Johnson and The Prophylactics

So, it turns out that, to quote Dawn Butler, its Johnson by name, Johnson by nature. In other words, Boris Johnson having told us he would die in a ditch, rather than ask for an extension of Article 50, in his attempt to strike an heroic pose, in true classical style, like Perseus holding the head of Medusa, just turned out to be a bit of a dick. Johnson has possibly created the worst of all worlds for himself. Firstly, he's sent the letter he always said he wouldn't send. That in itself makes him look like a dick and a blowhard. Secondly, the way he's sent the letter simply looks childish. He's sent a photocopy of the letter attached to the Benn Act, without signing it. That makes no difference, because the EU have, in any case, accepted it as an official letter requesting an extension, which they will now consider, and almost certainly grant. Thirdly, Johnson did not just send this letter, but sent the EU a packet of three, with two additional letters intended to act as prophylactics against the first. Not only, does that again make him look a bit of dick, but its ineffective in terms of negating the first letter. But, worse, for Johnson, he'd been told, in advance, that doing so would be against the terms of the Benn Act, and the assurances he had previously given the courts. He is now likely to be held in contempt of parliament and of the court. 

In January, I wrote as my first prediction for 2019 that Theresa may would call a snap General Election in February, having swung the Tories behind a hard Brexit deal, to take advantage of Labour's disastrous Brexit strategy, and the divisions it had created amongst the anti-Brexit forces. I went on, 

“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.” 

Of course, it turned out that Theresa May was a terrible politician. Instead of following that course of action, she just kept on blindly doing the same thing over and over again, in the hope that the result would be different, thereby fulfilling Einstein's definition of insanity. The truth was, as I had said from the start, May could never have done what various Labour and Liberal politicians and pundits suggested, which was to have reached across the aisles for a cross-party basis for Brexit based upon membership of the Customs Union and Single Market. Any whiff of doing so would have seen her swept away by the Tory Party forthwith. Even her moves in the direction of Labour in relation to meaningless and unenforceable promises about workers' rights and so on, were enough to get her chucked out, which tells you all you need to know about any such promises, in that regard, made by the Tories now, in the hope of gaining the votes of gullible, and unprincipled Labour MP's. 

Johnson effectively did what I assumed May would have done in February, and what any sensible Tory Prime Minister would do. I assume its still what he intends to do, and that what is happening now is simply a manoeuvre in that process. In the immediate aftermath of the vote on the deal, Steve Baker, on Newsnight, and other programmes was quick to state that it was not true that the government had pulled the vote on the deal. The deal he insisted, as amended by Letwin, had been passed without division. In other words, this is the same manoeuvre that the government pulled a few weeks ago, when, by simply failing to call for a vote on the substantive motion, because there was no vote against it, it is deemed to have been carried, as amended, without opposition. If that's correct, then Johnson can have a defence against the Benn Act, if its taken to court, that, in fact, he complied with it, because he brought his deal to parliament, and it was passed! 

Now, that begs a few questions. Why then did Johnson send the letter anyway? Smoke and mirrors. All of the parliamentary cretins are so consumed by all of the parliamentary game playing and slapping themselves on the back for having outmanoeuvred Johnson, that they seem again to have missed this obvious loophole. Indeed, the Letwin amendment was necessary, because the supposedly watertight Benn Act, itself had a loophole. That was, that the government could get a vote through parliament that complied with the Benn Act, but then, having done so, and obviated the need to send any letter, to the EU, the government could have simply failed to put it into law, so that October 31st would come and go, and Britain would leave without a deal. For the reasons I've set out previously, I doubt that would have happened, because Johnson knows that any such crash out deal would be catastrophic and lead to the collapse of his government and the death of Brexit. 

The second question that arises is, if as Baker says, the government's deal was agreed by parliament without division, why then do they intend bringing it back to parliament next week, if the Speaker allows them to do so. Again, partly, more smoke and mirrors. Whilst MP's are fixated on that, they are not looking at the bigger picture. But, also, the government wants to get its deal approved as a clean vote without the Letwin amendment. That allows it to make Brexit official within the context of then negotiating a hard Brexit over the period of the transitional period. That is the strategy that I always though that Johnson would pursue. He knows a crash out would be catastrophic for Britain, particularly Northern Ireland, which would be destroyed, and quickly have to reunite with the Republic. But, the ambition of the Tory Right, on which Johnson is currently sitting, has always been to achieve not such a crash out, but a clean break by means of a so called “managed No Deal”. 

That was always the strategy of Michael Gove, which is why he continued to support Theresa May's Deal. Gove knew that, if May got her deal through, then Brexit had happened. May would then be swept aside, and other harder Brexiteers would take her place, when it comes to the more important stage of negotiating Britain's future relation to Europe. Those hard Brexiteers could then rip up all of the vague assurances from May about close alignment and so on, and state their intention of a rapid deregulation and divergence from EU norms, as Britain sought to turn itself into a deregulated, low wage, low tax economy basing itself on the interests of the 5 million small capitalists and their families, that comprise the Tory core membership and voter base, and who form around 80% of those who voted for Brexit in the first place. That is precisely what Johnson's Deal now seeks to do. 

The truth was exposed by Tory backbench MP John Barron who let it slip that he had been assured by Michael Gove that, when the transitional period runs out, at the end of 2020, having failed to arrive at any free trade agreement, with the EU, then Britain would effectively leave on a No Deal basis. That is now the strategy of Gove and Johnson. If their deal goes through, then they will spend the next year preparing for such a managed No Deal, and part of those preparations will involve signing up all of the kinds of bilateral agreements on licences and so on that they previously discussed as components of such a managed No Deal. It means that the catastrophe of a crash out No Deal can be avoided, but it means that all of the things that Labour MP's have expressed concern about, in relation to divergence, of a rapid diminution of workers' rights, environmental standards and so on, will be fast tracked, as Britain pivots sharply away from Europe and towards Trump's America. 

So, although Johnson has made a dick of himself, by sending the letter to the EU after all, he must calculate that the divisions between the rabble alliance are such that he can get his deal through parliament, and that, having done so, even with an extension of Article 50 into next year, there is unlikely to be a General Election, now, this year. Civil servants have already said that a General Election in mid-December cannot be held, because weather conditions could make it impossible for voters in some constituencies to be able to vote. That presumably applies into January and February next year. With Labour's current standing in the opinion polls, its not likely to want an election any time soon, that it would lose, and possibly end up behind the Liberals. The main drawback for Johnson is that having asked for the extension, he has opened the door to the Faragists, but if Brexit actually happens, and Johnson has several months to pursue his hard right Brexit agenda with the EU, over several months, he must calculate that, during this period, and leading up to a hard right, managed No Deal Brexit, he will again be able to put the Faragists back in their box. The fact that he has carried the ERG with him, facilitates that. 

However bad Johnson's tactics may or not be, in having sent this letter, rather than, as I assumed he would do, resigning, so as to force the rabble alliance into doing it, and then having to fight an election – which may still happen depending on what happens in parliament next week – Johnson and Cummings' strategy has seemed masterly compared with the disastrous position that Labour has followed, over the last three years, and in the last year in particular. Had Labour adopted a principled socialist and internationalist position of opposing Brexit from the start, and committing to reversing the 2016 referendum result, it would have been able to have built a mass social movement on that basis, and had a huge lead in the polls. For all the bluster of the Faragists, the fact remains that it is the forces of Remain that are on the march, as witnessed by the second million plus march against Brexit on Saturday, whereas the Faragists are only ever able to muster, at best, a few thousand, EDL'ers to protest in favour of Leave. That is also consistent with the anti-nationalist dynamic that has been seen across Europe too, and it indicates the dynamic that will be in place over the next decade, whether Brexit happens or not. In fact, if Brexit happens, the protests and movement to reverse it will only get even bigger and more powerful, as new generations of young progressive, outward looking people enter the fray. 

On that basis, Labour must now do everything possible to frustrate Brexit, and Johnson's Deal. Any Labour MP not opposing Johnson's Deal should have the whip withdrawn, and their local party should deselect them. A first step now is to ensure that Johnson's Deal is not approved before October 31st. The EU may try to hold back agreeing to an extension until that last minute. But, they will give an extension, because although a crash-out Brexit will be catastrophic for Britain, it will still be inconvenient for Europe, particularly Ireland. A crash-out No Deal, is something that the EU can cope with, but its not something they are going to voluntarily subject themselves to. Moreover, the EU must have seen the rally on Saturday, and knows that the forces of Remain are much stronger than those of Leave. There is absolutely no reason, under these conditions, why the EU would side with Johnson, and thereby antagonise all of those, in Britain, it is going to have to deal with in years to come. 

The most sensible thing that the EU could do would be to say that it will give an extension of a year to enable Britain to hold a General Election, or referendum, so as to resolve the matter. In fact, holding a referendum is a bad idea for all the reasons I have discussed in the past. If a referendum is held whilst Johnson is PM, he will get to determine the rules of that referendum. Does anyone think that such a referendum would be one fought out fairly? What would be the questions posed by it? Moreover, if that referendum came down again in favour of Leave, and Labour won a subsequent election, it would put Labour in the invidious position of then having to implement a reactionary Brexit that it opposes in principle. Alternatively, it would be in the ridiculous position that the Liberals have committed to, which is to argue for a referendum, but then to say that if they then subsequently won a General Election, they would ignore the result of that referendum! 

In parliamentary democracies, national independence can only be legislated into being by a majority party that actively supports such independence, as with the SNP in Scotland, or the Catalunyan parties. The fact is that there has never been any such nationalist party in Britain that has obtained other than derisory numbers of seats in parliament. The argument that the Tories are now such an English Nationalist Party, who could win an election with just 35% of the vote, and thereby implement that policy, is an argument against Britain's undemocratic first past the post electoral system, not an argument in favour of referenda. If there was a fair system of proportional representation to the British parliament, then there would never be a majority in it in favour of Brexit. But, a decision by parliament, following a General Election, in which the contending parties set out their positions, is the only rational basis for such a decision. 

Another referendum can only confuse matters further. Labour should oppose Brexit on a clear and consistent basis, and give a lead to workers on that basis. It should set out its programme of opposing Brexit as reactionary; it should make clear that a Labour government would revoke Article 50, and that, if the Tories push through Brexit, a Labour government will reverse it. Even if Johnson gets his deal through, and passes his Withdrawal Act, it will involve a transition period until the end of 2020, when for all intents and purposes, Britain will remain inside the EU. Labour should use all methods to extend that transition period, and continue, throughout it, to demand a General Election, so that a Labour Government could reverse Brexit. Johnson, by sending the letter, and deferring Brexit has thrown Labour a lifeline. Its now not too late for Labour to drop its disastrous pro-Brexit stance of suggesting that it could negotiate some fantasy Jobs First Brexit that it would put to voters alongside Remain. It should accept that there is no such deal available, and even if it there was its not as good for workers as remaining inside the EU. Labour has the chance to reclaim some socialist and internationalist principle, and to mobilise a majority around it to stop Brexit, and to secure a progressive Labour government.