Another view on Brexit

Review

 

by Ben Soton

The EU and Brexit Questions and Answers by Robert Griffiths. Communist Party of Britain. £1:00.

This pamphlet by Robert Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) is a source of useful information on Brexit.  The CPB and the New Communist Party both support withdrawal from the European Union and advocated Leave in the Peoples Vote of 2016. 

Meanwhile Remainers have continued with ‘Project Fear’ which was the basis of their original campaign.  Their billionaire backers continue to call for a second referendum which they have the arrogance to call a ‘People’s Vote’. 

  Some Remainers call for the goal posts to be moved in another referendum by allowing children to vote in it.  Their assumption is that those subject to a life-time of pro-EU propaganda to will vote Remain.

  Remain propaganda describes Leave voters as stupid while spreading wild talk about the “civil unrest” and “martial law” that they say will follow Brexit and  telling us that British aircraft will not be able to land in the EU and that we will no longer be able go on holiday to Europe when we leave the European Union.

 You may be familiar with the BBC2 satire, the Mash Report –  a programme almost entirely dedicated to supporting EU membership. So much for an unbiased BBC. In this light a pamphlet answering important questions about the EU is welcome. 

The pamphlet’s format is a series of questions and answers on key aspects of Brexit.  Griffiths refutes many of the myths about the EU and provides useful information; covering the structure of the EU, workers’ rights, economic policy, immigration, trade and defence.

He starts with the reactionary, Cold War origins of the European Union as an economic bulwark against socialism.

He explains that the European Court of Justice has never upheld the right to strike or prevent employer lock outs.  Meanwhile the European Court of Human Rights, which is outside the EU, provides some protection against abuse.  Arguably ‘human rights’ in Britain date back to Magna Carta and have developed over time to include Parliamentary Sovereignty established during the English Civil War, the extension of the franchise in the early nineteenth century to all adults by 1928 as well as legislation on race, gender equality and rights for LGBT people.  Will this will end when we leave an institution which is far from democratic?  

On economic policy he explains that the European Central Bank imposes monetarist policies on members through the Stability and Growth Pact.  He does not cover the issue of whether the EU prohibits nationalisation.  Strictly speaking it does not.  However, EU law is based on competition and the free-market; in short capitalism.  EU law states that all areas of the economy are open up to competition; this includes health and education.  It poses questions such as bringing back key NHS services in house as well as taking academised schools back under local authority control.  Polly Toynbee, a fervent supporter of the EU, has said that continued membership makes this almost impossible.  If the question was does EU law prevent an extensive nationalisation programme and socialist planning the answer is yes.  

Griffith points out that the UK has a trade deficit with the EU and that our share of trade with it is declining, something you’d think Mrs May might mention in negotiations.  On foreign policy he refutes the notion that the EU is a force for peace.  He lists places where EU states are involved in conflicts; in short imperialist aggression.  His list includes Zaire, which has been called the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1997.  Griffiths also misses the opportunity to remind us of EU support for the fascist coup in Ukraine; a fact that some pro-EU liberals might find embarrassing.

He explains that the UK and Ireland have had a common travel area since 1923, which was suspended during World War Two and the Troubles (1969-93).  The Good Friday Agreement (1998) made no mention of EU membership or border operations.  The left position, which Griffiths fails to point out is for an end to the Union between Britain and Ireland.

Another criticism is its shortness; however, if you are putting a point across short, bitesize pieces of information are often best.  He also fails to criticise the Labour front bench for ruling out a no deal Brexit.  This may not be the desired outcome but a willingness to walk away from negotiations actually strengthens your position.  However, if you want to understand the EU and advocate a People’s Brexit the pamphlet is worth the £1 price tag.                   

                                          

Brexit – the view from the left

Review

By Ben Soton

Robert Griffiths (2018): The EU, Brexit and Class Politics. LEXIT: the Leave Campaign. £2.00

Communists have been the only political grouping in Britain consistently to oppose both the European Union (EU) and its forerunner, the European Economic Community (EEC).  The old Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) as well as the New Communist Party took a principled stand against this neo-liberal, pro-capitalist entity from the start. The same can be said of the CPGB’s successor, the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) of which the author of this pamphlet is General Secretary.

This is not the case with other political groupings. The far-right were actually the first to champion the idea; one of the first British politicians to champion post-war European integration was former fascist leader, Sir Oswald Mosley. The Tories, who initially favoured membership of the EEC, are now heavily divided on the issue whilst Labour contains many of the ‘Remainiacs’ demanding a second referendum. Although the Labour left once took a similar position to that of the Communist Party, now it seems largely to have swallowed the pro-EU line.

The Liberal Democrats have always been the most consistently fanatical supporters of European integration, whilst the Greens take a similar position and consider any attempt to leave the EU on a par with the abolition of clean air legislation.

In this pamphlet Robert Griffiths clearly lays out the reactionary, un-democratic nature of the EU. In a section entitled The Cold War Origins of the European Union, he cites Lenin’s opposition to a United States of Europe. Lenin stated that such an entity would only exist as an anti-socialist venture. Opposition to a United States of Europe was, incidentally, a major difference between Lenin and Stalin on the one hand, and Trotsky, who favoured the idea. For this reason, some Trotskyist groups oppose Brexit.

Robert Griffiths fails to mention that the expansion of the EU in the 1990s was only possible with the counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which took place as a result of treachery by the clique around Mikhail Gorbachov. This may emanate from the CPB being, shall we say, a bit slow to recognise the reactionary nature of Gorbachov’s policies.

Griffiths goes into some detail about how the political fault lines have changed around the issue of EU membership. In the 1975 referendum on EEC membership the Tory Party was overwhelming in favour, as were the Labour right, the Liberals and big business; whilst Communists, the Labour left and the TUC were against, as were the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. Things changed in the 1980s.

On the one hand the labour movement suffered a number of defeats and in 1988 the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, offered the carrot of the very short-lived Social Chapter. The end of the decade saw a wave of reaction resulting from the counter-revolutions in Eastern Europe. Then some viewed the EU with a degree of false hope. This is still the case with some trade unions such as Unite, the GMB and Unison campaigning to remain in the EU. However not all the unions swallow this line; both the RMT and the Bakers Union supported the Left Leave Campaign.

The author also demolishes this argument that the EU is some kind of panacea of workers rights. EU legislation has done nothing to reverse the anti-trade union laws introduced by the Thatcher government. He points out that legislation has been won as a result of class struggle, not given by some benevolent official either in London or Brussels.  For instance, the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced as a result of the strikes that took place that year. Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings favour employers.

What is missing is an explanation for the split in the Tory Party. The British Conservative Party is probably one of the most successful reactionary organisations in the world. Its success is due to the dual role played by Toryism. On the one hand it exists to represent the economic interests of the British ruling class. At the same time, its success comes from being able to appeal to a much broader base than those who actually benefit from it; this has been done with appeals to God, Queen and Country, and at times racism. It has been able to create a political hegemony that has dominated British political life for over a century. Often these two functions diverge, hence the Tory party split.

Some Tories, such as Cameron, Osbourne and May, played the role representing the interests of big business; whilst those around Boris Johnson and Gove took up the cause of right-wing populism. Meanwhile, what of the Left?

There are still some in the Labour party who understand the reactionary nature of the EU.  Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time opponent of the EU, is to a certain extent a prisoner both of reactionaries with the Labour Party and of naïve elements of the left, in particular many in Momentum who regard the EU as progressive. Part of the success of Labour’s 2017 election campaign however, was the decision of Corbyn and McDonnell to honour the referendum result. This resulted in the almost total collapse of the UKIP vote. Demands for another referendum however, could see the revival of UKIP and the far-right.

Recent developments include the anti-Brexit demo on 23^rd June, referred to as the “Marks and Spencer March”. Thousands of well-heeled individuals took to the streets demanding a ‘People’s Vote’, perhaps not aware that we already had one in 2016 – called a referendum. At one point during the protest some of these spoilt malcontents were shouting “Where’s Jeremy Corbyn?”.

We have also seen the launch of the so-called ‘Left Against Brexit’ campaign, which claims that Brexit will make socialist policies harder to implement. I’m not sure what planet these people are on, but EU membership ties British and other members’ economies to an effective neo-liberal straight jacket.

Robert Griffiths’ pamphlet is, however, a useful tool for anyone wishing to counter right as well as left arguments in favour of the EU. The time for a Marxist understanding of the EU is now more important than ever. Meanwhile, the Remainiacs continue with ‘project fear’, claiming that this country will have no one to trade with after Brexit. One only has to look at the number of Fiat, Renault, Citroen, Volkswagen, Volvo or Audi cars on the road, all made in the EU. Surely a post-Brexit trade deal can’t be that difficult to negotiate?