But, the reactionary nationalists, having won the referendum, on the basis of opposition to the “other” of immigrants, and the EU, were, then, faced with the reality of the situation. Unlike the situation, say, of the SNP, in Scotland, or the Catalan Nationalists in Spain, where a party based, solely, on the idea of securing secession, wins a majority for such a goal, and so can legislate for it, the only party, in Britain, of that type, was UKIP. But, its ability to secure seats in parliament was none existent, indicating the lack of real concern amongst voters for such a project itself, which was only whipped up by the referendum, and a sensationalist media that continually gave space to Brexiters like Farage, way, way in excess of any actual support they had in society, simply to boost their ratings, by promoting controversy in the way the shock jocks have done. The Jerry Springer Show set to the music of politics.
But, having won the referendum, the Brexiters then had to face the reality that they had no majority in parliament to legislate for it, and that was compounded by the fact that Brexit was antagonistic to the interests of the ruling-class and its state, which, then, acted to impede its implementation. It was the project of a reactionary, petty-bourgeoisie, whose strength lies in its numbers, expressed in votes, but, which was antagonistic not only to the interests of the ruling class and its state, but also to the interests of workers. Moreover, the Brexiters had to face the reality that all of their propaganda and rhetoric had denied. The symmetry symbolised by Cameron's return lies in the fact that he played a part in the rise of those lies and delusions of the Brexiters, just as, now, he is returning to government as those lies and delusions have become exposed, and the failure of the nationalism they represent is manifest, and it is in terminal decline.
As I have described before, social-democracy is inherently nationalistic. It represents the interests of large-scale socialised capital, whose interests reside in the formation of ever larger single markets. But, it does so from the perspective of forever seeking to achieve that in the context of the interests of its own national economy. (Even in the US, the incomplete nature of its bourgeois national revolution leaves politicians from different states competing for favours against each other). It never presents the case for the EU, as being based on the interests of “Europe”, or even European capital, or European workers, but on the basis of what is beneficial for the given nation, meaning really the given national capital. That is why each nation state's representatives haggle for national interests in the chambers of the EU, why the real decision making in Europe is via The Council of Ministers, and Commission, appointed by national governments, rather than directly elected by European voters, or formed out of, and accountable to, The European Parliament, which would facilitate the development of a European identity.
Even the most Europhile political leaders have argued in that way. Blair, whilst arguing vociferously for the EU, no less than Thatcher, sought to do so within the confines of British national interest, of opting out of various EU social standards, on working hours and so on, to protect the interests of British capital, whilst Brown opposed joining the Eurozone, on the same basis, even though there has never been a single market, in history, that did not require a single currency, and so on, as its inevitable corollary. The trouble with this is that it opens the door for others to use “national interest”, as the basis for opposition to the EU, i.e. it opens the door to a more consistent nationalism, a nationalism that does not restrict its definition of “national interest” to purely immediate economic interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment