Brexit Endgame?

Brexit Endgame? 

Today, Labour will eventually put down its motion of no confidence in the Tory government. This is a Tory government where more than a third of Tory MP's, themselves, voted no confidence in the Prime Minister, last year. It is a Tory government that has already been convicted of contempt of parliament; the first time that has happened in parliamentary history. Last night, it suffered the biggest loss, in a vote, on a piece of primary legislation, that any government has ever suffered. Setting aside the government payroll vote, May was able to win the support of only 40 Tory MP's for her Withdrawal Bill, whilst 118, of them voted against her. This is clearly a government that does not have the confidence even of a large chunk of the parliamentary Tory Party, let alone of parliament. If the Tory rebels, like Soubry, Grieve et al, set aside the Moggs and co., believed what they have been saying, for the last three years, they would vote this government out of office. But, they probably won't, which simply makes a mockery of the whole parliamentary palaver, at the same time as demonstrating that the rebels are rebels in name only (RINOS), and a bunch of untrustworthy blowhards. 

The Tory Remainer rebels have repeatedly said that their current main priority is to ensure that a No Deal Brexit is prevented, but the only way of ensuring that is to have a government that is committed to introducing legislation to prevent the No Deal Brexit that otherwise will happen on March 29th. The only way to get such a government, is first to vote no confidence in the current one, and remove it from office. That does not, of itself mean that a General Election is the necessary corollary. If Corbyn continues to put forward the same line that he would, as Prime Minister, press ahead with Brexit, via negotiations to achieve his fantasy Brexit ideas, then it is quite conceivable that a coalition of Tory, Liberal, SNP, Plaid, Green, and Labour MP's could come together, around their own nomination for Prime Minister, who would be able to command a majority in parliament, and thereby form a government that would scrap Brexit. That is another reason that Corbyn's insane pursuit of the reactionary Brexit agenda, is suicidal, because it would create the very conditions for a split in the Labour Party, and road back for the Blair-rights that until now has seemed impossible. 

There is an unholy alliance of ideas shared by Corbyn, and sections of the parliamentary Labour Party, with Rees-Mogg. It is reminiscent of the kind of parliamentary cretinism that led Tony Benn and Michael Foot into an alliance with the likes of Enoch Powell over this issue in the 1970's. Mogg argues that parliament must carry through Brexit, because parliament voted to hold the 2016 EU Referendum, and to be bound by its results. Corbyn argues a similar line. Of course, it is nonsense for several reasons. In 1975, the country voted by 2:1 to remain in the EEC, and thereby to become a part of the EU. But, that did not prevent Corbyn and those of like mind, in the Labour Party, from continuing to argue for a Labour government to take Britain out of the EU, against the wishes of a majority of the electorate. Labour's 1983, Manifesto committed Labour to leave the EU, and that was still the position in 1987. Only in 1992, did Labour drop that position of disregarding the will of the electorate in respect of EU membership. For Corbyn now to say that he cannot disregard the will of the electorate over Europe, is dishonest, because that is exactly what he continued to do for more than 40 years! 

But, the idea, pushed by Mogg, that parliament voted to abide by the result of the referendum is also not true. Parliament, i.e. this parliament, only came into existence in 2017, whereas the referendum took place in 2016. It is then quite impossible for this parliament to have voted to abide by the result of a referendum that occurred prior to this parliament coming into existence. The decision to hold a referendum, and the commitment to abide by its result was not, and could not have been taken by this parliament. The decision was actually taken by a quite different parliament, that which came into existence in 2015, when David Cameron became Prime Minister. But, Mogg, as someone fond of quoting the British Constitution, should then realise that under that Constitution, no parliament can bind the hands of any future parliament. The 2015 parliament could not bind the hands of the parliament that only came into existence in 2017. Had Theresa May not killed the 2015 parliament by calling the 2017 General Election, and thereby brought into existence an entirely new, and so unfettered parliament, Mogg's argument might have some validity, but she did, and it doesn't. 

That is all the more the case, because, in that 2017 General Election, which brought this new parliament into existence, not only were many new Labour MP's elected, who had never participated in the decisions of the 2015 parliament, in relation to Brexit, but many of them were elected, precisely because an upsurge of opposition to Tory Brexit saw the mobilisation of lots of young new voters which ensured their election, so as to prevent a hard Brexit, and for many of those Remain supporting voters, the hope that Labour would be pushed itself to scrap Brexit entirely. It is a similar thing as has been seen in the US following the election of Trump, and is also now currently being seen by the mobilisation of the organised working-class in Hungary against the reactionary nationalist regime of Orban. 

If Corbyn, in the debate on the confidence vote, today, came out to argue clearly against Brexit, and to say that, as Prime Minister, he would scrap it, he would leave the Soubry's, Grieve's et al, nowhere to hide. Unfortunately, he does not seem likely to do that. Instead, he continues to argue his own reactionary economic nationalist line, covered with the fig-leaf of fake constitutionalism, and democratic primitivism of the need to “respect” the will of the people. In parliament yesterday, as he continued to dither, and try to defend that line, he was rightly shredded and humiliated by the SNP, and any hopes of Labour recovering its position in Scotland, now seem forlorn, given Corbyn's promotion of British nationalism over socialist internationalism. Corbyn's reactionary economic nationalism, and continued support for the failed and reactionary programme of Brexit, and the attempt to reinterpret the Conference resolution, which framed the view of 90% of Labour Party members, that Labour should commit itself to stopping Brexit, was echoed by other front bench spokespeople. The same incredible, fantasy Brexit line was put forward by Rebecca Long-Bailey, Barry Gardiner, and Richard Burgon, in interviews after the vote. It is already seeing Labour voters drift away to the Liberals and others, and a growing swell of the new dynamic members that joined Labour after 2015, starting to leave the party in total disillusionment and disbelief at the reactionary, and indeed insane Brexit stance that Corbyn and the leadership are pursuing, which can only lead to defeat and demoralisation.

The vote yesterday, and that today do not represent any kind of endgame in relation to Brexit.  They only represent the opening skirmishes in what is turning into a prolonged civil war that will determine the nature of Britain for generations to come.