Chlorination Chicken – Answering James O'Brien's Question

James O'Brien is right to note that Britain, as a result of Brexit, is not the country it was, and consequently, all of the framing of the discussion over Trump and Starmer's temporary understanding – its not a trade deal – is misplaced. Britain is an isolated, weak, second and probably third rate power, when it comes to negotiating on the world stage, and so expecting it to negotiate from the kind of position of strength it had in the past is meaningless.

As O'Brien notes, of course, that growing weakness did not start with Brexit, it started as its position of global hegemon ceased, at the start of the 20th century, as other countries such as Germany, the US, and Japan began to overtake it. WWII, simply emphasised the point, as the US assumed that role as world hegemon, and Britain's weakness accelerated from there, which is why it joined the EU, to stop that rot. Its why the decision to leave the EU, and commit Brexit on itself, was an insane decision.

QEII's reign marked by Coronation Chicken.  Charles III's reign by Chlorination Chicken

After WWII, Britain's imperialist power was diminishing rapidly, but doing so from a lofty position, as former world hegemon, still with a colonial empire, though in inevitable dissolution, and with centuries of foreign investments of capital, bringing in annual tribute, to compensate for its growing weakness in trade. When the new monarch crowned in 1953, the event was marked by the creation of a new piece of British culinary art – coronation chicken. As a symbol of the decline of Britain, now enhanced by Brexit, the start of the reign of its new monarch, is instead marked by the introduction of chlorination chicken.

Starmer and all those trying to defend his position, as well as those trying to defend Brexit, on the basis of saying that it has allowed Britain to negotiate a trade deal with the US – it isn't a trade deal – of course, say that Britain has not agreed to accept US chlorinated chicken, or hormone treated beef, GM crops and so on. The problem is that Trump believes that they have, and that as the further negotiations unfold that will be set out. What we have, here, is a replica of Boris Johnson's Brexit negotiations and tactics with the EU. Johnson's team would negotiate a deal with the EU, which clearly committed Britain to a certain set of requirements, but which Johnson would, then, deny were part of the deal. The Northern Ireland Protocol was a classic example.

In the end, it is always the most powerful side, which can insist on its interpretation. In the case of Brexit that was the EU, in relation to Starmer and Trump, it is Trump. So, at the point that Trump insists Britain take its chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef, and so on, Starmer will either have to capitulate, and accept it, which means doing any kind of deal with the EU is out of the question, or else, bearing in mind that the exiting trade with the EU is far more important than trade with the US, he will have to tear up the supposed agreement he has made with Trump.

And, its important to bear in mind that even where Trump has previously signed actual trade deals and treaties, such as the US-MCA, he has also arbitrarily torn them up. But, as Lawrence O' Donnell notes, this is not even a trade deal. It is just something that Trump has signed using his executive powers, as President. It is nothing more than a temporary agreement, an understanding between him and Starmer, that Trump can, and probably will rip up tomorrow. A trade deal can only be put into law by the legislative assemblies of the US and UK, i.e. the US Congress, and British parliament. No such law has been agreed. 

But, in his video, James O'Brien, asks what else Starmer could have done, and concludes, as he has in the past, that given Brexit, and the weakened position it put Britain in, that Starmer played a Brahma. If, however, as a result of chlorination chicken, as Britain's new dish, and so on, not only is any closer actual deal with the EU made impossible, because the EU will not be able to accept the reduction in standards which that would imply, and especially the problems that would cause in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocal/Windsor Agreement and so on, in relation to phyto-sanitary and veterinary standards, etc., but would, also, thereby threaten even existing trade with the EU, far from playing a Brahma, what Starmer would have done is to simply complete the work of Johnson, in further isolating Britain from the EU, as its biggest trading partner, and subordinating it to the US!

So, in that context, obviously, at the very least, Starmer should have adopted the position of Carney, in Canada, and refused to be picked off as the weakest animal in the herd. The answer lies not in seeking to minimise the damage, resulting from Brexit, caused by Trump's tariffs, by simply capitulating to them, as a kind of protection racket, but in rejoining the EU, and, thereby, gaining collective strength. Its why the EEC/EU was formed to counter US imperialist power in the first place. Its why Britain joined it, as its own power as a nation state had disappeared, in the 1970's. Collectivists understand this, in a way that liberal individualists never can.  Its why we understand the need for workers to join trades unions, for example, even if not as a complete solution, but as a necessary step towards it.  So, its wrong of O'Brien to claim that Starmer had a bad hand to play, and so had no other choice. He could, rather have gone big on making the point that Britain had, indeed, been put in this weak and invidious position, precisely because of Brexit, and so have made the point, strongly, that it is necessary to re-join the EU at the earliest opportunity. Starmer cannot do that, because, for the last 5 years, he has taken over the role of Boris Johnson, in promoting Brexit!

O'Brien argues that Starmer had to play the cards he had, and the hand was weak. But, in poker, or gin rummy, you get to change your hand, by picking up other cards. Over the last five years, Starmer had the perfect opportunity not only to change the hand he was playing with, but, even to choose the new cards in his hand. If, over the last five years, he had made the point, each day, that Brexit had weakened Britain, that a Labour government would reverse that damage, as quickly as possible, he would not have had the weak hand he has today. But, Starmer did not do that. Instead he became Brexiter Number 1, and not only that, he attempted to wrap himself in the butcher's apron, to a most disgusting extent, as well as engaging in the most reactionary forms of jingoism, and indeed, racism, as seen with the willing and rapacious scapegoating of immigrants etc.

If we look at Reform, a lot is being made of the potential for it to fail as it takes over control of various councils. Maybe, it will, but what if it doesn't? Trump has failed already in the US, but the hard core of petty-bourgeois Trumpists are still behind him, and denying reality, just as the hard core of petty-bourgeois Brexiters continue to support it, despite all of the chaos and damage it has done, and continues to do. One thing everyone remembers about Mussolini is that he made the trains run on time, even though its a myth. But, who is not to say that Reform run councils may not divert resources from other areas, for populist purposes, such as dealing with potholes in their area? What we do know, from the experience of devolution, as well as from the propaganda that led to Brexit, is that, Reform run councils will blame any failures in their area on the lack of funding, and other requirements placed on them by the new bogey, this time, not Brussels, but Westminster.

The limit on Reform's electoral support, as Trotsky, also, pointed out in relation to the Nazis in Germany, is the fact of which class interests they appeal to, and upon which they are based.  That is the petty-bourgeoisie, and its attendant lumpen layers.  In Britain, that amounts to around 30%, but, if they are able to mobilise all of that 30% minority, it can be enough, unless a unified, progressive alternative is provided to them, based upon the interests of the working-class.  Blue Labour cannot provide that, and the Labour Party itself can only begin to build it if it gets rid of Starmer and the reactionary Blue Labour party within a party that he represents.

So, it is a golden, missed opportunity for Starmer to point out that the weakness it now faces in dealing with a big powerful US, is one that it has inflicted on itself, as a result of Brexit, and that the sooner that is reversed, and Britain re-joins the EU the better. It is why Marxists, not only favour such voluntary integration of nations into larger multinational states, but, also, why we favour a unified and indivisible state, as against federalism, or devolution, which is just a stepping stone on the path to separation. Of course, it could be argued that, in that case, we could as easily argue for Britain becoming a part of the US. I have dealt with that argument in previous posts. It would be progressive for Canada, Greenland, Mexico to be part of the US, but it makes no sense for Britain to become so, as against part of the EU, precisely because of the geography, and established trade patterns. Part of the reason for Britain's weakness, and for the arguments that led up to Brexit, is precisely that it continually whined on about its “special relationship” with the US, and continually looked longingly across the Atlantic to the US, rather than fixing its gaze, determinedly on its future across the Channel.

And so, for all O'Brien's attempts to defend Starmer, the reality is that this is a condition of weakness that Starmer has himself put himself in, as a result of his continued support for Brexit, and all the other reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalism, just as the position of weakness that Britain finds itself in, is a result of that same Brexit! Whatever Starmer may say, in his latest statement about the next election being between him and Farage, that is increasingly unlikely. It will, indeed, be Farage on on side, as Reform swallows the Tory wing of the Conservative Party, in one form or another, whilst the middle-class, conservative social-democratic wing of the Conservatives flocks to the Liberals, again in one form or another, either as a movement of individuals, or as some kind of Con-Lib Alliance, or simply as a merger between the two. But, the main challenger to Farage, at the next General Election is unlikely to be Starmer.

Either, the Blair-Right, conservative social democrats will oust him, and end the disastrous experiment with Blue Labour that has led to this situation, in which case, it will be a different Labour leader lining up against Farage, or else, as Labour voters, and, increasingly members, haemorrhage to the Liberals, Greens, SNP, Plaid, and potentially other formations, or individuals, as happened in 2024 with the wins for Corbyn, and close-run contests against Streeting etc., the Blair-Right wing of the party will be forced to seek an alliance/merger with the Liberals, as happened in the 1980's with the SDP, and as happened even more fleetingly with Change UK. If they do not do that, then, even with the limp anti-Brexitism of the Liberals and Greens, over the next four years, Labour will lose ground in local elections, by-elections and so on, meaning that it will be the Liberals, that become the main opposition to Farage come the General Election, at least in England and Wales, with the SNP, also, being provided with a quick route back, as a result of Blue Labour's continued lurch to the Right.