In his statement in the Commons, Michael Gove talked tough. The objective is a comprehensive free trade agreement, which happens to be the European Union's goal too. However, there can be no alignment with EU laws because that represents an unacceptable infringement of British freedoms. Indeed, the document guiding the talks lays sovereignty down as the reddest of red lines. That also means no jurisdiction for EU law nor the European Court of Justice, and fisheries are going to have to wait for a separate deal. And if by June it looks like little to no progress has been made, then the government are prepared to walk away and revert to WTO terms at the end of the year. In other words, our old friend the no deal Brexit is back with all the calamity it might bring. Prepare for an Autumn as almost as excitable as the last.
A closer look, however, suggests something else is afoot. If we scroll down the government's document to chapter 26, we find the UK does not want to "weaken or reduce the level of protection offered by labour laws and standards in order to encourage trade or investment." Chapter 27 says "The [Brexit free trade] Agreement should include reciprocal commitments not to weaken or reduce the level of protection afforded by environmental laws ...". If it sounds like and reads like regulatory convergence, then perhaps ...? And Chapter 21 on competition policy says both parties need "to maintain effective competition laws, covering merger control, anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance, while maintaining the right to provide public policy exemptions." "Effective" in these terms means the same. In other words, from the off Boris Johnson has made huge concessions to the EU while going hard on the prospects of no deal and walking away from negotiations. It's just like a trip down memory lane - you promise apocalyptic hellfire and scuttle back with a meek capitulation dressed up as anything but. It's almost as if their announcements for public consumption are driven by headline grabbing.
This isn't to say a deal is a foregone conclusion. Johnson throws about a Canada-style free trade agreement as if the retired gents down Wetherspoon's talk about nothing else. And the EU wants a closer relationship because, well, our economies are already integrated. Some way to go then, but the best indicator of future behaviour however is past behaviour. And this is why fisheries are compartmentalised away from the main talks. The Tories need some political theatre, and the EU's Council of Ministers understand this. In the grand scheme of the British economy the value of the fishing industry is, if you'd pardon the pun, a minnow. Yet it is emotive when you consider how the right have exploited the decline of port towns, and fed off lurid headlines about evil French and Spanish sailors despoiling coastal waters while plucky Brits are stranded in dock because they're over quota. It's a perfect set up for some Johnson breast beating, and if Spanish threats to Gibraltar are dragged in too, so much the better. Assuming Keir Starmer is the new Labour leader as per expectations, a bit of contrived jingoism is exactly the sort of stuff that could wrong foot him should he stick with the "forensic detail" of technical and process arguments. What is to be sure, the fate of a £980m sector isn't about to derail Johnson's efforts at preserving the City and its profits - the crucial lynchpin of bourgeois power in these islands.
You can never be too wary about making predictions, but having learned nothing from the last five years I'm going to venture one. There might be some contrived moments of brinkmanship, tough talking, and panics about the no deal abyss, but ultimately Johnson wants to walk away from this waving his bit of paper. And in all likelihood, that is what's going to happen.
Image Credit
29 comments:
It will be no deal. That is what the Tories have wanted all along. Selling out to the US and big profits to be trousered with the sell-off of the NHS.
On every occasion, Johnson has done the same thing. He comes out with a load of Bravado such as "Dying In A Ditch", and on each occasion he capitulates to the EU, whilst using a narrative, and the Tory media to proclaim, Trump like, that he has secured a great deal.
He said he wouldn't ask for an extension to Article 50 but he did. He claims to have got the EU to reopen the WA, and scrap the Backstop, but in fact, he capitulated again, accepting the deal that the EU had initially put to May, but which even May had to reject because of opposition from the DUP - and Johnson and the ERG - which separate off NI from Britain, and puts a border down the Irish Sea, essentially incorporating in perpetuity the NI economy with that of the republic, and creating an inevitable dynamic to Irish unification.
The only way to a Canada style FTS is via Britain signing a Treaty that keeps it tied to the Single Market and Customs Union, which will also mean continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction. It means a split in the Tory Party similar to 1848, and Repeal of the Corn Laws.
But, it also means that people will realise what was obvious from the beginning, which is that any Brexit that does not result in a disaster can only be BRINO. And, what purpose is there in such a BRINO that differs from actual membership of the EU only in the fact that British people lose the right to elect MEP, appoint members of the Council of Ministers and so on. In other words, that amounts not to taking back control, but to the greatest abrogation of control the country has ever seen!
Its precisely why Labour needs someone like Starmer, who can continue to argue against Brexit and distance Labour from the consequences of it, and point in the direction of reversing it. Its precisely why those like RLB and Nandy who continually peddled a Brexit position should not become Labour Leader.
More importantly, it shows why the rank and file need to organise for the continuation of that fight that lies ahead.
Here we are again. Another in a lengthy series in which supposedly intelligent people who have succeeded in negotiating for themselves a pay rate well below what they could command if they actually had planned in advance demonstrate they know little about negotiating.
Take fishing. If I were the EU, I'd recognise the EU was going to lose this and in the grand scheme it is quite trivial. So I'd say how very important this is, how we are not going to give way, so when we actually do give way later we make it look like the UK has won a major victory so in return we can demand something back that we really do want, like an agreement on observing trade rules.
The underlying message of 'Remain' criticism is that as the UK is smaller we will inevitably lose. But small groups continually beat big groups all over the world, and they do this by demonstrating that they are prepared to suffer in order to meet their objectives, so the larger group has to either continue to fight and accept the cost of fighting, or reach a settlement that is in some way beneficial to the smaller group. To be clear, the smaller group does to endure suffering because they like suffering, they do it because they realise that is the way to a better outcome, and that the consequences of giving in are to be a lesser group, permanently kept oppressed.
And BillH, just ridiculous. Surprised you haven't blamed World Jewry whilst you're at it.
and whilst we are at it ...
What is to be sure, the fate of a £980m sector isn't about to derail Johnson's efforts at preserving the City and its profits
The EU isn't going to cut itself off from the world's leading financial market. If it did it could have serious consequences for European governments, corporations, and other institutions. Also, there is a limited amount that the EU can do to stop trading happening in EUR denominated assets. To take a specific example, Clearing. This is clearly completely misunderstood by many commentators. There is Cash clearing, which already only takes place in EUR denominated countries just like nearly all major currencies are cleared in their domestic market, and there is derivatives clearing, and it is frankly hard to see how the EU can stop this taking place outside the EU. To give an analogy, it is the difference between playing in a European Football league, and betting on the outcome of matches in a European League. Whilst it is clearly in the power of Football leagues to control who plays in them, it is not in their ability to control who bets on them, as the massive world-wide betting actives that take place on the English Premier League demonstrate.
BillH is correct. You Phil are assuming too much rationality on the part of Johnson and his supporters. He still has Farage breathing down his neck, plus the large number of very extreme right-wingers who have recently joined the Conservative Party and who are likely to be much more forceful than the elderly inactive membership they're used to. It will be crash-out no-deal for sure, and any effort to safeguard the economy will be focused on the speculators and arms manufacturers.
"The underlying message of 'Remain' criticism is that as the UK is smaller we will inevitably lose. But small groups continually beat big groups all over the world, and they do this by demonstrating that they are prepared to suffer in order to meet their objectives, so the larger group has to either continue to fight and accept the cost of fighting, or reach a settlement that is in some way beneficial to the smaller group. To be clear, the smaller group does to endure suffering because they like suffering, they do it because they realise that is the way to a better outcome, and that the consequences of giving in are to be a lesser group, permanently kept oppressed."
Tell that to the Grunwick workers, the Silentnight workers, or even the Miners who lost the 1984-5 strike. Tell it to the Chagos Islanders. The times when the weak and small defeat the big are insignificant, and down to particular conditions at the time.
The UK is small and weak. Even its fishing industry depends on selling its fish to the EU. The EU can easily meet its requirements internally without resort to Britain, but the opposite is not the case, and nor is it the case that Britain can meet its requirements particularly for continuation of Just In Time production, by looking to the US, China, India, or Japan thousands of miles away from its necessary supply lines. A reading of Krugman's Nobel prize winning work on trade flows, and why companies locate production close to the market for the output shows why.
The EU knows what cards the UK is holding, and so Johnson's bluff is sheer stupidity, or more correctly is actually designed for stupid British people prepared to be taken in by it, rather than to be taken seriously by the EU. Johnson does not want a No Deal, even if some of the ERG boneheads do. His rhetoric was only ever designed to allow him to become Leader. He will now stitch up all those that took him seriously.
"The EU isn't going to cut itself off from the world's leading financial market. If it did it could have serious consequences for European governments, corporations, and other institutions."
The world's leading financial market is now New York not London, and London's position has continued to decline as a result of Brexit. Rapidly accelerating are also Asian financial markets, so the EU can operate quite easily via Franfurt directly with these other global financial centres rather than being dependent on London. Indeed, it makes sense for the European financial centre to be in Frankfurt rather than in London.
Honestly.
Are you folks saying that there is no deal that the EU could offer that wouldn't be accepted by the UK government?
I wonder if possible the reason that after 10 years of Tory Government the main opposition party is getting an absolute pasting everywhere there is an election could be anything to do with the fact it seems to be full of wild conspiracy theorists who mock the voters they need at every opportunity? Perhaps you are the conspiracy? Perhaps you are actually employed by the right to plant such ridiculous conspiracy theories amongst Labour that no-one but a handful of nutters will vote for them?
... and who is it who is politically weak right now? Germany is facing a domestic political crisis with the AfD and Greens producing a pincer movement disrupting the CDU. They are facing an imminent recession due to China and Covid19, a politically toxic row in the EU about budget contributions, so the last thing they need right now is a trade war penalising their exports.
Meanwhile Johnson has a massive majority, 5 years minimum, and has the most inept opposition in history, as evidenced on here by loyal opposition members trying to entice voters back by offering a repeat of what they've already rejected and calling them stupid at the same time.
You both could have avoided it. The EU could, Labour could. All it needed was a bit of willingness to compromise. But it was your way or the highway wasn't it. And now its the highway for both Labour and the EU.
Very interesting post and some excellent comments as well.
The EU-Canada FTA has clauses on regulatory alignment. All this brinkmanship will achieve is capital flight, damage to the UK's reputation, and further deterioration in relations
This blogpost by a high-ranking Brexit supporter is worth reading:
https://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2020/02/institutional-negligence.html
But that then brings us to the core issue here. We are dealing with Tory ideologues who don't have so much as a basic grasp of what a modern FTA is, and don't really care enough to find out. Neither Johnson or the Tory party ever cared sovereignty, rather they see Brexit as a window of opportunity to carry out an ill-advised radical economic experiment - which is why they are looking to virtually any excuse to sabotage a viable conclusion to these negotiations. A comprehensive FTA is an impediment to their agenda.
Instead the Tories appear to be aiming for an "Australian style agreement" (something that doesn't actually exist) as a fallback position. The Australian relationship is comprised of multiple agreements, there is no "Australian style agreement", and if these talks fall through then Gove is in no position to guarantee any agreement, Australian or otherwise.
The sad part here is that there are now rich pickings for an opposition party that was on top of its game. Instead of exploiting the opportunities, though, all we'll get is some generic blether from Long-Bailey and Starmer over worker's rights to make it look like they've been paying attention. With the EU and the UK having published their trade negotiating positions, we can now expect Labour to deliver a landmark policy paper on promoting trans rights on the Gaza strip. There is no opposition to speak of.
@Dipper The EU has very little space to accede to the UK's demands, so it will fight to the bitter end if it has to, and will probably win.
“But small groups continually beat big groups all over the world, and they do this by demonstrating that they are prepared to suffer in order to meet their objectives”
Well I am all ears, Dipper please reel off the examples where the weak beat the strong by being prepared to suffer.
“And BillH, just ridiculous. Surprised you haven't blamed World Jewry whilst you're at it. .”
Well there is a leap and a half. We have a mountain of evidence to suggest that the NHS is already part of negotiations in a post Brexit era, we even have the corporate media running stories of this, we even have a plethora of private healthcare provioders already offering online apps to diagnose conditions and take over GP services for a monthly subscription fee etc etc etc and when Bill raises this perfectly reasonable observation Dipper resorts to world Jewry conspiracies. Interesting how Dipper without any whiff of anti Semitism from Bill implies it anyway. A perfect illustration of how the anti Semitic witch-hunt against the left is being conducted.
But for the record, the holocaust and historic anti Semitism is absolutely a project of the right, to which Dipper belongs and springs directly from the ideology that Dipper espouses n a daily basis.
“Are you folks saying that there is no deal that the EU could offer that wouldn't be accepted by the UK government?”
I think what is being said is that the EU will offer a deal that is in the EU’s best interests and Britain can take it or leave it. In other words, on every major bit of the negotiation the EU will dictate to Britain the terms of the agreement. The only way that could possibly be altered is if the USA stands behind Britain and involves itself in the negotiations, which won’t happen. And anyone who tells the British anything different is almost certainly someone who doesn’t care a fig for the majority of Brits. Yes that's you Dipper.
"With the EU and the UK having published their trade negotiating positions, we can now expect Labour to deliver a landmark policy paper on promoting trans rights on the Gaza strip."
Fir the record the Labour party couldn't give a toss about the people in the Gaza strip, trans or otherwise and that goes for most of what passes for the left in the UK.
The politics of the left in the UK can be summarised as follows: Loot, pillage and murder your way across the globe and share the spoils of this looting semi equally among the the 'people'.
"Are you folks saying that there is no deal that the EU could offer that wouldn't be accepted by the UK government?"
Of course there is a deal the EU can offer that Johnson will accept. Its just that for home consumption, including for the boneheads in the Tory Party, Johnson has to pretend to be negotiating on a hard line basis, and to cover over the fact that he has again capitulated to the EU. Remember he couldn't accept the deal the EU originally offered to May, but then capitulated when he became Prime Minister, and accepted an even worse deal!
Of course, when the EU offers a deal to the UK in which Britain essentially remains in the EU (EEA), but without any political input into the decision making, Johnson will accept it, and present it as having achieved his FTA as promised. But, it will actually mean continued to accept Single Market and Customs Union rules, as well as ECJ jurisdiction, free movement and so on.
It will mean he will have given up a huge amount of control under the guise of "taking back control". Life is full of irony!
"and who is it who is politically weak right now? Germany is facing a domestic political crisis with the AfD and Greens producing a pincer movement disrupting the CDU. They are facing an imminent recession due to China and Covid19, a politically toxic row in the EU about budget contributions, so the last thing they need right now is a trade war penalising their exports."
Total fantasy, and delusion. The position of the German state does not depend on any short-term superficial political conditions, but on the long-term interests of German capital, as represented by the permanent state. The Afd have no possibility of playing any significant role, and the Greens time and again in government have played the part of good bourgeois democrats alongside conservatives.
The coronavirus moral panic will disappear from view within a couple of months, and there will be a resurge in economic activity. But, even allowing for that not happening, the UK is already effectively in recession, largely due to Brexit, so, especially as an island, and a smaller economy, any global economic slowdown will hit it far harder than Germany or any other EU country. The strength of the EU economy vis a vis the UK does not depend on any ephemeral conditions, but on the structural fact that it is a $14 trillion economy, and the UK is a $2 trillion economy, that it has 450 million people, making it the world's largest market, whereas the UK has only 60 million, and on the fact that the EU has significant trade deals with the largest economies and economic blocs across the globe, which give the same kind of leverage that monopolies and oligopolies have, and that smaller companies do not, which is why the smaller companies are always subordinated to and dependent upon those monopolies and oligopolies.
A hundred years ago we knew that there was no such thing as economic independence for individual economies, because freedom is a function of size and power. Its why the Theory of Socialism In One Country was opposed by socialists, because its a crock. Every day the UK sees the outbreak of reality as against the delusion that was sold by the Brexiters and Lexiters, and that reality will inevitably impose itself in more and more harsh terms.
"Meanwhile Johnson has a massive majority, 5 years minimum, and has the most inept opposition in history, as evidenced on here by loyal opposition members trying to entice voters back by offering a repeat of what they've already rejected and calling them stupid at the same time."
More fantasy. I heard a Tory on Politics Live yesterday saying that the UK would not reduce standards for workers rights etc. Yeah right. But, the Labour representative also missed the point. The Tory argued that it would be up to British governments to determine. And the Labour representative still couldn't get out of the mindset of thinking about this in purely British nationalistic terms.
The fact is, it does not matter whether Labour politicians, or the British electorate believe that this or some future government will reduce standards. It does not matter what majority Johnson has. It is only how the EU views things that counts. The EU has no reason to console itself that Johnson has a majority, or has to concern itself with whether Labour politicians or the British electorate think that a British government will reduce standards. It only has to concern itself with the fact of whether IT thinks that a British government might do that.
And, given the history of perfidious Albion, given the way that british governments have lied and gone back on their word, several times just in the last three years of negotiations, why on Earth WOULD the EU believe anything that Johnson says? Of course, the EU knows that the reason Johnson wants a FTA, but does not want to accept EU single market and customs union rules, is because his position all along was to try to negotiate such a British exceptionalist position, though he initially thought he could achieve that INSIDE the EU, as Thatcher and Blair did. They don't have to ponder the question, its obvious why Johnson would want such an arrangement, so as to reduce standards to gain competitive advantage, as well as the Tory boneheads who want to screw workers even harder, and go back to the conditions of the early 19th century, but if there were any doubt, there are numerous Tory statements that have said precisely that!
"The EU could, Labour could. All it needed was a bit of willingness to compromise. But it was your way or the highway wasn't it. And now its the highway for both Labour and the EU."
And why do you think the EU has not compromised? Because it is in the driving seat. It has no reason to. And, if you and the Tories press ahead with the kind of No Deal you seem to be threatening, it will not be the highway for the EU, but disaster for Britain, and the end of Johnson's government, whatever his majority. That is precisely why he won't do it, why the EU knows he won't do it, and why yet again he will have to capitulate. The promise to "Get Brexit Done" was as empty as all the other Tory promises.
Boffy this is desperate stuff. Johnson is not backing down. He cannot or he is finished, and a very large slice of voters will head off for a party that will not back down to the EU.
We will know if Dipper is correct and the Tories decide to make us all suffer so we can allow the elite to avoid taxation and deregulate (sorry get our country back) from whether we get a deal with the EU or not. If we get a deal then we can pretty much guarantee that the Tories have capitulated to the EU (the sensible choice) and if we crash out with a no deal (the stupid choice) we know for sure that the Tories are prepared to make us all suffer to defeat a stronger enemy.
Incidentally Dipper I am still waiting for that list of the weak who have beaten a stronger foes by being prepared to suffer.
As an aside and in the interests of public safety: I am sure you have all worked this out for yourself, but just in case, I feel it my civic duty to point out that for advice on the coronavirus people need to listen for the latest updates from the World Health Organisation and take the appropriate action. The last thing people should do is listen to a self aggrandising colossal idiot like Boffy the buffoon.
Incidentally here is the definition of a moral panic: “an instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society.”
For the record a viral disease does not fall under the category of moral standards of society.
Its you that's providing the desperate stuff. Johnson has repeatedly backed down. he didn't die in a ditch, he didn't get the WA reopened or the Backstop removed, he simply accepted an earlier version of the WA, and backstop that not only he but May had been forced to reject! His capitulation not only puts a border down the Irish Sea but incorporates NI in perpetuity into the economy of the Irish republic, making he dynamic towards a United Ireland more or less unstoppable.
Johnson has shown where he's headed. he first ditched the DUP, and having done so, he marginalised the ERG. His majority will enable him to start to pull the Tory Associations into line. True he has a tough choice to take on the Tory Libertarian Free Market Right so as to avoid a disastrous No Deal Brexit, or give way to them, and suffer a calamity that will destroy him, his government and the Tory Party forever. He will not choose the latter, in the same way that Peel ended up being forced to accept the need to act in the interests of British industrial capital, and not in the interests of British parasitic landlords, and the financial oligarchy. He will be aided in that task by the fact that every sign that he might waver and push for a No Deal, will be met by a capital strike, by a run on he Pound, and on financial markets. The growing weakness of the UK economy due to the existing effects of Brexit will not make that hard.
Already, we've seen the leaked memo that sections of the government are prepared to close down UK agriculture, and buy all our food from overseas. We know that sections of the Free Market Right such as Patrick Minford think that its fine to finish the job that Thatcher began in the 80's, of destroying British manufacturing industry completely so as to focus on financial speculation. I don't think that what even many of those dimwitted Tory Brexit voters thought they were signing up to.
You are right in one aspect, the Labour opposition has been pathetic in failing to take a clear principled anti-Brexit position. If it continues to do so it will again be a total derelection of duty, and another huge missed opportunity, as the negative effects of Brexit continue to unfold. Labour should distance itself from the tragedy of this Tory Brexit by as much as it can, and by daily pointing out the negative effects it is having on British workers, and that worse is yet to come.
@ Boffy. Voters punished Johnson for failing to get the UK out by 31st October by giving him a massive majority, and we are now out and in a transitional arrangement prior top that ending at the end of the year. Hence he has delivered. He will probably get a deal, and lots of Tories will complain about it and then vote for it.
Lefties such as yourself don't seem to understand that in the ecosystem of the Tory party there are lots of voices. They ask for all sorts of things. What you need to do is concentrate on what gets done, not what oddball is trying to attract attention by saying things like we don't need farming etc. It is someone's job to ask provocative questions.It's government's job to be careful about what they deliver and that is what they will do. The Tory Party is a formidable electoral machine not some arm of hedge-fund conspiracy central. Whenever you go on about cronies and conspiracies it just makes you look mad. The problem with the left is there are too many people for whom this is a hobby where they can engage in plotting and scheming rather than a job the point of which is to get into No 10.
Your statements here completely miss the point. I wasn't pointing to the fact that Johnson didn't die in the ditch to say that such action for him was electorally disastrous, but that it points to his pattern of behaviour, and what can be expected as he comes up against reality in the Brexit negotiations. In fact, if I were Johnson, the fact that, having failed to get Brexit Done, by dying in ditch in October, I still managed to get the Kippers and other brexit fanatics to vote for me in December, would give me confidence that I can sell out again, by agreeing to EU demands for Single Market/Customs Union compliance without any major problem, especially as I don't have to go to a GE for at least 4 years, whereas an economic and social catastrophe caused by a Crash Out No Deal, would be likely to get me turfed out within a matter of weeks if not days. Which would you choose?
So, yes, I agree he will get a deal and Tory MP's will vote for it, or more correctly, you should say, he will again capitulate to the EU, and Tory MP's will have to accept it, whilst pretending that such a BRINO amounts to having "Got Brexit Done", whilst it, of course, in reality means no such thing.
I understand entirely that there are a multiplicity of voices and interests in the Tory party. I have been writing about that very fact for many years. And, I agree that the oddballs like those saying that UK farming and manufacture could be closed down, people like Minford, Rees-Mogg et al, have some resonance amongst the majority of grass roots members, but the Tory party can never pursue that course consistently if it wants to be in or stay in government. Its why Thatcher as she moved down that road in the late 1980's was ditched.
In the end, the interests of large scale industrial capital, especially of service industry capital dominates, because its on its interests that the future of the British state depends, and not all those small capitalists that make up the core Tory party membership and voter base. So, as Peel found with the Corn Laws, ultimately a Tory leader has to choose between their Party membership, and the interests of the State, and the interests of the dominant section of the ruling class. In 1848, Peel had to accept the reality of unfolding social revolution that imposed the domination of social-democracy, of the alliance between the large scale industrial capital, and the industrial proletariat against the interests not only of the landlords, but also of the financial oligarchy. It split the Tories, but still saw the rise of Manchester Liberalism as the representative of that social-democracy, and dominance of industrial capital, which simply morphed into the LP.
Today, for those in the Tory party who want to essentially go back to the situation prior to 1848, or even prior to the late 19th century, would require a counter-revolution, not just against social-democracy, but also against the foundations of the economy that rest on the dominance of large scale industrial capital.
It won't happen. Boris Johnson is a Bonapartist in the fashion of Mosely, but also of Mussolini, and Hitler. And, all those cases were people who used a strong state to actually defend the status quo of the domination of large scale industrial capital, not to go back to some 18th/19th century model of Liberalism based upon all out free competition and the dominance of the small firm.
The thing is of course, that despite their economic nationalist rhetoric, even Hitler and Mussolini knew that the logic of this large scale capital requires a much larger arena than the nation state, which is why Hitler sought to unify Europe under German domination. Even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, Johnson would be led into a realisation that the interests of large scale capital, and so of the British capitalist state require effective membership of the EU, either overtly or via BRINO.
"Whenever you go on about cronies and conspiracies it just makes you look mad."
I've said nothing about cronies or conspiracies. I have proceeded on the basis of a scientific analysis based on materialism. I have described what material interests the different strands of opinion inside the Tory party represent. I have set out the objective facts about the material conditions facing the UK and facing the EU, and the resultant balance of power between the two.
I have also set out the material conditions which determine the economic future of the UK economy, which is based on the dominance of large scale industrial capital, however much the Tory grass roots might go into reveries about the role of small business. None of that involves conspiracies or the kind of subjectivist schema mongering that your analysis relies upon.
Is it possible that Johnson will go against the interests of the british state, and of the dominant section of capital, in order to keep faith with the wackos who want a No Deal Crash Out, and a decimation of the economy? Of course, everything is possible. But, if he does it will be against the record of his own behaviour, it will result in his government collapsing in chaos, and so on balance, I would say, highly unlikely.
And still no list from Dipper of the weak who have beaten a stronger foe by being prepared to suffer!
@ Boffy.
Still nuts. What big business clearly meant is EU membership and we know which section of which party is mad keen on that. They would also like maximum labour mobility, preferably with someone else paying for the education and training of their workers.
You are making the same mistake as most on the left, which is to have a view and read to support that view. You are not assembling the counter-argument and seeing how it stacks against your main view.
Why still nuts? You fail to ask the question of why big business wants that EU membership and so on, and what happens, therefore, in a situation in which given that it is big business which determines the economy and future of the state, what happens if it doesn't get it. To give a parallel from Nature, you might want to think that it would be nice, if you are a farmer, if you really didn't have to spend money on fertiliser and so on in order to have healthy crops. But, if you proceed on the basis of this subjective view of what might be nice, rather than on a materialist analysis of what is, you will find reality imposes itself on you, and it ends in disaster.
I am sure that you and all those Tory grass roots elements who dream of the days when the economy was dominated by millions of small businesses and red in tooth and claw competition wish that that was still the case. It was the delusion purveyed by Hayek. But it simply isn't, and to go back to those days would not only mean decimating the British economy, and the standard of living of tens of millions, and so a vicious counter-revolution that would inevitably fail, because there is no real social force that would line up to bring it about.
Th truth is the opposite of what you state. A study of reality shows that the economy is determined by the interests of big business. Its usually Labour that needs to be cognisant of that fact, which is why McDonnell had to draw up the plans of what would happen if that same big business attempted to undermine a radical government. That is not "a view" it is objective reality. You might want to think that the economy is still the same as it was in the 18th century, or early 19th century, that is your "view", but it is not reality.
Its you that is constructing a schema of how you want things to be based upon that "view", and thereby failing to take into consideration that how you want things to be is simply not consistent with that reality. Big business dominates the economy. So long as capitalism exists, the economy will have to cater for the interests of big business, otherwise, the economy and future of the state will be put in jeopardy. And, the interests of big business are contrary to those of the small business interests of the large majority of Tory members and voters. That is the material basis of the crisis inside the Tory Party once more.
Cont'd
Cont'd
The interests of big business, and thereby of the UK economy is social-democracy and membership of the EU, and everything that goes with it, including macro-economic planning and regulation, so that the big business can more confidently invest the huge sums now involved over long periods, and can do so in the context of a huge single market, with a level playing field, removal of barriers to free movement of capital and labour and goods and services.
You and those that support Brexit might wish that not to be he case, but unfortunately for you just as wishing you could grow crops successfully without the use of fertiliser and so on, comes up against reality and material conditions, so your subjective desire of how you would like the world to be comes up against the objective reality of how it actually is.
Like Bismark, Louis Bonaparte, Mussolini Hitler and others, Johnson is a Bonapartist who has come to power on the basis of support from a rabble of heterogeneous forces, but like all of the above, he has to deal with the reality that the future of the state depends upon the fortunes of big business, which means continuing all of that framework of social-democracy of planning and regulation, of a big state, and economic relations undertaken within a political/state framework large enough to cater for the needs of that capital. Its why capitalism created nation states to begin with. But, in a world of superstates the minimum state framework required for big capital to operate can no longer be the small nation state such as Britain.
Big business knows that, Johnson knows that and that is the problem he now faces having come to office on the back of the support of people who clearly do not know that, and who think they are still living in a world that ceased to exist a century ago. Bismark, Louis Bonaparte, Mussolini and Hitler faced a similar problem. They resolved it by knifing those amongst that rabble that brought them to power in the back, and proceeding to pursue the interests of big business, and modernising their economies.
Johnson will do the same or he will fall and be replaced by someone else who will.
“The interests of big business, and thereby of the UK economy is social-democracy”
Like hell it is!
It’s like the last 50 years haven’t happened in Boffy world. It is like the rise of neo liberalism and financialisation has passed this fool by.
I mean even the Scandinavian nations have been slowly drifting away from Social democracy.
Blair is very epitome of the defeat of social democracy!
This rise in neo liberalism, this privatisation of the planet to quote a great book that Boffy really needs to read has coincided with the rising power of Big capital and Globalisation.
The mass privatisations, the massive increases in zero hour contracts, the massive increases in the pay of CEO’s, the stagnation of workers in pay in relation to productivity, the increase in rentiers, the massive financialisation of the economy etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc is not some aberration from the wishes of big capital but is very much a symptom of their ever increasing power and the ever increasing concentration of wealth and power.
Still no list from @dipshit!
Post a Comment