Those that argued for Brexit, and more importantly those that voted for Brexit did so on the basis of hostility to immigrants. Its easy to see why, if you are a self-employed plumber, or run a small plumbing business, enjoying high prices for plumbing work, you will be hostile to an influx of plumbers. But, governments always find that economic reality imposes itself upon them. The Tories repeatedly claimed they would reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and repeatedly failed to do so, because labour shortages demanded that immigration fill those gaps.
Rather than net migration falling, after Brexit, it has risen, and the 800,000 workers that entered the country in the last year did so on visas issued by the government, because those workers were needed. But, whilst Brexit, and the ending of free movement has not reduced the economy's need for immigrants, it has prevented British workers gaining employment elsewhere in the EU. It has also made it much more difficult for pensioners to retire to Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and so on, itself raising the net migration figure for Britain, as people remain imprisoned, here, and, in respect of pensioners, become an increasing burden on the health and social care system, as well as occupying houses that could have been used by younger workers with families.
Yet, the extent of reactionary and magical thinking on behalf of Starmer and Blue Labour is seen, not only in his reliance on growth arriving out of thin air, but in the fact that this growth is to come whilst committing to never re-joining the EU, and to also reducing net migration. In other words, the same racist scapegoating of foreigners for the problems of British capitalism as utilised by Fartage, the BNP, Tories and so on. Of course, for a party riddled with systemic racism and Islamophobia, its no wonder that Blue Labour adopts these positions with no second thoughts.
So, there is no policy issue at stake in the election that is separable from Brexit and the need to re-join the EU. Starmer continues to promote the delusion of a Labour Brexit, i.e. cakeism. He talks about renegotiation, but no such renegotiation is possible. The talk of side deals and agreements is possible, but it will involve further concessions by Britain, and all will be to its relative disadvantage precisely because of the greater power of the EU. The phyto-sanitary and veterinary agreement is possible, but it really means Britain, again, accepting EU regulations and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In fact, in one area after another, where Britain proposed establishing its own regulations and regulatory bodies, it has had to more or less abandon them, because not only did the EU require conformance with its standards and regulation, but other countries, around the globe, did not recognise the new British standards. That is necessarily the case, because these countries are more concerned with their trade with the EU than with Britain.
There is, also, now, ridiculous talk that Starmer, when in office, will seek to re-join the single market. But, that, now, is not possible without re-joining the EU. The case of Switzerland is cited, but the EU has said it regrets that arrangement with Switzerland, and would not do it again. Moreover, the UK is not Switzerland. Although its market and economy is small compared to the EU, it is large compared to Switzerland. The EU has now said that no country can become a member of the single market without being a member of the EU, or EFTA. But, EFTA has also said it would not let Britain in, because of this problem that its economy is too big compared to the other countries in EFTA. So, the reality is that, if Britain wants closer ties to the EU, it will mean yet further concessions, further subordination to the EU, or re-joining the EU.
Any realistic policy seeking to increase UK growth, meanwhile, depends on that closer relation to the EU, and without growth, all the other policies, minimal as they are, cannot be achieved.
The final option, of course, is for any incoming government to balance the books by renewed austerity. But, this is not the early 2000's, nor even the period after 2010. Across the globe, as relative labour shortages have arisen, even without workers needing to take industrial action, competition for labour, between firms, has raised wages, putting workers in a stronger position, and that has encouraged and facilitated workers in rebuilding unions, and, where necessary, engaging in industrial action. That, of course, does not mean that some workers have far from benefited from that general trend. Even in Marx's day, it was the case that, even as wages rose in general, there were still paupers whose relative position, thereby, declined, and the absolute numbers of paupers themselves might rise. In those old decayed urban areas, the unskilled workers, the unemployed and sick, continue to suffer in misery, and their relative position falls, as the majority of other workers see a rise in their real wages. Its one reason the former are prone to fall under the spell of right-wing populists.
Often, it has been in the state sector where unionisation has remained strong, that workers lagged behind, as governments sought to implement their policies by placing the burden on those workers. That is why it has been in those sectors, or sectors nominally in the non-state sector, but dependent on state finance, such as the railways, that workers have had to take industrial action. The tailist and timid nature of the union bureaucracy has facilitated that as they have restricted industrial action to one or two day protest strikes, rather than all-out action. Inevitably, some state-sector workers have simply moved to take up better paid jobs in the non-state sector. The shortage of lorry drivers, for example, saw entire fleets of council bin lorry drivers recruited by haulage firms.
But, state-sector workers are unlikely to put up with these attacks, falling behind the private sector, and the inadequate response of union leaders for long. At some point, they are likely to pressure union leaders, were a Blue Labour government, even one in which so little expectation exists, were to try to impose further austerity. Indeed, its precisely this link of the unions to the Labour Party and the options it opens up, which is why Marxists must operate though it, to engage in that political struggle, irrespective of the ephemera of elections and electoralism.
The contradictions developed over the last 40 years have reached the point of crisis, Brexit has sharpened those contradictions and enhanced that crisis for Britain. That crisis is not a crisis of overproduction of capital, as in the 1970's, but a financial and political crisis for the model of conservative social-democracy dominant for the last 30 years, based on asset price inflation. That “centre-ground” can no longer hold, as seen not just in Britain, but in the US, in France, Germany and elsewhere. The radical right-populist solutions, like Brexit, of the petty-bourgeois nationalists, have also demonstrated their utopian and reactionary nature, and also failed. It is down to workers, with the help of Marxists, to chart the future, and the road to international socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment