16.06.2016
Our strategy and tactics
Jack Conrad looks at the referendum - and beyond that to the challenge of continental unity
How do things stand with the June 23 referendum? Surprisingly, not least for me, recent opinion polls show the ‘leave’ campaign edging ahead.1 Eg, a TNS poll found that some 47% back Brexit, while only 40% favour ‘remain’ (because this is a survey of those intending to vote the remaining 13% are either ‘don’t knows’ … or ‘spoil your ballot paper’ active boycottists).2
Moreover, as pollsters constantly remind us, those wanting to stay in the European Union tend to be both younger and less likely to vote. Therefore the 1.2 million who stampeded to register as voters in the four days before the final June 8 deadline are considered a much needed boost by Stronger in Europe, Labour In for Britain, etc. Nevertheless, according to Betfair, the probability of a ‘remain’ vote is 64.5% - down 14 points over just four days.3 In response to such news, jittery markets sent the value of the pound and the FTSE 100 plunging downwards. There is a real worry that June 23 could produce the wrong result.
Undoubtedly, the explanation for the renewed wind in the sails of the ‘leave’ campaign lies in the “dominant issue” of immigration.4 Many workers, especially those with a backward level of class-consciousness, misguidedly blame not global inequality, not the Tory government, not the system, but migrants, for poor housing, lack of school places, NHS queues, low wages, etc, etc. Stupidly, as always in pursuit of a short-term political gain, David Cameron once promised an annual cap on immigration and to limit it to the “tens of thousands”.5 A hostage to fortune. He could never deliver. The release of official figures showing a near record 330,000 influx in 2015 were an unsolicited gift for Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage.
Needless to say, both camps insist that some existential choice is about to be made.
On the ‘remain’ side: the politics of fear. Stronger in Europe implies that three million jobs could be lost with a Brexit.6 Meanwhile, HM government’s £9 million pamphlet ominously predicts a ‘leave’ vote will “create years of uncertainty”.7 Similarly, Another Europe is Possible, a typical soft-left lash-up, announces that “walking away from the EU would boost rightwing movements and parties like Ukip and hurt ordinary people in Britain”.8 For his part, Mark Carney maintains that a Brexit will put the country’s vital financial sector at “risk”.9 Moreover, the Bank of England governor is expected to break his “self-imposed purdah” and issue a damning report showing that a ‘leave’ vote could upend inflation, growth and interest rate targets.10 Doing her bit for the remain cause, Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, famously declared that withdrawing from the EU would have “pretty bad to very, very bad consequences” for Britain and could trigger another recession.11 As for George Osborne he warns of a Brexit “emergency budget” that will see him “slash public spending and increase taxes” in order to tackle a £30bn “black hole” brought about by a Brexit economic downturn - this could include “raising income and inheritance taxes and cutting the NHS budget.”12
On the ‘leave’ side: the politics of hopeless hope. Formally headed by Labour’s useful idiot, Gisela Stuart, and incorporating various mavericks, such as Kate Hoey, Frank Field and David Owen, at its core, Vote Leave unites Tory heavyweights - crucially Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith. Vote Leave says Britain must “regain control over things like … migration, crime and civil liberties”.13 As a loathsome auxiliary comes Migration Watch. Unless Britain quits the EU, horror of horrors, total population is set to rise to 80 million by 2035 - with “60% of migrants coming from the EU”.14 Nigel Farage, fronting the UK Independence Party’s Grassroots Go, now, almost triumphantly, announces: “When [David Cameron] says that we can maintain control of immigration while remaining a member of the European Union, people increasingly know this prime minister is simply not telling the truth.”15 Get Britain Out - a longstanding far-right Tory outfit - seeks to “bring back UK democracy”.16 In exactly the same red, white and blue spirit, the Morning Star’s inept Ben Chackopatriotically rejects the “EU superstate project” and likewise seeks the restoration of Britain’s “democracy”.17 Then there is Lexit - uniting the Socialist Workers Party, Counterfire and the Communist Party of Britain. Its Thomas Barker seriously appears to believe that a ‘leave’ vote “would strike a mortal blow to the government, as well as the EU” and “could lead to the calling of a general election and the removal of the detested Tories from power”. He giddily envisages the Tories debilitatingly split and a vague, undefined and entirely fanciful “international fightback”.18
Frankly, unlike genuinely crucial questions, such as transforming the Labour Party, Greek debt bondage, Trident renewal, the danger of runaway climate change, etc, the whole referendum exercise lacks any real substance. Surely, whatever the result on June 23, “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe”.19 Eg, imagine, for the sake of the argument, that the ‘leave’ camp gains a majority on June 23. Despite ringing declarations demanding British independence, an end to mass European migration and freedom from EU bureaucracy coming from Messrs Johnson, Gove and Duncan Smith, such a programme, as I have argued many times before, will never be implemented.
Britain, to state the obvious, no longer possesses a global empire. Its former position as world hegemon was taken over by the United States with World War II. The Suez fiasco in 1956 definitively saw Britain abandon its futile bid to expand its African and Middle Eastern colonies. Instead it reluctantly settled for a privileged position as America’s closest ally. A position that it quickly came to treasure and as everybody knows goes under name of the “special relationship” (a phrase coined by Winston Churchill in 1946). That is exactly why general Charles de Gaulle twice said non. He rightly saw Britain as a pliant US satrap. Even a US Trojan horse. And, once it was inside the European Economic Community as a full member, that indeed has been the role played by Britain.
Leave aside the possibility of an “independent” Britain not being instantly granted a free trade deal by the 27 countries remaining in the EU. The likelihood is that an “independent” Britain just like the “independent” Switzerland and the “independent” Norway will have to abide by all relevant EU red tape, accept freedom of movement from the EU and be under an obligation to contribute to EU budgets. Then there is the simple fact that the US does not want Britain to leave. Something Barack Obama made abundantly clear in public when he visited in April - he urged Britain to “stick with the EU”. David Cameron’s successor will be told exactly the same thing - only in blunter terms. And, be it Boris Johnson, George Osborne or Theresa May, the new British PM will surely follow US orders.
Illusory
Britain’s second Europe referendum, in point of fact, closely matches Harold Wilson’s of June 1975. It was staged not because he was unhappy with the EEC. Wilson’s referendum was, in fact, a wonderfully Machiavellian “ploy” dictated entirely by “domestic politics”.20 Labour had a long record of supporting British efforts to gain membership, dating back to the mid-1960s. Wilson was himself responsible for submitting Britain’s second, unsuccessful, membership application in May 1967. That is surely why Europe hardly featured in the 1970 general election campaign: there was a cross-party consensus.
However, against all expectations Labour lost to a Tory surge. Under those circumstances Wilson turned towards what is now politely called Euroscepticism. In 1971 opposition to the EEC became official Labour policy. A year later, conference voted in favour of supporting the demand for a referendum - till then alien to the British constitutional tradition.
It was, then, a Tory prime minister, Ted Heath, who oversaw British entry in January 1973 - with the help of the Roy Jenkins-George Thomson wing of the Labour Party, he had won a clear parliamentary majority for his membership terms and conditions. Nevertheless, Labour could steal votes by attacking Heath for getting a bad deal and by promising a “fundamental renegotiation” … to be followed by Britain’s first referendum. Needless to say, Labour won the February and then the October 1974 general elections.
Ensconced in No10, Wilson kept to his word and called a referendum. This would also serve, he hoped, to humble Labour’s ‘anti-marketeers’ - ie, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle and Michael Foot. The referendum campaign was, in fact, a highly unequal battle. The ‘remain’ camp enjoyed professional organisation, drew on considerable finances, thanks to big business, and had the backing of the entire national daily press (with the sole exception of the Morning Star).
On June 5 1975, 67% voted ‘yes’ and a mere 33% voted ‘no’ to Britain’s continued membership. Despite that overwhelming mandate, given the fulsome promises that joining the EEC would bring substantial material benefits, it is hardly surprising that Europe has become a “scapegoat for economic malaise”: for sure, the 1974-79 Labour government could do nothing to reverse Britain’s relative economic decline.21
The illusory nature of Britain’s second Euro referendum is no less obvious. The European Union Referendum Act (2015) had nothing to do with David Cameron entertaining some grand plan for a British geopolitical reorientation. By calculation, if not conviction, Cameron is a soft Europhile. And, despite tough talk about negotiating “fundamental, far-reaching change” and gaining a “special status” for Britain, just like Harold Wilson, he came back from Brussels with precious little. Apart from two very minor adjustments - a reduction in non-resident child benefits, which Germany too favoured, and a temporary cut in tax credits - all that Cameron secured was symbolic (ie, the agreement that Britain did not necessarily favour “ever closer union”).
Transparently David Cameron never had any intention of Britain leaving the EU. His promise to hold a referendum was dictated solely by domestic considerations - above all, David Cameron remaining prime minister. By holding out the promise of a referendum, Cameron - together with his close advisors - figured he could harness popular dissatisfaction with the EU - not least as generated by the rightwing press. Moreover, in terms of party politics, Ed Miliband could be wrong-footed, Tory Europhobes conciliated and Ukip checked.
However, Cameron’s expectation was that he would never have to deliver. Most pundits predicted a continuation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition after the May 2015 general election. With Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander sitting around the cabinet table, there would be no referendum. They would have blocked such a proposal with threats of resignation. Yet, as we all know, despite the opinion polls, the Tories secured a narrow House of Commons majority. So Cameron was lumbered with his referendum.
I still expect a ‘remain’ vote on June 23. Surely, backing from big business and international institutions, celebrity endorsements ... and fear of the unknown will swing popular opinion at the 11th hour. Nevertheless, establishment critics are undoubtedly right: Cameron has gambled on an often fickle electorate. Referendums can go horribly awry for those who stage them, especially when issues such as mass migration, international terrorism and general dissatisfaction come into the mix.
The danger of a ‘leave’ vote would genuinely panic the ruling class, “if the referendum really mattered”.22 Sure, David Cameron “would not last 30 seconds” after a Brexit vote (Ken Clarke).23 But he would not be replaced by Nigel Farage ... or Jeremy Corbyn. There will still be a Tory government. It could be headed by Boris Johnson, Theresa May, George Osborne … or, as of now, some less likely contender. Note: the next Tory leader/prime minister will be elected on a ‘one member, one vote’ basis. The chances are, therefore, that, whoever is the next Tory prime minister, Britain would do just what other EU members have done - Denmark, France, Ireland and Holland. After a referendum has gone the wrong way, the government would negotiate “a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it”.24 Amid the post-referendum shock and awe, the population would be scared, fooled or bribed into acquiescence. There would follow a second referendum.
Boris Johnson has surely already given the game away. He is now using the standard ‘leave’ rhetoric: eg, the sunlight of freedom, breaking out of the EU jail, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to “take back control over our borders and control over our democracy”.25 But he readily admits that his support for Brexit only came after Cameron’s final EU deal failed to include his proposed wording enshrining British “parliamentary sovereignty”. Just the kind of meaningless drivel that could easily be conceded in future negotiations and be successfully put to a second referendum - an idea originally mooted by former Tory leader Michael Howard. Naturally, Cameron dismissed the second referendum option. He is in no position to do otherwise. But if Johnson were to become prime minister we know exactly what to expect. At US bidding he would get an EU agreement to a highfalutin phrase that he could sell to the British electorate. As with Harold Wilson in 1975, the chances are that there would be a clear, two-thirds majority.
Boycott
In general communists take a negative view of referendums. We unapologetically prefer representative, indirect democracy, to so-called direct, plebiscitary democracy. Rigorous debate, fielding detailed amendments, the prolonged struggle of parties is replaced by an atomised electorate and the easy appeal of bigotry. Hence Swiss citizens voted in 2009 to ban the construction of any further minarets (there were actually only four of them at the time). Reducing politics to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ choice encourages people to ignore history, complexity and unexpected consequences.
Especially under capitalism referendums tend to disunite the forces of the working class and bring sections of it under the hegemony of petty bourgeois and bourgeois politicians. They are also the favourite devices of dictators and would-be dictators. During their resistible rises Louis Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Charles de Gaulle all used referendums to provide themselves with overarching powers.
Of course, June 23 has nothing to do with putting a dictator into the saddle. What is really at issue is a blue-on-blue power struggle. Assume a ‘remain’ vote, then David Cameron will probably stay on as prime minister for the next couple of years. Assume a ‘leave’ vote, then we will probably get Boris Johnson. Given that palpable reality, the dumbest thing to do is to take the referendum at face value, to obediently say that we must answer the question on the ballot paper. No, instead communists advocate an active boycott. Go to the polling station on June 23 and spoilt your ballot paper: write ‘For a socialist Europe’.
Does that mean that we constitute ourselves an irrelevance, or that we have nothing to say when it comes to Europe? That is a charge that has been repeatedly thrown against us by a range of critics. Suffice to say, nothing could be further from the truth. The CPGB opposes the ‘leave’ camp not simply because to associate with it puts us in the obnoxious company of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Frank Field. No, there is another, far more important, reason. Communists positively favour a united Europe - even if that comes about under the conditions of capitalism. Yet that hardly commits us to supporting the existing EU. Far from it.
The fact of the matter is that the EU is only quasi-democratic. It is a creaking confederation of often fractious capitalist states, run by arrogant, remote, appointed body of commissioners. The directly elected parliament exercises no real power. As for the euro, it is clearly malfunctioning. Hence the long term danger of a Prussian solution.
However, the EU does provide us with the wide sphere of operations needed not only to organise the working class into a ruling class, but a class that, having come to power, can realistically expect to make a decisive, strategic breakthrough in terms of the world socialist revolution. A United Socialist States of Europe could stand up to US imperialism and spread the flame of liberation to Africa, Latin America, Asia ... and finally North America. A socialist France, a socialist Greece, a socialist Portugal could never do that. Indeed any such isolated outpost of working class power would very quickly fall to counterrevolution (either from within or from without).
So, yes, we want to sweep away the existing EU of commissioners, the council of ministers, the court of justice, etc. In its place we envisage a thoroughly democratic and thoroughly internationalist United Socialist States of Europe.
Although we programmatically distrust referendums, it would, of course, be stupid to insist upon some blanket ban on voting in them. Everything depends on concrete circumstances. Take the May 22 2015 referendum in Ireland on same-sex marriage. The ultra-reactionary right, the Catholic hierarchy and various Protestant sects called for a ‘no’ vote. Meanwhile, the four main parties in the Dáil supported a change in the constitution. To have advocated a boycott because of some purist wish to go unassociated with Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Sinn Féin would have been facile posturing and an obvious mistake. Our forces were and still are weak and disorganised, and expectations continue to be desperately low. Equally to have uncritically gone along with the political establishment in some rotten popular front would have been an obvious mistake. Mere tailism. The referendum should have been used as an opportunity to militantly raise the demand for the complete separation of church and state. The Catholic church’s special status, fabulous wealth, tax loopholes, role in education, etc, must be ended. Ireland should be refounded as a secular republic.
Then there is the argument that boycotts are wrongheaded because “all referenda - and for that matter, all elections - are rigged to one degree or another”. Therefore, it supposedly follows that those who advocate an active boycott of the June 23 referendum should “logically” conclude that all elections should be boycotted. It is, of course, true, that all elections under capitalism are to one degree or another “rigged”. But, as argued above, that hardly leads to communists boycotting every referendum as if it were a matter of principle. Our tactics are not based on the undeniable fact that establishment politicians cheat, lie and constantly strive to deceive people. Tactics must be decided upon only after assessing class relations in the round and analysing the development of extra-parliamentary and parliamentary struggles. For example, in a referendum: what is the question, why is the government asking it, how purposeful and combative is the working class, are the reactionaries on the rampage or retreating, does a widespread popular hunger exist for more than is on offer? All such factors must be taken into account.
As to boycotting all elections, practice surely speaks volumes here. The CPGB called for a first-preference vote for George Galloway in the May 5 mayoral election in London and a second preference for Sadiq Khan. Our intention was to simultaneously dramatise opposition to the witch-hunt going on in the Labour Party and to defend the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Galloway condemned the witch-hunt; Khan defended it. However, a defeat for Khan would have seen Corbyn get the blame for a Labour defeat. In fact a Galloway vote cost nothing. He never stood a chance. Second-preference votes for Khan would, on the other hand, count. That was our calculation and that is what happened.
More than that, under the Provisional Central Committee, the CPGB has fielded candidates in elections going back to 1992. Why? Because we want to use “every avenue to propagate the ideas of communism”.26 Elections - with the growth of communist organisation and communist consciousness - can be turned from a means to lull the masses and gain their submission into a weapon of the class struggle - and one of the sharpest at that.
During a gathering revolutionary storm, communists might well decide to boycott a referendum with a heavily loaded question such as - ‘Do you favour the restoration of peace, stability and good governance?’ or ‘Do you favour national collapse, anarchy and mob rule’? If communists dominate the Labour Party, have a large communist-Labour parliamentary fraction, control numerous local authorities, lead the important trade unions, run countless education institutes and co-ops and can count on the support of rank-and-file committees in the armed forces, etc, countenancing participation in such a counterrevolutionary stunt would surely be to betray the cause of socialism.
Under such welcome circumstances, we might be advised to demand a general election, along with ending the many shortcomings and violations of democracy that exist under the UK’s constitution. Absence of proportional representation, the corrupting role of big money, an unelected second chamber, judicial review, MI5, the royal prerogative in choosing the prime minister, etc.
What about the silly notion that a boycott would “relegate” us to an “irrelevance” and allow the Tories and Ukip to do all the running? A boycott is hardly the same as an apolitical, passive, abstention.
In this context it is worth recalling that the Bolsheviks firmly distinguished between a “passive abstention” and an “active boycott” - which implies, as Lenin explained, “increasing agitation tenfold”.27 The Bolsheviks, it should be stressed, were not boycottists as a matter of principle. Far from it. Nonetheless, they did organise a spectacularly successful boycott of elections to the tsar’s duma in 1905. The Bulygin duma was in effect buried before it was born. However, under the changed circumstances of 1912, the Bolsheviks totally dominated the workers curia in the fourth duma.
We are not interested in saving David Cameron’s bacon. Nor are we interested in giving him a bloody nose and triggering a Tory leadership contest, which would see a battle between Boris Johnson, George Osborne and Theresa May. What we are interested in is carving out a space, no matter how initially small, no matter how initially tentative, no matter how initially inadequate, for the great task of readying the working class in the EU for the socialist revolution.
Notes
1. The Guardian June 13 2016.
2. The Daily Telegraph June 14 2016.
3. The Week June 13 2016.
4. www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/13/eu-referendum-live-labour-remain-campaign-final-10-days-vote.
5. The Daily Telegraph January 10 2010.
6. www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#iQAmHJOlGfmYbztJ.97.
7. HM government, ‘Why the government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK’.
8. www.anothereurope.org.
9. The Daily Telegraph March 8 2016.
10. This is money June 11 2016.
11. The Daily Telegraph May 13 2016.
12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534192.
13. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voteleave/pages/98/attachments/original/1457545797/website-brochure-hq-mar16-2.pdf.
14. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36514849.
15. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36444014.
16. http://getbritainout.org.
17. Editorial Morning Star March 4 2016.
18. www.leftleave.org/exit-left-the-socialist-case-for-britain-leaving-the-eu.
19. Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton professor of politics Financial Times April 9-10 2016.
20. D Reynolds Britannia overruled London 1991, p249.
21. Ibid p250.
22. Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton professor of politics Financial Times April 9-10 2016.
23. The Independent April 16 2016.
24. Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton professor of politics Financial Times April 9-10 2016.
25. The Independent March 6 2016.
26. J Conrad In the enemy camp London 1993, p7.
27. VI Lenin CW Vol 9, Moscow 1977, p182.