Leave voters cannot be ignored
Martin Thomas (Solidarity 473) appeared to, perhaps inadvertently, equate the European Economic Area (EEA) with the countries of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Croatia.
The EEA is more or less the whole of both the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) — an enormous European single market across which there is free movement of persons, goods, services and capital including the right to seek residence in any member country.
The UK, as a member of the EEA, would be part of a free trade zone covering the vast majority of the European continent.
Both the Conservative and Labour positions are riven with similar irreconcilable contradictions.
It is perfectly clear that most people who voted Leave wanted “control over laws, borders and money”. That has to mean leaving the customs union and the single market as well as the EU. You are either in the Customs Union and/or Single Market or you are outside.
I was not surprised by the 2016 Referendum result although I was by the sheer scale of the Leave vote in areas like mine. If a second vote was held, I think it could be as much as 55+% now voting to Leave, having dared to defy the establishment and the sky not having yet fallen in.
I agree with your comments (Solidarity 469) that Labour’s official “evolving” line of “wanting the benefits of the Single Market” without being in the Single Market and “a” customs union but not “the” customs union with the EU is sheer sophistry. They are, of course, advocating de-facto membership of both, but still pretending “we are going to leave the EU.” Yes, those very bits which might have given us democratic, sovereign influence.
Playing not very clever word games and manoeuvres is frankly not going to wash with the 52-55+% who just want us out of the EU. This is dangerous for Labour as Corbyn’s main (only?) political selling point was straight talking and authenticity.
I think Theresa May is an “emotional” Little Englander Leaver but a rational Remainer. At the start of her premiership, she talked very clearly that the UK was leaving the EU and that included the single market and customs union. Since then economic reality has started to kick in, and she has had to retreat at an absolute rate of knots.
The rational Remainers know a hard or a soft-hard Brexit will be an economic disaster, with dreadful consequences for the public finances, including public investment and spending. They are desperately trying to be “as close as possible” to the Single Market and Customs Union but still claiming to leave the EU. This is Labour policy also.
We still have a majority of the population who feel angry, frustrated and resentful, who voted Leave for very clear reasons, and two years later see bugger all progress or government coherence. The actual-in-practice-leaving of the EU kicked down the road for at least two more years. Plus an “ultimate” government and opposition aim to be “as close to the Single Market and Customs Union as possible”.
This seething, anger and frustration may yet explode, and not in a good way for those of us on the progressive and socialist left.
We see hard right reactionary politicians such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage and Anne-Marie Waters, waiting in the wings, stirring, provoking, and maybe attempting seizures of power, if the Conservative Party finally splits open.
The 2016 Referendum can only really be reversed by a similar vote of the people, perhaps and probably on whether to accept or reject the terms of any agreement to withdraw and any agreement on the future relationship between the EU and UK.
That surely would have to include options of leaving without an agreement or remaining in on current terms.
We need clear minded, principled, strategic and progressive politics to start to take command.
Andrew Northall, Kettering
Support services are vital
I have been a victim of both rape and domestic violence so I read the letter about Greer’s latest opinions with interest.
Having spent a great deal of time in court and in contact with the police I have come to appreciate the fact that often there is just not enough evidence to prosecute.
These crimes are often committed in private and by manipulative people who take care to avoid leaving evidence.
I think what most victims want is to be safe. If there is little chance of conviction then many victims will not want to go through the trauma of a court case, indeed the process may increase risks.
While I agree that court processes needs to be more accessible and supportive of victims, I think there also needs to be wider acceptance that the lack of conviction doesn’t mean the crime didn’t happen and that choosing not to report these crimes is, for many victims, by far the best choice.
I do not agree with Greer that sentences should be lowered to increase conviction rates, as it suggests the crime of rape is not so bad. It is. Rape is not “bad sex”. The effects of rape often leave permanent psychological scars, and it can take years to overcome the initial trauma. PTSD can be devastating — flashbacks and dissociative episodes can be as powerful as other delusions and render victims utterly disorientated.
I very much agree with the author that refuges and counselling provision needs to be increased. The counselling needs of victims are specialist. In my area, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service will not take me on. Charity-run counselling that is highly effective is also under resourced. In my area waiting lists are closed.
Conviction rates are not everything, but support services are essential. These allow women to escape abuse, to recover and find ways for her and her children to be safe.
Anonymous