‘Moving on’ from Brexit

Within minutes of the announcement that the negotiations between the EU Commission and Britain would continue the Labour Party put out a statement calling for Brexit to get done, plus supporting a deal so that we could all ‘move on’.  There was no sign of Starmer’s six tests for a Brexit that Labour could support because this would mean not supporting any deal.

So, the statement was one part opportunism and one part aping Boris Johnson’s “get Brexit done”.  The most stupid however was the idea that once there is a deal, any deal, we can all “move on”.

In 1957 the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan sought to pre-empt creation of the European Economic Community by proposing a wider free trade area that would encompass the six would-be members of the EEC.  The six however had already committed while the British appeared to want to have their cake and eat it: gain a free trade area for its industrial goods in the rest of Europe while continuing its current arrangements with its old Empire, especially in relation to food.  For the prospective members of the EEC the British proposal appeared to threaten political ambitions for the new European organisation while France in particular saw it as a British attempt to take leadership.

When this British attempt failed it went ahead with creation of a separate European Free Trade Association (EFTA) that included Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, setting its launch date for May 1960.  When the EEC members accelerated plans for cutting tariffs in the same month EFTA, in an effort to keep up, followed suit with its own programme of cuts the following February.  An earlier example of the exercise of sovereignty and the ‘ratchet effect’ so objectionable to the British now.

Just over a year later Britain demonstrated its commitment to its new EFTA allies and announced it was applying to join the EEC.  It did this for many reasons, including that EFTA was too small, that the countries of the dying Empire were going to go their own way, and that the US supported West European unity, meaning that EFTA could never rival the EEC.

Joining it, according to Macmillan in 1961, was necessary not only to boost relatively poor economic performance but “to preserve the power and strength of Britain in the world.”  Showing its continuing devotion to its EFTA allies it unilaterally imposed a 15% surcharge on imports from EFTA members in 1964, making them in some ways worse off than the US.

Today Britain is on its own.  It will not be putting together an alliance of several other European states to rival the EU when it doesn’t even have the weight to compel direct negotiations with the two largest EU states, Germany and France.  Instead of such a coalition it trumpets an exit on “Australian” terms, which is a euphemism for no deal but has the merit of showing how isolated it is.

So, Britain sought EEC membership again and applied to join in May 1967.  Six months later France vetoed the application.    In June 1970 the EEC opened negotiations and in January 1973 the UK was admitted to membership.  There was no position for Britain outside it that remotely cohered with its view of its role in the world.

This is even more the case now when its relative power has continued to wane and will suffer a downward step change as it leaves, regardless of the post-imperial bluster that has gone off the scale.  When the Royal Navy boasts of four small boats defending British sovereignty you should know you’re in trouble.  As a nuclear power it awaits a decision on whether the US is going to go ahead with a missile system Britain depends upon for its ‘deterrent’.

Having rejected membership of the Single Market, even were the EU to agree to it, any deal that is now negotiated will be a ‘thin’ one.  In other words, it will address tariff barriers which average about 3 percent while leaving intact non-tariff barriers that are in the order of 20 percent.  Such barriers threaten the existence of whole industries, including motor manufacture, and many others that require EU approvals such as chemicals and aerospace.  Electricity interconnection with France and Ireland requires adoption of EU harmonised trading rules.  Not mutually accepted rules, not equivalent rules, but exactly the same rules.

The British have resiled against the necessity to align its rules with any development of those of the Single Market.  Why should it change its rules just because the EU changes theirs?  As we have seen, we have been somewhere like this before.

Were the British proposals to be accepted, and their rules to remain unchanged while the EU developed its own rulebook, the rules set by the EU would no longer govern entry into the Single Market.  Britain would have access without having to follow the same rules as member states.  In order to prevent this the EU would have to put on the brakes to take account of the European power that has assumed the strategy of preventing European unity for centuries.  The alternative would be to open itself up to other countries seeking the same privilege as the British.  Neither of these is going to happen.

So, we witness the issue of Fish remaining prominent as a way of allowing Britain to declare some sort of victory in a skirmish while surrendering on the main battlefield.

It seems fairly clear, as Denis Staunton from the ‘Irish Times” made clear this morning, that there will be a deal, but that won’t mean Britain can ‘move on’, except in the sense that it goes round another loop of either having to rejoin its European neighbours or sink by itself into an isolation its people will not accept. There is no ‘moving on’.

This means that the strategy of the British Labour Party of supporting Brexit through supporting or abstaining on the deal in Westminster will put it on the wrong side of history and make it joint owner of the disaster.  The referendum and tortured path since have demonstrated again and again that Brexit is toxic.  It will entail untold attacks on the working class, its rights and its standard of living.  The Labour Party should not be looking to be a donkey that blame can be tagged on to.

The division of workers along national lines shows how reactionary Brexit has been by inevitably promoting division within the British working class itself. We can see this through the millions of workers opposed to Brexit and the rise of Scottish nationalism, nurtured by the idea that one variety of British nationalism is somehow qualitatively better than another.  Already in England we see demands for some sort of autonomy for certain regions like the North of England, as if there was a geographical solution to a problem arising from the system that crosses all borders.  It is as if nothing has been learned from the failure of proposing the fix of devolution for Scotland as the solution to austerity and decline.

On the Left, the so-called Trotskyists are saying it could all have been different when it couldn’t; while Stalinists wallow in their own nationalism, in their demand for national sovereignty and their own version of (nativist) identity politics.

The unity of Europe and erosion of national political differences is objectively progressive. It is a task that socialists would themselves seek to accomplish.  That capitalism is doing it only confirms that it can be done in a rightist and conservative manner and that Marx was right to see capitalism as transitional to socialism.  Of course, it is only transitional to socialism if the working class makes it so, but it won’t if it fails to fight for the tasks that capitalism itself has commenced and imposes for its own ends.

2 thoughts on “‘Moving on’ from Brexit

  1. The last paragraph is more tendentious than may appear to the ahistorical reader. One can question the general statement that European Unification is progressive even if it is on a capitalist basis. Before the European Union came along other attempts were made to unify Europe on a capitalist basis, the first undertaken by non other than Napoleon Bonaparte. One must not ignore that other grandiose plan to unify Europe on a capitalist basis undertaken by the pan European fascist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Of course the EU version has a different political and ideological complexion, one could say the previous efforts followed a political law of conquest and the EU one follows the higher law of democratic consent.

    However what is contestable about the EU version of European unification is this very of law of democratic consent, some might say that a law of consent is typically absent and a law of low down human deception is is really driving the unification project. What this all comes down to is the understanding one has of the philosophy of democracy, is the thought of living under a democracy an end in itself or only a mechanism or a step to a higher end still to be determined by a law or tendency of capitalist change, the higher end may turn out to be socialism on the other hand it might be turn out to be something resembling a European Empire ruling over fading political nations transformed into provinces, a kind of catching up with the great and original vision of Bonaparte.

    The main point is that the phrase ‘ a capitalist basis’ is an abstraction necessary for understanding capitalism as an economic mode of production, but like all abstractions it removes much that is particular to the histories of democracy, culture, religion to name only the most important of the particularities. Given your analysis of what is ongoing with respect to GB you expect some objective law of capitalist development of economic being to bring forth a subjective historical surrender. Why does the objective law of capitalism favour the EU over GB, your answer so far is an abstract one, the capitalist mode of production necessarily expands its remit until the point is reached when a transition to a new mode of production called socialism is made ready. Your really are a connoisseur of capitalism.

    My own view is that the EU has already seen its better days, it belongs to an historical juncture that has almost passed out of History, namely the juncture of cold war capitalism.

    • As Trotsky and the Bolsheviks argued The Programme For Peace had the Keiser created a unified Europe as a result of WWI, it would not have been on the basis that socialists desired, but objectively, it would still have been historically progressive, and trying to reverse it would have been no part of a socialist programme.

      The same is true had the Nazis created a unified Europe. It would still have been objectively historically progressive. This is the difference in the materialist class analysis of Marxism, which starts from the objective material conditions, and productive and social relations, as against the moralistic and subjectivist approach of the petty-bourgeois, which looks only at the superficial political facade.

      As Trotsky points out, the terms “Fascism” and “bourgeois-democracy”, are in this context only different masks worn by that underlying mode of production, in the era of imperialism. Whether a unified Europe arose as a result of some bourgeois-democratic agreement or as the result of some militaristic or fascistic forced integration, the underlying objective reality would not be changed that such a transformation of material conditions was historically progressive. In either case, these new productive and social relations are those required for the creation of socialism, and the task of the working-class, and its socialist leadership is not to try to turn that development backwards to a less mature, more reactionary stage of development, but to carry through the necessary political revolution to establish the appropriate political superstructure on top of that underlying set of productive and social relations.

      As Lenin put it,
      “history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918 Germany and Russia have become the most striking embodiment of the material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions for socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions, on the other…

      “. . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs ””

      (Left-wing Childishness)

      You say,

      “My own view is that the EU has already seen its better days, it belongs to an historical juncture that has almost passed out of History, namely the juncture of cold war capitalism.”

      Quite, so, but as Lenin says in the above, the next step from there involves the further transition of the EU to go beyond its current limitations. It most certainly does not lie in a descent back the level of the bourgeois nation state, whose time has even more definitely passed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.