Back when I
blogged more often I used to describe the regular readers of this blog as “Sid
and Doris Blogger”. I can only hope that they both now enjoy their retirement
from UNISON, since I blog so infrequently.
This weekend, a
combination of family commitments and fatigue (attributable to hormone therapy
for my prostate cancer) kept me from a number of important political activities
(including the “Super
Saturday” in Hanover and Elm Grove and a fundraising quiz in
Patcham).
One activity I
probably wouldn’t have gone out of my way for even if I could have was the “People’s Vote” march. I do
like a good demonstration, but not all mass protests are necessarily
progressive.
Back in 2000, I
recollect some fairly
juvenile elements on the left got quite excited about the truckers’ protests over petrol
prices – though wiser souls saw their essentially reactionary nature.
Two years
later, the “Countryside
Alliance” march was – rightly – generally seen as an expression of the
impotent rage of the foxhunting rural elite and their forelock-tugging
hangers-on.
The “People’s
Vote” march was not like either of these purely reactionary protests – and not
only because it was in opposition to the policies of a Conservative, rather
than a Labour Government. There are, however, those on the left who are simply
critical of the march, and its demand for another referendum before the UK
exits the EU.
Those on the political left who made the tragic error of
failing to update their views about global capitalism (and hence the European
Union) for more than a generation (and therefore – in 2016 - backed a “Leave” campaign
which was led from the far right and legitimised racism) see the drive for a
second referendum as simply a cover for the creation of a new “centrist” Party.
This is daft. There
will no more be a successful new political Party in the (largely mythical)
political “centre ground” than there will be a “Lexit” (a left-wing exit from
the European Union as advocated by those who have neither political power nor
any credible programme to achieve such power).
In 1981 the
Social Democratic Party was established by Labour
right-wingers of some stature. There were none such marching yesterday. Chukka
Umunna is as likely to rise to real power in this country as the Morning Star
and the Socialist Worker are to hegemonise the workers’ movement for their
different visions of “socialism in one country.”
There are no
significant or impressive figures on the right-wing of today’s Labour Party and
neither the post-Blairite Europhiles on the Labour right nor the senile “Leninists”
who stand (proudly and foolishly) outside the Labour Party offer any sensible
way forward for workers in this country.
The campaign
for a so-called “People’s Vote” is, from the point of view of the interests of
working-class people, a contradictory creature.
On the one
hand, it expresses the interest of
our class in preventing the UK leaving the EU (which will not only fail to
achieve any of the objectives claimed by either “Brexiteers” or “Lexiteers” but
will materially weaken us as it empowers reaction). For these reasons, the “People’s
Vote” campaign is in our interests.
On the other
hand, the demand for a “second referendum” is not only posed as an alternative
to the General Election which we really need, but also used – cackhandedly and by those who know
they cannot win – as a stick with which to beat the Party leadership within
the Party. For these reasons, the “People’s Vote” campaign is contrary to our
interests.
As a socialist,
and a Labour Party member (always in that order), I want to see a Labour
Government which acts in the interests of working-class people. I want that not
because I believe that legislation alone can liberate us, but because I believe
that a socialist Labour Government, which legislates in our interests, will
also encourage and empower our movement to place ever further and more
progressive demands upon our own Government.
Among the many
things which any sensible socialist Government would need to do would be to
prevent the United Kingdom from crashing out of the European Union – and not
only because we know we cannot build socialism only in one country.
As we would
have a socialist Government in office governing an advanced capitalist economy,
we would need policies which would empower and strengthen our movement within
that context – the impact of a so-called “hard” or “no-deal” Brexit would, of
course, be the exact opposite of what we would need.
An incoming
Labour Government should not implement any prior decision to leave the European
Union (and with luck the
European Court of Justice will have ruled that the United Kingdom can
unilaterally withdraw the notice which it has given to leave the EU).
The Party’s
well-established position is that we can only support a “Brexit” deal which
meets the “six
tests.” Although these tests are based simply upon promises made by “Leave”
campaigners, they cannot possibly be met. Therefore, an incoming Labour
Government ought not to implement the “decision” of the 2016 Referendum.
We ought not to
have had the referendum in the first place (and the Labour right-wingers
running the Party at the time of the Parliamentary vote are responsible for the
Party’s failure to
oppose the referendum in Parliament). In office, “New Labour” were – of course
– quite keen on referendums (which have been the tool of despots rather than
democrats throughout history).
The same “centrist”
politicians who did not oppose the referendum are responsible for leading our
Party over the generation during which it (we) failed to defend and promote the
interests of working-class people, including in the areas which voted heavily
for “Leave” in the referendum.
The political
tradition which led the “People’s Vote” march is almost entirely responsible
for the outcome of the referendum which gave rise to the need for the march to
take place – and is quite incapable of answering the demands to which it seeks
to give voice.
A socialist
Government will – if it is serious about the transformation of our society –
need to find a way to avoid the UK leaving the EU (since that course of action
will set our objectives, and the interests of our class, back a very long way).
That should not need another referendum.
Indeed, unless
and until we have a written constitution (which I don’t necessarily want to
see), I would rather we don’t have any more referendums at all.