Boris Johnson says that a Tory government will, "Get Brexit Done". It won't. Labour says that it would negotiate its own fantasy Brexit deal. It won't. It also says that it would then end the Brexit chaos via a referendum. It wouldn't. The Liberals are right that the only way to end the Brexit chaos is to stop Brexit, by Revoking Article 50. But, the Liberals are not going to be the government, no matter what religious ecstasies Swinson might drive herself into, in believing that she is going to experience a second coming.
The problem facing all those that want Brexit, including those that use the argument that the 2016 Referendum Result has not been implemented, is that what was promised by the Brexiteers, in that referendum was a lie. Because it was a lie, it never could have been delivered. In 1975, the opponents of the Common Market objected to it on the grounds that it was a Customs Union, and that within it free trade was promoted. In the years that followed, when those arguments failed to gain any traction, the opponents of Europe changed tack. People like Farage, instead argued that they opposed the EU, because what people had voted for in 1975 was a Common Market, not a political union. In fact, that is not true either, because, in 1975, the legislation to establish the European Union, out of the EEC, had also already been passed. But, Farage et al used this argument to say that if Britain had simply been in the Common Market that would be fine, but that what they objected to was the EU, and its political project for ever closer union.
So, when they came to campaign in the 2016 Referendum that is essentially the message they sought to convey. Not only Farage, but also David Davies, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove assured us that Britain could have "the exact same benefits" of being in the Customs Union and Single Market, but without being in the EU. That was a lie, an obvious absurdity, and is the basic reason why the promise of the Brexiteers could never be kept. When they came to implement this promise, they faced the obvious reality that they could not keep it.
Labour, of course, had done the obvious thing of demanding, as part of its Six Tests, that the Tories did, in fact, keep this impossible promise. If you want someone to blame for the fact that the referendum result has not been implemented more than three years on, then look no further than the Brexiteers themselves who gave this impossible promise in the first place. In other words, blame the proponents of Brexit who lied about what was and was not possible.
The Tories could not deliver a Brexit deal that provided the "exact same benefits" of being in the EU, whilst being outside it. (But, of course, that also meant that Labour, too, could never deliver on a deal that complies with its Six Tests either!) They could have delivered the economic benefits of being inside the Customs Union and Single Market, had they, from the start, negotiated on that basis, i.e. to be members of both. But, even that would not have been the "exact same benefits" of being in the EU, because, outside the EU, Britain would have no say in negotiating EU trade deals, it would have no say in determining the external tariff for the Customs Union, or in determining the rules, regulations and standards to be applied within the Single Market. And, contrary to what both the Tory Brexiters and Labour have claimed, nor is it possible to negotiate your own trade deals, whilst being a member of the Customs Union.
And, it is precisely because it has been impossible for them to deliver on this undeliverable promise that has meant that they have been unable to push a deal through parliament, for the last three years. Its not that parliament has refused to implement the referendum decision, but that the referendum decision was itself undeliverable, on the basis of the prospectus and promises that the Brexiteers obtained their majority.
If Johnson and the Tories win the General Election, they will not thereby "Get Brexit Done". All they will do is to get the equivalent of a decree nisi in the divorce of Britain from the EU. It will still then have years of negotiations with the EU, in determining the relations between them. And, the reality is that the promise that the Brexiteers made of obtaining "the exact same benefits" will continue to be unachievable.
The Brexiteers say that they will obtain these "exact same benefits" by negotiating a Canada style free trade agreement with the EU. But, of course, a Canada style free trade deal does not provide the "exact same benefits" as being in the EU. Moreover, even negotiating such a free trade deal would be likely to take years. The Tories say, "look, we start from a position where we already have the same regulations as the EU, and so negotiating a deal will be easy."
Well, that is what they also said about the Withdrawal Agreement! But, the argument itself is also obviously facile. When two third parties come to negotiate a trade deal, both have something to gain from the arrangement, over their existing relations. Its rather like the difference between getting married and getting divorced. If you are getting married, it rather suggests that you have good relations with each other; you have something to gain in being able to maximise the enjoyment of each others company; you may have financial benefits of the union, as perhaps a second home can now be sold, household expenses and chores can be shared, and so on. By contrast, in a divorce, it implies that even cordial relations have broken down. It is no longer a matter of both parties having something to gain from the negotiations, but of both having something to lose, and each party seeking to minimise their losses from the situation.
So too with Brexit. there is nothing that either party will gain from the separation, only a question of who can minimise their losses, and necessarily the most powerful party, the EU, will be in a position to achieve that, whereas, Britain will not. There is absolutely no reason why the EU will agree to anything in any trade negotiations that will be beneficial to Britain. That is the opposite of the situation in them negotiating a deal with Canada, where the EU expects to make gains from increased trade. No one believes that increased trade will result from Brexit. Moreover, the avowed intent of the Brexiteers is to introduce a rapid and increasing divergence of British regulations from those of the EU, which will mean that trade between the EU and UK would decline even further. By contrast, a deal with Canada or some other third party suggests that eisting divergences in regulations could be lessened. Indeed, that is one reason that Donald Trump has insisted on the right to break his MCA deal with Canada, if Canada moves closer to EU standards, and away from US standards. So, there is no reason why the EU would negotiate a free trade deal with the UK, when the UK will pose an increasing threat to its single market, as a result of these increasing divergences, as the UK becomes increasingly subservient to Trump's America.
For the ERG Libertarian ultras this is not a problem. They are ideologically driven zealots. In the same way that the Tory Party left the centrist European Peoples Party formation in the European Parliament, in order to align itself with the various xenophobes, neo-nazis, misogynists and homophobes, so too the ERG ultras want to turn the clock back to a period of 18th century free market liberalism. They view the commitment to leave the EU by the end of 2020, deal or no deal, as simply a question of waiting until that date to cut themselves adrift completely.
Its unlikely that the ruling class will sit by passively whilst they were to drive the economy off that cliff edge. Boris Johnson himself knows that such a strategy is not feasible, which is why, when it came to it, he did not "die in a ditch", but, like May before him, instead asked the EU for an extension. Indeed, he even had to concede more than had Theresa May, by introducing the EU's original backstop position of imposing a border down the Irish Sea, between the mainland and Northern Ireland!
Given eight or nine months, Britain can negotiate what would essentially be a Managed No Deal. That is it could negotiate a series of sector by sector arrangements that avoid the catastrophe of a Crash Out No Deal. It could negotiate a larger number of more permanent licences to allow British lorries to travel inside the EU; it could negotiate to remain part of some EU regulatory bodies on air safety, medicines and so on, though it will pay through the nose to do so. That avoids the immediate catastrophe, but it does not change the fact that Brexit will put Britain on a downward trajectory, and if the nationalist ultras of the ERG are able to get their way, the increasing divergence of the UK from the EU, will mean that the potential for trade between the UK and EU will continue to decline with a steady decay of the UK economy along with it. Instead of a sudden heart attack caused by a crash out Brexit, Britain would instead suffer a more prolonged agony.
And, the implications of that are obvious. There is already a majority of voters in favour of reversing the 2016 decision. That is why the Brexiters dare not agree to another referendum. Certainly they would not agree to one other than under a Johnson led government that could ensure that it was a rigged vote in favour of Leave. The proposal of the Liberals that they would vote through Johnson'd deal provided it was subject to another referendum is like Turkey's voting for Christmas. But, if Brexit goes ahead, these deleterious effects will soon begin to manifest themselves. The Brextremists have repeatedly warned that a failure to implement Brexit would see rioting on the streets, but on every occasion that Brexit has been delayed it has been met by nothing more than stoney silence on the part of the masses, other than cheering on the part of those that back Remain.
The forces of Remain are young and dynamic; the forces of Leave are old and passive. There will be no rioting if Brexit is cancelled, only sighs of relief. But, if Brexit goes ahead there will be increasing social tension, because those that oppose it will be able in short order to point out - "We told you so." And, as is always the case in such situations, it will not be long before some of those most vociferous in complaining about the plight that has befallen them will be people who voted Leave, and who will chime in with the age old mantra, "Why did no one warn us that this would happen", as they did, for example, after they had speculated on stock markets, and property markets, prior to the crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2008.
And, the fact is that as every year passes, about a million of those older voters that backed Brexit die, and leave the electorate, whilst a similar number of young voters, who overwhelmingly back Remain join the electorate. Again, from a simple electoral calculation, for Labour to adopt any position other than opposing Brexit is unfathomable. In coming elections, as with this one, it will be impossible for labour to win unless it has a clear and militant position of taking Britain back into the EU.
And, so Labour's current position is also a recipe for simply prolonging the agony. For the reasons set out above, it is no more possible for Labour to get its fantasy Brexit deal, which relies on a belief in the possibility of having cake and eating it, than it has been for the Tories to negotiate such a deal. Labour's problem arose, because it based itself on parliamentary cretinism rather than principle. As a clever parliamentary tactic, putting forward its Six Tests meant it could beat the Tories over the head with their own impossible promise. It meant that Labour could combine this with its own reactionary promise to "respect the referendum result". But, having done so, it tied itself into a destructive, dead-end narrative that some fantasy "Jobs First Brexit" was indeed possible, compatible with its Six Tests, and that it only required the superhuman negotiating skills of a Corbyn government, to achieve it.
Labour has thereby locked itself into promotion of a reactionary position, and fortunately for Corbyn and his Stalinist backers, it is a reactionary position which fits entirely with his own reactionary, pro-Brexit, economic nationalism. It has locked itself into promising to negotiate a fantasy deal that complies with its Six Tests, despite the fact that those Six Tests were drawn up in the full knowledge that the Tories could not achieve them! It is now committed, if it takes over government to negotiating a deal in which its Six Tests are met, knowing full well, in advance, that its impossible to meet them. So, the idea that these negotiations, to reach this unachievable deal, will be completed in three months, is ridiculous. Those negotiations would be likely to drag on endlessly without resolution, or else, Labour will have to announce in short order that no such deal was reached. And then what?
As set out above, it would either have to put forward several options. Either, something like Johnson Deal, a deal in which Britain remains in the Customs Union and Single Market, but has no seat at the table, No Deal, or else Remain. Its obvious why Starmer and other Labour front-benchers want to argue strongly for Remain even before any such negotiations are undertaken. Again its impossible to see how any referendum could have validity unless it offered all of these different options.
And, Corbyn's fake neutrality position then becomes seen to be even more absurd. His apologists claim that he must remain neutral so that whatever the result of this referendum, he can be free to implement it as Prime Minister. But, if that referendum again produced a majority for Leave, what then? Corbyn, as a proponent of Brexit, certainly could implement it, but what about all of those Cabinet members that had campaigned against it? What about all of the Labour MP's that oppose Brexit. Why would they agree to implement a policy that they view as reactionary, and deeply damaging. It could only be implemented if Corbyn, and the reactionary nationalists around him formed some kind of bloc with the Tories to implement the decision, a reactionary economic nationalist unity government.
Such a process certainly would not end the chaos and get Brexit out of the way. It would only lead to even more chaos and division. But, even if some Brexit deal could be agreed, and voted through in a referendum it would be no better. The damaging effects of Brexit would continue to manifest themselves, as EU based companies left Britain. Certainly, the progressive social democratic elements of Labour's Manifest would be impossible to implement, not because of EU objection to state aid rules and so on, but simply because in conditions where Brexit means that the economy shrinks, and companies move out of Britain, any hope of raising additional tax revenues will disappear into thin air, and along with it, will go any prospect of large-scale infrastructure spending and so on. Labour Grey Book factors in behavioural changes of individuals who may leave to avoid higher taxes, but that amounts to only £5 billion in lost revenues, whereas it makes no such assumptions in relation to companies, who are far more likely to be the ones relocating, and that could leave a £15-20 billion p.a. black hole in Labour's figures. As is usually the case with such social-democratic programmes, in order to fill this gap, taxes would have to rise further on ordinary workers.
Already, the problem with Labour's social-democratic redistributive agenda has been seen. They make the normal mistake of confusing wealth and affluence. Its true that if you earn more than £80,000 p.a. (approx.) then you are in the top 5% of income earners. But, as the contributor to QT pointed out, for most workers on that amount of money, it certainly does not feel that way. That is for two reasons. Firstly, there is a vast inequality of incomes even within that top 5%. The top 5% includes someone on that £80,000, as well as someone getting several tens of millions of Pounds a year in income. It makes little sense to lump these two people into the same bracket. As someone pointed out, if you are earning £80,000 a year as a worker in London, its still not enough even to get you on to the housing ladder.
But, secondly, and precisely for this latter reason, there is a huge difference between income and wealth. Someone earning £80,000 may seem affluent, to someone on average earnings of £25,000, but it does not mean they are rich, they may not be able even to buy a house, for example. Wealth does not refer to income, but to your stock of assets. In the past, it was most important in terms of your stock of productive-capital, but today its significance is in terms of your stock of financial and property assets, from which you can in turn derive revenue from rents and interest, as well as capital gains. It makes little sense to put in the same bracket, someone earning £80,000 a year, who still cannot buy a house, with say the Duke of Westminster, who owns vast amounts of property, or with the billionaires who own vast amounts of shares, bonds and so on, and whose wealth enables them to convert capital into revenue, by liquidating capital gains running into hundreds of millions of Pounds each year. In short, Labour's programme, as a reformist, redistributive programme continues to attack merely better off sections of workers, rather than attacking the underlying basis of inequality in society, which stems from the ownership and control of capital.
And, the fact is that even Labour's reformist, social-democratic programme can only be implemented on an EU wide basis. A fundamental requirement for it to move forward is for Labour to oppose Brexit, and to begin the task of building an EU wide, progressive social-democracy. The only way to end the chaos caused by the Brexit vote, is to stop Brexit itself. It requires that Labour come out clearly to say that if elected it will end the chaos by stopping Brexit, by immediately revoking Article 50. If Labour will not do that officially, it requires that rank and file LP members come together to do it instead. It means that we will have to adopt a strategy of fighting the election on the basis of a guerrilla war to support the most militant pro-Remain candidates in each seat, fighting the election on this seat by seat basis. We need to maximise the number of militant pro-Remain MP's in parliament to stop Brexit.
And, the implications of that are obvious. There is already a majority of voters in favour of reversing the 2016 decision. That is why the Brexiters dare not agree to another referendum. Certainly they would not agree to one other than under a Johnson led government that could ensure that it was a rigged vote in favour of Leave. The proposal of the Liberals that they would vote through Johnson'd deal provided it was subject to another referendum is like Turkey's voting for Christmas. But, if Brexit goes ahead, these deleterious effects will soon begin to manifest themselves. The Brextremists have repeatedly warned that a failure to implement Brexit would see rioting on the streets, but on every occasion that Brexit has been delayed it has been met by nothing more than stoney silence on the part of the masses, other than cheering on the part of those that back Remain.
The forces of Remain are young and dynamic; the forces of Leave are old and passive. There will be no rioting if Brexit is cancelled, only sighs of relief. But, if Brexit goes ahead there will be increasing social tension, because those that oppose it will be able in short order to point out - "We told you so." And, as is always the case in such situations, it will not be long before some of those most vociferous in complaining about the plight that has befallen them will be people who voted Leave, and who will chime in with the age old mantra, "Why did no one warn us that this would happen", as they did, for example, after they had speculated on stock markets, and property markets, prior to the crashes of 1987, 2000 and 2008.
And, the fact is that as every year passes, about a million of those older voters that backed Brexit die, and leave the electorate, whilst a similar number of young voters, who overwhelmingly back Remain join the electorate. Again, from a simple electoral calculation, for Labour to adopt any position other than opposing Brexit is unfathomable. In coming elections, as with this one, it will be impossible for labour to win unless it has a clear and militant position of taking Britain back into the EU.
And, so Labour's current position is also a recipe for simply prolonging the agony. For the reasons set out above, it is no more possible for Labour to get its fantasy Brexit deal, which relies on a belief in the possibility of having cake and eating it, than it has been for the Tories to negotiate such a deal. Labour's problem arose, because it based itself on parliamentary cretinism rather than principle. As a clever parliamentary tactic, putting forward its Six Tests meant it could beat the Tories over the head with their own impossible promise. It meant that Labour could combine this with its own reactionary promise to "respect the referendum result". But, having done so, it tied itself into a destructive, dead-end narrative that some fantasy "Jobs First Brexit" was indeed possible, compatible with its Six Tests, and that it only required the superhuman negotiating skills of a Corbyn government, to achieve it.
Labour has thereby locked itself into promotion of a reactionary position, and fortunately for Corbyn and his Stalinist backers, it is a reactionary position which fits entirely with his own reactionary, pro-Brexit, economic nationalism. It has locked itself into promising to negotiate a fantasy deal that complies with its Six Tests, despite the fact that those Six Tests were drawn up in the full knowledge that the Tories could not achieve them! It is now committed, if it takes over government to negotiating a deal in which its Six Tests are met, knowing full well, in advance, that its impossible to meet them. So, the idea that these negotiations, to reach this unachievable deal, will be completed in three months, is ridiculous. Those negotiations would be likely to drag on endlessly without resolution, or else, Labour will have to announce in short order that no such deal was reached. And then what?
As set out above, it would either have to put forward several options. Either, something like Johnson Deal, a deal in which Britain remains in the Customs Union and Single Market, but has no seat at the table, No Deal, or else Remain. Its obvious why Starmer and other Labour front-benchers want to argue strongly for Remain even before any such negotiations are undertaken. Again its impossible to see how any referendum could have validity unless it offered all of these different options.
And, Corbyn's fake neutrality position then becomes seen to be even more absurd. His apologists claim that he must remain neutral so that whatever the result of this referendum, he can be free to implement it as Prime Minister. But, if that referendum again produced a majority for Leave, what then? Corbyn, as a proponent of Brexit, certainly could implement it, but what about all of those Cabinet members that had campaigned against it? What about all of the Labour MP's that oppose Brexit. Why would they agree to implement a policy that they view as reactionary, and deeply damaging. It could only be implemented if Corbyn, and the reactionary nationalists around him formed some kind of bloc with the Tories to implement the decision, a reactionary economic nationalist unity government.
Such a process certainly would not end the chaos and get Brexit out of the way. It would only lead to even more chaos and division. But, even if some Brexit deal could be agreed, and voted through in a referendum it would be no better. The damaging effects of Brexit would continue to manifest themselves, as EU based companies left Britain. Certainly, the progressive social democratic elements of Labour's Manifest would be impossible to implement, not because of EU objection to state aid rules and so on, but simply because in conditions where Brexit means that the economy shrinks, and companies move out of Britain, any hope of raising additional tax revenues will disappear into thin air, and along with it, will go any prospect of large-scale infrastructure spending and so on. Labour Grey Book factors in behavioural changes of individuals who may leave to avoid higher taxes, but that amounts to only £5 billion in lost revenues, whereas it makes no such assumptions in relation to companies, who are far more likely to be the ones relocating, and that could leave a £15-20 billion p.a. black hole in Labour's figures. As is usually the case with such social-democratic programmes, in order to fill this gap, taxes would have to rise further on ordinary workers.
Already, the problem with Labour's social-democratic redistributive agenda has been seen. They make the normal mistake of confusing wealth and affluence. Its true that if you earn more than £80,000 p.a. (approx.) then you are in the top 5% of income earners. But, as the contributor to QT pointed out, for most workers on that amount of money, it certainly does not feel that way. That is for two reasons. Firstly, there is a vast inequality of incomes even within that top 5%. The top 5% includes someone on that £80,000, as well as someone getting several tens of millions of Pounds a year in income. It makes little sense to lump these two people into the same bracket. As someone pointed out, if you are earning £80,000 a year as a worker in London, its still not enough even to get you on to the housing ladder.
But, secondly, and precisely for this latter reason, there is a huge difference between income and wealth. Someone earning £80,000 may seem affluent, to someone on average earnings of £25,000, but it does not mean they are rich, they may not be able even to buy a house, for example. Wealth does not refer to income, but to your stock of assets. In the past, it was most important in terms of your stock of productive-capital, but today its significance is in terms of your stock of financial and property assets, from which you can in turn derive revenue from rents and interest, as well as capital gains. It makes little sense to put in the same bracket, someone earning £80,000 a year, who still cannot buy a house, with say the Duke of Westminster, who owns vast amounts of property, or with the billionaires who own vast amounts of shares, bonds and so on, and whose wealth enables them to convert capital into revenue, by liquidating capital gains running into hundreds of millions of Pounds each year. In short, Labour's programme, as a reformist, redistributive programme continues to attack merely better off sections of workers, rather than attacking the underlying basis of inequality in society, which stems from the ownership and control of capital.
And, the fact is that even Labour's reformist, social-democratic programme can only be implemented on an EU wide basis. A fundamental requirement for it to move forward is for Labour to oppose Brexit, and to begin the task of building an EU wide, progressive social-democracy. The only way to end the chaos caused by the Brexit vote, is to stop Brexit itself. It requires that Labour come out clearly to say that if elected it will end the chaos by stopping Brexit, by immediately revoking Article 50. If Labour will not do that officially, it requires that rank and file LP members come together to do it instead. It means that we will have to adopt a strategy of fighting the election on the basis of a guerrilla war to support the most militant pro-Remain candidates in each seat, fighting the election on this seat by seat basis. We need to maximise the number of militant pro-Remain MP's in parliament to stop Brexit.
No comments:
Post a Comment