A lot is being spoken about the ideas of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt argued that ideas could be effectively spread by using three word slogans that could be repeated over and over again, so that they become absorbed into the consciousness. The slogan of the Brexiteers in 2016 of “Take Back Control”, is an application of such a simple slogan, whose populist nature is revealed in the fact that it is utterly meaningless. Who is to take back control? What is this control over, and what does it consist of? May's similarly meaningless “Brexit means Brexit” is another such application of the idea, and so too is the slogan “Tell Them Again” that the Brextremists propose for any future referendum. What is it that is to be told again, because there was no clear message in the 2016 referendum, which is one reason that it has been impossible to agree on what that message was, or how it might be implemented.
Politicians do, however, seem to have taken the idea on board. The Tories have settled on the other element of Schmitt's ideas which is that these slogans should emphasise a sharp, bipolar political divide between friend and enemy. The reality of Brexit, is that it does reflect such a sharp class divide, with the forces of reaction lining up behind Leave, and the forces of progress and modernism lining up behind Remain. Its not that the political rhetoric has created this polarisation, any more than, in the US, a similar polarisation has occurred between the supporters of Trump, and the supporters of the progressive wing of the Democrats. The polarisation is real and a consequence of real class contradictions. The politics simply reflects that division, and politicians are seizing the opportunities it provides.
In Britain, the Tories have realised that. They have become a hard right nationalist party, recognising that, not only is the vast majority of their membership base, and voter base, in the camp of reaction, but, in these polarised conditions, any chance of winning elections from the centre ground is dead. Parties can only win by standing at one of these polar opposites, ensuring they mobilise their base, and seeking, by force of numbers, to drag the centrist elements into their camp, to provide a majority, or else to have them abstain, whilst, simultaneously, seeking to divide the opposition. The Tories have decided to stand on this ground, and destroy the Brexit Party.
In the opposing camp, the Liberals have also recognised this reality, and have adopted a strong Remain position, calling for Article 50 to be scrapped. The problem for the Liberals is that they are a small party, with currently insignificant representation in parliament. To be able to rally the forces of Remain behind them is a huge ask. It involves coming to some deal with the Greens, Plaid, and SNP to put forward some kind of electoral pact. They have no chance of getting Labour, which currently has 246 MP's, to join in that pact. Indeed, given the Liberals sectarian stance towards the other Remain parties, and their disgraceful refusal to stand behind Corbyn as even caretaker Prime Minister, for their own narrow political advantage, its unlikely they will be able to form an effective electoral pact with the other parties either. Their only hope is that, as the clock runs down, the remaining expelled Tory rebels, and maybe a few more, join their ranks, and, perhaps, that a significant number of Blair-right Labour MP's come over to them, so that they could go into an election with a much greater parliamentary presence. With the current dynamic amongst the electorate moving away from Labour towards the Remain supporting parties, that is not out of the question.
Labour has not learned this lesson, and continues to stand in the centre ground waiting to be run over by the bus. Labour has tried to adopt a compromise, conciliationist position of saying that it wants to “respect” the 2016 referendum, which it narrowly interprets as meaning that it must, in some way, implement a policy that it recognises as being reactionary, but that it will do so in such a way as to moderate the reactionary nature of that policy. It is reactionary, utopian nonsense that simply comes over as duplicity and dithering. The manifestation of that is its unfathomable policy on Brexit, and its labyrinthine explanations of what that policy actually means in practice.
One person who has recognised that this position is not saleable, on the doorstep, in Paul Mason. Recently, on Newsnight, Paul outlined his conclusions on that, as he has previously written about elsewhere. Unfortunately, whilst Paul has reduced the slogan that Labour should use to four words (not the three he stated on Newsnight) has chosen the wrong argument to back it up. Paul's easy to repeat slogan was “Put it To The People”. A three word slogan would be “Ask The People”, which, as a former Editor, I'm surprised he didn't use. The trouble is that, having used this slogan, it then begs the questions, how are you going to ask the people, and what are you going to ask them? Paul's answer to the first question is, by another referendum. Like Labour's current position, however, he can't tell us exactly what it is that this referendum would ask.
Would it ask voters to decide between a No Deal, and No Brexit for example? That would be rational, because a majority of those who say they support Brexit, support a No Deal Brexit. However, a large minority of those who support Brexit, also oppose a No Deal Brexit. Indeed, a sizeable number of those that oppose Brexit would choose to support some form of Brexit that does not involve No Deal, if their preferred option of Remain could not win a majority. That means that there would be an unstoppable and valid demand that some form of Brexit Deal also be on the ballot paper alongside No Deal and No Brexit. Moreover, those of us who would vote for No Brexit, would also like another option to be on the ballot paper along the lines of No Brexit, Fight For A Workers Europe!
Good luck trying to codify all of those options into manageable questions to put on a ballot paper in less than a few years. The whole problem is that Brexit was undefined, and the last three years have been spent trying to define what it means, without success. A referendum could never have been the way to decide this question in the first place, and nor can it be the way of resolving the mess that has been created by calling that referendum. One reason for that is that currently there is no majority in parliament for Brexit, and in a parliamentary democracy it is parliament that must legislate it into being. The reality is that Nationalist Parties in England have never been able to obtain other than derisory numbers of seats in parliament, and so there has never been an English Nationalist Party that was in a position to legislate for such a nationalist policy. The Tories under Johnson may turn themselves into such a party in the next election.
The other problem with a referendum as the solution has been set out previously. Suppose a referendum votes in favour of No Deal. In a subsequent General Election, Labour wins a majority, and is now then committed to “respecting” this decision and implementing this thoroughly reactionary and disastrous decision. What would Labour then do? If it decides to implement this policy, the consequences will be immediately disastrous, for all the reasons that Labour itself has already set out. How could it commit itself to inflicting that on British workers? If it chose to do so, the consequence is obvious. There would be chaos and disaster. Labour would take the blame for it, just as Labour took the blame for the 2008 global financial crash, but this time it would be even worse. Labour would quickly be driven from office – as would any government that was implementing this policy – it would probably split, the Left inside Labour would be decimated, and Labour would be out of office for a generation. Plaintiff cries from Labour that “We told what would happen, but we were 'respecting' your vote”, would be drowned out, rightly, by complaints that “its your job to lead not passively allow us to jump off the cliff'”.
If the vote is for some kind of Brexit deal, this chaos is avoided, though not the longer term consequences of Brexit, but then the question becomes “is any such deal in any case negotiable?” The answer is no. Or, Labour could say, we won't proceed with No Deal, and eventually is led to the inevitable conclusion that no deal is negotiable that would be acceptable or better than what already exists. Either way, it has to come back and say, “We can't, or we won't do this”. It would then have to call a General Election in which it would be decimated.
But, the main point is that Labour cannot win a General Election, on this basis, to begin with. The Tories will coral around 35-40% of the vote behind them, by consolidating the Leave vote. Labour is going to lose around 60% of the vote it obtained in 2017, as the Remain voters that came behind it then go off to the Liberals, Greens, Plaid and SNP. It will lose large numbers of seats to the Tories in Labour-Tory marginals, as a result. It will do so, because, in many of those seats, the Liberals will pick up Remain votes, responding to the clear three word message they present, which is “Revoke Article 50”.
If Labour wants to win that election, it can do so only by consolidating the Remain vote behind it. Especially given the shenanigans at Labour conference that again reinforced the view of Labour as being a pro-Brexit party, it will be difficult to do that with Corbyn still as Leader. To do so it must adopt a clear anti-Brexit position. It must outflank the Liberals, Greens, Plaid etc., by not only saying that it will Revoke Article 50, but that, if the Tories take the UK out of the EU, an incoming Labour government will negotiate with the EU to have that reversed, and for Britain to remain in the EU.
Paul Mason is right that we should have three or four word slogans setting out this approach. He is right that the first of these should be Ask The People. He is wrong that we should ask them via a referendum. We should ask them by a General Election. The second slogan should then be General Election Now. In that General Election, Labour will need to spell out what it will do if it wins, the third slogan then is Revoke Article 50. These are simple slogans that everyone can understand and that can be repeated over and over again on the doorstep, in the pub, in the workplace and so on, unlike the catechism that is Labour's current Brexit stance.
Of course, Labour activists will be asked further questions, but within this narrative, similar short, sharp answer can be given. Such as:-
Q. Why do you want to Revoke Article 50?
A. Brexit is reactionary.
Q. Why is it reactionary?
A. Its bad for workers.
Q. How is it bad for workers?
A. Brexit creates borders.
Q. Why are borders bad for workers?
A1. Borders Restrict Movement.
A2. Borders Mean Barriers.
A3. Borders Create Divisions.
A4. Borders Increase Competition.
Q. Why is restricting movement bad for workers?
A1. It limits freedom.
A2. It creates monopolies.
A3. It restricts development.
Q. Why are barriers bad for workers.
A1. Barriers encourage suspicion.
A2. Barriers Increase Division.
A3. Barriers Undermine Solidarity.
Q. Why Are Divisions Bad for Workers.
A1. United We Stand. Divided We Fall.
A2. Divisions Increase Competition.
Q. Why Is Competition Bad?
A1. It lowers Wages.
A2. It Reduces Conditions
A3. It Reduces Rights.
Q. How?
A. A Race To The Bottom.
These simple facts made into slogans are easily comprehensible, and repeatable. We can explain that, by creating borders, where none currently exist, Britain will try to encourage large companies to invest in Britain by offering them lower wages, and worse conditions for workers than those enjoyed by workers inside the EU. Britain will have to do that to compensate for the loss of markets and competitiveness that it currently has inside the EU. The manifestation of that is already clear. Britain has to suck up to Trump, Saudi Arabia, Erdogan and so on, in the hope of getting trade deals to compensate for its loss of markets in Europe. To get those deals, US firms will demand workers get fewer rights, lower wages, worse conditions, otherwise they will invest in Europe. The US will demand as part of such trade deals that Britain take chlorinated chicken, GM foods, and meat from animals pumped full of anti-biotics, and so on. It will demand to be able to take over parts of the NHS.
Another example, is the Tories proposals to set up freeports, as enclaves within which businesses will be free from having to comply with all of the minimum standards and regulations that businesses elsewhere in the country have to abide by. That will act as another means of driving down wages, terms, conditions and regulatory standards, as businesses elsewhere in the country wills scream unfair competition, and demand to enjoy the same lifting of minimum standards. Its summed up in the Tories proposals to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven, and essentially to make it into an equivalent of 1950's Cuba under Batista.
To win, Labour needs a simple message to unite all of the Remain forces under its banner. The starting point for that should – Revoke Article 50. We should ask the people to support that principle, because Brexit Is Reactionary. To Revoke Article 50, we need a Labour Government, and to get a Labour Government, we demand a General Election Now. That General Election is the only way the matter can be resolved. Either they will vote for a Labour Government to Revoke Article 50 or they will get a Tory Government committed to a No Deal Brexit. If they vote for the latter, the Tories will take the blame for its consequences, and Labour will be ready to pick up the pieces that result from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment