Corbyn Should Not Become Today's McDonald

As I wrote the other day, Brexit and the Tories are dead.  We have the best chance possible to finish them off, via a General Election, to stop Brexit, and elect a Corbyn led Labour government, committed to working with progressive social-democrats across Europe, to reverse the policies of austerity that been inflicted on workers for the last decade, to put in place, an EU wide programme of fiscal expansion, and investment in infrastructure, providing decent permanent jobs, on good wages, extending workers rights, including free movement, and levelling up pensions, and benefits across the continent.   But, their are reports that there is pressure inside the Labour leadership to throw all that away, and instead to come to the rescue of Theresa May, by voting for any stitched up deal, she might cobble together with the EU.  That would be a class betrayal on the scale of that of Ramsay McDonald in 1931, who lined up with the Tory government to push through cuts in Unemployment Benefit.  As then, it would spell the end of Labour for a generation, just at the point, where it has the opportunity to become the natural party of government.

The EU would be fools to cobble together a deal with May, which would be yet more fudged agreement that sought to kick the can down the road, on the withdrawal agreement, in the hope that they could deal with the real issues, in the next stage of negotiations, during a much extended transition period.  But, these are bourgeois politicians and bureaucrats, for whom such foolish deals are commonplace, as they stitch things up in back rooms.  It's that kind of politics that leads to concerns about a democratic deficit, in the first place.  Not that such bureaucratic politics is somehow peculiar to the EU.  It is the case, everywhere, including, and particularly in Britain.  For example, remember the back room deal done between Cameron and Clegg in 2010, that created the disastrous Liberal Tory coalition government, that pushed through the incompetent, and unnecessary measures of austerity, that killed off the economic recovery of the time, sent the economy into recession and stagnation, and also created the conditions for the disastrous EU referendum?

The trouble for May is that any deal she might be able to cobble together with the EU, would be such as to cause a large-scale revolt from the Tory Right.  Nor would it meet Labour's Six Tests, which not even a Labour government could achieve in any deal it might negotiate with the EU either.  Labour conference committed the party to opposing any deal that May might stitch together that does not meet the six tests, meaning it must keep Britain inside the Customs Union and Single Market, permanently.  With Labour, and around 60-80 Tories voting against any such shabby deal, May would be unable to get it passed in parliament.  She has been trying to push the vote down the road as much as possible, in order to try to bounce parliament into voting for such an abortion, simply as a lesser-evil than a No Deal Brexit, which she is trying to portray as the only alternative.  Despite promising faithfully that there would be a "meaningful vote" in parliament, its clear from what May and Dominic Raab are saying, that no such vote is their intention.  They have come up with the ridiculous idea that any amendments to the vote should be discussed, and voted on, after the vote on the substantive motion itself has been voted on, a procedure that is not adopted anywhere, other than perhaps in some Bonapartist masquerade for democracy.

A meaningful vote means that parliament must have the option to reject May's cobbled together deal, and reject No Deal, and to demand the negotiations continue, including suspending Article 50, for that purpose.  It should include the possibility of rejecting Brexit altogether.   If parliament is not offered the opportunity for such a meaningful vote, it would be better to vote against May's deal, even if she presents that as meaning No Deal.  The reality is that already government papers are showing that No Deal would be a catastrophe for Britain, with all of the things such as planes being grounded, medicines running out, ports being blocked and so on, would in fact be the least that can be expected.

Illustrating that point, David Davies, has been reduced to making ridiculous threats such as that Britain would prevent EU planes landing in Britain, and so on.  The government has already been led to hire ships so as to be able to bring in emergency supplies of food and medicines, in the event of a NO Deal catastrophe.  Whatever Davis' bluster, the EU is a $14 trillion economy, as against the UK's $2 trillion economy.  It has 450 million, as against the UK's 70 million.  If the Uk is cut adrift, by the Brextremists policies of economic autarky, as proposed by Davis, it would certainly be an inconvenience, for EU firms who export to Britain, but with such a huge economy compared to that of Britain, and with trade deals with much of the rest of the globe, the EU would quickly, be able to replace exports to the UK, with increased internal trade, or additional exports to China, Asia and elsewhere.  By contrast, the effect on the UK would be catastrophic reducing it to the kinds of conditions that existed, during the War of the Atlantic, during World War II, when, Britain was on the verge of collapse.   Why would anyone voluntarily impose that on themselves?  The reality no one, would, which is why the No Deal threat, has always been an empty threat that the Tories would never implement!

If they did, it would be an act of madness and political suicide, that would see them quickly swept out of office, which is why the police have been planning for the outbreak of civil unrest were a No Deal Brexit to occur.  It would mean the UK would quickly have to beg the EU for readmission, which would occur, on much less beneficial terms than it currently enjoys.

The only way that May could get her shabby deal through parliament would be for Labour to support her.  That would essentially mean that a supposedly radical Corbyn Labour government would be called upon to prop up a reactionary, right-wing Tory government, when that government had lost the support of its own MP's, solely to push through a piece of reactionary nationalist legislation, designed to promote the interests of the most reactionary, backward, anti-working-class sections of British capitalism, and which would lead to the most vicious assault on workers living standards, conditions and rights seen in over a century.  Yet, according to reports, there is significant pressure amongst some within Labour's leading inner circles to adopt such a blatant, class betrayal, so as to push through Brexit.

It would mean Labour essentially, forming a National Government with May, just as Ramsay MacDonald did in 1931.  But, it would be much worse.  No sooner, were Labour to perform the function of useful idiots, in pushing through such a policy, May herself would be kicked out of office by the rest of the Tory Party.  The Tory Party rank and file would quickly replace her with a a Bojo or Rees-Mogg.  Labour would have disgraced itself, and lost most of its younger, more progressive elements.  The Tory party would also split, with the social-democratic wing, hiving off to join up with the Liberals, and a large section of Blair-rights, possibly drawing in some Greens towards a progressive Alliance that would provide the basis of a new centre party, that could also work together with other anti-Brexit forces, such as Plaid and the SNP.  In fact, it would create the same kind of momentum towards the rehabilitation of the centre, as was seen with Macron in France.  The Lexiters in the Labour Party, who have essentially lined up behind the agenda of the Mogg's and Bojos, and worse (as they did with No2EU previously) will simply have promoted the interests of the extreme right, whilst simultaneously rehabilitating Blairism.

Once again the Left would have thrown away its opportunity on the altar of promoting a reactionary nationalist agenda.  Labour may say they have not been doing that, but the fact is that over the last two years, Labour has failed to promote a radical, internationalist, alternative to the reactionary nationalist agenda of Brexit.  At every stage, it has tailed the Tories in the progress of the brexit legislation through parliament, rather than giving out a clear oppositional message.  As far as workers are concerned, when the full horrors of Brexit materialise, Labour will be held as much responsible for it, as the Tories, unless it comes out more decisively to oppose it.

In 2000, and in 2008, there were plenty of voices that had been warning that a collapse of stock and property markets were inevitable, due to the massive bubbles that had blown up.  Most people failed to take heed of those warnings, as they thought the illusory increase in their wealth would go on forever.  When the stock markets and property markets crashed, the same people said, "Why didn't anyone warn us this might happen!"  People are fickle, they always want to look for a scapegoat for their own failings, and for any mishaps that might befall them.

In those instances, all of us who had warned of the impending calamity, could at least, say, "Well actually, we did tell you this was what would happen."  But, today,  Labour can hardly even say that.  Yes, Labour has said that Brexit will be bad for British workers, but it has hardly matched that by its campaigning against it.  If labour were to help May get some botched up, Brexit deal through parliament it certainly could not say that.

The argument for supporting May and pushing through some bastardised Brexit deal is being made on false premises.  The argument that Labour has to support Brexit, because the 2016 referendum was marginally in favour of Leave is totally false.  Only 37% of the rigged electorate actually voted for Leave.  As I set out in the post linked to above, around 1.5 million of the Leave voters have since died, whilst about the same number of Remain voters, amongst the 16-18 year olds, deprived of a vote in 2016, are now eligible.  Its likely that a vote today would be significantly in support of Remain, if Labour campaigned for it, whatever, opinion polls might currently say.

But, in terms of Labour, it is largely besides the point.  The fact is that the large majority of Labour supporters back Remain and oppose Leave.  That is true in all of those safe Labour seats in the Midlands and the North, that the apologists for Brexit, claim is the basis for Labour supporting Brexit, opposing free movement and so on.  As John Curtice showed, even in those safe Labour seats in the North and Midlands, around 60% of Labour voters backed Remain, only marginally less than Labour voters elsewhere in the country.  The support for Brexit in those areas came not from Labour voters, but from a solid phalanx of Tory voters, together with UKIP/BNP voters, and the mobilisation on this one issue, of a large number of usually atomised, apathetic, backward individuals, who are unlikely to vote, in a General Election, and probably would not be natural Labour voters even if they did.

Moreover, in terms of the 2017 General Election, the proportion of Labour voters backing Remain is even larger, because in 2017, a large number of younger voters turned out to vote Labour, and they overwhelmingly (about 80:20) back Remain.  Labour also in 2017, picked up a large number of former Liberal, Green, and even some Tory voters (e.g. Kensington, Canterbury) who wanted to oppose a hard Tory Brexit, and for whom the Liberals and Greens could offer no such prospect, and who also hoped that Labour was marching inexorably to adopting an anti-Brexit stance, as the only logical position for it to hold.

The idea that Labour would lose votes in safe Labour seats in the North and Midlands, by decisively backing Remain, and opposing Brexit now, is totally wrong.  Even amongst the actual Labour leave voters, it is not a decisive issue.  Those voters, overwhelmingly are more concerned about jobs, the NHS, Housing, education, social services and so on.  By offering a radical programme on those issues, there is no way that Labour voters, would be voting with the Tories to back Brexit.

That is particularly the case given that the effect of Brexit - let alone the disaster that would result from a No Deal Brexit - would be to sink the UK economy, and thereby scupper any prospect of a radical programme to deal with those issues.  It would mean that the Pound would sink, pushing inflation sharply higher, and a consequent drop in living standards.  The trade deficit would rise,  causing interest rates to rise, so that any government borrowing to finance expansion would be curtailed.  The only beneficial effect would be that sharply higher interest rates would cause property prices to collapse.

The truth is that Labour is being led towards at best acquiescence in, and at worst, tacit, and possibly if the reports are true, overt support for a reactionary nationalist agenda of Brexit.  The excuses being given for that, about the need to carry out a bourgeois democratic decision, or the number of Labour Leave voters in safe Labour seats are mere apologia.  They are not based upon any socialist principle, and they are not even based upon factual data.  They are merely a cover for the pushing through of a reactionary national socialist (Stalinist) agenda, of Socialism In One Country, that does not even amount to that.  At best it amounts to a palid attempt at Social Democracy in One Country.  Corbyn should be aware of what happened when that was attempted in Chile in the 1970's.  It led to Allende's government being overthrown, thousands of workers, being murdered, and tortured, and the imposition of the Pinochet dictatorship, for decades.

In Britain, it is unlikely even to get as far as Allende, because if Labour backs May's deal, its consequence will be a Mogg/Bojo right-wing government, not a Corbyn government.