Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Europe

Monster People’s Vote on Brexit March: Strong Internationalist Left Contingent.

with 3 comments

Image may contain: 9 people, crowd and outdoor

Clive Lewis Speaks at the Left Bloc (Kempton MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle on left, Ipswich MP, Sandy Martin on the right by EU Flag, Photo from L.)

Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, crowd, tree and outdoor

Left Bloc Rallying (photo from Mike).

Image may contain: 7 people, crowd and outdoor

Photos above and below from Kike.

Image may contain: 11 people, people smiling, people standing, tree, crowd and outdoor

Caroline Lucas (Green Party MP) on Left Bloc Platform.

The million strong march was marked by good humour, noticeably more younger people than the previous demonstration,  and the participation of a strong Left Bloc as well as other Labour anti-Brexit contingents.

Former Revolutionary Communist Bendan O’Neill was already frightened at the “terrifying spectacle” of the anti-Brexit petition to revoke Article 50.

I’m not going to lie: it scares me that three million of my fellow citizens would sign a petition calling for the cancellation of the largest democratic vote in UK history.

A petition against the people

In a further hopeful sign the Morning Star, organ of the Hard Brexit under WTO rules British Communist Party and its hangers on, was cut to the quick.

Commenting on the marchers they backed a united front from below to back Brexit

What they desire cannot come about except through a violation of democracy and popular sovereignty and then only under the leadership of politicians and a media totally compromised by decades of austerity and war.

This moment will pass. The millions of workers who voted Remain have more in common with the millions who voted to Leave than with those who lead them.

Remainers have more in common with Leavers than those leading them

Cds Coates and Toby predicted that Andrew Murray, the scion of the noble Slains Pursuivant, Venerable Order of St John, the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St George and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the other Brexit ‘Ms’, must have spat nails all day.

Padre Giles Fraser saw  what these masses had made and did not say it was good.

 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

March 24, 2019 at 12:08 pm

Brexit, End Game and the Left.

with 12 comments

Related image

Brexit Publicity by British Tourist Board.

“Tout commence en mystique et finit en politique.”

Charles PĂ©guy. Notre jeunesse.1910.

”Our central argument is that the various and disparate forms of discontent which led 51,9% of voters to vote Leave must not be allowed to fade away until the Brexit process is complete. This discontent is the emergency, which will power our programmes. If Brexit was fuelled, first and foremost, by a sense of the part of many of the British people that the political class had betrayed them, that sense of betrayal must be sustained. Indeed, it can now be focused more accurately since, with the reframing of Leave’s narrow majority as the ‘will of the people’, public anger will be turned most effectively on those members of the political and media establishment who can portrayed as frustrating that will
”(P 359 – 9)

Imperium Foundation. Middle England. Jonathan Coe 2018.

How long ago seems the aftermath of the Brexit vote. After the 2016 result, Roger Scruton talked mystically of the need for “conciliation”, the opportunity it gave to move towards, a decentralised economy, of the kind that existed in the nineteenth century and could exist again. The poet of identity in political communities continued, ”We must build the thing that the British people value most, which is place.” The pseudo people of Anywhere, the “metropolitan elites”, opined David Goodhart, had been answered by a “populist revolt” by the People from Somewhere. Susan Watkins, editor of New Left Review, chimed in, “Critics of the neoliberal order have no reason to regret these knocks to it, against which the entire global establishment – Obama to Abe, Merkel to Modi, Junker to Xi 
inveigled.” (1)

Coming to the issue of identity, Eric Kaufmann observes, “What really distinguishes Leave from remain voters is their willingness to sacrifice economic benefits to cut immigration”. In their favourable account of national populism, Eatwell and Goodwin give legitimacy to fears about “hyper-ethnic change”. “We do not think the term “racism” should be applied solely because people seek to retain the broad parameters of the ethnic base of country and its national identity, even though this can involve discriminating against outside groups.” (2)

The Great Replacement.

The poetasters of national identity began to look, to those soaked in the traditions of nationalist European literature,  like a return to the themes of Maurice BarrĂšs and “la terre et ses morts”, “la substance nationale” and hostility to cosmopolitan “dĂ©rancinĂ©s” In recent days the arch-theorist of a great identity replacement Renaud Camus has sprung into the public eye. The claimed threat of immigrant “colonisateurs” bringing “nocence” (harm and damage) to In-nocent Europe has inspired the most ignoble of reactions. (3)

Alan Thornett was perhaps the first to predict that a Yes Vote for Brexit would mean allow this “carnival of reaction” to flourish. Others, enlightened by Fintan O’Toole, recognise in Brexit, a “genuine national revolution against a phoney oppressor.” A burly figure, the ignored working class, was spoken for by the sovereigntist left. The cry for sovereignty, elaborated into a celebration of sovereign nations was, for some, the People’s Brexit crew,  the vehicle of a new socialist project. This prospect of a British Bolshevik Beacon, found a few takers when the economics did not just add up. British political sovereignty, run by the left, runs up against the need to trade, and the country’s embedded condition in a capitalist world, not the much overdrawn ‘neoliberal’ rules of the EU. Critics could point to the Irish writer’s insight into how mysticism had descended into politics. Behind Brexit, the real steam engine,  lay “Jacob Rees Mogg’s “sovereignty of the super rich and their right to escape.” and a scramble for Parliamentary power.(4)

Rhetoric and Reality.

The rhetoric about “elites”, “oligarchies”, and the political “caste”, has seeped from right to left. It is tempting to dismiss this as an unwanted revival of a strain of 19th century European socialism, hostile to representative democracy, looking for decisive leaders to sweep away the manoeuvres of Parliament and the forces of “financial feudalism”. The reappearance of the references to Rothschild, and newer name of George Soros, has echoes of one such ‘socialist’ diatribe against the “financial aristocracy”, Alphonse Toussenel’s Les Juifs Rois de l’Ă©poque (1886). Yet the programme of ‘Imperium’, that is the European Research Group (ERG) is indeed, as fictionalised  lightly in Jonathan Coe’s Middle England,  “to liberate Britain from the EU’s oppressive tax and other regulations and allow it to become a genuine free-trading country with its principle endeavours directed towards Asian and US markets.” It is that faction which is riding high in the Conservative Party. It is the motor behind a drive for the worst possible Brexit possible. (5)

In the (just translated) Le crĂ©puscule de la France d’en haut, Cristophe Gilley hailed the Brexit result. It was sign of the ‘Marronage”, the escape of slaves, from the yoke of the establishment, a development he detected that was well underway in the Hexagon – as would underline as the Gilets Jaunes emerged. The British Somewheres, like “la France pĂ©riphĂ©rique” had found a voice in voting for Sovereignty. No0 doubt Nigel Farage is leading them at this very moment towards the Great Wen. Eatwell and Goodwin suggest that the return to two-party dominance in 2017 is far from a new normal. It “may represent an unstable prelude to populist-right renewal.” (6)

There is one vehicle that can halt this in its tracks. The mass movement against Brexit, led, for the moment by the liberal centre, but backed by sections of the left, is a democratic challenge to the projects of the ERG. If, as Another Europe is Possible argues, it can reach deeper into the Labour Party and the labour movement, it may be able to head off Brexit. There is now everything to play for. Now. (7)

………..

 

 

 

  1. Pages 218, and 223. Where We Are. The State of Britain Now. Roger Scruton. Bloomsbury. 2017. The Road to Somewhere. The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics. David Goodhart. Hurst & Company. 2017.Casting Off? Susan Watkins. New Left Review. No 100. 2016.
  2. Page 201. White Shift. Eric Kaufmann. Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities Penguin 2018. Page 75. National Populism. The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Pelican. 2018.
  3. Pages 281 – 283. Les DĂ©racinĂ©s. Maurice BarrĂšs. 1897. Gallimard. 1988. Le Grand Remplacement. Renaud Camus. 2012. Page 70. La Nocence, instrument du Grand Remplacement.
  4. Page 172 Heroic Failure, Brexit and Politics of Pain. Fintan O’Toole. Apollo. 2018.
  5. Page 359. Middle England. Jonathan Coe. Viking 2018.
  6. Page 248. Le crĂ©puscule de la France d’en haut, Cristophe Gilley. Flammarion. 2017. Page 209. National Populism. Op cit.
  7. Another Europe is Possible.

 

Morning Star Tries Failed Left Populist Rhetoric against the “Political Caste” to Back Brexit.

with one comment

Last Attempt at Insurgent anti-EU politics.

As popular revolt against Brexit is growing the Morning Star has found nothing better than the warmed up rhetoric of Podemos to come to its Leave campaign.

Railing against the “political caste”, la casta, was all the range some years ago on the Spanish Left.

The ‘caste’ like la caste in French, sounds pretty odd in English.

Apparently backing the popular demand for a referendum in the new conditions is a manoeuvre by this ‘caste’.

This would not matter but the Morning Star has weight in some pro-Brexit Labour and union circles.

Speaking, modestly, for the people, the Morning Star, organ of the British Communist Party, sorry Morning Star Co-op,  talks of Parliament being given, “its marching orders from the electorate” to back Brexit.

They voice this righteous indignation:

Popular anger at a political caste that has not delivered on its promises will only increase every day that leaving the EU is postponed beyond March 29.

As shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon writes in tomorrow’s Morning Star, Labour has a huge amount to offer because it is not led by members of the political caste. Its leaders are radicals ready to transform our country in the interests of the vast majority.

But if it is to do that it has to rekindle the insurgent politics that won it millions of new voters in 2017. The commitment to securing a Brexit deal that works for workers, rather than a second referendum, which Corbyn confirmed on the Sophy Ridge show at the weekend is welcome.

But Labour and its allies at local level should look beyond Brexit to build the campaigns for public ownership, accountable politicians, a fairer economy and action on climate change that both showcase and strengthen our movement’s credentials as the vehicle for change our country needs.

Editorial May’s deal is dead. But what does that mean for Labour?

So sure of their cause why do not the Brexit Left – minus their mates in the Rotters’ Club of the ERG and Farage’s Barmy Army  – organise their own protests?

Here is a helpful suggestion:

But then what exactly are these “insurgent politics”?

Socialist Worker has the answer – Revolution!

Brexit and the sham of capitalist democracy

There is an alternative to the parliamentary farce that means we don’t just have to sit back as spectators. That alternative is fighting back—whether that’s getting out onto the streets, organising strikes or taking direct action.

That’s why it was so important to see the 1.5 million people take part globally in the climate strikes last Friday. Thousands marched around London—and defied the authority of the cops.

And the following day up to 25,000 people marched in London as part of a worldwide day of action against racism and the far right.

Movements outside parliament have the power to take on our rulers.

Whenever people take action, they begin to see that they can challenge their “betters” and make decisions for themselves.

There are always individuals who take a lead in organising action at the beginning.

But as movements grow, they face questions about how to make sure the greatest possible number take part in decision-making.

Real democracy flows from participation in action and discussion. And through taking action we can fight for an entirely different society, a socialist society, where ordinary people call the shots at every level.

NObody takes this seriously, starting from the figures of the people on the demo above.

But left Populism has been the subject of some weighty books and has convinced some groups, from the playing at left politics US Jacobin, to the people who voted for Podemos (which has a democratic, if imperfect) structure to MĂ©lenchon’s La France insoumuise (which has largely the imperfections and is best described as a “rallying point” rather than a genuine party.

Today, left Populism, after the split of Podemos and the descent of La France insoumise to around 8% (7.5% in the very latest poll) of voting intentions for the coming European elections, is dying.

The latest in this sorry saga can be read about here:

Germany’s “left populists” collapse Ann Field

The movement was consciously designed as left-populist. But since left populism is a contradiction in terms, it was simply populist. With Wagenknecht as its figurehead, it took a decidedly anti-immigration and anti-refugee stance.

It also lacked democratic structures. Membership was free and involved no more than providing an e-mail address. Some 170,000 people did so. Thereafter it was steadily downhill.

The e-mail addresses were not the property of the movement but of a separate legal entity, also called Rise Up. Local groups could not establish themselves without the permission of the legal entity. And they could e-mail their own members only through the legal entity, which was also the owner of the Rise Up Facebook page.

Although it was run by the founders of Rise Up, including Wagenknecht herself, that legal entity was not, and was designed not to be, accountable to Rise Up members.

Few “big names” joined Rise Up. Most of those who did were “big names” from the past. Rise Up got round this problem by arguing that it was first and foremost a grassroots movement of “ordinary people”.

Rise Up garnered little support among Green and SPD activists, and only marginally more among Die Linke activists. It got round this problem by arguing that this showed just how out of touch the established political parties were with “ordinary people”.

And it attracted little support for its public activities. In fact, as a top-down creation, it lacked a focus for any activities. Not even Rise Up could get round that problem.

The public face of Rise Up was always Wagenknecht. And the disappearance of that public face will almost certainly be followed by the disappearance of Rise Up. Some of its leading figures have already publicly written off any future for the organisation.

Here is an answer to that lot:

Written by Andrew Coates

March 21, 2019 at 5:18 pm

The Christchurch Murderer, the Ideology of Identity and the Great Replacement.

with 23 comments

Brendon Tarrant’s ‘Manifesto’.

The word is still reeling at the Christchurch atrocities.

Solidarity is the first, and best, response.

Yet it is becoming clear that the killer was more than just a “extremist right-wing violent terrorist”.

Tarrant has an ideology.

In the manifesto he states that he was previously a “communist“, an “anarchist“, and a “libertarian“, but then turned to “racist” views and became an “eco-fascist” concerned with global warming. Though he rejected the label of Nazism, The American Conservative comments that his political ideology matches national socialism and that he despised capitalism while idolizing China. It comments he only sees Christianity’s value in uniting Europe. Tarrant also laments the moral breakdown of the West. The manifesto includes references to high-profile right-wing figures and Internet memes and encourages people online who agree with the shooting to spread his message and to create more memes. These elements, along with the live-streamed video—in which its viewers had cheered the attack on—gave the appearance that the attack was influenced by internet trolling. This is further supported by the perpetrator’s reasoning for his choice of weapon; he believed it would violently escalate the American gun control debate and cause civil war in the United States.[52][53][54][55] He supports return of racial segregation in the United States. The manifesto ends with neo-Nazi symbols above two images.

Wikipedia. (More directly from the Manifesto below)

The text talks of “mass immigration” and “higher fertility rates” of immigrants.

The clearly indicates the most important strand in the Manifesto, beginning with the title, is the Great Replacement.

This is the ideology, developed by the French writer, Renaud Camus, that European white people are being “replaced” by others. His best known book is Le Grand Remplacement (2011).

The hysteria this idea has generated can be seen on this site,

The Great Replacement is very simple. You have one people, and in the space of a generation, you have a different people. Renaud Camus

The Great Replacement (French: Le grand remplacement) is a term originally coined by a French writer Renaud Camus who first used it to describe the demographic replacement happening in France due to its mass immigration policies and low birth rates among the native French.

The same term can be applied to many other European peoples both in Europe and abroad – from Germany, to England, to the United States, which all have below replacement birth rates and migration policies that pose an existential threat. Of all the different races of people on this planet, only the European races are facing the possibility of extinction in a relatively near future.

This is highlighted by the French media: La thĂ©orie du « grand remplacement », de l’écrivain Renaud Camus aux attentats en Nouvelle-ZĂ©lande (le Monde).

Camus claims that the term is an adaption from Brecht, “Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?” While his main influence is more diffuse, and wide ranging, he has had some political involvement. Camus was part of a micro-party  French political parties often have ‘allies’ which essentially exist to i) create the impression of a ‘broad front’ ii) be a way of getting extra spending through without running over limits) ” SIEL (SouverainetĂ©, identitĂ© et libertĂ©s, was one, under the wing of the Front National, now Rassemblement Nationalin their broad front, Rassemblement bleu Marine.

SIEL is now, after an obscure row, largely centred on the virulence of some of their declarations, independent and linked to the Identitarian movement, anchored clearly on the extreme right. They *claimed* (dubiously) to be running a European List this year.  This month Camus won a case against somebody who had called him an anti-Semite. The judgement rested on the lack of detail in the charge, and he was awarded only 1000 Euros in damages. (13.3.19 La justice donne raison à Renaud Camus face à Yann Moix).

This hallucinatory picture of a declining Europe is reinforced by Tarrant’s hostility to Muslim people.

He talks of “foreign invaders”, and this (The Manifesto of Brenton Tarrant – a right-wing terrorist on a Crusade)

He is (as in the image above) ‘anti-imperialist’ as well, expressing an admiration for China.

But the heart of the work is hatred, from an angry man, and more hatred, for Immigration to the West.

 

Camus denies any responsibility:

French ‘Great Replacement’ writer denounces ‘appalling’ NZealand attack

As he tweeted today:

Camus denies any connection with the atrocity. France 24.

“I am totally non-violent,” the 72-year-old Camus told AFP, saying the arrested 28-year-old Australian suspect had committed “appalling, criminal, disastrous and idiotic terrorist acts”.

“If he wrote a pamphlet titled ‘The Great Replacement” it’s blatant plagiarism… of a phrase that doesn’t belong to him and he doesn’t understand,” said Camus.

The writer, who is also a gay rights activist, lives in a 14th-century chateau in southwest France.

Yet, he has just drawn attention to the ” crime against humanity” that is immigrant presence and the “genocide” that is the great replacement.

Both the BBC and Channel Four have underlined the link between the ideology of the Manifesto, Camus’ Great Replacement, and Identitarian politics.

The latter, which is movement across Europe, with some US links, stands for white European cultural (and racial) Identity. The French wing, Les Identitaires which puts their ideas forward more clearly than the English language Wikipedia version does, their ideas join together (itnrseciotnallty as it were)

Disgust with materialism, consumerism, and the exploitation of workers by big international capital, hostility to the non-representative character of the French electoral system, and the take over of democracy by oligarchies, hostility to American hegemony and Islamic imperialism, opposition to mass race mixing and the charge of permanent guilt to Europeans, a rejection of Paris run Jacobin centralisation , a refusal to bow to ready-made thinking enforced by intellectual terrorism.

It goes without saying, though apparently not noticed by BBC’s Newsnight, that this movement (mouvance, in the sense of its broad current)  is linked to acts of violence.

 Racisme, violence, salut nazi
 Un journaliste a infiltrĂ© GĂ©nĂ©ration identitaire et le bar La citadelle Ă  Lille. (3 months ago).

 

Harry’s  Place  comments,

We have watched as politics of “Identity” has taken over our academic institutions, our media, our civic structures and non-governmental organisations, mostly co-opted, colonised or cajoled by the far-Left. This poured fuel on the last burning embers of the far-Right and it now threatens to ignite a conflagration, from corners of Eastern Europe, to the streets of Paris, all the way to the most unlikely place on earth: New Zealand.

When progressive politics stresses above all else the primacy and priority of race, religion, gender, and so on, is it any wonder the far-Right – which has a century or more of practice in this despicable arena rises to the challenge? You can’t have relentless the prodding and sniping at ‘heterosexual white males” without expecting a countervailing extreme to emerge again, especially since the cloaks and mantles of previous far-Right movements are lying on the ground for a new breed of maniac to pick up. Such is the dynamics of reciprocal radicalisation.

The problem is that identitarian politics and the influence of Renaud Camus are more extensive than the list cited.

In The Strange Death of Europe. Immigration, Identity, Islam ( Bloomsbury. 2017) Douglas Murray says that Europe is committing suicide, its “civilisation” is committing suicide. There are two reasons, “the mass movement of peoples into Europe.” And “lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.”(Pages 2 – 3) The continent has decided to become a “u-topia”, a no place.

Douglas, who refers to Camus, says “migration, “we are not after all such great melting pots that anything and anyone can be endlessly poured in with the results always coming out the same.”(Page 310) “We do not want our politicians, through weakness, self-hatred, malice, tiredness or abandonment to change our home into an utterly different place.”(Page 320)

This is Murray’s background:

Associate director of the Henry Jackson Society Former director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, Educated at Benedict’s school Eaton Collage, and Magdalen College Oxford..

Just as writers such as Gilles Kepel have, rightly, traced the links between some forms of political Salafism and Jihadist violence  (Terreur dans l’Hexagone: GenĂšse du djihad français. 2015, see Le jihadisme, passage Ă  l’acte du salafisme) we are entitled to ask questions about those who have indulged Camus’ tirades. Identitarian and Great Replacement ideology are some of the conditions for the activist turn to the violent far right. The alternative account of jihadist violence, by Olivier Roy, as a “nihilist” spasm by desperate people, (Le Djihad et la Mort, 2016) looks an unfruitful angle from which to gain an insight into the atrocities in Christchurch.

After Theresa May’s Defeat on EU, Labour still stuck in ‘Negotiations’ for a Better Brexit.

with 3 comments

May’s Deal Defeated: Back the Left Bloc for a People’s Vote!

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking in the House of Commons after Theresa May’s Brexit deal was defeated by 149 votes.

“The government has been defeated again by an enormous majority and it must accept its deal is clearly dead and does not have the support of this House.

“No Deal must be taken off the table. We’ve said that before and we’ll say that again.

“The House has got to come together with a proposal that could be negotiated. The Labour Party will put forward that proposal again.

“The Prime Minister is threatening us all with the danger of No Deal, knowing full well the damage it will do to the British economy.

“The Prime Minister has run down the clock and the clock has been run out on her. It’s time that we have a General Election and the people can choose who their government should be.”

Corbyn’s lack of support for a Referendum, and the absence of any other possibility than future – endless – “negotiations” – is deeply disappointing.

Corby, his inner circle, and their supporters, lack any positive perspective on Europe.

At first sight they might as well be spouting this strategy, aimed at fuelling Labour Party internal fighting:

Nothing but a general election can change this. Either extending Article 50 or holding another referendum only gives the Tories more time to govern without governing. The Tories are facing an existential crisis – but that can only be exploited through a general election. A general election would give Labour the possibility of winning a majority to put forward its vision for Brexit, but also to immediately put an end to austerity.

It’s a disgrace, but unsurprising, that at this time when there is the best-ever possibility of getting rid of this failing Tory government, Tom Watson and his Blairite cabal are intent on wrecking Corbyn’s leadership. The left inside and outside the Labour Party must unite to defend Corbyn and push for a general election now.

Counterfire.  Shabbir Lakha. May’s Brexit deal is dead: we need a general election now

“In the Guardian Michael Chessum unravells today the details of Labour’s Strategy, which is not just a call for an election but is, he argues, entangled in a plan for a Common Market 2.0.” which is if anything, even more of a dead end.

Why Labour must not fall for the charms of a Norway-style deal

For the group of shadow cabinet ministers and prominent union leaders who have spent months pushing back against the idea of a fresh public vote in spite of party policy, there are sharper, more factional benefits. Soft Brexit would deny their opponents on all wings of the party, and in the grassroots, a victory.

But it would be a profound mistake for Labour to go down this path. Soft Brexit is the least popular policy with the public. It would oblige the UK to take all of the rules and regulations – including the state aid rules so often cited as problematic by pro-Brexit figures on the Labour left – while abandoning a seat at the decision-making table. The only people who think that this outcome would “deliver the result of the referendum” are remain voters desperately attempting to triangulate out of the situation.

The common market 2.0 position has been sculpted carefully by a cross-party group of former grandees from both main parties. It is not backed by anything like a grassroots movement. Unlike the movement against Brexit, it has organised no massive marches, no campaign of motions through party branches, no stalls and door-knocking in the rain. If a Norway-style Brexit deal does eventually win out, it will be because it commands the support of the Westminster bubble. It will neither solve the material problems that caused the Brexit vote, nor satiate anyone who voted for it.

Pause.

Some of the strongest supporters of the present Labour line, are in favour of Brexit, pure and simple.

Their “vision of Brexit” is, like Counterfire’s a “People’s Brexit”. Free from being a “colony” of the EU rivers of gold will flow,  austerity will be ended and Britian will become a socialist beacon for the rest of the world.

The Communist Party of Britain, which Corbyn adviser on Brexit, Andrew Murray supported until a couple of years ago, even backs the hardest of Brexits.

‘Britain should leave the EU on WTO terms’, Communists propose.

cpb brexit sticker

But what of Common Market 2.0?

At first sight it appears a reasonable strategy – setting aside the issue of why go to the trouble of leaving the EU only to remake the old Common Market.

On second sight there is this to get over, not least for the loyal supporters of Corbyn:

Image result for common market 2.0

Here is the summary:

The UK needs a Plan B.

One that can be negotiated quickly.

One that both Leavers and Remainers can back.

One that delivers on the referendum result.

That plan is Common Market 2.0

known as ‘Norway Plus’ by Michel Barnier.

It’s the only alternative plan that the EU might sign up to at this late stage

It’s the only alternative plan which might win a Parliamentary majority

It’s the only alternative plan that would protect jobs and preserve the Union of the UK

The plan has numerous critics.

The most obvious is the following,

Critics of the plan – including People’s Vote campaigners – said “this ship sailed some time ago”.

Labour MP Peter Kyle said: “Some people believe the Norway model is as simple as signing up to Netflix, it isn’t. Negotiations would be as complex as the last two years and result in the same challenges. Norway shadows the ECJ, it pays more fees into EU countries as part of its settlement per capita than Britain currently does for full membership, and Norway is very honest about the downside of taking rules whilst having little influence over their making.”

He added: “It’s now clear there is no form of Brexit, including this one, that can fulfil all the promises made for it. And there is no Brexit deal, even this one, that is as good as the deal we’ve got inside the EU.”

‘They think it’s like signing up to Netflix’ – Plan for Norway-style Brexit alternative criticised

Michael Chessum continues,

There is now a mass movement against Brexit. October’s People’s Vote march was the biggest demonstration in Britain since the Iraq war, and it could be eclipsed by a much larger one on 23 March. An army of campaigners, many of them new to politics and instinctively on the left, are leafleting, running stalls and knocking doors all over the country. This is a movement whose demands are supported by the overwhelming majority of Labour’s members, including those on the left – despite the prominence of establishment politicians within the official People’s Vote campaign.

On paper, a Norway-style deal might not look like the worst outcome. Many remainers would be relieved to have close ties to Europe and to retain free movement. But for Labour, delivering a Brexit of any kind will be ruinous. It would demoralise the Labour membership, and hand a stack of ammunition to Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents on the right of the party and in the Independent Group. It would fail the test of delivering the referendum for anyone who voted leave.

For Labour, there is now only one option: to join the mass movement and fight for the big ideas, not the Westminster fudge.

As Left Unity have pointed out, the only way forward is with our comrades on the European left, to “remain and transform” the EU.

The EU is as much a terrain of struggle for socialists as the individual capitalist states which comprise it.  The radical left in Britain needs to build on the emerging struggles by Europeanising and internationalising the fightback.

Socialists should still oppose Brexit: Remain and Transform!

 

 

 

Blue Labour, Aaron Banks Funded Labour Leave and ‘Trade Unionists’ Against the EU, ‘Marxists’, Plan Rallies on “Transforming Britain after Brexit.”.

with one comment

Blue Labour , Aaron Banks Funded Labour Leave and ‘Trade Unionists Against the EU’, and ‘Marxists’ Launch Speaking Tour.

Left Unity has published an excellent article.

Socialists should still oppose Brexit: Remain and Transform!

Craig Lewis and Len Arthur demolish Lexit attempts to dismiss the damaging effects of Brexit on the economy. Trade relations are central to the functioning of an internationally integrated capitalist production process. Socialists cannot afford to dismiss the impact of Brexit on trade.

The also tear apart this claim: “Staying within the single market will prevent a Corbyn government implementing key aspects of its “radical” programme. “

They state:

In a widely quoted report for the Renewal journal, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi have undertaken a detailed analysis of claims that EU rules would present significant barriers to Corbyn’s industrial strategy. They looked at each of Labour’s economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto (26 in total).  17 would not fall within State Aid rules at all. 7 potentially do, but these would be exempted under current EU law. Only 2 measures would need to be reported under existing regulations and these could be structured to comply. With regard to nationalisation they suggest that little of Corbyn’s agenda would be affected, and point to the far higher proportion of public ownership in other EU countries.

The strategy Lewis and Arthur advocate is widely shared:

The Remain-supporting radical left must fight alongside those within the Labour Party and wider campaigning groups who seek to commit Jeremy Corbyn’s party to a policy of delaying Brexit to secure a second vote or a General Election. In doing so we should argue boldly for a “Remain and Transform” position.  We do not support a “people’s vote” to maintain the status quo in Europe.  The EU is as much a terrain of struggle for socialists as the individual capitalist states which comprise it.  The radical left in Britain needs to build on the emerging struggles by Europeanising and internationalising the fightback.

Internationalism also needs to be an integral part of the socialist case and action in the UK. Defending these politics is what this response is all about and in practice, on the issue of the EU working with others through organisations such as Another Europe is Possible, to ensure that the socialist case for remain and fighting for a social and democratic EU is made as opposed to the ‘business as usual’ case being promoted by others. Just as important is the active defence of working class action across Europe, against the attacks of neoliberal governments such as that of Macron in France; opposing the rise of the right, for example the AfG in Germany; and supporting social and human rights, such as the vote against the anti-abortion laws in Ireland.

The full piece should be read:

Here we review and update the socialist case against Lexit outlined in an article on Left Unity’s website last year. The article was a response to a piece by Costas Lapavitsas in Jacobin magazine in May 2018, setting out a case for Labour to pursue a hard Brexit under WTO rules. Since then Lapavitsas has developed his critique of the EU and support for Brexit in his new book (Lapavitsas 2019).

Bearing in mind the following point, “Left Unity notes the “extent to which sections of the Labour and far left have accommodated to right-wing nationalist ideas.”

The following sentences caught our gimlet eyes:

He (Lapavitas) will be the key speaker in a series of meetings planned for the run up to Brexit Day on March 29, organised by leading Lexit groups and figures including the Communist Party of Britain, Counterfire, Tariq Ali, the Guardian’s Larry Elliot and, bizarrely, Baron Glasman of Blue Labour: Transforming Britain after Brexit.

Indeed but the gathering is worse, a lot worse, than just the individual appearance of Glasman.

The tour is launched by the Full Brexit.

 

The list of Shame:

Tariq Ali
(New Left Review)
Paula Barker
(NW UNISON Regional
Convenor, personal capacity)
Chris Bickerton
(Cambridge University and The
Full Brexit)
Grace Blakeley
(New Statesman)
Kim Bryan
(Socialist Labour Party …..need we say more….)
Manuel Bueno Del Carpio
(Aaron Banks Funded, Trade Unions Against the EU)
Ben Chacko
(Editor, Morning Star)
Brendan Chilton
(General Secretary, Aaron Banks Funded Labour
Leave, “Leave.EU also secretly funded Labour Leave, the programme claimed, citing emails that suggested three staff members and office costs were paid by Banks. Guardian. 8.3.19)
Larry Elliott
(Economics Editor, The Guardian)
Paul Embery
(Anti-Migrant, anti-Multiculturalism,  Blue Labour, Trade Unions Against the EU)

John Foster (CPB, Scotland)
Lindsey German (Counterfire)
Maurice Glasman
(House of Lords, Blue Labour,
and The Full Brexit)
Bill Greenshields (CPB)

Moz Greenshields
(Derby TUC)
Malcolm Gribbin
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Martin Hall (Counterfire)
Ian Hodson
(President, Bakers Union)
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Feyzi Ismail
(SOAS, University of London)
Jacqui Johnson
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Lee Jones
(Queen Mary, University of
London, and The Full Brexit)
Kevan Nelson (UNISON NW)
Doug Nicholls
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Chris Nineham (Counterfire)
Bob Oram (Morning Star)
Peter Ramsay
(LSE, University of London,
and The Full Brexit)
John Rees (Counterfire)
Arthur Scargill (SLP)

Richard Tuck
(Harvard University, and
The Full Brexit)
Sarah Woolley
(Bakers Union, Leeds)

This funding scandal remains:

Lexit and Brexit collaboration-what did the Morning Star know?

John Rogan.

And who did Banks deal with regarding this funding? Another extract from “Bad Boys
” (31 Jan 2016) –

Arron Banks is currently under investigation by the Electoral Commission for funding of Trade Unionists Against the EU (£54,000) and other organisations. Some more background to this can be found here and here.

A few days ago this came out, making the claim about Labour Leave’s funding by Aaron Banks.

Labour Leave (Channel Four)

The Banks organisation also funded an office, computers and paid for staff working for Labour Leave, a group that claimed it was “funded and staffed by Labour, Trades Unions and socialist Society members.”

Labour Leave did not declare any donations from Leave.EU or the Banks organisation.

The emails suggest that at least three prominent members of Labour Leave were also paid by Banks’s organisation. They include the former Labour MP and trade minister Nigel Griffiths, Brendan Chilton, the General Secretary of Labour Leave. and the Head of Communications, Olly Huitson.

Mr Huitson and Mr Griffiths told Channel 4 News they had expected the payments to be declared by the relevant organisation.

Mr Huitson said he worked for Labour Leave only and understood that his costs would be treated as a non-cash donation from the Banks organisation. They were not declared.

In an interview, John Mills, the Labour donor who ran Labour Leave, admitted he had failed to properly declare the office costs to the Electoral Commission. But he insisted Labour Leave was an independent organisation, and not controlled or directed in any way by Arron Banks or Leave.EU.

He said: “We were our own people, we ran our own ship, we had our own money. He did not provide any cash for us at all. He may of employed some of the people we did and paid them but they were separate from anything that was authorised expenditure by Labour Leave.”

So we have a series of meetings bringing together Counterfire, New Left Review, The Morning Star, Arthur Scargill, the Communist Party of Britain, magic money soveriegntists,  Benittes in their second youth, Blue Labour, anti-multiculturalists, raving patriots, and Labour Leave, who are embroilled in a scandal about extensive far-right funding, not to mention the other recipients of Banks’ money, Trade Unionists Against the EU.

What a shower!

Channel 4 News can reveal that Labour Leave is under investigation by the Electoral Commission.

 

Corbyn in Backstairs Dealing with Tories to Try for ‘Soft Brexit’.

with 5 comments

Yet Corbyn is widely reported to be doing everything he can to save Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he will work with Conservative MPs to try to avert a no-deal Brexit.

The Labour leader met with senior Tories Sir Oliver Letwin and Nick Boles on Wednesday to discuss their plan for a softer Brexit.

Speaking afterwards, he said he was “reaching out to all groups in parliament” and “looking at all the options” to prevent no deal.

It comes with talks between the UK and EU deadlocked and just days left for Theresa May to secure new compromises before MPs vote against on her deal next week.

Independent.

Sienna Rodgers writes on Labour List.

All options are on the table. Some commentators and members are surprised – or perhaps just disappointed – that this remains the case: they expected that the twice-defeated Labour Brexit deal would be shelved by the party once support for another EU referendum was declared. But the leadership has made it clear all along that it is still looking to push for an alternative that involves leaving the EU (although also willing to whip for a public vote). The main reasons are two-fold: it is opposed to the idea, on ideological and electoral grounds; and it knows that a second public vote proposal is unlikely to pass in the Commons. Jeremy Corbyn has written in The Mirror today that “getting Brexit right” is his focus.

As well as publicly campaigning for “Our Alternative”, LabourList understands that the leader’s office has been quietly working with the Common Market 2.0 group to draft a new Brexit amendment. Made up of Labour’s Lucy Powell and Stephen Kinnock, plus Nick Boles, Oliver Letwin and Robert Halfon from the Tories, this cross-party initiative has been campaigning for a deal consisting of single market membership and a new customs arrangement. They say it meets Labour’s six tests and only requires changes to the political declaration in Theresa May’s deal.

Perhaps Corbyn really believes that through these attempts at  backroom deals he is doing his best to secure a deal on Brexit that meets Labour’s six tests.

But the very way this is being carried out is deeply distasteful, not in front of Labour’s membership, but with Toires, and not doubt Corbyn’s famous pro-Brexit ‘advisers’. Playing along with Labour’s Brexit supporters will raise the hackles of the wider membership as well

It is equally hard to believe, despite the pro-leadership spin,  that anything that’s the result of negotiations with the Tories will meet this “2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?” and 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

The Labour List report continues on the last issue:

People’s Vote campaigners aren’t happy, of course, and say such moves contradict the conference policy agreed in September. But others contend that the composite motion – which promised “full participation in the single market” – is actually more in line with the ‘Norway Plus’ group plan than anything else. And the leadership is keen to point out that avoiding ‘no deal’ is the priority, and if a fresh public vote proposal has no chance of securing a Commons majority, isn’t backing a softer Brexit the only way to do that? Nonetheless, Clive Lewis – who is still a shadow minister – has called the latest strategy a “grave error”. PV-ers are determined not to back any kind of Brexit now. But with around 30 on the Labour benches prepared to defy the whip to vote against PV, it will be interesting to see whether that changes. If the mood does shift after their preferred plan of another public vote is substantially defeated next week, Common Market 2.0 could be the future of Brexit.

Here is  Clive Lewis:

Here is  alternative to the ‘Soft’ Brexit Labour leader’s.

On 23 March, six days away from the scheduled exit day, hundreds of thousands of people will march to demand a final say on Brexit.

We are coming together as the left in all our diversity to organise a massive left bloc and rally for the march, to put forward a clear left message and to bring as many people as possible on to the streets.

We are campaigning to transform society, not for the status quo. We are against Brexit because it is a massive assault on working-class people, on the environment, on migrants and on the communities that the left aims to represent.

We will put forward the positive politics of internationalism: for the transformation of Europe and Britain, for free movement, for international cooperation to stop climate chaos, and for solidarity between people and across borders. We urge everyone on the left to join us on 23 March at 11am at Grosvenor Square in London.

Marsha de Cordova MP, Clive Lewis MP, Kate Osamor MP, Caroline Lucas MP, Preet Gill MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP, Rachael Maskell MP, Sandy Martin MP, Rosie Duffield MP, Chi Onwurah MP, Anna McMorrin MP, Sian Berry and Jonathan Bartley Co-leaders of the Green party, Amelia Womack Deputy leader of the Green party, Manuel Cortes TSSA general secretary, Joseph Healy Principal speaker of Left Unity, Michael Chessum Another Europe is Possible, Nadia Whittome Labour for a Socialist Europe, Zoe Williams Journalist, Julie Ward MEP

Guardian. 

Written by Andrew Coates

March 7, 2019 at 2:05 pm