May Calls a Snap February “Brexit” Election.
Put it this way, given the damage that Corbyn's “pro-Brexit” stance is doing to Labour, she would be mad not to, unless, in the meantime, by some miracle, she got her existing deal through parliament.
Assuming, that May does not again pull the meaningful vote, which would prompt a constitutional crisis, a no confidence vote that would be supported by a number of Tory MP's, bringing down her government, she is likely to lose the meaningful vote by a large margin, of perhaps 100. It would be untenable for her not to call a General Election, under these conditions. A few months ago, when Labour's position remained unclear, it was more likely that she would have called another referendum, because that would have avoided the potential of a Labour government. But, now, Corbyn has taken the potential for a Labour government off the table, with his clear pro-Brexit message that appears as a pale pink version of May's pro-Brexit stance, but actually hides a position that is closer to the No Deal stance of Mogg.
As Labour's pro-Brexit stance – at least of its leadership, though not 90% of the party members – has resulted in its electoral support continually seeping away, the chance of a Corbyn Labour government, now seems remote. On the contrary, by calling a snap General Election over Brexit, May would expose the open wounds that Corbyn has created within Labour ranks, by his reactionary pro-Brexit stance. It should have been the Tories that were torn apart over Brexit, by a principled Labour leadership arguing clearly against Brexit, but Corbyn has ensured that now the opposite condition applies.
In a snap election, May will argue the need for a majority to push through her deal. Corbyn's stated position is actually not much different to that of May, except, in arguing that he would be able to negotiate an ability for Britain to be at the table making decisions, whilst being outside the EU, it is even less credible. May's deal actually exists, and has been signed off by the EU. On the basis of his recently stated position, Corbyn would fight the election, arguing for continuing with Brexit, in order to push through this even less credible line. He would do so, in the face of the position of 90% of the party that opposes Brexit, and wants to revoke Article 50. That would totally undermine Corbyn in every confrontation with the Tories. Large numbers of party activists would fail to campaign for the leadership's line. If the Left were to organise a Socialist Campaign for Europe, that would be a progressive basis around which activists could campaign, to elect MP's committed to opposing Corbyn's position, and remaining in Europe, on the basis of working with other EU socialists towards a Workers Europe.
However, at this late stage, there seems little progress towards any such development on a sizeable scale. It would mean, therefore, that many activists would be left arguing against the leadership line, and for scrapping Brexit, by falling in behind the already established “People's Vote” campaign, and, thereby giving new life to the Blair-rights, and Liberals, who should, otherwise have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is a regrettable fact, however, that under those conditions, even the failed centrist politics of Blairism, would represent a more progressive alternative to the Stalinoid, economic nationalism represented by Corbyn, and his advisors, which could only lead the working-class to disaster, demoralisation and defeat, with a consequent strengthening of other reactionary forces on the right.
On the basis of his recent statements, Corbyn could only go into such an election saying that he would continue with Brexit, or that he would call another referendum with Remain on the ballot, whilst, even more ridiculously, he would then argue not for a Remain vote, but for a continuation of Brexit, with him doing the negotiating with Brussels! This is not rational, let alone serious politics.
Either we have to conclude that Corbyn really is not up to the job, or else we have to assume that the position being advocated, is not the real position. If Corbyn's real position is what is stated in public, it is so little different to that put forward by May that there seems no reason why he would not simply back May's deal. To have done so, before now, would have split the Labour Party, with a large majority of activists going into open revolt against the leadership, and a large chunk of Labour voters going over to the Liberals, Greens, and the SNP, Plaid etc. The idea that Labour isn't backing May's Deal, because of its six tests, is not credible, because any sensible person knows that there is not a cat in hell's chance that the EU's conservative politicians and bureaucrats will negotiate a better deal with Corbyn than May. Certainly they will not negotiate the deal that the six tests demands, which gives Britain preferential treatment as a non-member, compared to what it gives to its own members! As a former trades union negotiator, Corbyn must know why no organisation that wants to survive would ever negotiate such a deal.
So, we have to assume there is something else standing behind Corbyn's actual position. By continuing to oppose May's deal, Corbyn strengthens the position of Mogg, and the DUP, for a No Deal Brexit. Corbyn cannot argue openly for a No Deal Brexit, because that would see him kicked out immediately by members. By arguing that he can negotiate a better Brexit, whilst knowing that any such negotiations will quickly break down, as the impossibility of that is shown, he would put himself in the position of then arguing the need for a Labour government to simply introduce its own No Deal Brexit, a position he would get support for, in parliament, from Moggies, and the DUP.
To understand the logic of this position, its necessary to understand the mindset of Stalinists, which has always been premised upon a crude catastrophism, which thinks that the way to recruit workers to the cause of socialism is for their position, under capitalism, to be unbearably bad, which indeed, is one reason that they oppose the further rational development of capitalism, in the form of its more mature forms, such as with monopolies and cartelisation (their support for the reactionary anti-monopoly alliance, current focus on attacking large firms like Amazon, as opposed to small privately owned capitals) or in the formation of larger economic blocs such as the EU. In the postwar period, the Stalinists, led by Varga's Law, continually argued that capitalism was in its death throes, and workers living standards were falling, despite the fact that it was abundantly clear that workers living standards were rising at a faster pace than ever. The same kind of catastrophism is seen today, with a constant longing for “the next recession”, to come along, so that workers might be dragooned into the camp of socialism.
With this mentality, the Stalinists believe that the kind of economic chaos and dislocation that would flow from a No Deal Brexit, would be fertile recruiting ground, and provide the basis for the kind of bureaucratic, dirigiste and statised economy seen under Stalinism elsewhere. In the same way that the financial crisis of 2008 led to the nationalisation of the banks, they see similar chaos being the justification for bureaucratically nationalising other sectors of the economy. Of course, as has happened elsewhere, this economically illiterate policy leads to further economic chaos, and as workers more and more turn away from the government, as has been seen recently in Venezuela, the more the government is led to impose ever more bureaucratic and oppressive solutions, so as to push through its policies, and maintain itself in office. In fact, Corbyn's bureaucratic rejection of the position of 90% of the party in relation to Brexit, his attempts to prevent the issue being discussed, and then to wheedle his way around the decision, by the use of semantics etc., is just a foretaste of the way a Bonapartist regime proceeds, as it becomes ever more detached from the base.
A No Deal Brexit, of course, means that the question of the Irish border is not addressed, because it means that Northern Ireland would be outside the EU Customs Union, and Single Market. In the bureaucratic mind of the Stalinists, and other nationalists this is not a problem. Nationalists like Kate Hoey have argued that Brexit would lead to an Irish exit, for example. It was the hope of nationalists like Trump, Bannon, and their co-thinkers such as Le Pen, Wilders etc. that Brexit would lead to such a break-up of the EU itself, but it has had the opposite effect. It has galvanised internationalist forces across Europe, with support for the EU now greater, in opinion polls, across Europe, than ever.
But, for Corbyn, the question of the Irish border, from the perspective of such a No Deal Brexit, even if it does not result in an Irish withdrawal from the EU, opens up another possibility, which is that, faced with such Brexit chaos, the people of Northern Ireland, who voted by a majority for Remain, would be led to support a United Ireland. The reality, of course, is that, under such conditions, even though opinion polls show a majority might be in favour of such a development, the reality would be that, feeling they were being pushed in that direction, by bureaucratic manipulation, the Northern Ireland Protestants would inevitably rise up to prevent it, by force, as they have in the past. It would lead to the resumption of a bloody civil war in the North of Ireland, and, given the incitement to nationalism and bigotry that Brexit has engendered, it's inevitable that right-wing British nationalists would see it as their duty to come to the aid of their Ulster co-thinkers, so that the civil war would be brought to the British mainland.
It is one thing, to work towards a United Ireland on the basis of a growing economy and prosperity, on the shared interests of Irish people on both sides of the border, and to do so, by open and rational democratic debate; it is another to do so by bureaucratic manoeuvre, the typical approach of the Stalinists.
On the current conditions, there is no chance that Corbyn could keep together the coalition of forces required to win a General Election, and if he were to do so, the result would inevitably be disastrous for British and Irish workers alike. Theresa May, must understand that, and so she would be stupid not to call a Brexit General Election, and thereby destroy the Labour Party in the process, leaving the door open for a new centre party to arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment