Brexit: what next? - Why Jeremy Corbyn might be our best hope

The petition calling for a second referendum now has over 3.6 million votes. Some of these have been found to be bogus - an estimated 77,000 signatories are not UK citizens - but the number remains impressive.

I signed the petition, but it was and should remain a symbolic gesture of protest. I hope that Parliament doesn't act upon it, whatever motley crew now constitutes Parliament as things fall apart. This country is a tinderbox ready to explode. Many of those who voted for Brexit voted in anger. Some might regret that vote, but some might become even angrier and more determined if what they perceive as a self-serving political elite overrides their democratic choice.

The fact that we had a referendum at all constitutes a catastrophic failure of leadership by David Cameron - a man who gambled the future of his country on party political power struggles and lost. Even if the remain campaign had won, he should still have been made to resign. He should never have called a referendum on such a monumental issue when what we needed was sound leadership by the elected representatives of the British people, not populist tyranny.

(I downloaded these two images from the Twitter feeds of a Brexiteer.)

There are many theories as to who voted for Brexit and why. There are the Bulldog Brexiteers - nationalistic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist and triumphant. They are nostalgic for the days of empire and war, of Queen and Country, of victory and conquest. Already there are reports of racist attacks and abuses which suggest how quickly this country could descend into fascism.

Image from The Guardian, 2014

Then there are all those who have nothing to lose. Some of them might appear to be in the same group as the Bulldog Brexiteers, but as with all revolutions, the disenfranchised masses have been coopted by the false promises of political elites - in this case, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage. As James A. Baldwin said, 'The most dangerous creation of any society is the man with nothing to lose.' (Can anybody help me with a source for this?)

Image from The Guardian, 2014

These are the children and grandchildren of two generations of people who, since the days of Margaret Thatcher, have increasingly been pushed to the margins of Britain PLC. They are betrayed by a failed education system, by the destruction of British industry and of the trade union movement, by the manipulation of the media, and by a neo-liberal ideology that has seen the gulf between Britain's richest and poorest widen into an abyss into which the country has now fallen.

The Bulldog Brexiteers and those with nothing to lose are not two distinct categories of voters, for the latter are easily seduced by the former. Disaffected, bored and marginalized young men are soft targets for radicalization - whether it be the radicalization of UKIP or the radicalization of IS. I say 'young men' deliberately, for this is an age of macho politics, and machismo is often a cover for insecurity, impotence and fear.

We are told that the referendum showed a generational divide: young people voted  to stay in, the over 65s voted to leave. This feels like a triple betrayal of the young by an older generation: we grew rich on the pickings of a housing market that excludes our children from home ownership; we benefited from free university education and are making our children pay through the nose for theirs, and now we have voted to make them captive little islanders cut off from any sense of belonging within the cultures and freedoms as well as the economic benefits of the European Union.

In fact, closer analysis reveals that economic and social factors were the crucial influences in voting trends. It was people in the poorest regions in terms of education, home ownership and employment who voted to leave. People in areas of low immigration were more likely to vote to leave than those accustomed to living in more cosmopolitan communities in areas of high immigration. Northerners and people in Wales voted to leave. (Why did nobody tell them how dependent Britain's poorer regions are on EU development funding?) Voters in the wealthy metropolitan cities of London and Bristol voted to remain. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own powerful reasons for voting to remain.

The following images come from an article in The Times which is behind a paywall:

What about the generational divide? Young, middle class voters suffer the effects of the avarice and self-serving individualism of many in their parents' generation, including the current opinion formers in politics and the media, but many of them have parents who compensate for the shortcomings in the system by subsidizing their education and housing, by paying for them to travel and appreciate all the benefits of belonging within Europe and the wider world. They voted to remain, but so did their parents. That is not how the world looks for a youngster who grew up in the midst of social and economic disintegration, in a household experiencing generations of unemployment and the break up of traditional communities and families, far from the indifferent gaze of Theresa May in her kitten shoes, David Cameron and George Osborne in their DJs, and Tony Blair the botoxed billionaire. Many of these younger people also voted to leave, but the high turn-out of 72.2 percent still means that nearly 13 million people did not vote in this most life-changing of all elections. How could so many people neither know nor care what it might mean for them and their children?

Enter Jeremy Corbyn. He too represents a certain kind of political masculinity, formed by the values of the working class Left before the rise of gender politics. He is rightly criticized for his failure to include any significant numbers of women in his shadow cabinet, but there are  enough educated and dedicated women able to step into the breach and fill the gender gap. Murdered MP Jo Cox was not unique. She was one of a younger generation whose educational and economic privileges fed high ideals and noble visions expressed in a life of social and political service. There are many - perhaps a whole generation - like her. Corbyn can and must build a new political class by channeling the energies of such people.

Many of Corbyn's fellow MPs are staging a coup. Some of these, like Hilary Benn, are the career politicians of the Blair era. They have had the knife in his back ever since he won the leadership of the party through the support of ordinary party members, and they have been well-served by the supposedly left of centre media, notably The Guardian. Most prominent Labour MPs do not represent the people whom the Party has traditionally served. They too are employees of Britain PLC, and they helped to create the climate that made Brexit possible. They are trying to oust Corbyn because he failed to rally the party behind the remain campaign, but that is why I think he is the greatest hope for a reformed politics and a renewed society.

Unlike Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, Corbyn is not into political grandstanding, nor has he ever been part of the political status quo. He was a reluctant and late supporter of the remain campaign, and it showed - though this excellent Economist blog gives a considered analysis of the reasons for his conversion to the cause.  Since 1983, he has pursued the life of a dedicated representative of the people of Islington North who voted for him as their MP. He is loved in his constituency, and is known for putting his duty to the people he represents above the strutting and posturing of the Whitehall selfies. He is a man of decency and integrity, whose socialist vision has remained untarnished and unseduced by the careerism and corporatism of modern politics. If Corbyn was reluctant about the remain campaign, it was because he recognized the dark side of the EU - the unaccountable corporations and bureaucracies that now hold every modern democracy to ransom. Even those of us who are ardent Europeans acknowledge that this is a Union that is very far from functioning as it should. Now that a small majority of British people have voted to leave that Union, we are standing on a crumbling cliff edge, peering into the abyss. The options seem very limited. Corbyn may well be the only politician of any stature who has the credibility and the integrity to appeal to the disenfranchised masses who voted to leave, but to steer the country away from the brink.

Parliament does not have to act on the Referendum. It can reject the vote, and opt instead to work for a better, fairer European Union from within. That would be my first choice, but I fear that would leave a fatally weakened political elite in charge, this time without a mandate, in a way which would only fuel the resentment, alienation and frustration that gave the leave campaign the leading edge. Alternatively, the government could trigger Article 50 and begin the process of leaving Europe. The consequence will be a period of economic meltdown and political disarray, with potentially horrifying consequences not just for Britain but for Europe and the world. Both World Wars started in Europe, and the EU was created as a way of collectively saying "never again". It has secured the longest period of peace this recently invented and now disintegrating imaginary construct of a continent has ever known. Corbyn could I believe credibly lead a party that might unite the nation with a manifesto to remain in the EU but with a mandate for radical change.

We have glimpsed the alternative, and the world is in shock. It is not in anybody's interests for Britain to leave the EU, but nor is it in anybody's interests for Parliament to override the results of the referendum. So let the country go to the polls, and let Corbyn channel his lack of enthusiasm for the EU as it stands into a new politics of European unity. Let him work with a cross-party coalition of wise and trusted politicians to put together a truth-telling manifesto formulated around a new vision of Britain's membership of the EU, and of what the EU could be if it were a union formed around a vision of social justice, subsidiarity and solidarity. He has shown that he is a politician who listens to and represents many ordinary people far from the self-serving elites in Whitehall. That is the kind of leader we need. Of course it's a risk, but we face nothing but risk. We must measure the risks, but we must also act.

Click here to sign a vote of confidence for Jeremy Corbyn after Brexit.

There is much talk of young people wanting to remain in Europe. I end with an invitation to read my son Dylan's passionate and eloquent blog - now an elegy - about why his generation should vote to remain.

Syria and the Just War Tradition - A Response to Jeremy Corbyn

This weekend, we British citizens once again face the sombre and indeed terrifying prospect of our government taking us into a war with ill-defined aims, a diffuse target, no clear international mandate, and a lack of any clear strategy. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee issued a document posing a number of questions to Prime Minister David Cameron about the legality and viability of a bombing campaign against Syria and he has published his response. Both of these documents can be downloaded here.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has expressed his opposition to going to war, and this has divided the Labour Party. The British media - including The Guardian - are reporting this in a way which reflects high degrees of prejudice against Corbyn, revealing how far the zeitgeist in this country is now infected by neo-liberalism. The Momentum Network is worth joining for those who want to support Corbyn through working for grassroots transformation of British politics and policies.

Corbyn has sent an email to Labour Party members asking for their views with regard to next week's parliamentary vote on a bombing campaign against ISIS. Here is his email and my public response. I have sent him a shorter response and a link to this blog:

__________________________________________________________________

On 27/11/2015 20:16, "Jeremy Corbyn" wrote:
 
Christina,

On Thursday David Cameron set out his case in the House of Commons for a UK bombing campaign in Syria.

We have all been horrified by the despicable attacks in Paris and are determined to see ISIS defeated.

The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.

I put a series of questions in response to the Prime Minister's statement, raising concerns about his case that are on the minds of many in the country. You can read my response here.

There could not be a more important matter than whether British forces are sent to war.

As early as next week, MPs could be asked to vote on extending UK bombing to Syria.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister made a convincing case that British air strikes on Syria would strengthen our national security or reduce the threat from ISIS.

When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party.

So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?

Let me know your views, if you are able to, by the start of next week: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/s/syria-consultation

Yours,

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Leader of the Labour Party
_____________________________________________________________________

Response from Tina Beattie:

Dear Jeremy Corbyn,

I am profoundly grateful to you for this democratic exercise in consultation – thank you. I fully support your stance in opposing the proposed bombing campaign, and I agree with all the points you make in your response to the Prime Minister. Whatever your own MPs say, I think you speak for a significant minority, and perhaps the majority, of the British people.

To go to war with ISIS is in my view not to resolve the problem but to exacerbate it, because it dignifies a mob of brutal and savage murderers with a heroic veneer and it implicitly recognises ISIS as a state. Mark Juergensmeyer argues persuasively that ISIS is losing support and losing territory, and that the Paris attacks were intended to provoke a reaction from the West: 'ISIS is desperate. It needs a victory, a vivid show of force to bolster the morale of its supporters, attract new volunteers, and with luck, intimidate its foes.' American political commentator Sonali Kolhatkar comes to a similar conclusion.

While I personally believe that war is rarely if ever a solution to violence, I accept that the resort to war is sometimes legitimate under international law. As citizens we therefore have a duty to participate in debates about the legitimacy of our politicians taking our country to war, whatever our personal beliefs. In such situations, I believe that the just war criteria should be applied, as a rule of thumb against which to measure the decision to go to war and the conduct of war. While it is questionable whether war ever conforms to these criteria, they are the only enduring tradition we have for judging and containing acts of war. I have taken the following summary from the BBC website and posted my arguments in italics, though there is also a very interesting discussion on a Catholic website about American involvement in bombing Syria, on the basis of Thomas Aquinas’s just war theory:

What is a Just War?

Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just:

• The war must be for a just cause.

The elimination of ISIS (Daesh) is a just cause only if it is a clear act of self-defence and seeks to bring about a greater peace than that which prevailed before going to war. In this situation, there is a high risk that a bombing campaign will result in greater acts of terror and violence against western targets, while exacerbating the humanitarian crisis caused by growing instability in the Middle East.

• The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.

The UN Security Council has not issued a clear mandate for war, nor is there evidence of support for such action in the international community.

• The intention behind the war must be good.

The intention is not and cannot be clear because of the immensely complex and fluid situation in Syria. There is no clearly defined opposition capable of governing the country, and Syria is a sovereign state with a government in power. The removal of President Assad is not in itself part of the declared intention of going to war, and indeed to make it such an intention would raise significant questions of legality and sovereignty, not to mention inflaming tensions between Russia and the West with a real risk of escalation. We should remember how, in the Iraq War of 2003, the justification of self-defence against non-existent weapons of mass destruction was blurred and the removal of Saddam Hussein was later hailed as a sign of success by Tony Blair, even though at the time of going to war he repeatedly denied to Parliament that regime change was one of the aims.

• All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.

As you make clear, stopping the flow of arms and oil revenue to ISIS should be a top priority. Also, while the removal of ISIS in Syria would be a real humanitarian accomplishment, it is not clear that this would resolve the problem of acts of violence and terrorism inspired by its ideas. Several of the Paris attackers were French nationals. ISIS is as much about an idea as it is about a territorial caliphate. One does not destroy ideas with bombs but with better ideas. Every endeavour should be made to discredit IS and to provide young alienated Muslims with good reasons for supporting liberal democracy as the best form of government. To put the vast money invested in a bombing campaign into better social welfare systems and education would be a much better long-term aim with regard to restoring stability and democratic participation in western states by those increasingly marginalised and vulnerable to radicalisation because of exclusion, unemployment and poverty. At the same time, a more effective humanitarian response to the refugee crisis is vital.

• There must be a reasonable chance of success.

This is related to the intention behind going to war. What would constitute success, and what kind of time-frame are we talking about? If, as in the case of Iraq, the war resulted in failure – increasing destabilisation in the region and fuelling extremism – how would those responsible for taking Britain to war in spite of widespread opposition and doubt be held accountable? This question is particularly pointed given that we are once again being asked to support our country going to war when we are still waiting for publication of the Chilcot Report. As long as leaders like Tony Blair can, with impunity and with the support of Parliament, take Britain into devastating wars without being held accountable, the public is justified in feeling deep mistrust about the judgement of our elected politicians over such issues.

• The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

As you point out, a bombing campaign cannot resolve the problem of ISIS without the support of ground troops. The diffusion of ISIS among the Syrian population means that there will be a very high attrition rate among ordinary people – and please let’s not use the obscene expression ‘collateral damage’. ISIS is unlikely to cluster in clearly identifiable targets for bombing. We have already seen the use of so-called ‘human shields’ in such situations, and ISIS will undoubtedly ensure that potential target areas such as Raqqa are populated by civilians, including children.

How should a Just War be fought?

A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate.

• Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed.

See above. ISIS will use civilian populations to maximise the number of non-combatant deaths. There is considerable evidence that the current US bombing campaign in Iraq has resulted in many more civilian casualties than has been acknowledged by the Pentagon. If war goes ahead, you should ensure complete transparency with regard to civilian casualties, avoid the term ‘collateral damage’, and insist that the government publishes reliable estimates of the numbers killed – both combatants and civilians. Current policy does not require this, so how is it possible to hold the government accountable for civilian deaths?

• Only appropriate force should be used. This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used.

Targeted bombing campaigns are far less accurate than claimed. In addition to high levels of civilian deaths, they are hugely expensive, generate vast profits for the arms industry, and contribute significantly to environmental degradation. All this raises questions about how appropriate they are in terms of the use of force, particularly in view of the fact that success in eliminating ISIS is highly improbable without the supporting use of ground troops.

• Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.

The high risk of civilian casualties, the lack of any clearly defined territory or internationally recognised state as a target, and the use of drones for the purposes of summary execution of suspected extremists, all amount to violations of internationally agreed conventions regulating war.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for giving a voice back to the ordinary people of this country.

Best wishes,
Tina Beattie

Tina Beattie
Professor of Catholic Studies
Director, The Digby Stuart Research Centre for Religion, Society and Human Flourishing (DSRC),
Digby Stuart College
University of Roehampton
Roehampton Lane
London SW15 5PH

Update posted on Monday, 30th November:
The Muslim Council of Great Britain has issued a statement opposing a bombing campaign.
Interviews with refugees from Raqqa (the focus of the proposed strike) show strong opposition to bombing on the basis that it would simply intensify the conflict and add to the suffering of the ordinary Syrian people.