It is not my place to give an Urbi et Orbi, but just some 1st January thoughts about what ONE CAN DO POLITICALLY in the year the Brexit process really starts and the shit will hit the fan. 1) The political party opposition will not gain shape and force any time soon .
The related infighting, manoeuvring and reorganisation is beyond my understanding. Yet, rather from gut feeling I would say that Labour needs at least as much an Opposition Leader who is charismatic/or at least speaks to the heart, as it needs a strong strategic mind.
In the absence of the combination of both in one person, my feeling is that the Labour leader needs to be able to offer the first, and deputy can focus organisational strategy. Given Brexit and the urgency of giving the opposition a strong voice in Parliament,...
it would be a disaster if we don't hear anything else from Labour for the coming years than its own reorganisation. In the long run, cross-party the opposition will need a common platform for electoral reform.
2) The key issue, though, is that key decisions about the direction of Brexit, the future of the welfare state, essential decisions on climate change,and not at least the survival of the union and our democracy will be taken long before the political opposition is in proper shape
This means that CIVIL SOCIETY has to play a particularly important role in safeguarding democracy and the welfare state and avoiding the worst outcomes of Brexit. We shouldnt lose all our time on the reorganisation of the political party opposition. We have to think about...
the role of business, trade unions, environmental and consumer organisations ..., about the role they can play right now. Most of them are in favour of strong regulatory alignment with the EU and are aware of the huge economic and social costs of harder versions of Brexit.
However, so far they have under performed in their role as societal opposition against a Brexit process that will derail the economy and society. Partially (particularly for business) as they didn't want to intervene too explicitly in a political process, ...
partially because they thought the wind could still turn to Remain, or (despite clear radicalisation) in the end the force of reason would lead that any Brexit would be soft. Partially because trade unions are too mixed up in the party politics of Labour in this country
(a relationship that is often odd from a continental perspective, where trade unions are less dependent on one political party), and partially because the green movement in the UK has arrived lately (compared to other EU countries) to conclusion, that despite all weaknesses of EU
the EU provides a better option for green policy than the regulatory competition of national intervention. However, now no-Brexit is no longer on the table, and real choices will have to be made on the future UK-EU relationship, while economic consequences will start to hit,
these organisations have to speak up loudly. Trade unions and green movement will need to make sure they convince their minority who think 'left or green Brexit' could really exist. Business organisations will need to pay attention to the minority of its members which might be..
lured by the 'full deregulation, global actor' unicorn, or those thinking they can profit from some neo-fascist corporatist design. Overall though it is about being properly informed about all negative consequences of hard brexit, and to be very vocal about it (and where needed,
provide the resources to be vocal.) In the end, such being vocal needs to lead into the political debate; and where the Opposition is weak, it should target the more 'diverse' Conservative basis. (Cons MPs might not be more diverse as such, but their electoral basis is, so
they can be pressured on that ground). There is cheap talk from the PM today calling remainers his friends, and a call from organisations for reconciliation in the country. There is though no reconciliation in the light of disastrous policy. That being said, civil society,
across the board, from business to trade unions, environmental, consumer and immigration organisations should act together in order to limit the damages of Brexit as far as possible. There is enough common ground among civil society organisations in the light of what is at stake
put it is now up to them to be more organised and show more leadership than the politicians have done.
3) The role civil society can play remains difficult in the completely polarised media environment and when politicians have lost all shame and lie continuously. The British tabloids have a world reputation for their level of filth. Even the less than handful of 'quality papers'
are explicitly politically oriented (and do not miss to express voting preferences), which is not unique, but still not exactly what a quality news outlet is considered in some other EU countries. The BBC in the main time looks like the Italian public TV in the Berlusconi era
(as I used to live there) characterised by cheap 'balance seeking' (A. says black, B. says white. while A is an expert and B is somebody who is neither an expert nor representative but found on the street as saying 'white'. Nothing is grey.) and conformist and career behaviour.
There is no easy answer here. If you want to spend your energy and resources to save our democracy, and, as many, do not feel like getting into the muddy fields of party politics; this is a good place to start. We need obviously more independent and quality media, but also
much more targeted media action by civil society organisations, as well as actions such as the billboard initiatives by Ledbydunkeys. While on the one hand we need quality/independence; I believe that, given what is at stake, civil society should not be afraid of
getting its hands dirty by being more explicitly political in its messaging.
4) the UK's 'constitutional' design provides much less checks and balances than other countries. Johnson has already shown he is not afraid of bending the rules, and the risks of centralisation of power are very high, both by limiting parliamentary and judiciary control.
It is important that civil society speaks up about such undermining of democracy. At the same time, as my Berlusconi experience in Italy shows, there is a high risk that such opposition will be depicted as 'the elite defending their corrupt judges' and
not respecting 'the will of the people'. In the end, most people are not too interested in the 'technicalities' of democratic procedure. Civil society's criticism in this regard should therefore be linked to the wider socio-economic destiny of such undemocratic manouevres.
