Republican Socialists

The Prime Minister warned that leaving the EU with no deal “would put the future of our Union at risk”. Her deal would do the same. The writing is on the wall. It is just a matter of time before the end.

I am in favour of an Anglo-Welsh exit from the EU. This is what people voted for. The ‘will of the people’ would be economically and socially retrograde but politically enlightening. Many in Scotland and Ireland would be happy to see such a long needed and necessary education now happening at last.

If I had the right to vote I would vote against every version of Brexit or All UK exit, whether the Theresa May, Jacob Reece-Mogg or Jeremy Corbyn version. Why should damage be inflicted on Ireland and Scotland when they voted against it?

Politics is revolving around the eternal triangle of crown, parliament and peoples. The crown is the power and parliament and the peoples are supplicants. (I used the word ‘peoples’ with reference to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales – and not forgetting the Irish republic).

Since the 2016 referendum politics has revolved around the idea of crown and the people versus parliament. Even though parliament has just defeated the crown, May will not resign or call a general election. She will claim that in her new ‘republican’ constitution, the crown is still carrying out the ‘will of the people’.

In fact opinion polls say that eighty percent of people reject the May deal and only twenty support it. Unfortunately that is only an opinion poll, and on the scales of politics and power, counts for next to nothing. If opinion polls are right, for example, Corbyn has already lost the next general election!

A ratification referendum breaks the Gordian knot. Parliament has to take control from the crown and ask the people the same question just put to the House of Commons (or any modified deal). Do the people back the Commons against the crown? This replaces ‘interesting’ polls with political facts.

This is not a new or ‘second’ repeat referendum. It is merely the completion of the democratic cycle of accountability from the people to the crown, back to parliament and then returning to the people. The implied question is “Do you accept this deal or not”? Unfortunately Weekly Worker writers have refused to recognise or even acknowledge the democratic distinction which only helps obfuscation by the Labour right who are misleading the working class.

Hence either the people accept the Crown’s deal or vote it down. In the former case the May government wins and continues. But if the people reject the deal there is nowhere to hide and no excuse to keep hiding. She would have to resign just like Cameron did (or be forced out). The Tories would elect another leader before an imminent 2019 general election.

Therefore a ratification referendum is the best route to a general election and then to a possible Corbyn government. That is the obvious line of march. Labour’s current tactics demand a general election if the Crown’s deal is voted down in parliament. They have put the cart before the horse.

May is now heavily defeated by 432 to 202 votes. In the old style politics, a significant defeat in parliament would have brought a general election. But since May is carrying out the ‘will of the people’ she will surely carry on and keep trying. This unholy alliance between the crown and the ‘republic’ is surely doomed when this contradiction works itself out.

Labour’s demand for an immediate general election is thus ‘ultra left’ by trying to take the second step before the first. It leads inevitably to the demand for a vote of no confidence which Labour won’t win. (- and didn’t). May threw down the gauntlet, long egged on by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour right.

The Labour right are trying to split Corbyn from Labour members and voters. They have demanded a vote of no confidence in May to close the door on a general election and clear the way for a remain referendum. Another 50-50 Chukka-Blair remain referendum is a danger of entrenching the divisions in a divided working class. Those who are serious about remaining in the EU should concentrate on supporting action in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Outside parliament I heard a moment of national unity as rival protesters for Leave and Remain cheered in unison at the news of May’s defeat. A ratification referendum would allow them to keep cheering all the way into the polling booth.

How can working class democrats oppose an all UK exit? The first and foremost demand is to back the working class in Northern Ireland and Scotland who had majority votes for remain. The democratic and indeed revolutionary answer to an all UK exit is a united Ireland. Scotland must exercise its right to self determination and leave the UK to remain or rejoin the EU.

This is the alternative strategy based on working class votes. It is the alternative to the liberal demand for a second-repeat referendum to reverse the 2016 vote. We must totally oppose this liberal demand now. If and only if there is a sea change in working class opinion could a second-repeat referendum even be contemplated.

Yes to a united Ireland and yes to an independent Scottish republic is an urgent demand. But a second-repeat referendum is dangerous, divisive and offers no solutions. Ending the UK is not just an Irish or Scottish question, but for the working class in England and Wales and the rest of Europe. It is the final nail in the coffin of the reactionary and utopian plan to resurrect the British Empire under WTO rules.

The democratic case for a ratification referendum is very different. It is about accountability. The people in England and Wales voted for the principle of leaving the EU without the details. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) disappeared for two years and then come back with a proposal. The working class across the UK must have the right to vote for or against May’s deal.

Brexit has seen the emergence of three shadow ‘parties’ – leave, remain and democrat. In parliament, the remain ‘party’ aims to overthrow the decision to leave by a repeat-remain referendum. They are united against Corbyn and hope they can to oust him.

Liberal pundit, Andrew Rawnsley, argues that “to stop Brexit, Labour supporters will have to revolt against Corbyn”. He explains that “if they want another referendum, they will have to learn their leader and rebel against him” (Observer 6 January 2019). The Labour right and the liberal Tories see the danger of Brexit as an opportunity to damage or stop Corbyn.

The democratic ‘party’ is comprised of those who support remain but have accepted the result. Corbyn is one of the leaders of this ‘party’ which includes McLusky, McDonnell and probably Abbott etc. The 2016 referendum enabled working class people to vote to remain or leave the EU. As democrats we recognise the value of working people being able to vote in elections and referenda.

This does not mean we are blind to the problems of ballots when money is king and all democracy can be gerrymandered and corrupted. We should never forget the serious failings of the 2016 referendum. This includes the exclusion of nearly three million EU citizens resident in the UK and the exclusion of the 16-17 year olds. Neither can we ignore the misuse of funds or the exploitation of big data.

Nevertheless it is better, on balance, to accept the result but NOT the right wing British nationalist interpretation of it. That must be contested, starting with England supporting the democratic rights of Ireland and Scotland. Furthermore nobody voted to leave the single market or the customs union since it was not on the ballot paper.

Corbyn has adopted aspects of the democratic case – accepting the 2016 result and opposing the call for a repeat-remain referendum. But he has not adopted a full democratic approach. He is an inconsistent semi-democrat. He failed to recognise the importance of Ireland and Scotland or their right to self determination. He has failed to recognise the rights of the working class to ratify or reject the May deal.

Instead of a strong line on democracy, Corbyn has a weak one. These weaknesses in his approach to democracy may enable the Labour right to drive a wedge between him and his younger supporters, especially in London, who are strongly for remain. That is what Andrew Rawnsley is calling for.

Meanwhile May was out campaigning in her own people’s ‘referendum’ on her deal. She told Andrew Marr that ‘on the doorstep’ the vast majority she met were sympathetic and wanted her to crack on so we could get back to normal politics. Business was ‘voting’ for her deal too. The only thing missing from May’s ‘referendum’ is that working class people are not allowed to vote. She doesn’t trust us!

The report on the CPGB aggregate (Weekly Worker 13 December 2018) provides more evidence for the case that their motion on EU withdrawal failed, as I argued last week, to identify and support the interests of the working class.

The 2016 EU referendum divided the working class into three main camps – Leave, Remain and Abstain/Boycott. After the result these were out of date. Neither Abstain nor Boycott had any significance outside the campaign. New positions appeared, identifiable as British Exit (Mogg and May etc), Remain-Democrats (Corbyn and McClusky etc) and Remain-Liberals (Soubury, Blair and Chuka Umunna etc).

Remain-democrats are remain supporters accept the result not least because of the dangers posed by a divided working class. This means continuing to expose ballot corruption and gerrymandering. But it means accepting some kind of exit at least until a clear majority of the working class recognises the advantages of remain. The experience of the Brexit crisis helps the working class find the truth.

“Some kind of exit” is important here. Corbyn and Labour stand on the right wing of the remain-democrats. They have formulated a programme that all the UK should remain in a customs union which does not undercut EU regulations on workers’ rights etc. Taking the UK out of the single market means abandoning ’freedom of movement’ and is very close to May’s Brexit deal.

Corbyn and the Labour leadership are remain-democrats who have opportunistically adapted to a section of the working class hostile to freedom of movement. This has its roots in right wing chauvinism and racism promoted in Tory arguments about EU migration.

The left wing or left side of remain-democrats stand for a different kind of exit. This recognises the UK as a multi-nation state and accepts that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain. The working class must fight for their right to remain. England and Wales voted to leave the EU but not the single market or customs. This is consistent with maintaining freedom of movement through the UK and the EU.

Remain-democrats must demand the right of the working class to vote for or against it whatever Brexit deal the Tories come up. We demand a national debate and a ratification only referendum. Both leave and remain workers can unite on this whilst being bitterly divided on a repeat-remain ballot.

There are thus Left exit, Left remain and Left remain democrats. The CPGB is so focused on its own battles with Left exit (SWP) and Left remain (AWL) that it has failed to address the central question. This is how to advance working class interests and unity in a world in which a majority of the class were swayed by reactionary arguments.

The CPGB do not align themselves with any of the three mass camps. They rejected both Left exit and Left remain. With no policy, other than criticising other left sects, we end up sounding like Buddist monks practicing their own moral purity.

This is exactly what Moshe Machover criticised the party for at the aggregate. He asks “what is in the interests of the working class” because this is not addressed. The interests of the class “had nothing to do with the state of the left”. Yet the ‘state of the left’ is the only thing the CPGB is concerned about.

Moshe is clear that the working class is better in than out without saying how that can be advanced independently of liberal remain and their left tail. Leaving the EU, as Moshe says, “Would see a decline in worker’s standard of living” etc. He is quite right to say “All this was missing from the CPGB position”.

Mike McNair blamed the working class for this gaping hole. He says that although ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ was a tactical question for the working class “if there was a radical and thriving international workers movement – picking up a good number of votes across Europe, for instance and enjoying an influential presence in the European parliament – we would certainly “want to fight alongside our European brothers and sisters”.

Of course Jack Conrad recognised Moshe’s criticism made the CPGB position indefensible. So after lunch he stressed “the CPGB’s opposition to withdrawal”. Great news, although it leaves open whether the CPGB positions itself on the left wing of remain-democrats (Corbyn etc) or left wing of remain-liberals (Blair etc).

The only fly in the ointment is the failure to recognise the major difference between a ratification referendum for the working class and the liberal’s repeat-remain one for business profits. But if May fails to win a majority for her deal, then she is finished and a general election is more or less inevitable.

On Saturday 8 December 2018 a section of the English left met in London to launch Another Europe is Possible (AEIP) as a democratic membership organisation. The English normally disguise themselves in a British cloak and Another Europe was no exception. The machinations of Perfidious Albion were on display on the issue of Catalonia.

An AEIP resolution recognised the right of nations to self determination and said “We condemn the actions of the Spanish government and state in violently suppressing the Catalan people exercising their right to hold a referendum, and call for the immediate release of political prisoners. We support the right of the Catalan people to self-determination”. This was voted down.

At first it seems bizarre that a ‘British’ conference would vote against a resolution in support of Catalan political prisoners and a Catalan republic. This republic stands in sharp opposition to Generalissimo Franco’s Spanish constitutional monarchy. But what has this to do with the United Kingdom?

The Spanish state fears the threat from Scotland in the same way that British nationalists smell danger in Barcelona. If Catalonia is able to leave Spain, then this would create a ‘bad’ example for the UK. Andrew Coates therefore came forward to defend the British Union against the Catalan prisoners.

The best way to make sense of this is through prism of the CPGB motion published in Weekly Worker (1229 November 29 2018). This recognised Left-Exit and Left-Remain as reflecting or tailing the politics of the reactionary and liberal wings of the capitalist class. The CPGB focused its attention on Left Exit – the SWP, SPEW and CPB – and Left Remain – the AWL, Socialist Resistance and Left Unity etc.

However, the CPGB motion ignores the main trend after the 2016 referendum – the ‘Remain-Democrats’. These people voted remain but accepted the majority voted to leave. Jeremy Corbyn is a ‘Remain-Democrat’ as are the Labour Front bench. I identify myself as a ‘Remain-Democrat’ not ‘Left Remain’.

In 2016 I called for England to abstain. But I also called for a ‘Triple Backstop’ whereby people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales voted to remain. This would curb the mad excesses of Anglo-British chauvinism. So it is nice to see the Tories hung out to dry by Northern Ireland.

The failure of the CPGB motion to identify the Remain-Democrats indicates a big hole in the perspective. Most ‘Remain-Democrats’ have been taken over by the ideology of British Exit which demands limits on free movement inside the EU. The alternative to British Exit is the demand for a Democratic Exit.

In June 2016 the peoples of England and Wales voted to leave the EU and Northern Ireland, Scotland (and Gibraltar) voted to remain. The case for a Democratic Exit recognises the UK as a multi-nation state. It does not deny a UK wide majority which gave the government a mandate to trigger article 50.

Democratic Exit recognises a mandate for the Denmark-Greenland option in which different nations within the same state have different relations with the EU (Denmark is a member of the EU and Greenland is not). There was no mandate to leave the single market or the customs union or for the Norwegian, Swiss or Canadian type deals.

The Denmark-Greenland option would enable HMG to meet the democratic mandates given from nations within the UK but would not require any economic borders either within the UK or between the UK and the Irish Republic or with the rest of the EU. The free movement of working people between the UK and the EU would not be compromised by a negotiated settlement along these lines.

Democratic Exit represents the best interests of the working class in the current crisis of the EU. It takes account of majority voting, a divided working class, and the rights to free movement across the EU and the need for ever closer unity with workers across Europe. It is consistent with the CPGB motion which says the working class is better off in than out.

So whilst Corbyn is a Remain-Democrat, he slips over into an all British Exit and thus concedes to the racist case for immigration controls. The Tories tie Brexit to ending free movement. Before 2016 Corbyn supported free movement but now Labour has embraced the need to ‘control’ immigrants.

Democratic Exit supports a ratification referendum but opposes a second or repeat-remain referendum or a Dogs dinner referendum with three or more questions. The people must be allowed to vote on the Tory deal. A ratification referendum is the nail hammered into May’s political coffin. Then the call for a general election becomes possible, realistic and necessary.

But if she departs without a ratification referendum then Labour still has to deal with the issue in its general election manifesto. Corbyn and his allies do not understand or do not make the distinction between a Ratification referendum and a Repeat referendum. He has dug his own hole which he can’t seem to get out of.

A Ratification referendum can help unite the working class and expose the duplicitous game of the Remain-liberals. A repeat-remain question would further divide the working class and as Mike McNair recognises “Diane Abbott has rightly said that a new referendum under present conditions would probably be won by leave again”.

My criticism of the CPGB motion is not over the united states of Europe or the need to work on a “continental scale” and break with constitutional loyalism and “actually to campaign for the idea that another Europe is possible”. This requires the left in England to address the severe democratic deficit in England, otherwise known as “Britain”.

The CPGB does not deal with immediate questions beyond boycotting everything. No referendum and no general election because a Corbyn government would be worse for the workers movement than the Tories! Stop the class struggle because we are not ready. Perhaps this is like an airplane in a holding pattern circulating around Heathrow airport waiting to land and hoping the bad weather changes before we run out of fuel.

This was published in Weekly Worker before Theresa May’s deal became public and a new stage of the crisis began. It criticises the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) for hiding behind the idea of boycotting all referenda as a matter of principle.

The recent CPGB members aggregate seems to conclude that “the working class must take responsibility for changing direction” without any clue as to what that might be. It is no good avoiding present dilemmas and contradictions with abstract calls for a socialist Europe.

Boycotting the last referenda and then the next one has the advantage of consistency but the CPGB has boycotted everything in between. Criticising all other views, except those you are ignoring, without stating your own, makes Weekly Worker a commentator on events not an agitator.

The case for a ‘democratic England in a democratic Europe’ is that England must be ‘democratised’ and become the most advanced democracy within a United States of Europe. I make no claims about the future of Ireland, Scotland or Wales or what democratic relationship these nations will want to have with the rest of Europe.

Weekly Worker “What we fight for” statement calls for a “United States of Europe” or as we say a European federal republic. This democratic slogan expresses a very different position from the liberals who want to remain in the existing European Union. It is different from ‘left-remainers’ who want to remain and put Corbyn in charge of the EU.

Longer term democratic strategic aims are significant but what is the link to the present? The CPGB advocates nothing except why everybody else is wrong. Forget about whether another referendum is a good or bad thing. Is the CPGB in favour of remaining in the EU or leaving the EU? You can boycott a referendum. But you cannot avoid the question about whether the CPGB is in favour of remaining or leaving the EU.

So far the CPGB has failed to draw distinctions between remain (and left-remain) versus a democratic exit or between a repeat referendum and a ratification referendum. It is nearly as bad as saying you haven’t noticed a distinction between Chuka Umunna and Jeremy Corbyn when the former is a remainer and the latter supports a (version of) democratic exit.

‘Democratic exiters’ are those on the remain side who accepted the referendum result as the best way of dealing with the problem of a divided working class. It is the duty of communists to draw sharp lines which delineate all positions including shades of opinion. All CPGB writers have done so far is to fudge the differences and thus help to big up the liberals.

When an estimated 600,000 march for a Peoples Vote then something significant is happening. The Crown is not going to take any more notice than they did with the Iraq war demo. Add to this the equal pay strike by women in Glasgow and we can see a serious crisis is brewing up. Divisions at the top and people on the streets are a significant combination.

In previous Weekly Workers three democratic demands were highlighted.

• For a democratic exit
• For a ratification referendum
• For a democratic England in a democratic Europe

There is a sharp distinction between “Democratic Exit” and “Remain” (and “Left Remain”). Even an idiot can recognise that. There is also a clear difference between a ratification referendum and a second-repeat referendum. The former says “do you support or reject the Tory deal”? The latter says for a second time “Do you want to Remain in the EU”?

A democratic exit means carrying out the democratic mandate from 2016 when Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain and England and Wales voted to leave. This has been called the Denmark-Greenland option. The Tories never had any intention of respecting the democratic mandates given by the people of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

English chauvinists do not recognise “Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales” as having any political meaning. The Tories recognise their chums in the DUP, helping them to steal the referendum result with the slogan “Brexit means Brexit”. It means whatever they want. May is now desperately trying to construct a deal which satisfies Big Business and the City of London and keeps the Tory Party from destroying itself.

For May and the Tories it is a ‘Deal’ or ‘No Deal’. If ‘No Deal’ then she has failed and must hand over the keys of Downing Street. That will surely mean a new Tory leader and the demand for a general election would become unstoppable. If the Tories then refused a general election the working class would surely take to the streets.

If May comes up with any Deal then there will be a ratification process. Labour and the CPGB have placed their trust in parliament to decide. No democrat would trust a rotten parliament. On democratic grounds, the people have the right to scrutinise the Tory deal and ‘recall’ the government. Any deal with the EU must be made accountable to the people, the vast majority being working class people.

The Labour leadership thinks parliament will block the deal and thus force May out or a general election. But who might back May’s deal and sabotage Corbyn? The answer is surely some Labour MP’s on the Peoples Vote march. In the Evening Standard (23 October 2018) Anne McElvoy says “the opposition, rather than the Government, will decide the endgame of Brexit negotiations”.

She explains “a sizeable number of Labour MPs regard Brexit as too important to be left to the mercies of a leadership (i.e. Corbyn) whose only interest in negotiations is as a tactical tool to bring about a quick general election”. Hence the Tories are counting on securing enough Labour support to get the deal through parliament.

If the Tory Deal gets through the Commons then it is goodbye to a Corbyn government for a few more years. May will be declared a hero who saved the country. Surely Labour MPs would not betray their leader? Downing Street only needs about 20 or 30 Labour traitors who would ‘save jobs’ as an act of patriotic duty and torpedo Corbyn at the same time.

The Israeli embassy could not have come up with a better plot than that. McElvoy reports that “Camp Corbyn is starting to realise it cannot rely on MPs it has treated with disdain to vote down any imaginable deal”. It is naive for the CPGB to support parliamentary ratification against the right of the people to decide. This is why a ratification referendum is the people’s democratic backstop.

The Tory government and the Brexit gang have ruled it out. Labour has not ruled it out but has kicked it into the long grass with much vacillation and confusion. Labour is calling instead for a general election. This is not going to happen unless May is overthrown, either by Tory MPs and the DUP, or the Commons or by defeat in a ratification referendum.

If May gets a deal she is safe from the Tories until the deal is put to parliament. If it gets through parliament she will likely make it to the next scheduled general election. Hence there are three hurdles for May’s survival. The first depends on the Tories and DUP, the second hurdle depends on Right wing Labour MP’s and the third depends on the people, the majority of whom are working class. A ratification referendum will not reverse the 2016 result but it could be the best or last chance to defeat May.

A democratic exit recognises the different mandates given by England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. This is compatible with the battle for a more democratic Europe. The democratic aim is a united states of Europe – a fully integrated democratic federal republic which includes the right of nations to self determination. There is no place in a European republic for the Kingdoms of Spain, Denmark, Holland and Sweden. Catalonia, which has voted for a republic, would be welcome.

British liberals are all (constitutional) monarchists and some are even royalists. There is no way they want a federal republic of Europe. They stand for remaining under the undemocratic EU constitution and rule of the EU neo-liberal bureaucracy. Weekly Worker is wrong to ‘big up’ the liberals and fudge the distinction between a liberal and democratic approach to the 2016 referendum.

It brings great satisfaction to see Tory Brexit hit the Irish buffers. Those reactionaries who aimed to break up the EU will surely bring about the end of the British Union. Try as they might, the Tories have not managed to square the Unionist circle. It is surely an irony of history that the British border with the EU is in Ireland and this will finally open the way to a united Ireland.

This week polls show that 77% of English Tory members would rather see Scottish independence than abandon Brexit. The same proportion would rather abandon the Irish peace process too. Ireland is in the front line not least because the Democratic Unionist Party has May by the proverbials. Scotland has been in low profile compared to Ireland. But anytime soon the SNP will take up cudgels.

The bigger picture is in England in the battle between the Anglo-British and Anglo-Europeans, divided between liberals and democrats. The Anglo-British reactionaries and ultra lefts are at pains to deny any democratic trend. They direct their fire against the liberals for working hand in glove with big business.

Our job is to uncover and highlight a democratic programme which starts from now and points to the future. A series of democratic demands – for a democratic exit, for a ratification referendum and for a democratic England in a democratic Europe – must be examined.

The Labour conference showed the political distinction between ‘remainer-liberals’ who want a second-repeat referendum and those like Corbyn, McDonell and McClusky who want a general election but may back the democratic demand for a ratification referendum. But what about a democratic exit?

In 2016 Corbyn accepted the majority vote to leave the EU. He supported remain but accepted the majority vote to leave. The reality is that the working class split down the middle. This is dangerous for the Labour Party and the working class movement. Socialists have to overcome that division not make it worse. This is a serious problem for Labour and a trap for Corbyn which so far he has side stepped.

Corbyn was quick to call for triggering Article 50. Liberal-remain Labour MPs attacked him for being weak and claiming he was a ‘secret’ leaver who opportunistically called for remain. Corbyn has made no case that leaving the EU is in the interests of the working class. Rather he says he has accepted the majority vote but wants the best deal for jobs and social protections.

Corbyn has not argued that leaving the EU is a step to socialism. He has not claimed there are any benefits for leaving the EU nor does he look forward to the bright future after we leave. His case is that we should respect a democratic vote. The best argument for the democratic approach is about finding the way to overcome a divided working class. Labour has to relate to the leave voting section of the working class and not leave them to become voting fodder for the Tory right and the fascists.

However Corbyn’s democratic approach is not consistently democratic. There are three key points. First we must keep protesting at the denial of the right to vote to two or three million EU citizens living and paying taxes in the UK. Second we must emphasise that people voted to leave the EU not the single market or customs union. A democratic exit from the EU is consistent with remaining in the single market and customs union.

The final point concerns democratic rights to self determination. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU. The Tories ignored it. The Anglo-British ignored it. The English chauvinists ignored it. The left followed them. The Tories stand for one nation, the British nation, and one vote, the British vote.

In recognising that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain we have a radically different view of what a democratic exit must mean. Greenland and Denmark are in the Kingdom of Demark. In 1985 Greenland left the EU and Denmark remained. They are still in one state. It is the Tories parking their tanks in Ireland and Scotland who are marching to the old tune ‘keep right on to the end of the road’. No surrender.

In Weekly Worker (2 October 2018 No. 1220) Paul Demarty analysed “the poverty of left-remainers” which he identified with activists supporting ‘Another Europe is Possible’. There is much Paul says that we can agree with, not least his history of the battle for European unity. However rather than make an account of points of agreement let us concentrate what is missing.

Paul’s last paragraph sums up his conclusion. He says “We leftists are in this mess, in large part, because one such crisis has followed another, and the only constant has been the abiding sense that something must be done right now and there is no time for teasing out the treacherous subtleties of the issues before us”. Yes, we need to think about strategy and not simply what to do next.

He explains the battle over the EU which “unites Michael Chessum with Tony Blair on one side, and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and Jacob Rees-Mogg on the other, must be posed differently altogether for the workers’ movement to make any serious purchase”. Again, we can agree with that.

Paul hints at a “leftist” alternative as an “argument about the relationship between the British state and a EU bureaucracy, which ignores the reality that both are in enemy hands, and that both must be destroyed, and a genuine socialist internationalism put to work replacing them”. The best interpretation of Paul’s position is surely the old SWP slogan “neither London nor Brussels but international socialism”.

The problem incorrectly posed by Paul has another answer. The EU referendum divided England down the middle. Since ten million people in England abstained, we should go beyond the 2016 labels of “remainers” or “leavers”. I will use the terms ‘Anglo-British’ and ‘Anglo-Europeans’.

On the Anglo-British side are the reactionaries and ultra lefts (using Paul’s shorthand “Jacob Rees-Mogg” and the “Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain). They are on the British road to socialism or the British road to neo-liberalism. So far so good.

In contrast the Anglo-Europeans are divided into liberals and democrats. Paul does not agree with this. His blinkers only allow him to see liberals who are represented by Tony Blair and Another Europe is Possible who because of “a hysterical sense of crisis that leads well-meaning left remainers to cash George Soros’s dirty cheques”.

Paul has awarded the contract to represent the Anglo-European trend to the liberals. Instead of highlighting or giving support to the democratic and hence working class answer to the European crisis, he has liquidated it. He does not recognise any democratic trend in theory or practice.

We may have different views about the content of the democratic programme. There was certainly a case for democrats and revolutionaries in England to actively abstain in the referendum. However the result divided the working class and gave a majority to the reactionaries and ultra lefts. In the face of this situation we need a clear response.

• For a democratic exit
• For a Ratification Referendum
• For a democratic England in a democratic Europe

This is not the time to elaborate on the slogan “for a democratic England in a democratic Europe”. Suffice to say that if the working class is going to win the battle of democracy then we have to “take control” not only in England, but across Europe. A democratic perspective is necessary.

The second bullet point on a “Ratification Referendum” has already been argued. The recent Labour Party conference showed a clear distinction between the slogan of a “second referendum” designed to re-run the 2016 referendum and the democratic demand for a “ratification referendum”. The latter is no repeat but the first time people have an opportunity to pass a verdict on the Tory’s dirty deal.

So whilst liberals, like Blair and Chuka Umunna, back a “second remain referendum”, the democratic demand for a “ratification referendum” is supported by McLusky, Corbyn and McDonald. It is no coincidence that these Labour leaders and trade union leaders supported ratification not repeat. A divided working class is reflected in the trade union movement. The liberals have their links to the board rooms and not roots in the union movement.

The crisis in the relations between “the British state and an EU bureaucracy” is a crisis in the British Union as well. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU and this is where a storm is brewing. So in discussing the “the poverty of left-remainers” we must not forget “the poverty of the Anglo-British” who “forget” to mention the urgent demand for a united Ireland and a Scottish republic.

Last week the slogan “No second referendum, yes to a ratification referendum” was highlighted when London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, called for a “second EU referendum”. He predicted May would bring back a “bad deal” or an even worse “no deal”. Who will ratify or reject this deal – the Crown-In-Parliament alone (‘Westminster’ as it is more popularly known) or the peoples of our “Precious Union”.

On BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Khan said “It’s really important that this is not a re-run of the referendum but the British public having a say for the first time on the outcome.” This might seem clear that Khan is for ratification not a repeat of 2016. But you would be wrong. “My point is this” he said, “Rather than having a bad deal or a no deal, let’s put that to the British public with the option of staying in the EU.” (Observer16 September 2018)

The EU referendum divided the country between the reactionaries and ultra lefts on one side and liberals and democrats on the opposite side. In Weekly Worker (Issues 1213 and 1214 ‘Crisis of Democracy’ 2 August 2018) I raised the slogan “No to a second referendum, Yes to a ratification referendum”. The demand for people’s ratification provides a democratic way forward for a divided working class.

The reactionaries and ultra lefts are against any further referendum on Europe. Theresa May has repeatedly stated her opposition. The ultras say the same for different reasons. They live in their own special bubble where high principles insulate them from recognising their coincidental alignment. This same blind spot saw the SWP and the Communist Party of Britain line up behind leaving the EU alongside the Tory right and UKIP.

On the opposite side are the liberals and democrats. The duplicitous liberals, like Sadiq Khan, whether left-Tories or right- Labour, serve the interests of the City and big business. Capital needs free trade, integrated supply chains and cheap workers which the EU supplies. The slogan of a ‘second referendum’ is a deliberately ambiguous slogan behind which liberals serve profit in the name of ‘jobs’.

The divisions within the working class over British exit can easily widen and deepen. The liberals don’t care about this but working class democrats do. Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, warned that another vote on EU membership could result in civil disobedience and social disruption. The hard right are ready for the ‘Great Betrayal’. A second referendum means feeding raw meat to the ravenous beast of Brexit.

The democratic demand for ratification is different. A recent survey of Labour members found “that 86% of members backed a referendum on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations”. (Independent 24 September). The 2016 referendum enabled the working class to vote. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. This is the key to a democratic and revolutionary approach to the Brexit divide. Working class voters across the Union must have the right to ratify or reject the Tory Deal.

The Labour Party conference clarified the options. May, the Tories and Weekly Worker oppose another referendum. Blair, Alistair Cambell, Sadiq Khan and Chuka Umunna want a second remain referendum. McCluskey, McDonnell and Corbyn support a ratification referendum. Labour’s carefully constructed ambiguity was blown up when Keir Stammer declared, in an unscripted part of his conference speech, that remain in the EU question was not ruled out.

Left democrats (i.e. republicans) have a different perspective. The battle for European democracy recognises the strategic importance of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Having already voted to remain in the EU, why should they vote on that again? Their majority votes have been ignored by the Tories. If the English left had an ounce of internationalism and democratic commitment they would already have mobilised opposition to this violation of self determination.

The left in England is a victim of Anglo-British chauvinism. Their minds are messed up with a kind of reactionary English nationalism which supports Theresa May’s “Precious Union”. Any international socialist who values the unity of the working class must fight against a second repeat referendum and call time on the British Union. The answer to Brexit starts from a united Ireland and a Scottish republic in a democratic Europe.