Boris Johnson's government has still not got Brexit done! As time runs out on it, it is becoming ever more desperate. The latest sign of that is its ridiculous threat to renege on the Withdrawal Agreement, by passing legislation that would go back on its commitments to ensure checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, as well as on rights provided to the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales. This is more of the same empty threats that the UK government used throughout the entire Brexit negotiations. It shows that the old maxim applies that empty vessels make most noise.
It was always the case that some of the Brexiteers, like Gove, believed that their strategy should have been to accept any deal that Theresa May negotiated, simply to “get Brexit done”, in order that they could then renege on its terms during the Transition Period. Its why Gove stayed in May's government whilst Johnson left. The strategy was based on two misconceptions. Firstly, it took another maxim – its easier to get forgiveness than acceptance – and married it to the underlying misconception of the Brexiteers that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. It is a misconception that flows from the underlying subjectivist ideology of the Tories, and still sees Britain as being the global power it was 75 years ago. They assumed that, in those conditions, the EU would simply buckle and allow the UK to get away with such action, as they negotiated a deal. The same mentality has guided their belief all the way through that the EU would compromise at the last minute.
But, there is no reason for the EU to do that, and they haven't, nor will they. The EU is the largest economic bloc in the world. It is bigger than the US or China, it is seven times bigger than the UK. The idea that the EU depends on the UK more than the other way around, or that the EU is going to compromise with the UK, is liking expecting TESCO to act in that way in relation to the small corner shop next to it! It just doesn't reflect reality, or the laws of economics, let alone the laws of global strategic relations. The EU was never going to give the UK what it wanted, which is why the proposals put by Corbyn, for a Labour Brexit, were as daft as those of the Tories, and the proposals that Paul Mason has put forward, are just as daft, for the same reason. It is the world that Britain has put itself in by the reactionary and stupid decision of Brexit. Socialists do no favours to the working-class in failing to point that out. On the contrary, they have a duty to do so, and to argue the need to reverse that decision at the earliest opportunity. Its why Starmer should be arguing vigorously that Labour will resist the current Tory Brexit, and will commit to reversing Brexit if its elected.
The Tory Brexiteers are now becoming desperate, because time is running out on them. British industry, like the Road Haulage Association is pointing out that without a deal, indeed even with a deal that leaves Britain outside the Single Market, there will be chaos at borders, and the country risks seeing shortages of vital supplies, as well as being outside EU regulatory systems will mean that a whole series of British industries like aviation, pharmaceuticals and so on will be unable to operate. It will mean an economic crisis far worse than has already been caused by the Tory imposed lockdown. The reality is that, come the end of the year, rather than see that disaster unfold, the UK will have to again capitulate, in the same way that May did, and that over the last year, Johnson has been forced to do.
The Tories could try to ignore the EU, and instead try to forge an alliance with the US. But, that would simply mean the UK being the 51st state of the US, but with not even the same rights of representation as Puerto Rico. It would mean the UK having to accept US rules and regulations, without having any say in the formulation of those rules and regulations. But, even then, the amount of trade between the UK and US would continue to be dwarfed by that between the UK and EU, simply because of the existing trade patterns and nearness of the two economies. The difference is that, in order for the UK to sell to the EU, it would have to undergo a series of measures to provide the EU with the assurances that UK exports met EU regulations. Large amounts of UK exports would continue to be excluded from the EU, and all would face large import duties, making many more uncompetitive. The EU would continue to be the UK's biggest trading partner, but such conditions would necessitate that the vast majority of that trade was exports from the EU to the UK, not vice versa. Indeed, many firms would relocate to the EU to avoid the tariffs and other costs, and would then sell their output back to Britain. The UK's trade deficit would balloon, meaning even more borrowing, a collapsing currency amidst rising interest rates, which would cause UK asset prices to collapse more than elsewhere in the world.
But, the Tories current tantrums about reneging on the Withdrawal Agreement are also clearly empty threats, and are designed to just boost their appeal amongst their reactionary base, much as Trump does in the US, along with a forlorn hope that, in making these empty threats, it will somehow scare the EU into making them some kind of offer, even though such tactics have inevitably failed at each stage over the last 4 years. The immediate consequence of the Tory proposals is that Britain would be dragged before international courts for having breached legally enforceable international treaties, such as the Good Friday Agreement, let alone the Withdrawal Agreement itself. But, it would also mean that a hard border would be erected between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Already, the electorate in Northern Ireland are balanced 50:50 between staying in the UK and becoming part of a United Ireland. Such a situation, which would destroy the Northern Ireland economy, would push it clearly over the edge, making a United Ireland inevitable. The Tories may not be too unhappy about that, as recent polls suggest that around 75% of English voters would prefer a United Ireland rather than have Northern Ireland stay in the UK.
Nevertheless, such a dynamic tends to feed on itself, and the Tories who pride themselves also on being unionists, would not like the look of being the people who caused the break-up of Britain. But, with a clear majority in Scotland now in favour of independence, any further such action by the UK government would again make Scottish independence also an inevitability. Support for independence in Wales is much lower, but has increased markedly, as a result of the actions of the Tories over Brexit. Its not inconceivable that with a United Ireland and independent Scotland, the demands for independence in Wales would also grow, and such a condition for small countries is possible, inside the EU. Scotland's population is midway between that of Norway (5 million) and Sweden (10 million), for example. The hopes of the Brexiteers and ultra-nationalists was that Brexit would be the first step in breaking up the EU itself. Instead, support for the EU is stronger than ever, and Brexit is now more likely to lead to the break-up, destruction and irrelevance of the UK.
Moreover, it was never going to be the case that the nationalist Trump would give the UK a good deal, but the likelihood is that Trump is going to lose the election, even though the Democrats in selecting Biden and Harris, have made that less likely. With the Democrats in charge of Congress, and probably the White House, the US will try to undo some of the damage done to the US reputation by Trump. They will orient towards the EU, as their main trading partner and ally in Europe, leaving the UK sidelined and irrelevant. Outside the EU, it completely loses the useful role it had for the US, of being a conduit of US interests into Europe. So, the Tories empty threats would just leave it more isolated and irrelevant than ever.
The other plank of the Tory fantasy is that a supposed “global Britain” would be able to do deals with countries across the globe such as China, India and so on. But, again, the Tories still think they are living in the age of Empire, when they could snap their fingers and these colonial countries would come running to them. In fact, Britain would again be in a subordinated position, reversing the days of Empire. The Chinese economy is nearly as big as that of the EU, India is rapidly approaching that condition, and is already bigger than the UK economy. These countries have far more interest in doing deals with the EU, and with other similar sized economies such as the US than they do with Britain. If Britain does any deals with these countries they will be in the interests of those other countries, not Britain. But, if the Tories carried through their threat, what would be the consequence? How would such a reneging on international treaties and agreements by a supposed “global Britain”, look to the rest of the world? Who in their right mind would sign any kind of agreement with Britain, under those conditions, knowing that it would be likely to renege on it at the first opportunity it found it to be in its short term interest?
And, Boris Johnson, unlike Trump, is not stupid. He knows all these things to be true, just as he knows that a No Deal Brexit, or any Brexit that leaves Britain outside the Single Market and Customs Union, will be devastating to Britain, and so to the prospects of a Tory government, for decades to come. That is why these current empty threats should be seen as being nothing more than a sop to the Tory core base, who, nine months into the year, see that Boris still has not got Brexit done. It is the bravado once more ahead of the next U-Turn, the next capitulation, just as happened with his threat to “Die In A Ditch”, rather than apply for an extension of Article 50, and his capitulation in January over the Withdrawal Agreement itself, when he was forced to accept the deal that even Theresa may had rejected!
And, to emphasise the point on the day that the Tories announced this empty threat the Pound fell by 1% against a weak Dollar, and by a similar amount against the Euro, which is gaining strength against both the Dollar and the Pound. But, if the Tories persist with this nonsense, in order to simply curry favour with their core vote and membership, that kind of pressure will intensify quickly. The truth is that the Brexit vote, and the attempts to implement it have already turned Britain into a third rate power, a virtual irrelevance, and its global status, its currency will quickly come to reflect it.
The strategy was based on two misconceptions. Firstly, it took another maxim – its easier to get forgiveness than acceptance – and married it to the underlying misconception of the Brexiteers that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. It is a misconception that flows from the underlying subjectivist ideology of the Tories, and still sees Britain as being the global power it was 75 years ago. They assumed that, in those conditions, the EU would simply buckle and allow the UK to get away with such action, as they negotiated a deal. The same mentality has guided their belief all the way through that the EU would compromise at the last minute.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Tory leadership want No Deal Brexit and don't care that it will be devastating to Britain, because they are quislings who expect that they will be personally rewarded by the wealthy foreigners who will be the actual beneficiaries of that No Deal Brexit?
The EU was never going to give the UK what it wanted, which is why the proposals put by Corbyn, for a Labour Brexit, were as daft as those of the Tories, and the proposals that Paul Mason has put forward, are just as daft, for the same reason. It is the world that Britain has put itself in by the reactionary and stupid decision of Brexit. Socialists do no favours to the working-class in failing to point that out. On the contrary, they have a duty to do so, and to argue the need to reverse that decision at the earliest opportunity. Its why Starmer should be arguing vigorously that Labour will resist the current Tory Brexit, and will commit to reversing Brexit if its elected.
The problem is that because Brexit is a negative-sum process (the people who voted for it didn't think it was good for humanity as a whole: they thought it would benefit Britain at the expense of foreigners) the very act of voting for it in June 2016 had a psychological effect similar to that of a gang initiation, cementing their loyalty to the Brexit cause. This is why those of them who had voted Labour in 2015 were mostly happy to also do so in 2017 (when Labour seemed to respect the referendum) but not in 2019 (when Labour looked like it wanted to overturn it).
How would you have felt if Labour had offered the same sort of Brexit deal as they did in 2017 (or an EEA/EFTA deal a la Norway in 2019, instead of a second referendum), while making it absolutely clear that they were doing this under the duress of the referendum result as they thought any Brexit was a bad idea?
The truth is that the Brexit vote, and the attempts to implement it have already turned Britain into a third rate power, a virtual irrelevance, and its global status, its currency will quickly come to reflect it.
Aren't a lot of Leave voters little Englanders who don't even care about the UK's integrity, let alone its level of influence in the world, just so long as they get the Brexit which they feel entitled to through their vote in 2016?
George,
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I'm sure some in the Tory leadership like Rees-Mogg do want Brexit irrespective of the cost. The truth is, however, that the state always has to ultimately act in the interest of the ruling class, and the ruling class are the ruling class because the underlying productive and social relations are those based upon the property they own, and those relations are themselves the determinant of the fortunes of the state - in itself wider meaning - itself. The interests of the dominant section of the ruling class, the owners of fictitious capital, of shares and bonds are to be in the EU, because that is vital to the interests of the large-scale socialised capital, which provides their revenues in the form of interest/dividends. Ultimately, that power and role of the state overwhelms the ephemeral power of governments. The most obvious manifestation being of a coup where the interests of that ruling class are seriously challenged by any government.
The ruling class have numerous ways, short of a coup, to effect that - as Chris Mullins demonstrated in his novel A Very British Coup. It starts by a currency crisis, followed by a capital strike, the movement of large scale capital out of the country, and so on. Johnson is not dumb, he knows that, and knows that whatever his majority, its susceptible if such a crisis erupts, and it will as a result of Brexit in anything other than name only.
When such a crisis unfolds, many of those that voted Leave will say they had been deceived, and become the equivalent of ex-smokers in the vociferousness of their anti-Brexitism. Some the real hard core will not. They will double down, demanding repatriation of non-whites, creation of concentration camps for non-Anglo-Saxons, and so on. They are still a small minority, and their actions will provoke an even bigger response against them. I don'y agree with your claims about Labour Leave voters. The data shows quite clearly that the reason for the size of labour's vote in 2017 was its attraction of Remain voters from the Liberals, Greens and Plaid, and even some Tories. They voted Labour as the best bet of a government that would stop a No Deal Brexit, and hopefully stop Brexit altogether, because it was clear Labour's Six Tests were unachievable. Similarly, in early 2019, Labour lost all those voters because of its pro-Brexit stance, and did abysmally. It only got part of them back in December, after Corbyn was forced by the party to change course.
I never thought that a Norway type deal was possible, or would meet the Six tests. Its why when Paul Mason proposes that now, I think its equally as daft as the idea of a "Labour Brexit". It perpetuates a myth, and fails to deal with the reality that Brexit is reactionary, and will be bad for the working-class, primarily the workers in Britain.
To be honest I don't think most Leave voters spend a lot of time thinking deeply at all. They respond emotionally, and when the reality of Brexit, and the break up of the UK impacted those emotions would run riot. Again Johnson knows this, and its why he will be forced yet again to capitulate, and the closer it gets to year end the more pressure he will be under to do so, even as he bellows and bluffs and blusters to the contrary.
The data shows quite clearly that the reason for the size of Labour's vote in 2017 was its attraction of Remain voters from the Liberals, Greens and Plaid, and even some Tories. They voted Labour as the best bet of a government that would stop a No Deal Brexit, and hopefully stop Brexit altogether, because it was clear Labour's Six Tests were unachievable.
ReplyDeleteNo dispute with you there, but if the Labour Leave voters had defected to the Tories in 2017 (as they eventually did in 2019) all those extra Remain voters wouldn't have been enough to stop a Tory majority, because of where they were located.
I think its equally as daft as the idea of a "Labour Brexit".
Would a Labour Brexit be daft if its context was "We campaigned for Remain and still believe Remain would have been the best for the working-class in Britain, but unfortunately we lost the referendum and therefore need to find a way to leave the EU that does as little damage as possible"?
I don't believe that Labour leave voters did desert to the Tories in the numbers you suggest in 2019, and the numbers that did were dwarfed by the number of Remain voters that Labour lost, not just Liberal, Green, Plaid voters, but actual Labour voters. Remember in the Spring elections about 60% even of Labour Party members, not just voters, voted for Remain parties rather than Labour, because they could not stomach Corbyn's Stalinoid pro-Brexit position.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course it would still be daft, because the role of a political party, let alone a supposedly principled social-democratic party is to argue from a position of principle, not to simply make itself a passive reflection of public opinion. If that means you lose the election, so be it. It means you are able to say later, "We told you this would be a big mistake, and our job is to point these things out to you. Hopefully, next time you might believe us, because we were prepared to lose the election rather than tell you a lie."
When I was a shop steward, if my members had voted to have all black people sacked in preference to white people, or women workers rather than male workers, I would have stood down a steward rather than implement such a reactionary position. The same is true for Labour. How can anyone have faith in a party that agrees to implement a policy it knows to be reactionary - and Utopian, because in practice its not possible - and which the vast majority of its own voters reject, simply to assuage the bigotry of a minority?
Remember in the Spring elections about 60% even of Labour Party members, not just voters, voted for Remain parties rather than Labour, because they could not stomach Corbyn's Stalinoid pro-Brexit position.
ReplyDeleteI presume you mean the European Parliament elections?
Most Britons (and not just Leave voters) saw the European Parliament as a useless talking shop with no real power, and thus saw elections for that parliament as an ideal opportunity for protest voting.
In the December 2019 General Election Labour lost more votes to the Tories (and also to the Brexit Party, in areas that were strongly pro-Brexit but which also retained strong tribal anti-Tory animosity) than they did to Remain parties. The Tories also lost almost as many of its own Remain voters to the Lib Dems as it gained Leave voters at Labour's expense.
Yes, of course it would still be daft, because the role of a political party, let alone a supposedly principled social-democratic party is to argue from a position of principle, not to simply make itself a passive reflection of public opinion. If that means you lose the election, so be it. It means you are able to say later, "We told you this would be a big mistake, and our job is to point these things out to you. Hopefully, next time you might believe us, because we were prepared to lose the election rather than tell you a lie."
What "lie" would Labour be telling if they'd said "We thought and still think Brexit is a terrible idea, but unfortunately we lost that argument in June 2016 and we therefore have to make it work in the least damaging way possible"? Is the lie that popular sovereignty (as expressed via the referendum) trumps parliamentary sovereignty?
When I was a shop steward, if my members had voted to have all black people sacked in preference to white people, or women workers rather than male workers, I would have stood down a steward rather than implement such a reactionary position. The same is true for Labour.
While many Leave voters were of course motivated by bigotry, leaving an international trading bloc does not to me seem like an inherently bigoted policy in the way that preferentially sacking black or female workers would be.
If your view is that leaving the EU wasn't just a bad idea but a fundamentally illegitimate policy (as that it is one so immoral that the people have no right to support it, much like how most of the British left and centre view capital punishment), then shouldn't Labour in 2016 have called for a boycott of the Brexit referendum?
George,
ReplyDeletea) it was not just in the European elections that Labour performed badly, but also in the local council elections, where its share of the vote was similar to in the EP elections, and b) if your argument were correct, then it should have been Leave parties that did well in those elections, but they didn't. Remain supporting parties got the largest share of the vote!
Your argument in relation to the 2019 election is only correct in relation to the vote shares prior to 2017. All it shows is that in 2018, and early 2019, Labour lost most of those Remain voters it picked up in 2017, and didn't get them all back by the time of the election. Compare the 2017 position with the 2019 GE, and you will see that Labour lost Remain voters at a rate of 4:1 to the Leave voters it lost in the 2019 GE. Many of the Leave voters who voted Tory/BP in 2019, are not, in any case former Labour voters. They are lifelong working-class Tories, the kinds of scabs who opposed the Miners Strike, who bought their council houses, and supported Thatcher. That is why, the main cry of these people was their hostility to Corbyn rather Brexit. In addition to them, they mobilised a large number of normal non-voters, the lumpen proletariat, who previously in places like Stoke supported the BNP, and who in the 1930's, elected the Mosely's to parliament.
I don't think your comment about Tories going to the Liberals is correct either, for the same reason, other than for tactical voting in some seats. Tories knew th LIberals had no hope, and even Remain Tories wanted to stop a Corbyn government unconstrained by the need for Liberal support.
Well, it certainly is a lie that popular sovereignty trumps parliamentary sovereignty in a parliamentary democracy, but the lie I was talking about is that it was possible to actually make the best of Brexit, other than by remaining inside the Single market and Customs Union, i.e. by abandoning Brexit other than in name only. And why would you want to be inside the Single Market and Customs Union, i.e. effectively in the EU, but deprive yourself of having voting rights?
On bigotry, if that was all we knew you would be right, but it isn't. Every survey conducted shows a high degree of correlation between those who voted for Brexit and those who hold bigoted views on immigration, race, homophobia, women's rights, global warming and so on. But, come on, George, you know as well as I do that those who voted for Brexit were bigots, and the vote was essentially a vote against immigration, those who voted for it, even say so when asked! And, their opposition to the EU was seen in similar terms, bigoted opposition to foreigners with the uneducated belief also that it was the EU that forced Britain to take in immigrants from outside the EU. It combined with the idiotic belief that Britain was still some kind of Imperial power, which everyday reality now exposes for the lie it is.
Your argument in relation to the 2019 election is only correct in relation to the vote shares prior to 2017. All it shows is that in 2018, and early 2019, Labour lost most of those Remain voters it picked up in 2017, and didn't get them all back by the time of the election.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that Labour's loss of Leave voters between 2017 and 2019 (which could hardly have been avoided if Labour had adopted a more Remain stance earlier) made a Tory majority inevitable, even if Labour had held on to all its Remain voters (and perhaps gained some more).
Many of the Leave voters who voted Tory/BP in 2019, are not, in any case former Labour voters. They are lifelong working-class Tories, the kinds of scabs who opposed the Miners Strike, who bought their council houses, and supported Thatcher.
Not surprising that Mansfield (which was Scab City during the 1984 miners' strike) was a canary in the (sic) coal mine, when it voted Tory in 2017!
I don't think your comment about Tories going to the Liberals is correct either, for the same reason, other than for tactical voting in some seats.
Just checked the Tory vote by constituency between 2017 and 2019 and I wasn't quite right: the Tories didn't just lose Remain votes to the Liberals (mostly in ultra-safe Tory seats where they had no effect on the seat outcomes): they also lost a lot of them to the SNP in Scotland. The Tory vote share in England actually increased from 45.4% to 47.2%.
On bigotry, if that was all we knew you would be right, but it isn't. Every survey conducted shows a high degree of correlation between those who voted for Brexit and those who hold bigoted views on immigration, race, homophobia, women's rights, global warming and so on.
That just shows that Leave voters tended to be bigots: it doesn't show that Labour had good cause before the referendum to argue that leaving the EU was such an intrinsically bigoted policy that the British people should be denied the right to vote for it!
George,
ReplyDeleteMy point is that your assessment of how many Leave votes Labour actually lost is wrong. Many of those so called labour Leave voters never were Labour voters, even in the 1970's and 80's, and many more that had been reactionary Labour voters during that period, left in the 80's, 90's and early 2000's. More importantly, the rise in the Tory BP vote was largely not from ex Labour voters, but from reactionary non-voters, the lumpen elements that have voted for the BNP et al, when they have bothered to vote.
Also your approach is static. If Labour had not lost the millions of Remain votes it collected in 2017, it would not have had to spend time trying to get hem back. It could have focused on making the socialist internationalist argument to some of the Leave voters, and could have spent more time setting out its domestic socio-economic policies. That way it would have undermined the Tory thrust, and would not have had to keep coming up with daily ill-thought out bribes to voters that were and looked like acts of desperation.
But, it does show that in a parliamentary democracy it is nonsensical to argue for referenda as a means of resolving such issues! That's why I opposed a third referendum, as a means of resolving the issue. Those on one side of a referenda in a parliamentary democracy need to also have a majority in parliament for the position they are pushing, otherwise no law can be passed to enforce the referendum decision. But, no principled party can pass or vote for a law that wholly contradicts its principles. There has never been a nationalist party that has been able to win a majority in parliament standing on the basis of leaving the EU. Those that made it a central issue always performed abysmally, including the Tories in the early 2000's. Its only the abysmal stance taken by Corbyn that allowed Johnson to win a majority this time, and even then not a majority of voters, only a majority of seats, due to Britain's undemocratic voting system.