Blair's Analysis Is Right, His Conclusion Is Wrong

Yesterday, at the Institute for Government, Tony Blair gave a speech, on Brexit, in which his analysis was correct, but his conclusion was wrong. 

His analysis came down to essentially this. Holding the EU referendum was wrong, because it conflicts with parliamentary democracy. Having held the referendum, this conflict then became inevitable. The referendum provided voters with a binary choice on a non-binary issue, i.e. Leave or Remain, which leaves open the question of Leave on what basis, Remain on what basis. People like Blair usually do not mention this second issue of Remain on what basis, because they see Remaining as essentially tantamount to accepting the current EU model. If they seek to reform it at all, its only themselves to accommodate to right-wing populist sentiments, by seeking to implement some reactionary limitation on free movement, access to benefits and so on. If the vote had been to Remain, they would have quickly dismissed any such further questions. 

But, the vote came down on the side of Leave, and this created the inevitable conflict, because there is no majority for leaving the EU amongst MP's, and there is certainly no majority for leaving without a deal. Blair is quite right that the proponents of Brexit always said that there would be a deal, that it would be not just a good deal, but a better deal, than remaining inside the EU, a have cake and eat it deal. They claimed that it would be the easiest deal in the world to negotiate. Look back in history, and you will see that even Farage argued that what people had voted for in 1973 was to join the EEC, a Common Market, not the EU, and that all he was seeking to do was to go back to that position. 

Of course, even that was nonsense. The 1973 vote was a vote not just to remain in the EEC, but to join the EU, when it was established, and the necessary legislation to bring that about had already been passed, when the 1973 vote took place. Today, the Brextremists, in trying to justify their No Deal position, say, in 2016, Cameron, Osborne and others had said that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. True, but the point is that the Brexiteers, at that time, said they were wrong. It was the Brexiteers who said that Britain could stay in the Customs Union and Single Market whilst leaving the political institutions. 

Obviously, a lot of voters who voted Leave, believed what the Brexiteers had said, in that respect, and did not believe the warnings given by Cameron et al. Of course, in truth, the claims of the Brexiteers, in 2016, that Britain could leave the EU political institutions, whilst remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market were true, as against the claims of Cameron. But, they were only true up to a point. They were only true up to the point that doing so has a cost. The cost is that first Britain had to negotiate the terms on which it left the EU, which is what the Withdrawal Agreement does. It means that Britain had to agree to pay up its share of the EU's costs that Britain has committed to in the decisions it has been party to over the last 43 years, i.e. the £39 billion, specified in the Withdrawal Agreement. It had to resolve the issue of the Irish border, and of the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. The other costs are those involved in being a member of the Customs Union and Single Market, which every member of those institutions must contribute to. And, of course, it meant that remaining in those institutions meant accepting the other obligations of membership, such as not being able to negotiate separate trade deals, not having divergent regulations for goods and services to those which apply in the single market, the requirement to maintain free movement, and to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. 

The Brexiteers claimed that it was possible to have cake and eat it. To be in the Customs Union and Single Market, but not to have any of the costs or limitations that such membership entails. In that they lied. So, in the end, it came down to the fact that either you can be in those institutions, and accept all of those constraints and costs, without having any say in the formulation of the rules etc., or else, as Cameron and Osborn had said, it meant leaving those institutions too. The Brexiteers lied in claiming that was not the case. Leave voters believed those lies and voted accordingly. 

Now that those lies have been exposed, the Brexiteers try to claim that they never made such claims to begin with. They now want to ignore all of the lies they told in 2016, and to use the vote for Leave, based on those lies, to claim that what voters voted for was what Cameron and Osborn had told them would happen, rather than what Johnson and Farage and Gove had told them would happen! 

It is not true, as the Brextremists claim, that MP's, in the last three years, have not attempted to respect the 2016 referendum result. They have attempted to do that, but the truth is that the premise of the 2016 Referendum, put forward by the Brexiteers, that it was possible to have cake and eat it, was never viable, and the last three years has shown that to be the case. The Tory government attempted to negotiate that have cake and eat it Brexit and failed. The consequence is that they are faced with the only real choice, which is to Leave with No Deal, or to scrap Brexit. There is no majority in parliament, or in the country for a No Deal Brexit. 

Blair's analysis is that this can't be resolved in the current parliament, for the reasons I have set out above. I agree. But, Blair argues that, therefore, the solution should have been to do what the referendum question should have done, which is to set out a range of alternative options, and then vote on those options. Parliament tried that, and again failed to get a majority on any of them. So, Blair says, the only solution is to hold another referendum, to decide between these options. But, that is no solution at all, and Blair puts it forward with ulterior motives. 

Suppose another referendum is held, which comes out with a similar result, and, with a Bonapartist Johnson government in office, why wouldn't you expect that they would do all in their power to organise such a result? But, that referendum would not change the MP's in parliament. If I was an MP, then, like Jo Swinson, just because a referendum had resulted in a particular decision, it would not stop me continuing to oppose such a policy, and trying to overturn it. The only way of a policy such as Brexit being implemented is if a party stands clearly in an election on a platform of implementing it, and wins a majority to do so. 

Now, its quite clear, therefore, that the only way of resolving this issue is via a General Election, not another referendum. If Johnson wants to stand in that election on a programme of implementing a No Deal Brexit, let him do so. That would leave it open to Labour, now that Corbyn has changed his position, to stand on a programme of scrapping Brexit, and revoking Article 50. Blair argues that if a General Election is held, it will be an elephant trap for Labour, because Johnson will mobilise not just Brexit voters, but also anti-Corbyn voters, and that will give him a mandate for carrying through a No Deal Brexit. But, of course, what Blair truly fears is that, now that Corbyn has shifted position, to oppose Brexit, then, as happened in 2017, Labour will mobilise large numbers of animated young supporters who will again vote Labour, some of them in support of Corbyn's more radical, progressive social-democratic policies, and some in order to oppose Brexit. What Blair, and other centrists, such as the Liberals, truly fear is that a Labour Party standing on a clear anti-Brexit programme, and a radical social-democratic agenda, against a right-wing No Deal Brexit Tory party, will result in a landslide majority for a Corbyn Labour government! That is their worst fear, even more than a No Deal Brexit, and it would annihilate the narrative they have presented for the last four years, that elections can only be won from the centre. 

Now, of course, it would have been much better had Corbyn been pursuing an anti-Brexit course for the last three years. That would have prevented the Blair-rights, Liberals and other centrists being able to pick up disillusioned young Labour voters thrown off by Corbyn's pro-Brexit stance. For as long as that continued, and with Brexit being the defining issue of the generation, it was obvious that everything that prevented Brexit had to be supported, whilst giving no political credibility to any centrist forces engaged in that struggle. It was not a matter of preference to point out that, whilst Corbyn and Labour had a Pro-Brexit or ambiguous stance, they would necessarily lose support, which they did, but a matter of simply describing political reality. For so long as Corbyn and Labour had their pro-Brexit stance, it was clear that they would lose support, that it opened the door for a revival of the Liberals, for the splitting off of the Blair-rights, and potentially for supporting Tories, to join with the Liberals for the specific function of stopping Brexit. That is not something any socialist wanted to see happen, but it was an inevitable consequence of Corbyn's reactionary pro-Brexit stance. Moreover, to the extent that those forces opposed Brexit, whilst Corbyn was supporting it, it was necessary to march in the same direction as them, whilst in no way giving them any political credit. 

But, as an inevitable consequence of the fact that Labour haemorrhaged votes and supporters to the Liberals, Greens, SNP, and Plaid, as a result of its pro-Brexit stance, which would, had it continued, destroyed the Labour Party, Corbyn himself was forced to change position. At Annual Conference, the party will undoubtedly back a clear anti-Brexit position, hopefully calling for Article 50 to be revoked, which is now the only rational position for the party to take. When the facts change, I change my analysis. It is unfortunately the case that not only has Corbyn's position been terrible over Brexit, but even now, his change of stance appears at best grudging. That alone makes it more difficult to draw back those 2017 voters who lent us their votes, and who since have moved to the Liberals, Greens and others. It means that the party will have to keep the pressure on Corbyn to follow through with the current anti-Brexit stance. It means that the decision at party conference will have to be absolutely unambiguous in opposing Brexit. 

But, here and now, Corbyn and the party are opposing Brexit, and immediately Johnson's coup, and plans for a No Deal Brexit. That means that socialists have to give Corbyn and Labour critical support. It means that the way forward is to step up opposition to Johnson's Bonapartist coup, and to demand a General Election. The Liberals, in refusing to back Corbyn for caretaker Prime Minister, have disgraced themselves, as their delusions of grandeur got the better of them once again. A clear and militant anti-Brexit stance from Labour can draw those voters back from the Liberals, Greens, and Plaid, because, as in 2017, it will be only Labour that can actually stop Brexit, and form a government. 

Farage's Brexit company stands at around 15% in the polls, but as Johnson goes into an election arguing for his No Deal Brexit, the Faragists will dwindle further. As with UKIP, they are unlikely to win a single seat. But, they should be able to pull enough votes away from the Tories to cost the Tories seats. That will be even more the case if deselected Tory MP's stand as independents, or as Liberals. The door is then open for a Corbyn Labour government to win a clear majority. 

Blair argues, on the contrary, that opposition to Corbyn amongst electors would mean that Johnson could win a majority on a No Deal platform. That is based on Blair's hostility to Corbyn and the Left, and his blinkered and failed view that majority support cannot be won for radical social democratic policies. The 2017 election showed that is wrong. But, suppose that his calculation is correct. Suppose Johnson did win a majority on the back of putting forward a No Deal Brexit Manifesto. Well, in that case, he would have a mandate to implement it, a mandate he currently does not have. Blair himself says that if such a mandate were won in another referendum, he would accept it, so what is different? 

The truth is that if Johnson won an election on such a basis, Labour could continue to oppose it, having stood on a revoke Article 50 programme. It would mean that Johnson would then have to carry out his No Deal Brexit mandate, and bear sole responsibility for its consequences. Having won such an election, on the basis of the false prospectus of a No Deal Brexit, it would not change the reality. It would still be a catastrophe inflicted on the country. It would still mean that, within a short period of time, that catastrophe would result in Johnson's government being ejected from office, and the door being opened even wider for Corbyn and Labour to simply step through it.