Oppose Johnson’s bargain basement Brexit deal
The Brexit deal negotiated by Boris Johnson with the EU is a bad deal for working class people in Britain and in Ireland. It paves the way for a bargain basement Brexit after the end of the transition period, involving a race to the bottom in terms of workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards. It also contains the danger of significantly increasing sectarian tensions in the North, by creating a border down the Irish sea, the potential for a North-South hard border in the future, and creating a recurring and sectarianised vote on the customs status of Northern Ireland.
We don’t accept the choice between this bad deal or a no-deal, crash-out exit. An alternative exists. Johnson’s deal should be defeated, and the trade union and labour movement in Britain should mobilise to bring down the Tory government and fight for a Corbyn-led Labour government with socialist policies to negotiate a fundamentally different agreement.
What’s in the deal?
The content of this deal builds upon the neo-liberal withdrawal deal negotiated by Theresa May. It includes a commitment in the Political Declaration to “a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition”, effectively seeking to ban left-wing policies such as public investment and nationalisation. However, it is worse in a number of key respects.
Despite the attempt to cover it up with an empty political declaration about workers’ rights, this withdrawal agreement is clearer about the race to the bottom envisaged for the future. That this forms part of the plans for a subsequent free trade agreement with the EU is evident from the removal of the reference to alignment with EU regulations. As Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour Party, said: “The deal fails to enshrine the principle that we keep pace with the EU on environmental standards and protections, putting at risk our current rules, from air pollution standards to chemical safety – all at a time when we face a climate emergency.”
If it is a Tory government negotiating this future free trade agreement, they will simultaneously be seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US, involving significantly lower consumer, environmental and labour standards to allow in chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and ractopamine-fed pork for example. While this outcome is not inevitable, and a left-wing government would push in a different direction, it is important to highlight the dangerous direction in which Johnson’s deal points.
This is bad not just for workers in Britain, but for workers in Ireland and across the EU. The race to the bottom will not stop at Britain’s shores. The argument that European bosses ‘can’t compete’ with Britain’s low regulatory standards will be used to say that EU standards must be similarly lowered.
The North
The most significant changes relate to the position of the North. The backstop, which provided for continued regulatory and customs alignment between Northern Ireland and the EU, has been removed. It has been replaced by a complicated set of rules which require the North to remain aligned to the regulatory system of the Single Market, while leaving the Customs Union with the rest of the UK.
For customs and tariff purposes, the North will de facto be treated as if it has a foot in both the UK’s Customs Union and the EU’s, with goods from the EU entering the North without tariff, until they travel on to the rest of the UK. Goods from the rest of the UK entering Northern Ireland will only attract tariffs if they are at risk of travelling into the EU’s single market. To achieve this, a hard customs border will effectively be established down the Irish Sea, together with the checking of goods within Northern Ireland. This border will in reality involve customs checks at ports in Belfast or Larne. There, British officials will check goods, and where necessary collect tariffs which will be passed on to the EU.
This new customs arrangement establishes a recurring process of consent in which a vote is cast in Stormont every four or eight years determining whether this system will continue. If a majority of those designated as unionist and nationalist both vote in favour, then the next vote would take place in eight years. If it is passed by a simple majority, then the next vote would take place in four years.
Increased danger of sectarian tensions
Any hardening of borders, East-West or North-South, contains the danger of a significant increase in sectarian tensions and an undermining of the potential for working class unity between those from Protestant and Catholic communities. For Catholics who aspire to be part of a united Ireland, the re-erection of border posts between the North and the South would re-emphasise their status as an unwilling part of a Northern state which is responsible for systematic discrimination. Similarly for Protestants, the hardening of an East-West border, especially when combined with the absence of a similar North-South border would feed into the sense of a slide, against their wishes, towards a united Ireland, where they fear they would be discriminated against.
This agreement heightens these dangers of increasing sectarian tensions and conflict for a number of reasons. Firstly, it actively establishes a hard border down the Irish Sea, with customs infrastructure at ports. These are likely to become the focal point of active opposition in the coming months, as they symbolise a threat to the continuation of the Union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Secondly, inherent in the ‘consent’ arrangement is the possibility that at a future point in time, a hard border North-South could come into being if a majority of those at the Assembly vote against the continuation of a hard border East-West. It should not be assumed that this is ruled out in the current agreement. If Britain post-Brexit diverges substantially from the EU, it is likely that the significance of the East-West border will increase and the sentiment that it would be better to have a North-South hard border than an East-West one could become very widespread amongst Protestants and be adopted by all the unionist parties.
Thirdly, even without a majority voting for a hard border to develop North-South, the very mechanism of ‘consent’ has the potential to become a major and regular source of conflict. If the DUP votes against the first extension of the agreement, then another vote will be scheduled for four years after that. Rather than being a vote about the technicalities of the operation of customs and regulations, it is likely that this would be debated on nakedly sectarian grounds. Nationalist and unionist parties will pose the question bluntly - do you prefer a border between the North and South or between Ireland and Britain. This will be a recurring time-bomb of sectarian conflict.
Opposing Johnson’s deal
Although the passing of the Letwin amendment, which forced Johnson to request an extension from the EU, represented a setback for the Tory government, a path to a passing of the necessary legislation this week may be open to Johnson. He appears to have the support of a number of right-wing Labour MPs, as well as those Tories who lost the whip for opposing a no-deal Brexit. His oft-repeated ‘Get Brexit Done’ slogan is aimed at capitalising on the understandably widespread Brexit-fatigue.
Whether the deal passes or fails, he is preparing for an imminent election premised on a ‘People v Parliament’ narrative, with the elitist Tories laughably representing the ‘People’. Unfortunately, the lack of a clear and consistent call by the Labour Party in Britain for an immediate general election plays into his hands, and allows them to be portrayed as seeking to thwart the imagined will of the people.
When considering the position of Corbyn and the Labour Party, it is unfortunately an extreme example of “if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here.” A series of mistakes have been made by the leadership under pressure from the Blairite pro-EU right of the party. The most significant dates back to the decision of Corbyn to back Remain, instead of sticking with his historic left-wing opposition to the big business project of the EU.
If he had campaigned for a left exit, in order to implement Labour’s manifesto, including nationalisation of rail and energy companies, the referendum would have been a very different discussion. Instead of the dominance of right-wing forces and ideas on both the Remain and Leave sides which was evident in the referendum, the presence of the leader of the opposition on the side of Leave would have ensured a hearing for a socialist opposition to the EU based on its neo-liberal, undemocratic and racist character.
Since then, concession after concession has been made to the Blairites, including mistakenly failing to consistently put a clear position in favour of freedom of movement. The Blairites have predictably not even been satisfied with the assurance of another referendum. Instead, the Lib Dems went one step further in promising to overturn the referendum result, without even a second referendum.
Kick out the Tories
However, it is not too late to change direction and fight an election campaign against Johnson with a real prospect of victory. A clear message is needed from both Corbyn and the trade union movement in Britain in order to point a way forward and unite working class people regardless of whether they voted Leave or Remain. The starting point would be an emphatic rejection of this deal on the grounds of the interests of working class people, combined with a rejection of the idea that the alternative is a no-deal Brexit. Instead, the alternative is a general election, an opportunity to oust the Tories and to install a Corbyn-led government on a platform of socialist policies in the interests of the many, not the few.
Instead of simply waiting for the Tories to implode of their own volition or relying solely on parliamentary manoeuvres like votes of No confidence, mobilisation is needed from below to bring down the Tory government. The Trade Union movement and the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party should call for mass action including a national demonstration to kick out the Tories and force a General Election.
If Corbyn was to approach a general election with a similarly dynamic and transformative anti-austerity programme as was advocated in the last election, with demands like the abolition of student fees, the re-nationalisation of rail and energy companies, combined with an advocacy of a Green New Deal for Britain to tackle carbon emissions and raise living standards, he could win. If he linked those demands to a full socialist programme, including democratic public ownership of the banks and key industries, which would transform people’s lives, it would prepare the ground to unite working class people in a struggle against the capitalist class responsible for inequality and poverty.
Continuing to compromise with the Blairites or failing to put forward a clear socialist position on Brexit is likely to undermine the Labour Party in an election. A Corbyn government implementing socialist policies could demand the re-opening of negotiations with the EU and appeal over the heads of those he is negotiating with - to German workers who have suffered wage restraint for two decades, to Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and other European workers who have suffered under the impact of EU-imposed austerity, to all those who want to see a Europe which works for the millions, instead of the millionaires. It would seek to build a pan-European movement of workers and the oppressed to fight for a socialist alternative to the EU. This process would help to raise understanding across the continent about the big business and undemocratic character of the EU.
It would argue for a tearing up the neo-liberal rules of the European Union - such as those imposed by the Maastricht Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty. It would stress the need for a Europe-wide Green New Deal based on socialist policies of public investment, and democratic public ownership of key industries, which is vital to implementing a just transition to a zero carbon based economy. It would demand a cancellation of all of the bankers’ debt which has been heaped onto working class people in the periphery of Europe in particular.
It would draw a clear distinction between the right-wing Leave campaigners and itself by unilaterally extending full rights, including voting rights, to all migrants in Britain and would be committed to maintaining freedom of movement and actively oppose the racist policies of Fortress Europe.
It would seek a new trading relationship with the EU with the aim of avoiding any hardening of borders, as well as no restrictions on the right of the Labour government to implement its policies such as nationalisation. This would mean fighting for an alternative customs union, without the current neo-liberal rules. Corbyn should argue that it should not only be open to Britain - but to any other countries which would seek to exit the EU and instead have a trade relationship, free of neo-liberal rules.
It makes sense for Corbyn to commit to putting a renegotiated withdrawal deal to a referendum. This is necessary in this situation when a large minority, including very many progressive young people and workers, are strongly opposed to Brexit because of the right-wing forces associated with it. By positively saying he will negotiate a left, anti-racist exit deal and then campaign for people to vote for it in a referendum, Corbyn can cut across the understandable skepticism of those who oppose Brexit and feel correctly that the interests of working class people have not been represented in the negotiations so far.
Opposing Tory Brexit in Ireland
Leo Varadkar, together with the other European political leaders, are assisting Johnson in passing his right-wing Brexit agreement through Parliament. They do this by suggesting that a negotiation extension might not be granted, in order to effectively present the choice as one between this rotten deal and a no-deal crash-out.
A left-wing government in Ireland would point to the anti-working class character and dangerous sectarian implications of this deal, and argue for an extension of the process to allow a general election to take place.
Instead of allowing the border to continue to be cynically abused by the European Commission, it would openly criticise the negotiating process led by the EU Commission - one designed to reinforce the idea that it is not possible to leave the EU on good terms. As well as proposing the tearing up of the neo-liberal rules of the EU, it would demand the re-opening of negotiations, with representatives of working class people across Ireland, Britain and the EU present. It would propose that an alternative customs union be offered to Britain with all of the neo-liberal rules removed, in order to avoid any hardening of borders. It would also indicate to the European Commission that it would not implement any hardening of the border on behalf of the EU.
Workers need to prepare for the possibility of a crash-out Brexit or a right-wing bargain basement Tory Brexit. That means being organised to resist any attempt to place the burden for Brexit on working class people - through wage reductions or redundancies. The delayed introduction of the minimum wage rise is only the latest indication of this process. In the event of Brexit taking place on 31 October, trade unionists should work to pressurise ICTU to call a conference of workers from across the island to discuss collective action to resist these attacks. If companies threaten redundancies or claim an inability to pay decent wages because of Brexit, the trade union movement should demand that they are taken into democratic public ownership.
Most importantly, a left wing government with socialist policies in Ireland would seek to use the Brexit negotiating process to expose the fundamentally undemocratic and anti-working class character of the EU. In that way, it would seek to kickstart a discussion and debate across Europe about the need for a very different Europe - a genuinely democratic and socialist Europe, based on mutual co-operation and assistance as opposed to neo-liberal rules and diktats from unelected bodies like the European Commission and European Central Bank.