The Future of the Labour Movement.

Welcome to Modern Britain. A divided nation where families and friends tear each other apart due to one issue... Brexit. The story of the have nots, the ignored and the left behind asking for a change from the status quo.  University towns vs former Industrial towns, North vs South, London vs Grimsby, England vs Scotland.

This is a story that has been greatly misunderstood by individuals from across the political spectrum. This is the case with the public support for the Brexit Party, a political party that was only several weeks old that won the European elections in May.

The main question that is always asked is why working-class people back the Brexit Party? It's not simple. Yes, people feel abandoned by the mainstream parties, and that is easy to see.  UKIP was the only renown party that entirely backed leave, there was a gap in the market. Many of the politicians that dominate the Brexit Party are far from being working class, the majority of Brexit Party MEP's are either business people or aristocrats. This relationship is rather similar to what the former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had towards the working class. An Alliance of the working class and the aristocracy against the "Liberal Metropolitan Middle Class."

The left within Britain focuses too much on identity politics. Idiotic statements by individuals such as David Lammy who accused Stacy Dooley of perpetuating “tired and unhelpful stereotypes” about Africa. Paint the left in a negative light. Statements like these push working people away from the left.  I conclude that most forms of Intersectionality act as a Trojan Horse. We should always pursue equality; however, Intersectionality has also harmed many working-class men. If you are both white and working class, you are less likely to do well in school and get a good and well-paid job. There are also issues with the rise of male suicide in recent years. I guess what I am saying stand up for everyone's rights, don't just ignore groups of people who you believe to privileged.

Many Eurosceptics on the left talk about the idea of a traditional working-class vs a Metropolitan Middle Class based around London. This rhetoric is rather misleading, different people face different problems across the country, many working-class people in cities like London suffer from different issues than working class people in towns like Barnsley.  Any new mass working-class movement must take these issues into account. There is no traditional working class, what the working-class changes with the times. How many coal miners are there now? Like it or not we have a multicultural working class this includes Somali plumbers from London and white call centre operatives in Rotherham. We must remember that we are an extremely regionalised country when it comes to what the working class is.

Working class people face discrimination in all aspects of society, from education to lobbying politicians. How many working-class people are journalists? The majority of our Members of Parliament come from relatively wealthy backgrounds and many Middle-Class MP's are implanted in Working Class areas that are safe seats for the mainstream parties take the MP for Don Valley Caroline Flint for example. Blair placed Flint who was from Twickenham in a constituency that has been Labour since 1922.  We need more working-class representation in parliament by MP's that have historic ties to the local areas. We need to tackle class discrimination when it comes to education as well, private tuition education must be abolished. Private education enforces the class system of which we live under.

Many working-class communities across the country feel outright ignored by society.  Many of these areas voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU.  Blackpool like most seaside towns has been in decline for decades voted by 67% to leave the European Union and Bolsover like most former Industrial and coal mining areas voted by 71% to leave the European Union. You will see the reverse in large University Towns and London. There has been an enormous geographical split in England and Wales between the areas have seen economic growth that areas have not seen the same economic growth.

We should rethink our approach to these regions.  Many of these communities still today have a radical left-wing tradition. In 68% leave Rotherham, where the battle of Orgreave took place in 1984, voted overwhelmingly for the Brexit Party in the 2019 European Elections.  The Labour Party like with Scotland is taking people for granted.  Is a Party dominated by Fabien Society and various pro-European Groups representative of its impoverished voter base in these parts of the country? 

When Labour was founded by Kier Hardie in 1900. It was a union between Middle-Class Academics in the Fabien Society, Liberal Trade Unionists and Marxist Social Democratic Federation. The Labour Party was a union between the radical Middle Class and the Working-Class mass movement. I do hope most individuals on the left remember this going forward. We must try to listen and represent many left behind working-class communities across the country.  For the same very reason, the Labour Party is called the Labour Party. Labour was the party intended to represent and protect workers from all backgrounds. It is something that we need to remember if we truly want to defeat the Brexit Party.

Socialism Liberty and a new Internationalist vision : A Radical Alternative (draft only)

(I will explain the title later)

This is kind of a political manifesto that I have been drafting up.  

And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green: And was the holy Lamb of God, On England's pleasant pastures seen!And did the Countenance Divine, Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here, Among these dark Satanic Mills?Bring me my Bow of burning gold: Bring me my arrows of desire: Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold! Bring me my Chariot of fire!I will not cease from Mental Fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand: Till we have built Jerusalem, In Englands green & pleasant Land. 

William Blake 1804

It might seem odd that I am sharing this Poem, but I think it's relevant to British national identity today. Just think about its meaning and compare it to British and English nationalistic feeling today. Then we can see how to use this to create a better society within Britain and promote and internationalist alternative to the status quo.

The 2016 EU referendum was the catalyst for this to expose the underlining tensions within the United Kingdom that were building up for decades. If one thing is certain from this is that most people in this country wanted to change politics. People saw this referendum as their own chance to do so. Only an ignorant individual would think we voted leave because either the British public was stupid or racist. Neither is true Eurosceptism while it was entrenched by media stories came from outright frustration and the general direction of society for decades. This was further amplified by the 2008 economic crisis and 2015 election. Where the main 3 politicians were almost identical in terms of policy that they offered, even worse all attended Eton at around the same time. People had enough. Above this UKIP's outright victory in the 2014 European Elections should have sufficed as a warning sign. Of course, this was never the case for our arrogant Westminster political class.

The Brexit process itself was a complete mess. Nobody knew what was the "will of the people really"? We could only guess and speculate, I suspect though the answer probably lies in the Northern Heartlands of the Labour Party. After the referendum, I'll paraphrase Nigel Farage's point in the aftermath after the referendum "I think the leave campaign won because of the Labour Heartlands that have been abandoned by Labour." I always lived in these communities, I spent all my life living in a region in South Yorkshire known as the Dearne Valley that includes parts of Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. It’s a valley named after the river Dearne that is full of small towns and villages that were associated with the heavy industry or coal mining. Even today people still feel that we were worse off due to the de-industrialisation process over the last 40 years. Here we have some of the poorest parts of the country, the average wage in the area is approximately £18,000 a year the national average is approximately £28,000. In towns such as Rotherham 1/5 of people are unemployed. In Doncaster, the average wage has decreased in the last 10 years. People felt hard done by and left behind.

To know what is key to what is going on we need to understand the failures of the mainstream political parties. The Liberal Democrats are perceived as a party that propped up the Conservatives that only has the interests of the wealthy Southern Middle Classes. The Conservatives are still deeply hated due to Margret Thatcher. Post Blair people begin to feel a general disconnect with the Labour Party, people seem like no different as the Conservatives, a London centric party that is no longer is interested in the local area. This sentiment reached its peak in the 2015 general election, Corbyn managed to regain some support amongst traditional Labour supporters who either abstained (turnout is low in the Labour Heartlands) or switched to other parties, mainly UKIP. UKIP successfully marketed itself as this party that was taking on the corrupt establishment, which now includes the Labour Party from the viewpoint of many people in its heartlands. For the same reason, Eurosceptism also became more popular.

Many Britons saw the European Union as a distant overseas organisation that they had no say in. One of my Dad's friends told me, "If we can't even influence our councillors to do what we want, how do we influence our MEP's? It does not make sense they don't listen to us." Not only this, people felt that they did not have a say in various international treaties such as Lisbon as Maastricht that changed the British Constitution. People were concerned about Immigration, of course, the immigrants are taking all the jobs narratives was fuelled by the frustration brought about by the high unemployment and low wages locally. Though I must admit this was vastly overhyped. The point is people’s anger was built up by clear and obvious concerns, Brexit was a cry for help to the British ruling class.

It does put me in some despair when many individuals, who do particularly come from more privileged backgrounds than myself address these issues with absolute ignorance. Though it is understandable, Britain has always been good a segregating people from different social backgrounds. I sincerely hope that people would begin to address these concerns today. People are moulded by their environment.

The question we should all be asking what is the direction forward? It’s been almost 3 years since the EU referendum and nobody knows what is going to happen. Now we are in a situation where article 50 can or will be extended indefinitely. Some say we should revoke article 50, drastic action by will prove to further disillusion the disillusioned. We could go for No Deal, but this will prove to be immensely chaotic, we are breaking 40 years of ties in an instant. Either is unsavoury currently. It is solution simple what we need to do, and the answer lies in our domestic agenda. We need to empower those who feel most hard done by our society, people who are the poorest in our society. An enormous effort needs to be done in healing these communities that have been hard for decades. Politicians need to listen and act. People need to be given a voice in politics, this means further devolution and constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. "The answer to a lack of democracy is more democracy"- Tony Benn. I can't help but think that we need to move away what we consider free market capitalism and Neo-Liberal economics. A Neo Keynesian economic strategy might be needed.

Here are some ways on how we should go forward:

1)    Build a new constitution that enriches democracy that protects human rights and civil liberties.

2)    Decentralise power within the United Kingdom.

3)    Break up and limit the power of big multinational companies in favour of community business and cooperatives.

4)    Dismantle the City of London.

5)    Bring the Bank of England under Government control.

6)    Leave the European Union, to seek the establishment of a Commonwealth of Europe based on popular will and sovereignty. This could be done through a reformed EFTA.

7)    Introduce Universal Basic Income for anyone over the age of 16.

8)    Leave the IMF and the World Bank if the Political faction of the insinuations cannot be ousted.

9)    Decriminalise the use of all drugs and legalise Cannabis, drug addiction must be treated as an illness.

10)            Reform British international aid spending, Governments should be banned from directly giving aid to national Governments or NGO’s.  We should maintain the UN’s recommended 0.7% of GDP.

11)                      Support reforms to the United Nations, Britain should support reforms on the Environment encouraging action on climate change and supporting an International Space Programme.

12)                      Ban Faith Schools and Private Tuition schools and dismantle the Academy system.

13)                      The abolition of anti-Trade Union legalisation

The average citizen of the United Kingdom should have additional should have the right to influence what goes on in their lives, from controlling what happens in the workplace to the local Government. People must feel like that are being listened and they are a part of the system. The establishment of community businesses are important too, businesses that both hire people locally and have a large stake in a local community should be able to be held to account by the local community. Local bus services could be easily turned into community businesses for instance. Cooperatives should be created from larger business in sectors such as Manufacturing. The idea of a democratic economy is vital to create a fairer society.

The idea of a Democratic economy should go alongside a reformed Constitution.  A new Constitution is vital for Britain outside the European Union, especially when we don’t have the EU treaties and possibly the European Convention on Human Rights to fall back on. This should be a modernised version of the 1991 Commonwealth of Britain bill proposed by Tony Benn. Including the Abolition of the Monarchy, voting reform. The democratisation of the house of lords and regional devolution. This should be supported by a new bill of human rights.

14)                      The constitutional status of the Crown should be abolished. Oaths to the crown should be replaced with an oath to your constituency. The head of state will be known as The Sovereign of Parliament and will also act as the speaker.

15)                      The Sovereign of Parliament elected by a joint sitting of both houses of the Parliament and would have powers like the German head of state. He/she would have a diplomatic role like the current Monarch.

16)                      This the vote will require approval from both houses or the vote will go to the British public through a referendum. The term of The Sovereign of Parliament will be 5 years unless he/she is impeached by Parliament, then a national referendum will be called on the status of The Sovereign of Parliament.

17)                      In the modern day it is empirical that we have a secular state. We need to abolish the Church of England as the established Church of England and the crown dependencies.

18)                      The House of Lords to be replaced by an elected House of the Commonwealth with equal representation of men and women. This will be elected with a raw PR system; the House of Commons will be elected a single transferable vote system.

19)                      The 50% of the House of the Commonwealth will be elected every 5 years. Anyone aged 16+ who is either a citizen or is a resident of the United Kingdom that pays taxes will be entitled to vote.

20)                      The functions of the Royal Prerogative should be transferred to Parliament, reformed houses of Parliament will both vote on the use of the Royal Prerogative.

21)                      The Privy Council should be abolished and replaced by a Council of State, and its members are held to account to Parliament and can be suspended for Parliamentary misconduct

22)                      Empower the decentralised legislatures in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, England should a federal system like Germany. To boundaries along the lines as shown on the map below.

23)                      We should create a reformed bill of human rights should be created. This will protect, freedom of religion, freedom of speech (except for hate speech), freedom of assembly and association, freedom of information (except military secrets), right to privacy. Freedom from surveillance (unless suspect of a crime or terrorist activities). Boldly freedom, the freedom to do what you want to your body unless it affects other citizens in a negative manner, (e.g. consume drugs) within reason. All Governments no matter the ideology must respect a code of human rights as defined by organisations such as the UN. This should an improved version of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The most important question of the day is with our relationship with the European Union. Britain needs to leave the European Union to respect the view of the majority of those that voted in the 2016 referendum and to reduce the influence of the “Neo-Liberal global order” on Britain. The latter is a much more difficult task and it's not attached to the European Union.  Power needs to be in Britain and those with power needs to be accountable to those in Britain, we should not centralise power to overseas organisations that the average citizen does not have influence over. One Brexiter in Rotherham once told me “The politicians say Europe benefits us, but I don’t feel better off after 40 years and they all ignore us”.” A powerful point that many Leave voters had. The basis for our future relationship with Europe should be based on the idea of a Commonwealth of Europe that was based on popular sovereignty and corporation. Perhaps a hybrid between the African Union and the European Free Trade Organisation. Therefore, I have concluded that Britain should be a permanent member of the European Free Trade Organisation.

My proposal is for the United Kingdom to join the European Free Trade Association. This would honour the referendum and give us a reasonable trade deal for this to work with. Joining the EFTA requires approval from the EFTA countries, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Lichtenstein. This could indeed be problematic as Norway will be reluctant to allow the United Kingdom to join the organisation. We should not remain, members of the EEA, this would be a similar arrangement to Switzerland the major difference between us and Switzerland is that we would not be in the Schengen zone. 

EFTA will keep us in the single market, and I accept this will mean the four freedoms would continue. This will prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland, this is vital to prevent the rise of sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland. Though with customs an Irish Sea customs border might be inevitable, depending on the circumstances. It's preferable to have one single deal for The United Kingdom, and the EFTA will guarantee  free movement of people between the Republic and Northern Ireland. The key part of EFTA is that we will be outside of a Customs Union. This will enable us to negotiate trade deals with other countries if we stick to the EFTA Constitution. Following the United Kingdom joining EFTA we should aim to create CANUK, a trade deal between Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the United Kingdom. All the following nations have expressed their interest for a free trade deal with the United Kingdom after we exit from the European Union.  

MP's will have a significant amount of influence over EFTA if we became a member of the organisation. This can be done through the EFTA advisory body known as the Parliamentary committee. This is a forum where MP's discuss policy. These meetings are often attended by officials from the EU and other countries.  We have a veto on new EU rules that effect EFTA and we can influence further rules on the EFTA council. The EFTA council is governing the body of EFTA and it meets eight times a year at an ambassadorial level and twice at a ministerial level. The council manages trade deals and the rules of the organisation. EFTA also has trade deals with 24 trade deals across the world to do deals with this includes Mexico and South Africa. EFTA has ongoing negotiations with Indonesia. As members of EFTA, we can have a significant influence on these trade deals. 

EFTA was set up in 1960 with seven-member states, this included The United Kingdom as a founding state. EFTA unlike the EEC at the time was intended to be a trade block. We were previously members of EFTA before we joined the EEC in 1973. During this period when we were members of EFTA we managed to maintain our trade relations with the British Commonwealth while we transition our trade policy away from the Commonwealth nations to the EEC members. 

After examining the current composition of Parliament, well thought out soft Brexit compromise may pass through Parliament in this current deadlock.  EFTA is an opportunity to have more control over our density in Westminster while maintaining some of the benefits we currently enjoy under EU membership. Our membership of EFTA will allow us to use temporary breaks of Immigration when necessary. Understand Freedom of Movement will not end as a member of EFTA however, EFTA membership is currently the most reasonable way to leave the European Union. I see this as a perfect alternative to Labours current Brexit policy if we can't implement in Government or in Opposition. Then I hope we can eventually have a general election and elect a Socialist Government that can deliver a society for the many and not the few. 

We need a National and local investment scheme, this is to replicate EU investment in the United Kingdom and to better the current investment. I think this could be done with Labours national and regional investment banks. With is we should create a British state aid board formed by leading businesses.

Create Canzuk a trade deal between Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with an immigration deal. Propose an alternative institution to the European Union, based on a trade deal with promoting national sovereignty, based on similar terms to Canzuk, Tony Benn’s proposal of a European Commonwealth. Even though I support our membership of EFTA I see this as a long-term goal for the left in Europe.  Guarantee all EU citizens residency rights and offer them, full British citizens.

We should also, set up a financial transactions tax, the revenues of this tax will be used to set up the regional economic regeneration committee that will aim to invest money in the most deprived areas of the country such as the West Country and South Yorkshire. Replace the Common Agricultural Policy with a new British agricultural policy that will allow British citizens to receive affordable food and the continuation of agricultural subsidies.  

Make it a legal requirement for British mobile operators to offer zero tariffs for British citizens to use mobile phones in Europe on the threat of fines. Close British tax havens in the city of London and the overseas territories. Reform the Pound Sterling, this is a long-term plan over decades to readjust the value of the pound compared to the Yuan and the Dollar to make British exports for viable in the long-term future. Abolish flat rate indirect taxation such as VAT (for the exception of junk food and Tobacco products), these taxes harm consumer spending and impact the poorest people the most. We should also aim to unilaterally lower tariffs on certain essential imports such as food and sanitary products.

We should aim to phase out our overreliance in financial services. The fastest growing industries will be in robotics, biotechnology, green energy etc. We should aim to invest in these new high-tech industries and use them to reindustrialise the North of England. Many regions in the United Kingdom such as in South Yorkshire don't benefit from our service dominated economy as much as cities such as London. We need new industries to thrive as globalisation continues, many former Industrial towns and cities such as Doncaster are too reliant on the "Gig economy". We need a new economic vision for these parts of the country. The 2017 Manifesto from the Labour Party for The Many and Not the Few is a great start.

We should have an additional day of the year to celebrate Britishness and British identity, it should be on 1 May to celebrate the 1707 act of Union between England and Scotland as opposed to the anniversary to us leaving the European Union. Education reform is vital for the future of the country. 

We poorly educate our children to give them adequate knowledge of the world. We also fail to give children the skills for employment. A skilled population is vital if we are to build long term sustainable industries. There needs to be more of a wide range of vocational subjects available. I also think we should teach philosophy to children at a young age to encourage critical thinking and to allow future generations to question the current society we can live in who can provide more ideas on how to transform society for the better.

Give the current I recently re-examined Plato's argument for a state to be ruled by a special elite of Philosophers who could escape the world of sense experience and rise to the contemplation of new ideas. In Politics currently, we suffer from too much short-termism we need to think about the future in the long term in how we model the society for the better.  I reject the notion of a "special elite of philosophers", philosophy is the key to understanding the nature of our society and should be accessible for everyone. I believe one of the reasons Brexit occurred is because of economic deprivation, the lack of new radical ideas, and Politicians failing to listen to their constituents. We need to young people the come up with new ideas and challenge the ideas of the past, as a society I feel we have been too stagnant. As Tony Benn once argued, "every generation is forced to fight the same rights all over again and again". The key to transforming society for the better can be summed up in two words community and education. We should give every child an equal and an amazing opportunity we must promote social mobility and tackle elitism, and therefore we must ban Private education.

The most difficult task for any progressive is to take on the global system of capital.  The origin of many ills felt by workers across the globe is the effects of the Washington consensus. Once we have tackled the problems we face at home we must promote progressive change for every nation on Earth. We are one Human race on the planet at the end of the day, we will be all be affected by the Environmental destruction brought about by the actions of Multinational Corporations. 

National Volunteer Service.

This is a scheme that guarantees some form of employment. In this programme, your local authority will pay £5 an hour to anyone over the age of 16 that desires to take part in the scheme. Ideally, this system would be supplemented by a Universal Basic Income. This National Volunteer Service is a programme where local authorities and non-profit organisations to provide small jobs in the local community. Such as litter picking or volunteering to help in local charity events. Many communities across the country are also divided on class, religion etc. This programme could bring people together in communities were traditionally divided, many Immigrant and Religious minority communities are concentrated into small areas e.g. Eastwood in Rotherham. As a result of this social segregation, people grow suspicious of these communities, this suspicion feeds into Xenophobic and racist sentiments. Bringing people together can form a common understanding between the diverse groups in British society and integrate these isolated communities across the country. This programme will engage people in the local community and keep people invested in society. Social Isolation is an enormous problem currently amongst our ageing population, this programme may assist in combating that issue. A programme like this would be perfect in combating depression and suicide amongst welfare claimants; unfortunately, these two problems are prevalent with welfare claimants today. Crime in Britain is on the rise, this is due to both Police cuts and large socioeconomic problems in Britain today. Giving marginalised people in society a guaranteed income and some investment in their local area will deter people from committing a crime. The scheme would assist in rebuild community spirit across the nation, the lack of a strong community is a pressing problem in Britain today. It gets people out and about rather than doing nothing all day, It could be a learning experience that could teach a lot of people about society. A National Volunteer Service would be ideal for the following groups, students, retired, unemployed and the disabled. To encourage people to take part in the programme, it should not impact the entitlement of welfare. system. This idea is partially a reaction Chuka Umunna’s suggestion of bringing back national service. I think it's a better and less authoritarian alternative as this scheme is not compulsory.

My Own Manifesto to Brexit

We are clearly in a difficult position brought about 2 years of incompetence by the Conservative Government. People from all aspects of society are extremely dissatisfied by the performance of the Conservative Government. The Minority Government has struggled to keep its Party together with the Conservative Party on this issue with dissatisfied Pro Europeans and Eurosceptics. The Government has struggled to keep its DUP partners on the side of the Government who has kept the Government in power in a supply and demand deal on key votes in parliament. Because of this support for a Peoples Vote and remaining in the EU has increased. Recent polls suggest remain would win another referendum with the results most like reversed. This still indicates the division in the United Kingdom. The most recent polls by Survation indicate a North-South Divide in England on Brexit. With Yorkshire being the most Eurosceptic region in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted to leave the European Union on the 23^rd June 2016. 2016 was a hectic year for the western establishment, the year the establishment failed to get their own way on both sides of the pond. It was a clear backlash against the Neo-Liberal economics which was set up in the 1980s that replaced the new deal style economics in the western world. Many economists call this either supply-side economics and its critics trickle-down economics.  The name of this does not matter. What matters is that this economic position has failed the majority of people in the western world today. The promises of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan have not been fulfilled. Many people were left behind for decades the same people left behind lashed out at the establishment that told them that everything will be worse when themselves were the real reason for the anger against the establishment. For this very reason it those in power want to remain in place, the elite must adapt and recognise the ills of the working class. In a divided country there must be a mechanism to unify the nation and to pick up the pieces created by the economic incompetence of the political class. We need to build a society that is not about dog eats dog but a society where everyone cares about each other. 

 The current negotiations with the European Union could not be handled any worse than it currently is. In power, we have a clueless and directionless party who put their own personal interests and their careers first. The Conservative Party lacks new ideas and different methods to solve and address the issues of the time. They lack imagination and the Conservative Party fails to look outside the box on these issues. The question of Europe has always been the Achilles heel of the Conservative Party, well certainly at least the Post Thatcher years. The 2005 Conservative Party leadership election was thought on the issue of Europe between David Cameron and David Davis. These divisions became so extreme that 2 Conservative MPs Mark Reckless (it’s in the name) and Douglas Carswell defected to UKIP. The fear of more defections to UKIP led to the promise of a referendum by the Conservative leader David Cameron after the 2015 general election. This referendum was called in 2017, it brought out the ancient divisions in the Conservative Party into the public sphere. It led to one of the most toxic debates in history. Furthermore, it brought out career interests in certain Conservative MP's, this was the case with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. The Question is why is this relevant? It’s quite simple, the future of Brexit and the future of the Conservative Party. The idea that I am advocating is that the issue of Europe will finally bring down the so-called "unified unit" of the Conservative Party. I would argue that these divisions, contributed to the confusion to what it’s the ideological direction and the economic plan for the Conservative Party. We get nothing coherent. I think this sensation resonates with Conservative supporters, I constantly hear many Tory voters that say that the Conservative Party is no longer Conservative. Theresa May when she became the Conservative leader emulated Ed Miliband in her first speech as Prime Minister. Though this was a clear attack on Labour at the time. The Governing Party has run out of ideas of the future, this phenomenon Is common when Parties exist in power for the long term. I would argue that the Conservatives have lacked clear and coherent economic ideas since 1997, even when they were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats where they supported a regressive austerity programme. It is clear we need a solution that will unite all sides of the country on Brexit that will enable a chivalrous debate and that will encourage the formation of new ideas of how to change this country for the better. The divisions within the Conservative Party on the question of Europe has made a proper debate on the key issues that matter virtually impossible. We deserve something better than Immigration vs Economic apocalypse.

 The previous Prime Minister David Cameron had his own fights with major Eurosceptics, the 2005 Conservative leadership election was largely thought on the issue with Europe with the Brexiter David Davis. Of course, the infighting in the Conservative Party on the issue of Europe was not only on ideological lines many MP's aligned themselves along with their career interests, such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Boris Johnson is known for drafting an Article in the Sunday Times that backed remain that was never published. Instead, Boris Johnson published Article backing leave. It should be also noted that during his time as the Mayor of London Boris Johnson opposed a referendum on European Union Membership.    

                 

Many of the leading Conservatives in the EU referendum did not wholly believe in leaving the European Union. Looking at this perspective we can now understand some of the lies proposed by some of the key Brexiters during the campaign, most people can recite the red bus stating £350 million for the NHS. Theresa May in summer 2018 did try to follow up this proposal with a "Brexit dividend" which was also based on similar lies based on how it will be funded. I suspect the additional money promised to the NHS has more to do with the consecutive NHS winter crises that the country has faced in recent years. Furthermore, the idea that the leading Brexiters did not actually believe in leaving the European can justify the current state of the Brexit negotiations, how can you honestly negotiate when do not believe in what you are negotiating? Not only this, many of the major Brexiters who careerists were clearly (except for Boris Johnson) refuse to resign from the Government when Theresa May proposed essentially a soft Brexit in all but name at Chequers. Some of the Brexiters even went as far as public supporting the proposal, such as Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom. Before the resignations that followed the Chequers arrangement the clear majority was the cabinet was comprised of Remainers and individuals that I would like to call Careerist Brexiters. Henceforth, we never had a cabinet that was really committed to the idea of leaving the European Union. This can partially explain why the cabinet was largely clueless when it came to Brexit and why they lacked an ideological direction on the matter.  David Davis before the proposed Chequers arrangement was the Secretary of exiting the European Union. Unlike Boris Johnson, I am convinced that he believes in leaving the European Union. Firstly, I should mention that he has always campaigned to leave the European Union, he even though a Conservative leadership election against David Cameron in 2005.

Compared to the Careerist Brexiters David Davis attracted less publicity in the media. This was a rather common theme during the Referendum.  This was a major reason there were so many lies sold by vote leave and Brexiters. Though many lies that were sold during the referendum were done by Remainers such as in David Cameron’s Pro Remain leaflets that cost the taxpayer £9 million. Many of us that supported the Labour Leave campaign chaired by Kate Hoey and John Millis was rather a concern of the media complete ignorance that the media showed the campaign. The left wingers in Grassroots out and Lexit the leave campaign. This certainly lowered the level of debate to what I saw toxic mudslinging. Labours campaign for remain also had a similar treatment by the media, Jeremy Corbyn did more pro remain rallies than any other Politician, though Jeremy Corbyn was the most reluctant Remainer politician in the country. The failure of the media to engage with alternate narratives condemned Brexit as the media allowed the viewpoints of the most toxic aspects of society to succeed in winning public favour.

The idea of having a Brexiter (David Davis) negotiating Brexit should have reassured Brexiters and Remainers who wished to see the result honoured that the result of the vote was followed through. Unlike the careerists in the Conservative Party David Davis undermined and condemned Brexit why his weak presence in the cabinet and by his incompetence. Sort of a boy that cried wolf effect occurred in Government as David Davis frequently threatened to resign but failed to follow through with the act. One example, was the scandal with Damian Green where he threatened to resign if Damian Green was sacked over the scandal that he had porn saved on this work computer in Parliament. Negotiation was rather slow during his tenure of the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union in 2018 he only had a total of 4 hours in meeting officials from the European Union. The Brexit negotiations were meant to be the most important negotiations that we had since the Second World war at Yalta and Potsdam. So, the question that must be asked, why the lack of commitment from an individual that is supposed to be fanatically Eurosceptic? Many suggest the issue is with Theresa May and the cabinet holding him back, of course, after chequers and after Dominic Rabb became the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union he was sidelined in favour of Theresa May. So perhaps an element of that argument is valid. I think the main issue with David Davis is his complete incompetence, I think we were too weak-willed to be trusted on in any negotiation. We should be reminded that it took 9 months to have an agreement with the EU, this was on the withdrawal bill. To conclude my point the failure of David Davis and the other Government ministers working under him is one of the major reasons why we are in the position that we are in with Brexit.

There are several things that the left has been considering at this stage. The Peoples Vote is a subject that is gaining ground amongst some groups, this is very problematic.  Firstly, we would most likely vote the same we that we did on the 23rd June 2016, depending on the terms of the vote. Secondly, the Peoples Vote will be even more toxic and divisive than the first one. The first referendum divided people across the country and tore families apart. We should examine the nasty debate from the first referendum while, we did not debate the core issues around EU membership and a future vision for this country, instead both sides used a fear style campaign based on project fear either on immigration or economic apocalypse. I am not opposed to the concept of direct democracy and people having their say on the future relationship on EU membership, however, I am against the idea of having another referendum without honouring the first one and carrying it out. I do understand how problematic that is if we consider the complexity around EU membership, I think as a society we should do more to encourage a discussion on the future direction of this nation. However, I do support the idea of voting on the type of deal that you want, whether that is Theresa May's Chequers, Canada ++++ (whatever that is), or even a No deal. I think it's better to have a general election to deal with these issues, were we can have a real discussion on what we can do post-Brexit, a left-wing vision a right-wing vision, or perhaps on the idea of remaining in the EU. Currently, in this nation, we have so many domestic issues that in the viewpoints of most people in this country are simply more important than Brexit.

We need to take a position against many failing Neo-Liberal globalist institutions across the globe, that includes the European Union and other institutions such as the IMF. We currently have huge global challenges to deal with, which we will need to interact with countries across the world. Therefore, we need to encourage the growth of institutions that bring countries together on issues such as climate change. We are currently doing little to solve these issues. Tony Benn talked about the creation of a Commonwealth of Europe based on co-operation with other countries on these issues. This is an idea that we should pursue. We should also maintain and even better improve the current legislation of the European Union. One example of this is the Environmental Liability Directive.

Many people on the left believe in the idea of a Social Europe, the idea of using the EU to protect workers’ rights for instance. This is a rather noble idea. The European Union in this concept can be used as a barrier and a check and balance to the policies to any regressive Conservative Government in power. Since the late 1980's the majority of the Labour Party has taken this position. The European Union has led to more workers’ rights, take the working time directive for example which are not terrible ideas. We should be aiming to maintain these and improve on these laws post-Brexit. The British people have a responsibility to elect a Government that will protect these rights. We should go about also empowering Trade Unions and encouraging the idea of collective bargaining as a viable check and balance.

I think that complaining about the lack of democratic accountability within the European Union and the institutions associated with it without looking at the failures at home. This will not be turned into a discussion on how the European Union operates, I think it's more important at this point to look at affairs at home. We have a lack of transparency in Government, Parliament and in our institutions. We have a political system that is biased towards London and the South East. We have an unelected second chamber the House of Lords, we have the House of Commons that is not entirely representative on the views of the British people due to the First by the Post electoral system. We also have an unelected Monarch, in many ways our constitution is still quite medieval in its nature. Many people during the referendum saw the European Union as being a foreign institution above Parliament. It was not foreign institution since we did have a role moulding the current European Union at it is today, but it was another institution that acted with and above parliament. This often-clouded judgement on who to blame for a specified issue, sometimes the EU was a fault and sometimes It was the British Government for a policy that some members of the British public did not approve on. Take Immigration and then, EU competition rules that would limit what a left-wing Government could nationalise. In Post Brexit Britain we need to make it clear who we should hold to account we so can create a better future. I do recognise that many politicians did take the EU for granted this way, so people blamed the EU for a problem at home or a problem that the British Government can solve with the EU.

The reality is this nation is a broken nation, in a broken global economic order and the debate on Europe should be how to fix these problems. We have major internal social, economic and political problems. We have major economic problems such as low productivity, a decline in real wages. economic deprivation, a trade deficit with most of the globe. Our Political system is in dire need for reform just look at the Monarchy, the house of commons, local devolution, the voting system and the House of Lords for starters. For our own societal problems, we can look at, education, our media, our culture, or identity and just the general anger and confusion that the public has. Consecutive Governments has failed to solve these major problems. Many people feel disconnected to Westminster and to the rest of Greater London, people feel more English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish/ Northern Irish than they did in the past, there is a general confusion about British identity, many people have claimed Brexit was a result of an English Identity crisis, the reality is there is a British identity crisis. This idea has come about from individuals that feel disconnected from society. People feel left behind.  Much of the wealth in our economy was concertinaed in London and in the city of London, approximately 80% of the wealth of this nation is created in London from the financial sector. Much of this wealth does not touch most of the British population. We still live under the Neo-Liberal style economics introduced in the 1980's in this country by Margret Thatcher as she transferred this economy to a service sector economy rather than an industrial manufacturing-based economy.    

 Many of the former Manufacturing areas of the United Kingdom still are some of the most economically deprived areas of the United Kingdom. Many areas receive a lack of investment from both the Government and the private sector. In some former Industrial towns, wages have decreased on average since 2010. Many people felt that they had their futures were stolen and their local areas robbed of their wealth. Many older individuals in Northern Industrial towns and cities believe they were better off before the 1970's before Thatcherism and before we joined the European Community. I think the main problem we see currently is the vast economic imbalances we see in this country, the British economy is too based towards London and regional centres, Investment in our economy has remained stagnant for decades, working rights have been stagnant due to the destruction of the rights of the trade unions, the lack of skilled high paid work, the commercialisation of education. I could name many more issues such as our trade deficit we are in a situation that we are completely stagnating as a society compared to other nations in the west. Many of these issues go side by side with economic liberalisation in the west and a lack of any form of intervention to deal with the negative effects that go side by side with the rise of the East Asian economies. We need to look for a brand new and radical economic direction in this country that benefits most of the British population. We certainly need to move away from supply-side economics that has failed to deliver on its promises that the wealth from the rich will trickle down to the poorest in society. The question that we must ask ourselves is how to achieve this? Corbyn's Labour Party offers a Neo-Keynesian economic vision for the country, a reformed version of the post-war economic conscious that is suited a modern world that must deal with global issues.

We should also look at the ideas of reforming and/or creating an alternative organisation to the European Union at its current state. How do we change the European Union as it is presently constituted and if we can what do we change it to?  That is a very difficult question to answer even for Yanis Varoufakis or can we create another institution that workers in a more democratic and benevolent manner without the Neo-Liberal economics attached. This has always been the position of Tony Benn on Europe to create an alternative Commonwealth of Europe based on voluntary co-operation on key issues that affect the continent of Europe at large and this is the idea I think the left should be open to. Regardless, we are going to need to work with DiEM25 the only organisation that currently would reform the EU in a progressive way if it had the chance. The major problem we have with all of this is that there is a lack of a discussion of Europe in this country. There is a lack of coverage on the media in Britain on European affairs. We focus too much of immigration and the migrant crisis, we don't talk about that Italy has not had direct control over its treasury for years, we don't talk about the EU forcing austerity measures on countries such as Cyprus.

"Another way would be to have a looser, wider Europe. I have an idea for a Commonwealth of Europe. I am introducing a bill on the subject. Europe would be rather like the British Commonwealth. We would work by consent with people. Or we could accept this ghastly proposal, which is clumsy, secretive, centralized, bureaucratic and divisive. That is how I regard the Treaty of Rome. I was born a European and I will die one. But I have never put my alliance behind the Treaty of Rome. I object to it. I hate being called an anti-European. How can one be anti-European when one is born in Europe? It is like saying that one is anti-British if one does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Tony Benn  20th November 1991

We should join EFTA until we can have a unified position of what we should do in the long-term future. The aim should be to transition out of European federalist institutions Another reason why we should do this is that EFTA is likely to resemble a reformed European Union without the Euro and the elements of centralisation that currently exist in the European Union. Britain joined EFTA as a founding member of EFTA in 1960, it was designed to be an alternative to the European Union without the political attachments of the European Union. Therefore, this could be a compromise with both sides on the EU question. We should not join the EEA this will require us to join the Schengen Area. EEA agreement states, that while any European country that becomes a member of the EU shall join the EEA, any new EFTA member may apply for us to become a part of it. We would, in theory, have a Switzerland style deal. EFTA will keep us in the single market but outside a Customs Union, countries such as Iceland are in EFTA. This will solve the issue with the Northern Irish border and will maintain the status quo at large economically while bringing more power back home to Westminster e.g. on fishing and agriculture. Then we should have a real debate on what should we do with regards to Europe. We also should note that revoking article 50 to anyone who wants to stop Brexit may require another negotiation. Being outside the EU itself we would not be tied to the European Union and hence any re-negotiation in the future in these terms will put us in a stronger position. Joining the EFTA would require little negotiation and the transition into it would be rather smooth compared to the likelihood of what the Tories are likely going to do with Brexit. In EFTA for the next few years, we should aim in my opinion to have a meaningful free trade deal. Where we return decision making to Westminster and devolved administrations.  We should also create a brand new British alternative to the ECJ during this process with a similar role. EFTA will give us the ability to make our own trade deals. EFTA countries such as Iceland and Switzerland have separate trade deals with countries such as China. ETFA (European Free Trade Organisation) has its own free trade deals with countries such as Mexico, Japan, Turkey, Canada and South Korea.  As a member of EFTA, we would have access to these trade deals as stated in article 56 of the EFTA Convention. EFTA would make deals with certain countries such as the United States difficult due to regulatory alignment with EFTA and the EU for many goods but not legally impossible as it currently is for the United Kingdom as a member of the European Union.  EFTA is informal free trade talks with, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the MERCOSUR countries (Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina). Potentially we would have access to trade deals in rapidly growing economies across the world as a member state of ETFA. 

Unlike joining the EEA or a separate single market and/or a customs arrangement the European Union has no control over who joins and leaves EFTA. That is determined by the EFTA council and the EFTA member states. The main difference between EFTA and EEA in these respects is that the EEA is aimed to mimic EU membership while outside the EU and EFTA is a free trade agreement throughout the continent of Europe. EFTA member states stated they are open to the idea of British membership though Norway is sceptical due to the fear of British domination in EFTA. It is easy to see why Britain’s population is larger than all the 4 EFTA countries combined. There has been a mixed response from Switzerland due to fears that Britain’s membership could harm the Swiss financial services sector. Lichtenstein was also fearful that the British dependencies and overseas territories could threaten its status as a tax haven. There are still some negotiations and compromises needed for EFTA membership through the basic terms of joining are stated in EFTA convention though we already meet them as current members of the European Union. As a member of EFTA, we would theoretically be able to veto any new rules while we are a member. With approximately 20 months of failure to gain a workable deal with Brexit, we are in a difficult position. The Government has made no are little preparation to a No Deal Brexit. An exit out of the European Union that I never advocated. Into World Trade Organisation rules with the EU and the rest of the world. The World Trade Organisation is also currently under threat from Donald Trump. The President of the United States has continuously threated to pull out of the World Trade Organisation. The very founding member of the World Trade Organisation and the most powerful nation on the Earth leaving the World Trade Organisation could threaten its very existence. We should proceed with caution with the World Trade Organisation. Russia has also repeatedly blocked our applications to join the Word Trade Organisation Post Brexit, it would be potentially catastrophic if that occurred under a No Deal scenario. We also have a Hung Parliament with a minority Conservative Government that remains in power because of the support it receives from the Democratic Unionist Party. There is barely a majority for the Chequers deal that the Conservative leadership is supporting. With the current situation in Parliament, any divisive Brexit deal will get voted down, the Labour leadership have committed to vote down and Brexit deal that the Government would likely to have in hope for an early general election.  

It took approximately 9 years for the EU to fully negotiate its trade deal with Canada negotiating trade deals with the European Union does not happen overnight. Any deal that the Conservative Party will drafted up quickly and will leave a lot to be desired. An article 50 extension to extend the negotiations is extremely unlikely as it must pass through both parliament and the European Union. Many leading figures in the European Union such as Guy Verhofstadt have constantly ruled an extension of Article 50. I think the EFTA solution can be a better compromise between all parties rather than the extremely unpopular Chequers style deal.

Many Conservative MP’s back a Canada style trade deal. This idea is extremely problematic. Many of the supporters of this deal call it Canada +++ which would be a deal like the one between Canada and the European Union. The Canada deal, in theory, reduces tariffs by 97% on average. However, this comes with heavy corporatist baggage. Many critics have called the CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) trade deal between the EU and Canada TTIP’s (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) little sister. This Neo-Liberal Corporatist trade deal, it promotes corporatism encourages privatisation and undermines workers’ rights. Future Governments will not be able to reverse Privatisation in the NHS because of CETA without a legal challenge. This has already happened because of this; Virgin Care sued the NHS for £2 million after losing out on a £28 million contract in June 2018 to provide Children’s medical services. This occurred due to the CETA Multilateral Investment Court. This is the main worry that we should have for a Canadian style deal that is promoted by certain Tory Brexiters. It could both encourage privatisation and encourage further degradation of workers’ rights.

Britain is a great importer and not an export as we once were in the past. We have a trade deficit, especially with the European Union. Approximately 50% of our imports go to the European Union. Our productivity has been almost entirely stagnant in the last 30 years. Investment in % of GDP by both the private and public sector into Britain has steadily declined in the last 30 years after the deindustrialisation of the United Kingdom. We have an over bloated financial services sector that is concentrated in London. Our economy needs to be rebalanced in the long term and this should be the aim of any Government with an economic plan. The leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has already addressed this in his build it Britain speech, where he promoted a programme to create brand new industries in some of the most deprived parts of the country. Many of the policies of Labour in the 2017 Manifesto for the many and not the few promoted policies that will lead to the growth of new industries in these areas. Some of the fastest growing local economies in the UK are in local councils that have embraced Pro Corbyn economic policies such as in Rotherham and Preston. As we transition out of the EU we need to implement these economic ideas.

 While we transition out of the EU through the EFTA we need to look at several issues that we need to solve. Firstly, the immense division on the issue of Brexit in this country. Secondly, influential members of the British establishment want to reverse Brexit. Thirdly, the prospect of big business moving its money out of the country. Fourthly a post Brexit vision for the future of the United Kingdom and the future of the integrity of the United Kingdom. Finally, the issue with the border with Northern Ireland. Therefore, I would need a proposal to solve this issue. Now I could call for a creation of a council of Britain’s relationship of the EU, its name does not matter. But its importance is what purpose and what this council would do. Firstly, I would need to address who will make up this council. It would be created by the Minister for exiting the European Union. It will be comprised of representatives from all major political Parties with, MEP’s, MP’s, members of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Parliament.  We would need representatives from every local council in the nation. It’s important we get all aspects of our political system on board. We would need 2 representatives from major British Owned Businesses that want to be a part of the council, one appointed by the shareholders and one elected by the employees. We would representatives from Trade Unions as well especially the Eurosceptic ones that tend to get ignored such as PCS. This is just the start of what I think what should have happened after the vote to leave the EU.  Let’s say this council had 9 months to decide a common position that represented everyone in this nation. We needed to get people to unify on one position on Brexit while honouring the result. This was probably one of the most important decisions in our recent history. The idea of this is to create a unified economic plan and a negotiating position for the future. The issue plaguing this nation is that we have a bunch of clueless malicious fools running the country. We needed an actual Government that actually wanted to give every citizen a bright future that is not afraid to do something that is not a part of the common political consensus in this nation.  This council needs to work side by side with the Government and to be accountable to Parliament to help the country form economic policy will negotiating a free trade deal Many people believed that leaving the European Union would be easy and the transition to leaving the European Union would leave to a right-wing libertarian society on the right and the left believed we can use Brexit to realign our economy, People want certainty and hope, but at this stage, it would be very difficult since most people are now entrenched in their positions.  With my position it will assist in achieving that, we need to gather the best intellectuals from a range of different parts of our society 

Eventually, we should aim to have a free trade agreement that will be put the United Kingdom out of a single market and a customs union. Instead, we would have a low tariff deal with a customs arrangement. This will take years to negotiate and implement over time. We have not negotiated a trade deal independently in the last 40 years. We need more times to develop our civil service and our infrastructure to implement a new deal. Due to the number of years (most likely around 5 years) have past then I would be time to hold another referendum on our future relationship with the European Union. The Euro would most likely not be a requirement to join the European Union at this stage, due to its internal issues in the Eurozone and the likelihood of Italy leaving the Euro in the next few years. At this time the European Union and the amount of pressure it would be under in the next few years it would be most likely that the EU would be very different at this time so that option could be still on the table.

A key part of the debate on the European Union is to do with Immigration. Despite being overexaggerated we do need a reformed immigration system with the EU as we transition out. Borders and immigration are necessary evils to combat the disabling forces that affect open borders and to control the market forces that wish to exploit cheap immigrant Labour. While we have the nation-state, Immigration should be moulded and be fluid to meet the nations need. For example, we currently need to encourage skilled migration to migrate to this country as opposed to low skilled Labour. Our Immigration policy must always be humanist and empathetic especially towards refugees fleeing conflict in Africa and the Middle East. We certainly do need to learn from our mistakes especially after the awful and perhaps racist Windrush scandal of 2018 that led to the resignation of Amber Rudd though her predecessors and the current Prime Minister Theresa May is more to blame for the issue people are not criminals for just migrating to this country. We should have a reformed based system like what we saw the Commonwealth countries in terms of Immigration policy outside the European Union. Due to our proximity to Europe, I suggest a basic travel visa and a basic work visa that an individual could easily apply for that would be a visa for the European Union giving similar benefits to the freedom of movement and a long-term visa for visits for longer than 3 months.  This could only occur if we have a meaningful hard Brexit deal which is unlikely now. The current proposal is a £6 visa between the EU and the UK, but I think that is for tourism and no other uses. A separate arrangement is required for Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Sorting the Northern Ireland question would be the most difficult arrangement, but I cannot see a deal that will not have any Irish sea border controls. I know they are vague proposals, but I see it as a compromise.

I know this is a rather long essay I hope you have managed to read it all. The purpose is to have a basic overview of our current situation with Brexit and what we should ideally do now.  I understand that the reader may not think that due to the length of this, however, this subject is such a complex fractured mess it is almost impossible to do that, in this essay, I will miss out many key details on what we could do with Brexit and what we should do. This is likely not going to happen. I think we will most like have Chequers or a deal like Chequers with a customs union for the foreseeable future. I think it’s time we in this country try to be rather ambitious with new ideas how we can change not just British society at a local level, but we should look further afield to change affairs in Europe and beyond. Thanks for reading.

Protectionism and Donald Trump

In terms of global free trade, many observers of political events have discussed the possibility of a trade war. Recent news articles have discussed the possibility of Trump leaving the World Trade Organisation. Then we also get articles about the possibility of Russia trying to block Britain's membership of the World Trade Organisation post-Brexit. However, from my observation, many people do not understand the historical context of protectionism within the west and why Trumps America is promoting this policy.

Trump's trade policy is not unorthodox in any way. This does not mean I approve of this trade policy at all. For most of the history of the United States, the country has used a protectionist economic policy. The First President of the United States George Washington as early of 1789 used tariffs to protect the homegrown industry and to generate revenue to invest in national infrastructure. In 1789 the Young Republic was an underdeveloped backwater, with a population similar to Ireland at the time. The nation was largely agrarian and there was a lack of unity between the states. Many individual states had their own independent trade policy.

In the late 18th century and the early 19th-century Britain began a process of industrialisation. After the Napoleonic war, the United Kingdom completely dominated global trade and commerce. To protect itself from cheap British products and to promote further economic expansion. (The United States had a rapidly growing population and economy through immigration at large.) The United States successfully protected local domestic firms from overseas competition.  The Republican Party and their predecessors that include National Republican Party, Whig Party, and the Free-Soil Party believed in Protectionism over free trade.

Tariff reform was an important issue in the 1888 Presidental election that resulted in the victory of the Republican candidate  Benjamin Harrison

The question of protectionism was a key part in the debate between the Democrats and the Republicans alongside the issue with slavery before the American Civil War between 1861 and 1865. The economy of the Southern States was based on exports of goods such as Cotton, Tobacco, and Sugarcane to Europe, this was done predominately by Slave Labour like it has been done long before the declaration of independence on the 4th July 1776. The Southern Slave owners and Democrats in the United States in the period before the Civil War believed that tariffs would lead to the imposition of tariffs on the United States by foreign nations that would render the economies of the deep south uncompetitive. The Economy in the North was based more on heavy industry in states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania where its economies were modelled in a similar way to the United Kingdom. Following the Civil War Republican dominance in politics ensured dominance on protectionist policies despite the pro-free trade policies of some following Democrat presidents such as Woodrow Wilson.

This Canadian poster from 1891 suggests that a policy of tariff retaliation against the United States is needed to protect Canadian Agriculture. 

The Great War greatly benefited the American economy.  The United States, in the need to fuel their war effort the allied nations imported goods from the United States on mass. The total value of U.S. exports grew from $2.4 billion in 1913 to $6.2 billion in 1917.  The continued attacks by the German submarines on American merchant ships exporting to Europe led to American involvement in the in the war in 1917. Woodrow Wilson was not a protectionist, he was both pro-free trade and was a Democrat. Woodrow Wilson was not an isolationist too, he believed in more international intervention and he came up with the idea of creating internationalist organisations to bind nations together such as the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations in 1920, however, due to pressure at home the American Congress was against American membership popular opinion in the United States moved towards isolationism and more protectionism.

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 was the greatest stock market crash in the history of the United States. It led to a 12 year long great depression that affected many western economies. In the United States, unemployment peaked at 25% in 1933. In a response to the Great Depression, the United States introduced even more protectionist Policies. One example of this is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This intended to protect American businesses and farmers suffering from the Great Depression. In many respects this was counterproductive. Many European countries despite being tied to the United State through war debt from the Great War (The United Kingdom even defaulted on the debt) in introduced protectionist policies both in the response to the United States and the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was controversial when it was introduced in 1930. Most economists believe that it made the Great Depression worse.

The move away from protectionism in the United States began after the Second World War. Free Trade was used to bind the Capitalist economies together against the Soviet bloc. After the Second World War, the old European Imperial powers lacked much of their pre-war ability to compete with the economic powerhouse that was the United States of America. This was apparent in the Suez Crisis where President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 where the decaying Imperial powers of France and Britain failed to hold their own against American demands of their withdrawal from Egypt. The United States threatened to sell the US Governments Pound Sterling bonds. This would have significantly weakened the British economy. America was not threatened by foreign competition. The 1946 Anglo-American Loan also tied the United State and Great Britain and its colonies together economically, it prevented drastic hikes in tariffs to prevent and trade conflicts in the future. The Loan was supported by Britain as it enabled the nation to build its Socialist welfare state under the Attlee Government between 1945 and 1950. The United States also was one of the nations in the general agreement of trade in October 1947, which lasted until the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995.

The United States was the centre of the Capitalist world. It championed Free Trade between western capitalist nations and encouraged it. American Marshall aid tied European economies together and led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, this economic union led to the creation of the European Union. It was not until the presidency of Ronald Reagan who changed economics in America into Neo-Liberalism instead of the new deal economics that was championed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. That the United States began to use protectionist economic policies to economies that threatened the United States, even if he championed free trade. Reagan imposed high tariffs on Japanese auto goods. While there was a growth of a strong protectionist wing in the Democrat Party.

A Czechoslovak propaganda poster against the Marshall Plan. The title is can be translated as The Marshall Plan in Practice.

In the Post-Cold War America briefly enjoy existence as a sole global economic superpower with one global economic system of American style capitalism across the world. Globalisation was brought American goods and influence on every corner of human civilisation.  However, the decline of the United States began instantly after this process. The early 21st century brought about the rise of economies in the far east, this was particularly the case with the rise of China. China until 2016 was the fastest growing economy on Earth, it is now currently the largest economy on Earth. While for decades American manufacturing has gone into rapid decline. The Industrial heartland of the United States is now referred to as the rust belt.

The election of Donald Trump in the United States was a shock to many. His election should not be a shock. Many people felt left behind in the United States and they wanted someone completely different to the political norm, take the example of Pennsylvania for example, it is considered a rust belt state that delivered Republican electoral college votes rather than Democrat ones in previous Presidential elections. The election was also brought about the dreadful campaign by the dreadful candidate Hillary Clinton. That was backed by big business and Wall Street who was the wife of the previous president Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton was also an extremely corrupt Secretary of State. 

Trump sees himself as an anti-globalist president. He has imposed tariffs on countless countries in the so-called name for fairer trade. He wants to "Make America Great Again", slow down the inevitable decline of the United States. The three countries/trading blocs he has focused on is tariffs on are Mexico, China and the European Union. Trump believes America has been unfairly hit by free trade, Trump also feels that the United States has been conned by previous Presidents that allowed the rise of the BRIC economies in the expense of the United States. Trump has forced a re-negotiation of NAFTA until a new trade deal. Trump has pulled the United States out of Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership and has considered re-joining if the deal can be re-negotiated. Trump is also keen, to have a Post Brexit trade deal with the United Kingdom.

This cartoon perfect depiction of the current situation between the United States and China after Trump imposed tariffs on China.

To conclude this essay, I will briefly discuss what is happening with Trump and his trade policy. Trump like Reagan aims to protect American industries from overseas competition. Trump like him or loathe him aims to restructure the global economic system in favour of the United States, Trump wants a revitalisation of the American Dream and Capitalism. He appears to want protectionism for certain professions that have been in decline in the United States particularly in Manufacturing. He appears to have a Libertarian light vision for the global economy. During his election he flirted with the idea of pulling out of many internationalist organisations, this has not happened. America is not turning Isolationistic. America under Trump appears to be more jingoistic and militaristic. In a way, Trump is trying to mimic Reagan. Reagan supported a Star Wars programme to protect the United States, Trump wants an American space force to enable American domination in space. Overall, I think Trump is only using protectionism as a tool in favour of the United States and his ideological worldview.

What we should do with Brexit at this current time.

I wrote before a few weeks ago what is most likely going to happen with Brexit. Now I am going to write a short piece on what we should do today. As of the time of writing this, we are in late October the extended deadline given by the EU for a deal is in Early November. We are clearly in a difficult position brought about 2 years of incompetence by the Conservative Government. People from all aspects of society are extremely dissatisfied by the performance of the Conservative Government. The Minority Government has struggled to keep its Party together with the Conservative Party on this issue with dissatisfied Pro Europeans and Eurosceptics. The Government has struggled to keep its DUP partners on the side of the Government who has kept the Government in power in a supply and demand deal on key votes in parliament.

There are several things that the left have been considering at this stage. The Peoples Vote is a subject that is gaining ground amongst some groups, this is very problematic.  Firstly, we would most likely vote the same we that we did on the 23rd June 2016, depending on the terms of the vote. Secondly, the Peoples Vote will be even more toxic and divisive than the first one. The first referendum divided people across the country and tore families apart. We should examine the nasty debate from the first referendum while, we did not debate the core issues around EU membership and a future vision for this country, instead both sides used a fear style campaign based on project fear either on immigration or economic apocalypse. I am not opposed to the concept of direct democracy and people having their say on the future relationship on EU membership, however, I am against the idea of having another referendum without honouring the first one and carrying it out. I do understand how problematic that is if we consider the complexity around EU membership, I think as a society we should do more to encourage a discussion on the future direction of this nation. However, I do support the idea of voting on the type of deal that you want, whether that is Theresa May's Chequers, Canada ++++ (whatever that is), or even a No deal. I think it's better to have a general election to deal with these issues, were we can have a real discussion on what we can do post-Brexit, a left-wing vision a right-wing vision, or perhaps on the idea of remaining in the EU. Currently, in this nation, we have so many domestic issues that in the viewpoints of most people in this country are simply more important than Brexit.

We need to take a position against many failing Neo-Liberal globalist institutions across the globe, that includes the European Union and other institutions such as the IMF. We currently have huge global challenges to deal with, which we will need to interact with countries across the world. Therefore, we need to encourage the growth of institutions that bring countries together on issues such as climate change. We are currently doing little to solve these issues. Tony Benn talked about the creation of a Commonwealth of Europe based on co-operation with other countries on these issues. This is an idea that we should pursue. We should also maintain and even better improve the current legislation of the European Union. One example of this is the Environmental Liability Directive.

Many people on the left believe in the idea of a Social Europe, the idea of using the EU to protect workers’ rights for instance. This is a rather noble idea. The European Union in this concept can be used as a barrier and a check and balance to the policies to any regressive Conservative Government in power. Since the late 1980's the majority of the Labour Party has taken this position. The European Union has led to more workers’ rights, take the working time directive for example which are not terrible ideas. We should be aiming to maintain these and improve on these laws post-Brexit. The British people have a responsibility to elect a Government that will protect these rights. We should go about also empowering Trade Unions and encouraging the idea of collective bargaining as a viable check and balance.

I think that complaining about the lack of democratic accountability within the European Union and the institutions associated with it without looking at the failures at home. This will not be turned into a discussion on how the European Union operates, I think it's more important at this point to look at affairs at home. We have a lack of transparency in Government, Parliament and in our institutions. We have a political system that is biased towards London and the South East. We have an unelected second chamber the House of Lords, we have the House of Commons that is not entirely representative on the views of the British people due to the First by the Post electoral system. We also have an unelected Monarch, in many ways our constitution is still quite medieval in its nature. Many people during the referendum saw the European Union as being a foreign institution above Parliament. It was not foreign institution since we did have a role moulding the current European Union at it is today, but it was another institution that acted with and above parliament. This often-clouded judgement on who to blame for a specified issue, sometimes the EU was a fault and sometimes It was the British Government for a policy that some members of the British public did not approve on. Take Immigration and then, EU competition rules that would limit what a left-wing Government could nationalise. In Post Brexit Britain we need to make it clear who we should hold to account we so can create a better future. I do recognise that many politicians did take the EU for granted this way, so people blamed the EU for a problem at home or a problem that the British Government can solve with the EU.

The reality is this nation is a broken nation, in a broken global economic order and the debate on Europe should be how to fix these problems. We have major internal social, economic and political problems. We have major economic problems such as low productivity, a decline in real wages. economic deprivation, a trade deficit with most of the globe. Our Political system is in dire need for reform just look at the Monarchy, the house of commons, local devolution, the voting system and the House of Lords for starters. For our own societal problems, we can look at, education, our media, our culture, or identity and just the general anger and confusion that the public has. Consecutive Governments has failed to solve these major problems. Many people feel disconnected to Westminster and to a greater extent London, people feel more English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish/ Northern Irish than they did in the past, there is a general confusion about British identity, many people have claimed Brexit was a result of an English Identity crisis, the reality is there is a British identity crisis. This idea has come about from individuals that feel disconnected from society. People feel left behind.  Much of the wealth in our economy was concertinaed in London and in the city of London, approximately 80% of the wealth of this nation is created in London from the financial sector. Much of this wealth does not touch most of the British population. We still live under the Neo-Liberal style economics introduced in the 1980's in this country by Margret Thatcher as she transferred this economy to a service sector economy rather than an industrial manufacturing-based economy.        

 Many of the former Manufacturing areas of the United Kingdom still are some of the most economically deprived areas of the United Kingdom. Many areas receive a lack of investment from both the Government and the private sector. In some former Industrial towns, wages have decreased on average since 2010. Many people felt that they had their futures were stolen and their local areas robbed of their wealth. Many older individuals in Northern Industrial towns and cities believe they were better off before the 1970's before Thatcherism and before we joined the European Community. I think the main problem we see currently is the vast economic imbalances we see in this country, the British economy is too based towards London and regional centres, Investment in our economy has remained stagnant for decades, working rights have been stagnant due to the destruction of the rights of the trade unions, the lack of skilled high paid work, the commercialisation of education. I could name many more issues such as our trade deficit we are in a situation that we are completely stagnating as a society compared to other nations in the west. Many of these issues go side by side with economic liberalisation in the west and a lack of any form of intervention to deal with the negative effects that go side by side with the rise of the East Asian economies. We need to look for a brand new and radical economic direction in this country that benefits most of the British population. We certainly need to move away from supply-side economics that has failed to deliver on its promises that the wealth from the rich will trickle down to the poorest in society. The question that we must ask ourselves is how to achieve this? Corbyn's Labour Party offers a Neo-Keynesian economic vision for the country, a reformed version of the post-war economic conscious that is suited a modern world that must deal with global issues.

We should also look at the ideas of reforming and/or creating an alternative organisation to the European Union at its current state. How do we change the European Union as it is presently constituted and if we can what do we change it to?  That is a very difficult question to answer even for Yanis Varoufakis or can we create another institution that workers in a more democratic and benevolent manner without the Neo-Liberal economics attached. This has always been the position of Tony Benn on Europe to create an alternative Commonwealth of Europe based on voluntary co-operation on key issues that affect the continent of Europe at large and this is the idea I think the left should be open to. Regardless, we are going to need to work with DiEM25 the only organisation that currently would reform the EU in a progressive way if it had the chance. The major problem we have with all of this is that there is a lack of a discussion of Europe in this country. We focus too much of immigration and the migrant crisis, we don't talk about that Italy has not had direct control over its treasury for years, we don't talk about the EU forcing austerity measures on countries such as Cyprus.

This essay was a brief discussion of what we should do with Brexit, please if you are reading this, share your thoughts and ask me any question on the subject. I will just conclude this issue by explaining what we should do now as a nation. We should join EFTA until we can have a unified position of what we should do in the long-term future. We should not join the EEA this will require us to join the Schengen Area. EFTA will keep us in the single market but outside a Customs Union, countries such as Iceland are in EFTA. This will solve the issue with the Northern Irish border and will maintain the status quo at large economically while bringing more power back home to Westminster e.g. on fishing and agriculture. Then we should have a real debate on what should we do with regards to Europe. We also should note that revoking article 50 to anyone who wants to stop Brexit may require another negotiation. Being outside the EU itself we would not be tied to the European Union and hence any re-negotiation in the future in these terms will put us in a stronger position. Joining the EFTA would require little negotiation and the transition into it would be rather smooth compared to the likelihood of what the Tories are likely going to do with Brexit. In EFTA for the next few years, we should aim in my opinion to have a meaningful free trade deal. Where we return decision making to Westminster and devolved administrations.  We should also create a brand new British alternative to the ECJ during this process with a similar role. Thanks for reading.