbyn party’. But more immediately, she needs to win over ‘moderate’ Labour MPs to get her Brexit deal though Parliament, rather than voters.

In the Tory party in Parliament the numbers just don’t stack up for May’s Chequers Brexit plan, so she is really appealing to Labour MPs in thinly veiled code with The Observer piece. There is said to be up to 80 Tory MPs who are ready to vote against the Chequers plan, although some estimates put it as low as 20 in the end game. I suspect there are more than twenty. These MPs are from the hard Brexit wing of the Tory party, and probably prefer no deal at all, to the prime minister’s plan, even before the European Union (EU) starts chipping away at it, which it is sure to do.

What the most pro-EU Tory MPs will do, maybe a dozen or so MPs, I’m not sure, and it probably depends on what final deal May brings back to Parliament, but they might go along with it - perhaps. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) might well prefer a no deal scenario, as I think they want a hard land border with the Republic of Ireland, so May has to find a way of keeping them on side, which she has so far. She really has no other choice though, or the numbers in Parliament become even shakier than they look now.

There are 316 Tory MPs at present, with 10 DUP MPs sustaining the government, a total of 326. 326 is the magic number for a majority in the House of Commons, but one MP is the speaker, and seven represent Sinn Fein, who on principle take no part in the British Parliament historically, and show no signs of changing. This effectively reduces the number required for a governing majority to 318.

Labour has 257 MPs, excluding 6 who have lost the whip or are self declared independents. The Scottish National Party has 35 MPs, the Lib Dems 12, Plaid Cymru 4, and the Green Party one, and two other independents. An ‘opposition’ total of 317 MPs, who mostly look likely to vote against the prime minister’s Chequers plan. If this is the case, then it will take only a handful Tory hard line Brexit MPs to defeat whatever the government ends up with as a deal with the EU.

But as I say, I am pretty sure that more than 20 Tories will vote the against the government, and perhaps as many as 30 or so, and it could be even more than that, so May needs twenty odd votes from elsewhere at least, and Labour, together with its ex-MPs, now independents, is surely where May is hoping to get them from. It is not clear to me whether these independents will support the government though, as some may prefer a no deal scenario, so I don’t think these MPs can be taken for granted by the government.

The other target will be disaffected, and pro-EU Labour MPs, of which there are many, but from public statements from MPs like Chuka Umunna, they have expressed opposition to May’s proposals so far. It is possible that the EU will propose something more to their liking, but that might mean even more that 30 or so Tories rebelling.

Pro-EU Labour MPs will probably prefer to vote May’s plan down, so that Parliament could then manoeuvre to get no Brexit rather than no deal. In other words, postpone Article 50. This in turn might lead to a second referendum, which may see us remain in the EU. That is a more attractive prize to these MPs, even if they are nervous of Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister. 

There is a cultural resistance amongst Labour MPs to the Conservative party too, not to mention an instinct for self preservation, that will make many recoil from supporting the government. Defeat for the Tories may lead to a general election giving Labour the chance to make a better job of Brexit than the Tories are ever likely to do.

May’s tactics look to be a forlorn attempt to square the Brexit circle, and is almost certainly doomed to failure.   

Would a Canada-Style Deal with the EU lead to the Breakup of the UK?

Well, that’s what the prime minister, Theresa May, said as she arrived in New York for a United Nations summit, which take in trade talks with the US amongst others. The idea of pursuing a Canada style free trade deal has been gaining ground in the Tory party since the European Union (EU) pretty much rubbished May’s Chequers plan, for our exit from the bloc.

May, of course, is desperate for Chequers to be at least the basis for a withdrawal agreement, having put so much political capital into it, so she is trying to dig in ahead of the Tories conference next week. She argues that Chequers is better than no deal, in that it attempts to give us some kind of favourable arrangements with the EU, more than no deal anyway. She claims it offers a solution to keeping open the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic whereas a Canada style deal is worse than no deal, in that it would break up the UK.

May said the Brexiters’ plan would necessitate a hard Irish border and thus invoke the EU’s so-called backstop, which would keep Northern Ireland within elements of the customs union and single market, effectively drawing a border in the Irish Sea.

As she said: ‘I think a bad deal will be a deal, for example, that broke up the United Kingdom. We want to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.’

It is true that the EU have said that any offer of a Canada style deal with the UK is contingent on the backstop agreement of last December, of Northern Ireland remaining in the customs union and single market. We know that the Democratic Unionist Party, who May relies for a governing majority are strongly opposed to this, so it probably wouldn’t get through Parliament anyway, and could collapse the government.

Presumably, May thinks that a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is preferable to what is on offer in the form of a Canada style deal. There has been talk coming out of the government of leaving this decision to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although that is suspended at the moment. If reconvened, it would, as always, have a built in Unionist majority.

In a further twist, if the UK left the EU without a deal, an opinion poll in the Irish Times, conducted by Deltapoll puts support in Northern Ireland for unity with the Republic at 52%, hauntingly the same as percentage that voted for Brexit in the UK. Only 39 per cent said they would vote for Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK.

The poll also found that more people would vote for a united Ireland in the event of a hard border being erected. In such circumstances, 56 per cent said they would vote for unity if a hard border is in place, while 40 per cent responded they would vote to remain in the UK. All of which would suggest the prime minister’s rationale has some foundation, but is not the whole picture. No deal is more likely to see the UK break with Northern Ireland.

In the event of no deal, might Scotland think again about independence? Because Scotland is landlocked to England and Wales, the border issue would be of a different order, but even so, might the Scottish be encouraged by a united Ireland? Perhaps Scots readers can give an opinion here?

A similar poll was held in Scotland, where 47 per cent said they would vote for Scottish independence in a future referendum if the UK left the EU as planned while 43 per cent said they would vote to stay in the UK. But if Brexit was stopped, 47 per cent said they would vote for Scotland to stay in the UK and 43 per cent said they would vote for independence.

May’s championing of her Chequers proposals also rather falls down on the fact the EU have already said it is not acceptable anyway, even if it could get support in Parliament, which looks extremely doubtful, to say the least. So as things stand, we are looking at no deal in any case.

It looks as though the only way to keep the country from breaking up, is to remain in the EU or a close approximate of it.

Could the UK be Self-Sufficient in Food After Brexit?

With stories circulating about the British government stockpiling food, as part of a plan to cover the eventuality of a no deal Brexit, there is talk that the UK should become more self-sufficient in food once we leave the European Union (EU). Of course all this would take time, certainly longer than by our exit from the EU, which will happen in eight months’ time. But as a longer term objective, this would surely be a sensible thing to do. It would avoid tailbacks at ports and environmentally concerned people should welcome it, too. But is it feasable?

Britain has not been self-sufficient in food since the eighteenth century (when all of Ireland was included), and even then some foods were imported. During world war two the country was close to being self-sufficient in food, but rationing was introduced in 1940 and didn’t fully end until 1954. Some lessons might be learned from some of the practices employed, especially making more land available for farming, from this emergency period.

According to the UK government’s figures, in 2016, Britons consumed only 49% of the total food and drink consumed in this country, from UK food sources. Of the other 51%, by far the biggest imports (30%) came from the EU. Some of the food produced in the UK is of course exported, but this only amounts to about 25% of the total produced. So, even if we stopped exporting food, we would still have about a quarter of what is needed to make up. The trade deficit in food, feed and drink increased in 2016 to £22.2 billion, up from £20.9 billion in 2015.

So replacing this amount of imported food would take some doing, but I think it is possible to get close to it. It will require a massive restructuring of UK farming in particular though, but it would also need a complete change in the culture surrounding food consumption, from the British people themselves. We have become so used to getting unseasonal food when we want it, and have long had a taste for fruit, tea and coffee, that is difficult to grow naturally in the British climate.

Agriculture in the UK uses 69% of the country's land area, (43 million acres) but this includes land used for growing biofuels. It is certainly possible, with the will, to increase this amount land with more small holdings, in cities and towns, and people could be encouraged grow their own food in gardens and allotments. Organic farming in Cuba has moved in this direction since the collapse of the USSR, when chemicals and pesticides stopped being provided to Cuban farmers.

Britain is an island of course, and so has access to fishing, and we don’t eat nearly enough locally caught fish at the moment. But people’s tastes have moved towards warmer water fish, like tuna and monkfish, myself included. There would certainly be extra capacity in UK off shore fishing, but will people want to eat it? In world war two just about the only food that wasn’t rationed, was fish and chips, but people got fed up with rationing generally. That was over sixty years ago, and much has changed in food fashions since then.

There is no doubt, that a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian or even low meat diet would make food self-sufficiency much easier to achieve. Beef and dairy farming especially is an unproductive use of farming land. But again, the popular food culture of Big Macs etc, make for a huge barrier to reducing the demand for beef products.

With the average age of a farm owner now 59, and with the difficulties getting crop pickers etc as we leave the EU, it doesn’t look as though the British like farming much anyway.

I can’t see why we couldn’t be more self-sufficient while remaining within the EU, since we sell off 30% of our fishing quota to all bidders now, for example. Brexit may well force this issue onto the agenda though, but is self-sufficiency in food the likely outcome? I have to say I think not, at least in the medium term. People want things to carry on exactly as they have done. The demand will be filled mainly from North America, Australia and New Zealand, (probably with lower hygiene standards) rather than from our closest neighbours, Ireland, France and the Netherlands, as currently.

There is no reason why ecosocialists and greens should not campaign for more food self-sufficiency, but we should at least recognise that it is a mountain to climb, mainly because of the British people’s prevailing cultural attitudes to food. It would be easier to keep our existing arrangements with the EU, but that may not be possible.             

Will the British Public Really Blame the EU for a No Deal Brexit?

Jeremy Hunt, the newly appointed British Foreign Secretary, claimed yesterday on a visit to Berlin, that the British public will blame the European Union (EU) if Britain leaves the organisation without a post-leaving deal. He said, should this be the case his ‘real concern is that it would change British public attitudes to Europe for a generation.’ He perhaps means the older generation, but would this really be the case generally?

There is no doubt that the British government would try to shift the blame onto the EU, eagerly aided and abetted by the right wing media, of Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph. Members of the public who are fans of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, will probably take this line too, but this not the vast majority of people.

What of the 16 million people who voted to Remain in the EU two years ago? What about the 27% of registered voters who didn’t bother to turn out to vote, and those who were not registered to vote? What of the British nationals living in the EU? What about British businesses who will lose money and their workers who are made redundant? What of those people who voted to leave, but now regret their decision?

These groups are much less likely to blame the EU, and more likely to blame the British government. Even amongst leave voters who still want Britain to leave, might some of these people blame the Tories for botching the process of leaving through incompetence? Especially, if the dire predictions of chaos on 30 March 2019,come to pass.

You have to remember that there was no clamour for a referendum on leaving the EU in the country, only in the Tory party. Yes, UKIP were picking up votes, at that stage mainly from the Tories, but they didn’t win any seats in Parliament, other than from a defector from the Tory party. Our membership of the EU has been a running sore in the Tory party for at least since the early 1990s and the arguments over the Treaty of Maastricht. John Major’s Tory party was riddled with division about Britain signing up.

This is why David Cameron had to offer a referendum when he became leader of the Tory party and prime minister. Cameron was of course in coalition with the pro EU Lib Dems at the time, and thought he would never have to follow through on the referendum promise, because the Lib Dems would block it. Surprisingly, he won an outright majority for the Tories in 2015, and had to hold to it.

The handling of Brexit has been a textbook exercise in rank incompetence, as the in-fighting in the Tory party continues, while the country is going to the dogs. The Tories don’t care about the country though, only their own fixation with the EU. If things do go terribly wrong, which is certainly more than a possibility at the moment, I think many people will know who is truly to blame. For the sake of unity in the Tory party, the nation is being torn apart in an almost casually reckless fashion.

But even if Hunt is right and I am wrong, how would this anti-EU sentiment materialise? Will the British stop holidaying in Spain, stop buying German cars and stop buying French wine and cognac? I somehow doubt it, although all of these things are likely to become more expensive. Some people though may turn to violence against EU nationals, even if they have become British citizens, but people like that should not be placated.

Hunt’s comments could be taken as an encouragement to act violently, which is another example of the government’s reckless approach. Hate crimes have already rocketed since the referendum which the government’s style in the handling of Brexit has surely played a part. I just hope we are rid of this government before it is too late to salvage the situation, which in practice probably means by the autumn.  

Have Labour Thrown Away a Chance for a Soft Brexit?

The Labour party’s slight shift towards keeping ‘access to the EU internal market’ has been painted as an opportunity missed of staying in the single market by anti-Brexit Labour MPs, their friends in the media and assorted has been Blairites, like Alistair Campbell. They were quick to brand the change as a way of defeating the government by voting for the House of Lords amendment to the Brexit Bill to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA), when it returns to the House of Commons next week.

By voting with Tory rebel MPs, they say the government can be defeated, causing ructions amongst the hard Brexit Tory head bangers, possibly leading to the fall of government and crucially, keeping the UK in the single market and customs union. 

The charge is that the slight change, of keeping access to the single market, is designed to reduce support for joining the EEA, because the Labour leadership does not want stay in the single market, which along with the remaining in the customs union, would solve the Irish border problem and other issues. For example, the Dutch government advising businesses not use British spare parts, because of EU rules on the country of origin of imports.

The problem with this approach though, is that it is unlikely that the stay in the EEA amendment will be passed anyway. There may be around a dozen or so Tory rebels prepared to vote for the amendment, but there is probably many more Labour MPs in leave voting areas, who will vote against it. This pretty much means that the option of staying in the EEA will be closed off completely, for now at least.

But there is a glaring problem with the Labour leadership’s new approach of having access to the single market, in that we are in cake and eat territory, which the EU has already ruled out, on numerous occasions. In short, a mirror of the Tories fantasy thinking of the last two years, that the EU will give us anything we want, which evaporates on contact with negotiations with the EU.

However, Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, said the indications he has had from conversations with officials in Brussels, is that they are open to negotiations if the UK dropped some of its red lines. He said:

“If the red lines change, there is a different negotiation to be had. In my discussions with them … it is clear that what they mean by that is: if we signal we want a close economic relationship then there is a conversation and negotiation to be had and it will involve some of the tools in the Norway-style toolbox, we should have that before giving up on it.”

Since Labour is less concerned about remaining under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and wants to keep EU employment and environmental protections, unlike the government, it is plausible to think the EU might move on the issue. Starmer said that some of the provisions of a new status for the UK might be very similar to the EEA, but not identical. Whether free movement of people might be up for negotiation is unclear, but there may be some room for some kind of restrictions on this.

There are fourteen other amendments to the Brexit Bill coming back from the Lords for the Commons to vote on, so there will be other opportunities to defeat the government, especially over remaining in ‘a’ customs union with the EU and perhaps most importantly, on giving MPs a ‘meaningful say’ on the deal that the Tories bring back from the negotiations with EU in the autumn (probably). If this amendment is carried, the EEA option might come back onto the agenda at that stage?

I think this gives us a clue as to Starmer’s longer term strategy here. If the government’s negotiations do not deliver access to the single market, then Labour will be fully justified in voting against it, at which stage all hell could break out in the Tory party. May would be deposed, and we would almost certainly have a general election, at which point Labour could offer its proposals, which focus groups indicate are popular with the voters.

If Labour won the election then I think the EU would be open to new negotiations, and we might well get a soft Brexit that the public, both remainers and some leavers are likely to support. It might even lead to another referendum somewhere down the line on re-joining the EU, as younger voters come onto the electoral register.       

Customs Union Impasse is like Two Bald Men fighting over a Comb

Yet another meeting of the Brexit Cabinet broke up today without any agreement on resolving the movement of goods between the EU and UK once we depart the union. Not only will failing to come to some agreement lead to delays importing and exporting between Britain and the EU, particularly important to manufacturers needing different component parts to assemble finished products, but also crucial to resolving the border problem in Ireland.

The prime minister, Theresa May, says that two options are still on the table. Option one, May’s preferred option, is of a customs partnership, whereby the UK collects tariffs on behalf of the EU. There is opposition to this within the Cabinet and outside, with Brexiters against it, saying it is unworkable, or ‘crazy’ to use the foreign secretary Boris Johnson’s term. Johnson may be right unless the partnership looks very much like the existing customs union, which is unacceptable to the hard Brexiters in the Tory party.

Option two is a so-called 'maximum facilitation' model, which is basically a fancy name for using smartphone apps to not check cars and lorries at the border. It is hard to see how this would stop smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and then on wider into the rest of EU. Cameras can’t possibly make the same checks on goods, as part of the ‘country of origin’ EU tariff rules. It is also likely that any cameras would be attacked, in a hark back to the violence largely brought to an end by the Good Friday Agreement.

So, with no agreement in government on a preferred solution to  what replaces the customs union, the decision is delayed, in the hope that something will turn up. But the irony here is that both of the government’s options have already been ruled out by the EU as unworkable, even if they could decide on a unified position.

Meanwhile, the clock ticks ever louder as we approach leaving the EU, either with no deal at all, or if the prime minister holds to her word on the phase one negotiations, the fall back position is for the UK to remain in the customs union and possibly the single market as well. Neither of these outcomes will of course be acceptable to Tory MPs on either side of the debate.

This offers us a clue as to why May is pursuing a fantasy fix which is unacceptable to the EU, and on the surface a complete waste of precious time. Like everything about Brexit, this is about the Tory party’s obsession with Europe. May has survived as prime minister as long as she has since last year’s disastrous general election, by not confronting reality right up until the last minute, and then caving in to the EU. This is precisely what happened with phase one of the negotiations and why May was forced to accept the EU fall back position on the Irish border.

At the same time Parliament seems to be making its own mind up on Brexit, or least the majority of MPs anyway. There will be a vote in the House of Commons on staying in the customs union at some stage this year, after the Lords sent back the Brexit Bill amended to force the government’s hand. I think there is probably a comfortable majority in the House of Commons for staying in the customs union, now that Labour has made it part of their official policy.

If Parliament does indeed vote to remain in ‘a’ customs union with the EU, then May can say that she had no choice but to accept the decision, and the hard Brexit group of Tory MPs will be able to do nothing about it. Even if they brought down May’s government, any replacement prime minister would be in exactly the same position, with their hands tied.   

So, maybe this is Mrs May’s cunning plan, keeping fudging until staying in the customs union becomes a fait accompli? It will be extremely amusing to see all those Tory Brexiters foaming at the mouth and even self-combusting, as the reality of what is going on sinks in.