Britain is witnessing a real shake up of its political system that may lead to the greatest realignment of its internal politics in generations. There are two indicators to justify such a statement – the Referendum on Europe and the intended Bill of Rights mentioned in the Queen’s speech. Today I will deal with the Referendum issue.
A long time has passed since the UK joined the Common Market (the predecessor of the EU) after the demise of de Gaulle and removal of his veto. The new generation of Brits know very little about life in the turbulent years between 1967 and 1975. The current prosperity is taken for granted and no one can assert whether or not the UK would have been better off had it stayed outside the EU. Economics is not a precise science and thus just as it was impossible in 1973 to determine the pros and cons of joining, it is equally impossible today to decide whether to leave or remain in the EU.
The demise of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to a new sense of grandiose among many Brits. The military adventures and success in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone to enhance the sense of greatness and brought back the old imperialist sense of the 19th century, which was dampened by the two major wars in the 20th century and the shrinkage of the British Empire.
It is very difficult to analyse the psychology of a nation. But the observation of what had evolved over the last two decades is noting the growing sense of significance that seems to say: “Europe needs us more than we need Europe!” A consequence of such logic is that if Europe wants us to stay in then it should give us more and ask us for less contribution. In short the consensus among most Conservative politicians has been that we should be able to make use of all the benefits of being in the EU but bear little of the contributions required. With such lack of historical understanding that there is no such union, a new generation of Conservative politicians was born vying with each other on who would force Europe into submission. As this sense of greatness took hold of the newcomers to Conservative politics, a new divide emerged within the party. One faction in the Conservative Party (‘the Extremists‘) decided that the UK should leave the EU altogether and go it alone as a great nation allying itself with the USA and making use of NATO to advance its policies and self-interest. The Extremists are represented by the current Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove. The other faction (‘the Moderates’), who despite sharing the same sense of greatness, nevertheless, believe that the UK could still maintain its great international role and independence while remaining inside the EU. The Moderates are represented by David Cameron. The dividing line between both factions was not very clear until the end of the negotiation between the EU and the UK
David Cameron may live to regret having made the promise of asking the British people to vote on whether to stay within or leave the EU. He thought that by calling for the referendum he would frighten Europe into giving him all that he asks for. But he miscalculated the strength and determination of the Extremists within his party who remained dormant during his negotiation with Europe. He assumed that they were acquiescing in his tactics and would come to accept his achievements. They, however, kept quiet because they believed that the negotiations were doomed as Europe was not going to give in to their impossible demands. In short both factions miscalculated their own strength and the real desire of the other.
Today the Conservative Party is split into two opposing sides with strong feelings and some bitterness that may not be possible to overcome come July 2016. Whatever the outcome of the Referendum is, the Conservative Party will never be the same again. I personally believe that the British people will vote to STAY! I will not go into an explanation of my predictions but suffice it to say that it is not because any argument by either party has established its case. Thus when Cameron wins all the Extremists politicians in his Party would have to resign their positions in the Cabinet, junior Ministers or any other position of leadership. Along with the resignation of those politicians, a section of Conservative voters will be alienated after having been told by Conservative leaders that staying in the EU was simply bad for the UK. Some of those voters will not vote for the Conservative and some may even join UKIP.
But should the British vote to leave the EU, then David Cameron would have to resign along with all his Cabinet and the Party would have to choose a new leader and constitutionally a new PM. All the Moderates in the Party would go into obscurity until the end of this Parliament. But whichever way the Referendum ends, a wave of deselection among the Conservative for the next Parliament would ensue. A new Conservative Party would be in the making starting on 24 June. I doubt that David Cameron wanted or even imagined such an outcome when he promised to give the British the choice of the Referendum. Referenda are unknown under British Constitution and he was under no obligation to promise one! The two main losers in the Conservative Party will be either David Cameron who would be remembered as the PM who devastated the Party if the vote is NO, or Boris Johnson whose ambition to lead the Party would evaporate on 24 June if the vote is YES.
The Labour Party, which is still unable to decide whether it belongs to the traditional socialist club or to the Bilderberg club to which Tony Blair took it, is simply in disarray. This disarray was clearly manifested in the selection by the Party members, of Jeremy Corbin as its leader against the desire of the mostly Blairite members of Parliament. Jeremy Corbin may command a comfortable lead among the Party members, but his inability to discipline his MPs is due to his soft nature and inexperience of conspiracy and plotting required within any political machine in the so-called democratic society. He needs to make it clear to any dissenting MP that if anyone would persist in opposing the popular leader, he could stand to be deselected for the next election. Should Corbin do this, as I believe he must, they will all fall in line as very few politicians in Britain live by solid principles! Jeremy Corbin cannot hold his principles of opposing war and nuclear weapons while still holding on to a prominent war mongering Blairite like Hillary Ben!
I do not believe, like many analysts continuously remind it us, that he could never become a Prime Minister. He offers a new solution which may appeal to the new generation of Britons who have become tired of the monotonous system changing hands between leaders of two almost identical parties. But it seems that Corbin will not be able to capitalize on the weakness of the Conservative Party’s inevitable split resulting from the Referendum as shown above, unless he demands that his MPs give him the allegiance which the members of the Party gave him in the selection of the leadership.
Whatever Jeremy Corbin is going to do, the labour Party will witness a new realignment not dissimilar to what happened in in 1981 when a few prominent MPs admitted that they never were socialists and left Labour to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP). In 1988 they amalgamated with the Liberal Party, to form a new colourless party, the Lib Dems, which, as expected, died quietly after the 2015 election. It would not be surprising if a few Labour MPs decide after the realignment of the Conservative Party that they belong more to the Conservative capitalist’s ideals than Corbin’s simple socialist principles.
There are two winners as a result of the Referendum, namely UKIP and SNP.
The UKIP will gain in its popular support capitalizing on the instinctive sense of insecurity which the issue of migration and immigration has been heightened among ordinary insecure people. Many Conservative politicians have helped the UKIP in their endless, out of date, campaign for the Englishness of the UK. However, the UKIP gain may be short lived. Elections are not determined by popular sense of insecurity. They are determined, in a rather complex mechanism, by the conviction of the middle class. The intellectually bankrupt UKIP which, has yet to produce one spokesperson who can speak for five minutes and make sense, has no impact on the middle class that matters in elections and thus would not be able to transform this short term gain into material results in the next election.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) will, in my mind be the real winner in this Referendum. Whichever way the Referendum goes, the SNP will be able to enhance its objective of an independent Scotland. The Referendum has awakened the Scottish people to the meaning of being in or out of Europe. If the UK votes on 23 June to stay, there will be real soul searching among the Scots about the danger of staying in the UK when there is a real danger of another Referendum that would force them out of the EU. There is a general belief among the Scots that Scotland is better off inside the EU as it stands to benefit from the EU support and subsidies as had happened to many small nation in the history of the EU. I can see that, even if the UK voted ‘YES’ in the Referendum, Scotland will have its own referendum within FIVE years. However, in the unlikely situation of the UK voting ‘NO’, Scotland will have a referendum to leave the UK and stay in the EU within TWO years of the Referendum.
Alex Salmond will be laughing whatever the results of the June Referendum is!
Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
1 June 2016