On Sophie Ridge, this morning, Rebecca Long-Bailey confirmed Labour's official, reactionary pro-Brexit stance. She said that Labour, if elected, which because of this reactionary stance looks increasingly unlikely, would pursue negotiations with the EU for Brexit. The basis of these negotiations are now well known. Labour seeks to negotiate a fantasy "Jobs First Brexit". It is a fantasy, because any Brexit deal is reactionary, and will lead to job losses. It is reactionary, because it implies that there is some superior economic nationalist solution to workers problems rather than being inside the EU. By extension, it implies that, in some undefined way, the problems of British workers - and the same would apply to French, German, Italian workers etc. - are caused by foreigners, including foreign workers, rather than by capitalism. Instead of uniting workers across Europe to fight our common enemy, it sets workers in each country against one another, and lines them up with their own domestic ruling class. That is precisely the logic that resulted in World War I and II.
Any Brexit is reactionary, and will result in economic damage and job losses, so there can be no "Jobs First Brexit". It will damage workers in both Britain and the EU, but it will damage workers in Britain by far the most. Britain outside the EU will suffer economically, and lose competitiveness. In order to compensate for that lack of competitiveness, as capital relocates to the EU, the UK will be led to worsen workers conditions in Britain, whatever Labour might want to achieve, in order to both encourage capital back to invest in Britain, and in order to try to recover some of its loss of competitiveness. The argument that the Tories and the media allies put forward that what labour, consumer and environmental standards Britain adopts would be a matter for a British government, and British voters is bogus for precisely that reason.
A developing economy that employs child labour, has bad labour, consumer and environmental protections does not do so, because the capitalists in that country are in some way more evil than those in a developed economy. They do so, precisely because the developing economy does not have all of the benefits of large amounts of fixed capital, including infrastructure, standing behind its workers raising their productivity so as to be equal to workers in a developed economy. It uses child labour and so on, because it is only by such means that it can have any hope of neutralising some of that competitive disadvantage it suffers from its lack of development, and lack of capital. But, that same fact, means that this creates a race to the bottom on these conditions. If developing economy A seeks to gain competitive advantage, and it is surrounded by developing economies B, C and D, each of these will be in a competition with the other to have the lowest standards in order to gain advantage over the others, including advantage in terms of encouraging foreign capital to invest in the country, which is required for their more rapid development.
That is why so called independence is a fantasy. In a global capitalist economy, no country is totally independent, including the USA, though larger, more powerful economies like the US, China, and large economic blocs like the EU, ASEAN, MERCOSUR have greater independence than do individual small and medium sized nation states, which is what Britain would be outside the EU.
If Britain outside the EU, reduced its labour, consumer and environmental protections, in order to try to regain some competitiveness, it would obviously impact on workers, consumer and environmental protections in the EU, although given that the EU is seven times larger than Britain, it could undoubtedly resist the tendency for a race to the bottom which that implies. But, that is precisely why the EU would then see Britain as an hostile power on its border and treat it accordingly, especially as it would be seen as more closely aligned with the kind of regime that exists in the US, which is the main hostile power in competition with the EU.
The idea that the EU is going to give Britain advantages over EU member states is fanciful, exactly for that reason. The Tories will not be able to negotiate their Canada style free trade deal on the basis of pursuing their agenda of increasing divergence from EU regulations, which is simply code for a bonfire of workers', consumer and environmental protections, because it would mean importing that same reduction in standards into the EU single market. But, nor is it going to allow Labour to negotiate membership of the Customs Union and Single Market, and to have a seat at the table, and be able to diverge from EU standards in order to do separate trade deals with other countries.
More importantly, it is reactionary, because it starts from the premise of what is in the interests of Britain, a capitalist state, not what is in the interests of workers and the advancement of Socialism.
Long-Bailey, says that Labour would spend 6 months trying to negotiate this fantasy "Jobs First Brexit", and would then put it, along with Remain in a referendum to the electorate. But, if Labour thinks that its deal is actually negotiable and better than remaining in the EU, why would a Labour government not then commit itself to arguing for voters to vote for its deal, rather than Remain? Obviously, they would not. So, Labour's current stance is a reactionary pro-Brexit stance. It simply delays the point at which it will argue for Brexit to six months down the road.
Long-Bailey, Corbyn et al cannot commit to saying they would, in that referendum, argue for Remain, for two reasons. Firstly, they are at root economic nationalists who are themselves committed to Brexit, and secondly, because as Emily Thornberry found when she tried to argue that position, it is simply ludicrous. How can anyone take seriously a position which says, we will negotiate our own Brexit deal, and then in any case ask you to vote against it, and in favour of Remain.
And, here also lies the problem of those like Paul Mason, and the People's Vote campaign, including its left-wing, who argue for the issue to be decided precisely by such a referendum after the election. It is an open invitation for Corbyn and the Labour leadership to continue to promote this reactionary, fantasy Brexit, and for another vote to Leave in such a subsequent referendum.
The only rational progressive position to take is to argue that Brexit is reactionary, and so Labour will oppose it by all means. That means not another referendum, but for Labour to commit, here and now, to revoking Article 50 if elected. It means making clear that a future Labour government will take Britain back into the EU, if a Tory government takes us out. At this stage, it looks unlikely that Labour will change its official position. That will mean that the Tories are likely to win the election as droves of Labour votes swing to the Liberals and other clear Remaining supporting parties.
The only way to mitigate that is to build a Socialist Campaign for Labour and Europe, on the basis I have set out in recent posts. At least if we get local candidates and parties committed to such an agenda, it becomes possible that progressive forces in those constituencies can unite the forces to vote for the Labour candidate, and we can maximise the number of socialist internationalist MP's in the next parliament to continue the struggle against reactionary reactionary nationalism.
Long-Bailey's comments also highlight the problem for socialists in the period after the election. Corbyn, win or lose, and the latter looks increasingly likely, cannot remain as Leader for very long. As well as failing to implement mandatory reselection, Corbyn and his supporters have failed to press ahead with the democratisation of he party in other spheres, including election of the Leader. There is a dearth of decent candidates that socialists could support. Long-Bailey, along with Angela Rayner are some of those mentioned to replace Corbyn. But, Bailey, Rayner and along with others like Richard Burgon are cut from the same economic nationalist cloth as Corbyn. What the party really needs is a cadre of new international socialist MP's, and once again, this election is unlikely to produce them in large numbers, because, as with the European Parliament elections, on the one hand, existing MP's have largely got a free pass, because of there having been no mandatory reselection, and secondly, many candidates where none existed have simply been imposed by the party machinery, which is now heavily influenced by those same Stalinoid, economic nationalist forces, with its power base inside the UNITE bureaucracy.
That is the other reason we need a Socialist Campaign for Labour and Europe, so as to fight not just now, but after the election too, to rebuild and renovate the labour movement from bottom to top, not just in the Labour Party, but in the trades union, and cooperative movement too.
No comments:
Post a Comment