Re: Corbyn backs second referendum... democracy in peril! Archived Message
Posted by johnlilburne on May 28, 2019, 2:53 pm, in reply to "Corbyn backs second referendum... democracy in peril!"
Well, there is little choice now. 'Soft Brexit', like the 'two-state' solution is dead in the water. The electorate don't do nuance, it seems. Johnson will most likely be next Tory leader. His job will be to save his party. He'll faff about pretending to get a better deal from the EU which will inevitably fail. Then, he'll adopt the no-deal default option blaming EU intransigence. 'Winston' Johnson stands up for Britain. They'll vote against no-deal in Parliament again. As revoking Article 50 or a further extension of the withdrawal date are not politically realistic, they'll have to go for a second referendum to stop no-deal by default. A simple no-deal versus Remain. A reluctant Corbyn will have to front the Remain campaign against Johnson and Farage. It will be like a proxy general election. He will have to set out what no-deal under a Tory government means in terms of loss of trade and jobs, more austerity, further privatisation and the end of the NHS, disadvantageous trade deals with the US, greater subordination to and dependence on the US etc. Failure will mean the end of the Corbyn project and reversion to a species of sub-Blairism. It will mean the disaster of a no-deal Brexit with no meaningful opposition able to transform it into Lexit. When people realise that their fantasy of Brexit, a revival of the nation, has failed to deliver, failed to improve their lives, they will be even more angry and without the EU as scapegoat, will blame those closer to home. One upside of a vote for a no-deal Brexit is that it is more likely to lead to an independent Scotland. It will be difficult to justify no second referendum on Scottish independence if there's been a second one for Brexit. And a united Ireland will also be more likely eventually. The change in demographics in the north is pushing in that direction already. I've never been convinced that it would be possible to achieve Lexit, socialism in one country. There are too many internal and external forces working against it. Socialism is internationalist or it is nothing. It is better to try to effect change across borders by combining with others of like mind, however difficult and futile that task seems. Walking off in a huff with some illusion of reviving an idea of nationhood that never was solves nothing. Narrow nationalism is no answer to neoliberal globalisation.
|
|