In the context of a surge in the fortunes of right-wing and nationalist political parties and movements worldwide, including in France and Germany, the European Union’s ‘twin engine’, it is more important than ever that we promote the internationalist perspectives of the Marxist movement, and assert that the workers have no country.
In the UK, the seeming demise of UKIP masks the fact that the Conservative Party has embraced much of their core values and political agenda.
On the left too there are people – people influential with Jeremy Corbyn – from the Morning Star/Communist Party of Britain (CPB) tradition, whose politics veer from this. Among Labour MPs there is a small number strongly influenced by nationalist arguments, including Dennis Skinner, holding to the Bennite position of opposing the European Economic Community in the 1975 referendum. The main politics on the EU of this grouping is Stalinist.
Starting from their identification of the USSR in the time of Stalin as the mother country of communism, Communist Parties (CPs) throughout the world trimmed their politics to what suited the foreign policy goals of the Soviet Union. They espoused Stalin’s ‘socialism in one country’ theory – the ‘one country’ being the Soviet Union.
When Stalin made an alliance with Western governments to beat Hitler, the British CP dampened their criticisms of the UK government. The internationalist perspective opposes nations and teaches workers to identify with the interests of the international working class. The CPs abandoned this perspective.
At the end of and in the years immediately following the Second World War, the USSR carried out forcible European integration to its west and south, making satellites of the countries of Eastern Europe.
The CPs were hostile toward the embryo institutions of the EU, and have opposed this form of European integration ever since.
The USA favoured the ECSC, the EEC, and the general project of an integrated bourgeois Western Europe so as to build a bulwark against the USSR, maximise opportunities for US-based multinationals, and manage conflicts within its own market-capitalist camp in the Cold War. The USSR opposed European integration for the converse reasons, and consequently pushed the CPs also to oppose that integration.
We know the history and we acknowledge the character of the EU project; we call for the EU to be reformed beyond recognition of what it is now. We reject* the latterly more explicitly neoliberal direction of the EU but we recognise that this reflects global developments in the thinking of the ruling class, and is followed by rulers almost everywhere. That there is little opposition to it is due to the weakness of European labour movements. Thatcherism is a large component in the model. We do not ‘blame the EU’ for neoliberalism, although of course we do object to manifestations of it at the EU level, eg, the Laval and Viking ECJ rulings. Equally we oppose neoliberal politics and undemocratic institutions at the national level.
We also acknowledge the positives the EU represents:
The superseding/dampening of European national rivalry that has caused horrendous wars
The development of productive forces on a transnational scale
The possibilities for, and to a limited extent the achievements in, social levelling-up across national borders; the greater possibilities for social provision to withstand the cost-cutting imperatives of world-market competition, which generally bite more sharply on smaller units;
The relative freedom for people to move across Europe.
Efficiencies of scale, and sharing of technology.
=================
The below was remitted to the incoming National Committee
*AMENDMENT*
Paragraph beginning "We know the history…"
Amend from "We know the history..." to ".... We reject"
REPLACE WITH
"We know the history and we acknowledge the character of the EU project. The creation of a socialist Europe cannot be achieved simply through reforms and will involve a confrontation with the existing institutions and instruments of European government. And we call in a transitional sense for dramatic and fundamental reforms. We particularly reject"
==================
Crucially, the EU also creates the opportunity to develop unity among European workers and to campaign together for the best working and living conditions for all. The opportunity is there but the European left and trade union movement have so far failed to set themselves to grasp it.
In the EU referendum campaign, Labour called for the UK to stay in the EU. John McDonnell talked about a cross-European conference to begin to build the workers’ solidarity across borders we need as a riposte to bosses’ solidarity across borders.
The conference didn’t happen. Following the EU referendum defeat that initiative seems doomed, but we still argue for the building of cross-European workers’ unity.
We recognise the difficulty of that task, but it is not impossible and, moreover, it must be done.
Instead, significant sections of the UK (and some of the European) left counterpose to it the goal of helping to destroy the EU.
In the name of a theoretical internationalism, the Morning Star would rather pull out of the EU and all of the opportunities it offers – as yet ungrasped – for the workers’ movement across Europe to work more closely together. They argue that the EU is an insuperable barrier to developing socialist policies at the national and thus, ultimately, international level. But, instead, their politics promotes workers’ identification with ‘their’ nation, in the name of sovereignty, hatred of the transnational EU, etc. It blurs the distinction of workers’ interests from those of their national bosses/bourgeoisie, and glosses over the nationalist competition that has led to innumerable wars. These politics take us backward.
Spectrum of left opinion
In the 23 June 2016 EU referendum, the Morning Star supported the UK leaving. Their 8 September 2017 editorial describes how the plucky ‘people’ won out against the ‘establishment’:
‘The voters’ decision in June last year was achieved despite an overwhelming parliamentary majority against leaving the EU, led by David Cameron’s proCity Tory government and supported by broadcast media, liberal capitalist papers, the Confederation of British Industry, most trade unions and key bastions of the Establishment.’
‘Halting the Brexit Bill is no victory’, 8 September 2017, https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-60f1-Halting-the-Brexit-Bill-is-no-victory#.WcAO8MZry71
It is alarming that they don’t acknowledge the nationalist sentiments that actually inspired most of those who voted to leave.
Since the referendum the Star opposes all attempts to slow down Brexit including any transition period, which it sees as obstruction by Remainers or EU bureaucrats. Any sensible person would want the leaving of the EU, if it has to happen, to be orderly and negotiated, and a transition seems the obvious solution, particularly given the government’s failure to negotiate so far. But not the Star.
At the other pole of labour movement opinion, we have right-wing Labour politicians supporting the UK staying in the EU.
Their strategy for the workers’ movement is to tie its fortunes to those of their bosses: workers’ interests are identical with those of their bosses. While business thrives workers can have jobs, good jobs. This is of a piece with the ‘partnership’ agenda and is largely shared by the leaderships of the trade unions.
They make a rational calculation that the UK economy will suffer through withdrawing from the EU. Leading figures stress the importance of the single market and the customs union, they are for a second referendum, for not leaving, for slowing down leaving, for as long a transition as possible. We have a lot of sympathy with this, but we distinguish ourselves from this wing.
Key figures in this movement pander to the anti-migrant sentiment behind the Brexit vote. See, for example, Chuka Umunna: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chuka-umunna-single-market-free-m….
In recent months the AWL has with others helped set up the Labour Campaign for Freedom of Movement. At the same time as it launched, and while a few on the right of the Labour Party/Progressites signed the campaign’s initial statement, the Labour right took care to draw a distinction with our radical, pro-worker politics, and launched their own campaign, the Labour Campaign for the Single Market (LCSM).
They stress the positives of EU membership and warn of the dangers of Brexit, but leave out any perspective of class struggle to improve the position of workers. They do not see workers’ interests as distinct from those of the ruling class; they are pro-capitalist. They do not see beyond this. And because they do not believe that workers are the vehicle for real progress they do not see the importance of taking on backward ideas in the working class. They are nervous about arguing in favour of migration; when they do address the issue, they argue for migration only as it benefits the economy. Some argue explicitly for curbing migration.
In the FAQs on their website LCSM ask, ‘Doesn’t remaining a member of the single market mean we can’t control immigration?’ They supply the ‘reassuring’ reply (reassuring, that is, if you are a xenophobe):
‘If we stay in the Single Market, there are options as to how we might introduce tougher controls on immigration from EU countries. We could choose to enforce the current rules more strictly – for example, requiring the registration of any EU citizen who wishes to settle here and enforcing their departure from the country if they aren't in employment or self-sustaining after 3 months. We could potentially invoke Article 112 of the European Economic Area Agreement. This provision gives a country which is a signatory to the agreement the ability to curtail the operation of any one of the four freedoms (of goods, services, capital and labour) if they can provide significant economic or social harm.’
Among the ‘rights’ they say they want to protect, the rights to live, work, and travel freely throughout the EU do not warrant a mention.
Nevertheless, it is a fact, and a fact which the LCSM types cannot deny, that their commitment to keep the UK in the EEA implies maintaining at least the degree of freedom of movement for workers set out by current EU rules. So whether or not they are genuinely less hostile toward migrant workers, in practice the policy advocated by the LCSM section of the Labour right is to the left of what is favoured by the majority of the Labour left’s leaders. We must be clear about our own independent outlook and our explicit support for freedom of movement, but it is is good and right for us to vote with the LCSM section of the Labour right, against the majority of the Labour left, on such questions as getting Brexit onto the floor for debate at Labour Party conferences. Where Brexit gets onto the floor for debate, if our own motions fall, we should be prepared as a second-best to back LCSM motions where they do not contradict our politics. We advocate a cross-European working-class fight for drastic changes in the Single Market, but we also oppose Britain quitting the Single Market.
Lexiteers - Left-exiters - like the SWP and the SP have insisted that they are internationalists, their actions have harmed migrants. When they discuss the issue, most, particularly the Socialist Party, argue that bosses use migration to lower wages, ignoring evidence to the contrary, but also abdicating from the core duty of socialists: uniting workers to raise conditions for all. The SP has explicitly opposed freedom of movement for workers, and presented state restrictions on workers' movement across national borders as analogous to trade-union closed shops and thus deserving of support. The SWP, for whom anti-racism work is a key part of their identity, have pretended that the referendum campaign and vote had little to do with migration at all.
The AWL was correct to insist in the face of criminal Lexiteer complacency and fantasy-mongering that a Brexit win (or even a good showing) would threaten migrant (and migrant-origin) communities and individuals, provide a breeding ground for xenophobia and hatred, and lessen migrants’ confidence to fight back.**
Labour Party
The Labour Party is pulled between the two poles and its current muddled position reflects that.
In 2016 Jeremy Corbyn won his second Labour leadership contest. Under him, Labour did better in the general election in May 2017 than the left had dared hope. This was in part due to Labour successfully presenting itself as less ‘hard Brexit’ than the Tories. Corbyn and those around him have far more power now to shape policy against the Labour right, and even against Theresa May’s Tory government with its slim parliamentary majority. Yet, Labour policy is tugged by the Stalinists’ hostility to the European Union, and on migration Labour is not showing the courage which Corbyn’s early statements in support of refugees and multicultural Britain might have led us to hope for.
At the 2017 party conference, aided and abetted by Momentum, Labour closed down debate about Brexit and freedom of movement. The conference was allowed only to vote to accept a National Executive Statement which is shamefully vague on the issue of future migration whilst it makes consoling noises.
The new Labour leadership understand that opposition to migration was a core factor in the Brexit vote, but they lack the will to take it on. Some of them agree with it.
Ourselves
Against these two poles of the labour movement, we are distinctive.
In the referendum in 1975 on whether the UK should remain in the European Economic Community, as it then was, we campaigned for workers to abstain. We argued: ‘In or out, the fight goes on’.
However, in the run-up to and during the 2016 referendum we argued differently:
‘We say: In or out, the class fight goes on, but rather EU membership than withdrawal.
‘Oppose withdrawal from the EU
Reduce borders, don’t raise them
Support free movement across Europe
Oppose the present neo-liberal and bureaucratic regime of the EU, support workers’ unity to fight for democratic reforms, for social levelling-up, and for a socialist Europe.’
[Policy passed at our conference 2014]
Since the referendum, we have taken distinctive positions on many issues arising from the Brexit vote:
The debate on a second referendum:
‘The 23 June vote implies no democratic duty on Labour to support whatever the Tories make of the undefined “Brexit” mandate, or to rule out a second referendum on a[n] unpopular “Brexit” deal. Labour should challenge the Tories in parliament over triggering Article 50 with a build-the-barriers Brexit plan; defend freedom of movement; fight the Tories; and work to save and extend labour movement unity across the continent for a social and democratic (workers’) Europe, against the current neo-liberal Europe.’
‘Fight the Tories over Brexit’, 7 September 2016, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/fight-tories-over-brexit
Differentiating from the Tories:
‘At least some people round Corbyn seem happy to give the Tories an easy ride on Brexit, on the pretext of respecting the 23 June referendum vote. The labour movement should fight to conserve freedom of movement, to maximise common cause with workers across Europe, and minimise new barriers between countries. And such are the tensions and wobbles in the ruling classes about Brexit that a strong Labour stance could win real successes.
‘It is not a matter of undemocratically circumventing a majority. It is reasonable, predictable, obvious that the balance of opinion on an actual Brexit formula will be different from the balance on 23 June, when what “Brexit” meant was vague. The 23 June vote does not oblige Labour to become helpful when the Tories find it a Brexit formula difficult. And if, after a Brexit formula has proved unpopular or unattainable, the 52-48 balance on 23 June swings to a different outcome, there is nothing undemocratic about that.’
‘Brexit: Tories’ difficulties are our opportunities’, 12 October 2016, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/brexit-tories-difficulties-are-our-opportunities
Brexit and Northern Ireland:
‘Those unionists who absurdly contend that Northern Ireland is straightforwardly a part of the UK will confront the fact that the six counties is near the bottom of the British government’s list of priorities. Many commentators have expressed alarm about the impact on the “peace process”.
‘Socialists should of course welcome the cessation of sectarian violence, and the opportunities it opens for the elaboration of working-class and socialist politics. The Good Friday Agreement itself, however, cannot be politically endorsed, as it fails to tackle the roots of the national question and has institutionalised sectarian politics at Stormont. Nevertheless, we should not be complacent about its incidental undoing in the maelstrom of a turbulent and unpredictable Brexit. Down that road lies potential sectarian polarisation and further attacks on workers, as the capitalist class off-loads of the cost of economic disruption. Rather, the overthrow of Stormont should be the positive work of conscious political forces: a working-class movement which, in advocating its replacement with a federal united Ireland with a measure of regional autonomy for Protestant-majority areas, would have the potential to unite workers across the sectarian divide.’
‘Brexit and Irish borders’, 11 January 2017, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/brexit-and-irish-borders
The Article 50 Parliamentary vote:
‘Jeremy Corbyn's decision (26 January 2017) to impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to vote for Theresa May's Brexit Article 50 bill is wrong and destructive.
‘The 23 June referendum did not create any mandate or moral obligation to endorse or facilitate Theresa May's Tory, "hard-Brexit", anti-immigrant version of quitting the European Union.’
‘Corbyn is wrong on voting for May’s Article 50’, 27 January 2017, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/corbyn-wrong-voting-mays-article-50
Labour Party’s seesawing on freedom of movement:
‘Jeremy Corbyn has restated a view expressed to ITV in May that Brexit means leaving the single market and an end to freedom of movement across the UK.
‘… This is a disappointing but not unsurprising stance from Corbyn. The reality is that since the referendum Labour have shifted back and forth as to their position on the single market and freedom of movement with a series of contradictory statements that appear to have culminated in the worst possible position. This comes in the same week that YouGov polling showed 69% of people support freedom of movement if the rights of UK subjects to work and study abroad are accepted.
‘…It’s Labour’s job to win hearts and minds and convince people of a different politics: one that puts class, not nation, front and centre. We do this by bolstering anti-oppression and class struggles that bring workers together and emphasise our shared interests and shared enemies, and by engaging with people to clearly and unhesitatingly argue for internationalism.’
‘Back workers’ rights to move freely’, 26 July 2017, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-09-11/back-workers-rights-move-freely
Membership of the single market:
‘There are other problems with Labour’s recalibrated stance on Brexit. Labour has also said it will seek to limit immigration in any final settlement. This is abject. Even Anna Soubry advocates the maintenance of free movement from the EU! And public opinion is shifting on both Europe and free movement.
‘A new YouGov/Times poll says that 58 per cent of people believe that trading with the EU is a higher priority than controlling EU immigration. A majority of Labour members are also likely to be in favour of defending EU free movement. Labour’s leadership should get in line with the views of its members and the majority of public opinion. It should make a clear defence of free movement. Not to do so will give ground to the Tory “League of Empire Fantasists”.’
‘Labour’s soft Brexit is not good enough’, 21 September 2017, http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2017-09-21/labours-soft-brexit-not-good-enough
We oppose the idea that Labour must respect the referendum vote; we also note the actual composition of the narrow result to leave.
Labour voters, the young, big cities, migrants and the descendants of recent migrants, when they had a vote, tended to vote to stay in the EU. These also happen to be the core constituency of people who can build the new world that we need.
The relatively high vote for Brexit in some more depressed working-class communities shows their demoralisation. It makes it even more important that we work in the labour movement for a proper fight to rebuild public services, improve housing, and to give hope to demoralised forces in the working class.
While we recognise the EU as a bosses’ club (no less than the UK state is a bosses’ club), we nonetheless support the maximum unity between workers. We oppose the danger of hard Brexit – the UK crashing out without any deal. We fight to retain the closest ties to the European labour movement that we can; for the highest standards of labour, social and environmental standards; for no reduction in living standards for UK workers to pay for Brexit or transitional arrangements; we fight for higher spending on public services, higher standards of living for workers; we oppose the raising of borders or putting any barriers in the way of workers’ right to move freely.
We oppose Brexit. We do not consider it a done deal. The June 2016 referendum was of dubious democratic authority. In any case it gave no mandate for the specifics of what the Tories are doing no. And in any case democracy means that minorities must retain the opportunity to argue and become majorities. We demand Labour opposes the Tories' Brexit plans all along the line. We demand a second referendum on any EU-exit deal the Tories produce, and in that referendum will campaign to reject the deal. We advocate that a second referendum gives votes to 16 and 17 year olds and to all migrants resident in the UK (at the very least, all EU citizens), and allows media coverage for a diversity of views on both yes and no sides (the "debate" in the mass media before the June 2016 referendum was very heavily a Tory vs Tory one). We advocate that Labour oppose Brexit and campaign to seek a democratic mandate for reversing it.
The negotiations are going badly for the Conservative government. Labour has a chance to put forward a forthright alternative. Instead, they are advocating a transition that doesn’t sound very different from what ‘soft Brexiteers’ in the Conservative Party want. Labour's position has been erratic and evasive, but even at its best has included deference to the Tories' supposed democratic mandate for their Brexit plans and abandonment of the cause of free movement within Europe.
The negotiations are being conducted by a Tory government much weaker than the previous one. In this context, what Labour does matters very much. We seek the greatest influence that we can within and on it, likewise in the trade unions.
Why freedom of movement is a central demand
We understand that hostility to migrants and migration is a cornerstone of the right-wing political viewpoint, finding scapegoats for social problems other than the fundamental opposition of capitalist interests to those of all people, regardless of nationality, and dividing the working class of different countries from making common cause. This division weakens the working class at home and internationally. It allows the growth of chauvinism and recruits workers to the ‘national’ cause at time of conflict; this has happened in Europe throughout history, particularly in the 20th century, with catastrophic consequences.
The effects of the threat to the relative freedom of movement that workers in the EU currently enjoy are:
Greater insecurity for migrants
Bosses emboldened to threaten and exploit migrant workers
Reduction in migration and travel
Rising racism, xenophobia and nationalism
Rising confidence of the right
Division sown among workers
The weakening of the socialist message
Distraction of native-born workers from fighting the bosses
The threat of more wars in Europe.
We oppose EU migrants being held to ransom as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations, either the approximately 3 million EU migrants currently in the UK, or the 1.2 UK citizens living/working in other EU states.
We want human beings to be able to travel as freely throughout the EU as goods and services do.
The context of the Brexit debate also includes the continued massive global refugee crises. In 2016-17 a refugee crisis saw more than one million people coming to the EU, fleeing war, political unrest and chronic poverty. Germany took in almost a million refugees from the Middle East, particularly Syria. Those refugee flows have only slightly abated this year.
Reducing the freedom of movement of EU workers only makes it harder to address the needs of migrants and refugees from elsewhere.
Only internationalist, socialist politics can, ultimately, end the conflicts, inequality and want that are at the root of these refugee crises. At the same time, we recognise voluntary migration as a positive good for humankind, erasing prejudices and conflict, increasing understanding, spreading culture, knowledge and solidarity. We are for levelling up of conditions of life across the globe, for a spreading out of the benefits of economic and social development, under democratic control – socialism. We want to go beyond capitalist development, which depends on exploiting and exhausting labour and the environment, to a world community of equals, ignoring borders, in which all can develop to their fullest capacity.
The forces supporting Brexit stand in the way of that future.
Practical proposals
Work in the unions
Different unions have different positions on Brexit and migration. Regardless of whichever union we are in, we campaign to support the broad lines of our politics.
We campaign in our unions to support migrant workers; for a fight for public services, and higher wages, to defend jobs; to unionise, particularly in precarious sectors where migrant workers are more heavily concentrated. We step up our solidarity with such disputes as recent cleaners’ disputes.
Notwithstanding their weaknesses, some unions have organised campaigns to defend migrant workers. Unison’s campaign to defend and organise migrant worker members includes a campaign to raise awareness of the vital role that migrant workers play in many public services.
We promote and develop such campaigns, taking them out of the realm of press releases and token parliamentary lobbying and into our union branches.
We fight to transform our unions so that they defend public services, and properly represent the interests of public sector workers.
We resist any attempts to squeeze workers’ living standards to pay for Brexit or transition.
Defend freedom of movement and migrants
We support and organise defence of migrants and migrant communities against attacks from the right. We support migrants’ self-defence and efforts to have a voice in the Brexit debate.
We argue for freedom of movement including helping to develop the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.
We counter the arguments – particularly when they arise in the labour movement – that blame migrants for low pay and pressure on public services.
We oppose attempts to limit migrants’ access to public services, or otherwise treat them as second-class citizens.
We oppose the high legal and bureaucratic costs migrants face strengthening their legal status.
We fight to defend the current position of EU migrants in the UK, but also to level up the rights of non-EU migrants to those enjoyed by EU citizens.
Momentum and the Labour Party
In September 2017, Momentum’s members’ council proposed campaigning to defend freedom of movement. Despite this, Momentum acted to stop the 2017 Labour conference discussing Brexit or freedom of movement. We campaign within the Labour Party and Momentum for our positions, including by continuing to play a strong role in the Labour Campaign for Free Movement
Debate on the left
The dire positions taken by much of the British left around the referendum underline the need for the AWL to step up and fight for a healthy left.
We will organise debate and spread knowledge about the history of the left’s positions on issues of integration, nationalism, migration, etc. We seek debates wherever we can get them on this issue.
International left
We seek collaboration and discussion with forces internationally to promote our views and develop our understanding of the issues.
We will produce a publication clearly espousing our politics and the history of the debates.
