Politics

Germany, France, and the UK have a lot invested in Iran – a lot of ongoing projects for the supply of major infrastructure.

You don’t have to wonder therefore about the opposition of Europe to the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement. First of all, it cannot have come as a great surprise bearing in mind what Trump said about Iran in his Riyadh speech.

The European deals were all done when the Iran agreement was in place – so nothing underhand there. But it does raise the question over the motives of the Europeans in wanting to preserve the Iran agreement when their financial stake is at risk.

By the same token, one can be pretty sure that Trump knew of the likely poor consequences for these Europeans if the USA withdrew from the Iran agreement and imposed sanctions that the Europeans had to follow – and that he knew that the US would benefit from the Europeans’ losses.

So a bit of financial thinking on both sides, probably.

Of course, with Iran’s declared intentions in the region, it makes one wonder why the Europeans invested so much in what was probably going to turn out badly in the end?

And it also makes one wonder why the Europeans didn’t see the writing on the wall with the Riyadh speech, and make preparations to pull back from heavy investment in Iran.

I don’t get it. I don’t get the attitude of those who are pleading with Trump to keep the Iran nuclear deal. They cannot have that short memories, can they? Back in 2017, when Trump was in Ryadh, he spoke at length about the newly cemented relationships, and about the country that was out in the cold.

I transcribed the whole of his speech in the post Trump in Ryadh, but here are a couple of paragraphs that should make his position clear:

Starving terrorists of their territory, of their funding, and the false allure of the craven ideology will be the basis for easily defeating them. But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three — safe harbour, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in that region. I am speaking, of course, of Iran.

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

And yet commentators think if they plead then that he might want to continue the work of his predecessor, and keep the Iran nuclear deal?

I was imagining a scene. It’s the grandees of the Conservative party, mostly men and older. They are watching television in the privacy of their club or a private room at the House Of Commons.

They are beaming. I can hear exclamations of pleasure at what is happening on the screen.

It is an episode of Victoria – about Queen Victoria. She is telling her beastly German in-laws not to try to treat her like a cow, fit only to produce children. She tells them off and they step back, abashed. Oh, she is magnificent even in her youth. And now she is on board the deck of HMS Trafalgar and she is telling the crowds how the defeat in Afghanistan is bad, but the Britain has the strongest army and navy in the world and will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Ah, so like Brexit. Germany is that horrid EU, and Trafalgar is to be our victory in the new trade alliances that our new (as yet unfound) partners are hungry for.

The production of the TV programme is first rate – with a big budget.

A thought crossed my mind – that when the producers proposed Victoria, that someone in a corridor of power thought it would be just the ticket to prop up the failing morale of the populace.

Brexit state. Who would have thought it? Seventy years ago the Welfare State in Britain was founded on three pillars – housing, education, and health.

If, after the Second World War, there had not been a promise to found the welfare state then there was a risk of revolution – just as there had been a risk of revolution after the First World War when soldiers came back and found that things have not changed and that they were in the same divided country.

Ever since the introduction of the welfare state there has been another kind of war – the war between the Conservatives who want to return to Britain to a privatised ideology and the socialists who want everybody to benefit under one State.

There are risks from the ideologies of both sides.

The problem for the welfare state is that people live longer, have greater expectations, no longer necessarily want to be looked after by the great State – and particularly after they were offered the chance to buy (at a discounted price) their own properties to live in.

This created a huge surge in house prices that has fuelled an imbalance in the true value of assets of all kinds, including the cost of buildings such as hospitals.

The problem with the health service is that the infrastructure of the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s has now become old and decrepit – and where was the money going to come from to replace it?

From taxes? That was seen by Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as a sure way to lose an election.

That is the beguiling attraction of the privatised ideology. Theresa May is simply continuing the work of Thatcher and Cameron.

Labour’s latest manifesto is to bring energy, postal services, rail, etc. into public ownership. The current owners will want to be paid – there will be a revolution in everything in name if they are not – and the upset to that delicate balance is something we haven’t seen in this country for a long, long time.

The 2017 Labour Manifesto states:

• Bring private rail companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire.
• Regain control of energy supply networks through the alteration of operator license conditions, and transition to a publicly owned, decentralised energy system.
• Legislate to permit publicly owned local companies to purchase the regional grid infrastructure, and to ensure that national and regional grid infrastructure is brought into public ownership over time.
• Replace our dysfunctional water system with a network of regional publicly-owned water companies.
• Reverse the privatisation of Royal Mail at the earliest opportunity.

Brexit State

Brexit muddies the waters and makes a lot of things seem possible.

These are dangerous times and some will want to take advantage of that.