The EU Cannot and Will Not Save May

In the last week or so, middle class journalists and pundits have been promoting the idea that the EU will come to the rescue of Theresa May, and her Chequers proposals. The hook upon which they hang this hope is statements by EU negotiator Michel Barnier, and by assorted EU government heads that they think a deal with the UK is possible and desirable. 

Most of these middle class journalists and pundits would prefer that Britain remained in the EU, but have reconciled themselves to the idea of leaving, and have thereby lined themselves up with their colleagues who, all along, have laboured under the delusion that Britain could leave the EU whilst retaining all, or most of the benefits of being in, and at the same time obtaining, unspecified benefits – or specified but unrealistic and unattainable benefits – of being outside the EU. They are separated, therefore, from their brethren, who continue to preach the true faith of the Moggies, who suffer under the even more serious delusion that only separation from the EU Satan and all his works is enough to ensure salvation, and that an immediate, no deal Brexit is essential. 

The real foundation for the hopes of the majority faction is that if May's Chequers fudge is rejected, the only other option will be a No Deal Brexit. Given that they are professional observers of events, and a concept of politics whereby opinions are to be shaped by political debates and struggles, rather than simply passively followed, is totally alien to them, they conclude that May's fudge is better than Mogg's clear, no deal Brexit. In other words, they favour it only as the lesser evil. Their hope is that EU leaders will throw May a lifeline by more or less accepting Chequers with a few more fudges, so that May can push through her plan, and prevent Mogg and Bojo scuppering it. At the heart of their hopes and dreams is also that such an outcome would enable May to stay as Prime Minister for another 3 years, giving time for more mud to be thrown at Corbyn, and picked up by the Blair-rights, so as to undermine him, in the hope that by 2022, either Corbyn will have been removed, or the Blair-rights and Liberals will have formed a new party that will play the same role as the SDP in splitting Labour's vote, and allowing the Tories back into office. 

But, the fact is that the EU cannot save May. If they were to agree the Chequers plan more or less unchanged, it would not save May. Firstly, the Chequers Plan is rejected by a large number of Tory MP's on both wings. It is opposed by an even larger proportion of the Tory grass roots. Labour has already said, effectively, that it will also vote against it, because its quite clear that it will not meet the requirements of Labour's six tests. Emily Thornberry has set that out, McDonnell and others have spelled it out, and as the TUC, the main unions, and now almost certainly Labour Conference is swinging behind a clearer, effectively anti-Brexit, position of opposing the Tory deal, and demanding a General Election, or a People's Vote, even Barry Gardiner has tacked his position in that direction too. 

The usual handful of reactionary nationalist Labour MP's might again join with the Tories to vote for May's deal, but they will know that like Field, Mann, Hoey and others, they will face the ire of their local members if they do. The combination of Tory MP's opposing May's lash-up, together with opposition from Labour, makes it impossible to see how it could get a majority in parliament. Moreover, its hard to see how EU politicians and negotiators, who can do the simple maths, are going to go out on a limb to throw May a lifeline, only to see that lifeline intercepted and hurled back at them by the UK parliament. 

Even in the remote possibility that was to happen, it would not save May. No sooner such a fudged deal was agreed, May's days would be numbered. No sooner was a Brexit deal inked, the knives would be out for May, whose only function would thereby have ceased to exist. That is why Bojo has been positioning, and why Gove is doing the same thing from a different tactical perspective. It will not require that a majority of Tory MP's vote against May, for her to go, as was shown with the ouster of Thatcher. A hundred votes against her would be enough, and it only requires that someone from the Tory Brextremist Right gets into the last two, for them to get elected, because a Bojo, a Gove or a Mogg would get a majority from the Tory grass roots as against a Remainer, or someone from the centre-right. As politics continues to polarise, its quite likely that in such conditions, the Tory Right would even welcome the exodus of all those centre-right MP's, like the Soubrys, just as the Labour Leadership would welcome the exodus of the Blair-rights, into a party of the increasing black-hole that is the centre ground of politics, from which those who enter are never to be seen again. 

The approach of the Tory Brextremists would then be clear, as I set out some time ago. They would quickly utilise the fudge of the Chequers Plan over the common rule book, and the right to diverge from it. As was seen over the question of divergence in relation to the Northern Ireland Back Up proposals, the Brextremists see alignment of rules as meaning their right to diverge from those rules as and when they choose. As soon, as the opportunity arose to diverge from EU guidelines, and if the UK were to actually attempt to strike trade deals with the US, or other countries around the globe, such divergence would become an inevitability, fairly quickly – for example, over GM crops, chlorinated chicken and so on in relation to the US – the UK would insist on its ability to diverge. That would raise the question of how this divergence was to be arbitrated, for example, by the ECJ, which the Brextremists would obviously reject. So, at that point, the aim of the Brextremists would, in any case be accomplished. They would then simply pull out the deal agreed by May and the EU, and push ahead with their hard Brexit plans. The EU negotiators, and politicians are not stupid. They know that will be the course of events, and there is no reason, after experience of British duplicity, why they would allow themselves to be made to look fools in that way. 

The other line of argument that the middle class pundits are pushing as to why the EU will throw May a lifeline is the rise of right-wing nationalism across the EU. The right-wing nationalists certainly have to be dealt with, but the extent of their growth and influence is grossly exaggerated. Moreover, their growth is largely a consequence of the fact that EU conservative politicians have failed to actually deal with the underlying economic issues, which themselves flow from the insane policies of austerity imposed on European economies over the last eight years, and from the failure to address the ludicrous ideas upon which the right-wing nationalists have promoted themselves during that period. Dealing with the underlying economic issues, requires an end to austerity, and more integrated EU institutions and policies, not less! It requires an EU wide fiscal regime, and EU bonds, which requires a greater move towards the establishment of an EU state, and the potential for a much larger EU federal budget that can be used for the purpose of fiscal transfers. 

The last thing that the EU needs to do, if it wants to defeat the right-wing nationalists, is to be pandering to right-wing nationalists, whose clearest manifestation, at the moment, is the right-wing nationalism, of the Tory Brextremists. Enabling May to have cake and eat it, would only be to encourage those right-wing nationalists with which the Tories are in alliance in the European Parliament, such as Orban in Hungary, to demand the same kind of deal, which would quickly lead to the EU unravelling. Again, there is no reason why EU politicians would go down that road. 

The middle-class journalists and pundits would be happy if May's Chequers Plan could mutate into something like Labour's proposals for Britain to remain within a Customs Union and Single Market. Indeed, if the Irish border issue is to be resolved, only something like that will suffice. They point to the fact, that the EU have already offered such a solution, i.e. a combination of both the Norway and Switzerland models. The EU, certainly would prefer a deal, and a deal on that kind of basis would be acceptable to the EU. But, at the moment, even Labour's proposals are for such an arrangement to include Britain's right to a seat at the table in determining the common rule book, and a right to veto any changes it disagrees with. That is simply another way of expressing a desire to have cake and eat it, and something again the EU would never agree to, as they have repeatedly stated. And, without that ability to participate in the rule making, the question is why would you then leave the EU itself? It would mean accepting the rules without any right to form them, paying into the club as though you were still a member, and so on. That is why, as I wrote a while ago, the reality is that Labour will vote against May's deal, because it will fail to meet the six tests, but they would likewise have to vote against any deal a Labour government negotiated, because it too will be certain to fail those same six tests. 

That is why, at Labour Conference, although moving to a position of opposing May's deal, and demanding a General Election or a People's Vote would be a step forward, it really only makes sense if Labour takes the next logical step of saying clearly that Brexit was a bad decision that needs to be overturned, just as the Poll Tax was overturned, and any number of other bad decisions and policies that voters have previously voted for have had to be overturned. Labour should not just commit to a General Election or People's Vote over Brexit, but it should do so first and foremost on the basis of a clear opposition to Brexit itself.