Why Is Starmer Defending Putin's Brexit?

Starmer makes great play of his efforts to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, emphasising the idea that it is about defending democracy against the incursions of Putin's Russia.  Every day, the media is full of stories about the role of Russia in seeking to undermine western democracies, not only via such direct military action, but via the use of funds, agents, and bots.  We have had, in the last couple of days a meeting of the chiefs of the CIA and MI6, with a press conference given on such dangers, and activities.  So, why, then, is Starmer and his government continuing to support Putin's Brexit?

At the time of the referendum, Starmer was prominent in opposing Brexit, and it was his main platform, after the referendum, during Corbyn's leadership, in setting out his six tests, and promoting the cause of a second referendum.  So, why, has he been so adamant in continuing with a Brexit that everyone knows was bought and paid for by Putin, and that everyone now, also, knows has been disastrous?

At the time, it was clear that Putin and his regime was interfering in the referendum, and that funds were being channelled into the coffers of various organisations backing Brexit.  I set out, back then, that the links between Farage, Johnson, and elements in Putin's regime, and even Putin himself were fairly well known, not to mention the links with Trump, Bannon and those behind Cambridge Analytica and so on.

What s more, the Electoral Commission and the police uncovered the facts that the Leave Campaign had seriously breached electoral law, in terms of financing, financing that appears to have been channelled via these various routes from Russia, and yet, although they issued the heaviest fines they could, those fines amounted to little in the grand scheme of things, and the result of the referendum was allowed to stand, despite the breaches, and despite the external intervention.

Around 80% of Labour members, and a similar amount of Labour voters want to go back into the EU.  By the time this parliament is finished, and the further horrors of Brexit unfurl, that is likely to be more like 90%.  What is more, a clear majority of the electorate as a whole want to re-join the EU.  Yet, Starmer obstinately refuses to respond to their wishes.  That in itself is unusual for a populist like Starmer.  Indeed, although Starmer conforms to all of the traits of a Bonapartist, his insistence on irrationally opposing certain policies that are popular seems bizarre.

The decision to continue with the removal of Winter Fuel payments from pensioners is another case in point, as is the insistence on not ending the Two Child Limit on Child Benefit.  Even moderate, centre-right Labour MP's are opposing those positions, and it is even more opposed by the electorate, including many of those that Blue Labour has claimed to be continuing to back Brexit, in order to appease.  As the video above indicates, had the referendum been an actual parliamentary election, the findings of the breach of electoral law would have voided it, and required a new ballot.  So, why is Starmer and Blue Labour continuing with it?  After all, its not only unpopular with the electorate but simultaneously undermines Starmer and Reeves economic policy.

Why focus on trying to blame the Tories for the mess they have inherited, based on their fiscal stance, when the most obvious failure has been Brexit?  Starmer seems irrationally obsessed with trying to play the role, not only of Bonapartist, but also of authoritarian pursuing unpopular policies, but to what end?  The Tories have used the attacks on pensioners and and parents, whilst attacking Starmer for conceding pay rises to doctors and train drivers. 

In fact, although the media frame the pay rises as being 15% for example, the reality is that this 15% is over three years, or only 5% a year, which is in line with other pay increases.  Given that many of these workers have had real pay cuts over a number of years it doesn't even catch them up for what they have lost.  In fact, the alternative was to see workers in these particular sectors simply move elsewhere, exacerbating the problem created by Brexit of various labour shortages.

Many of the issues arising with the various targeted benefits are self-inflicted, and could be easily resolved.  Child Benefit itself should be scrapped, and, instead, what is required is a much higher weekly Minimum Wage, as well as higher benefits for those not in work.  That would save significant amounts currently spent on bureaucracy to check who was entitled to these specific benefits, and paying them out.  The same is true with things like Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and so on.

The Winter Fuel Allowance was first introduced by Gordon Brown, as a bureaucratic quick fix after he came under attack for that year's pension increase amounting to only 75p.  Again, it requires huge amounts of bureaucracy to administer, and even more if its made means tested.  It should be scrapped, and incorporated into a much higher state pension, as part of bringing UK pensions into line with those in the EU.  The same is true of National Insurance.  Its Income Tax by another name.  It requires a huge bureaucracy to administer the collection of the contributions, and another one to administer the pensions and benefits calculated on the basis of those contributions.  Pointless.  In the end, if you don't have sufficient contributions, the state has to fund a supplementary income to you via other benefits, paid out of the tax system anyway.  And, the very highly paid not to mention the wealthy do not contribute proportionally to it anyway.

But, setting those objections aside, Starmer's refusal to budge on these benefits seems just irrational.  However, so does his stance on Brexit, and refusal to support re-joining the EU, the Single Market, or even agreeing to free movement for the under 30's.  On the one hand, Starmer makes great play of the insidious role of Putin's Russia, he sends billions of pounds of weapons and assistance to Ukraine to fight the war against Russia, and yet, at the same time, he continues to act as apologist for, and defender of Putin's greatest success so far, his bought and paid for Brexit!!!