Meeting held on Monday 21st January 2019
Fourteen of us welcomed two newcomers to the group. Two had sent their apologies.
After such an eventful week we found it impossible not to talk about Brexit. Our projections made in November were all correct except that no decision had been made to exclude no-deal from the range of possible Brexit outcomes.
While we (nearly?) all supported remaining in EU, we could see how support for Brexit was a consequence of the rising inequality caused by austerity. We worry about the rise of populism and, especially amongst men, generated and exploited by such events as the visits to Wetherspoon pubs by its Brexiteer owner.
It was suggested that the country might not recover from Brexit. However, it may be that the parliamentary system would not recover, and that may well be a good thing as it was clearly unable to address such problems as Brexit and climate change. The destruction of the first past the post two party system could lead to more progressive possibilities such as People’s Assemblies (as has been recently used in Ireland to address the divisive issue of abortion). Perhaps even the House of Lords could be replaced by a kind of People’s Assembly. We might thus understand the “crisis of democracy” not so much in terms of democracy breaking up, but in terms of the hope for more democratic forms.
Questions regarding British (or English) identity were being stirred up that could be traced back to the wars against the Papacy in the 16th/17th centuries. We noted that Brexit may well lead to the breaking up of the United Kingdom. But would this necessarily a bad thing, as is always assumed? We may become less powerful on the world stage, but would that be something to regret? Whatever the consequences of the Brexit process, it was suggested that we may have to “go through fire to get change”. But there is a risk that the change may not be progressive.
While the nature of the public debate on Brexit was often lamentable, the possibilities it raises for political discussion in new forums, in local communities and with our neighbours, could be a positive development. The purpose of the What’s Left group – to encourage political conversation in our community – perhaps meets a need that has become manifest. How can we extend the possibilities for such conversation?
All except one of us predicted that there would not be a second referendum.