The decision by Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 29 August to prorogue Parliament is a response to the deep divisions between rival sections of the British ruling class and their parliamentary representatives. With an eye to a future general election, Johnson has positioned himself as the defender of the ‘will of the people’ in his seeming preparedness to countenance a ‘no deal’ Brexit on 31 October. Meanwhile, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn flails about, seeking a parliamentary device to prevent a precipitous exit from the European Union around which the Parliamentary Labour Party can unite. Outside Westminster, the left has ignominiously leaped to the defence of the sham of parliamentary democracy. As has been the case since the 2016 Referendum, neither the Leave nor Remain camp is acting in the interests of the working class.
Proroguing involves suspending Parliament, in this case for a period of five weeks from 9 September to 14 October after which the government’s Brexit plans will be the central element of the Queen’s Speech. This suspension would seriously limit the possibility of any parliamentary or legal challenge to Johnson’s Brexit strategy. The stance we adopt on prorogation must be determined not by the step itself, but by the reasons behind it, which are to advance the interests of one part of the ruling class against those of another. As communists we have always opposed choosing sides between Leave and Remain; that is why we called for a boycott of the EU referendum on 23 June 2016:
‘…the Brexit conflict is essentially a dispute between sections of the British ruling class over two necessarily, totally reactionary outcomes for British capitalism – staying as part of a European imperialist bloc or leaving and becoming an offshore centre for usury capital under the umbrella of US imperialism. This choice has been imposed on the British ruling class precisely because the parasitic character of British capitalism has made it increasingly incapable of withstanding the economic and political challenges of US or European imperialism as an independent global imperialist power. A relatively declining British capitalism facing a global economic capitalist crisis and growing imperialist rivalry has brought this choice to a head’ (Brexit crisis: battle lines drawn as parties fracture, FRFI 271).
The dominant section of the ruling class, whose interests command the majority of MPs, is appalled at the prospect of a no deal Brexit. However, a significant minority of Tory MPs share the delusion that a British imperialism independent of both the EU and US imperialism is a viable option, and most of the remainder, nervous at the electoral threat of the Brexit Party, have jumped on to the no deal platform to keep their seats on the Westminster gravy train. Cabinet members who explicitly ruled out proroguing Parliament in the summer Tory leadership campaign, including Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd, Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Chancellor Sajid Javid, are now silent: they are looking after their own interests. Keeping to his extensive record of telling bare-faced lies, Johnson declared it was ‘completely untrue’ to suggest he was shutting parliament because of Brexit.
However, the parliamentary forces opposed to a no deal Brexit are divided in their strategy. In mid-August, the Lib Dems proposed a government of national unity under a caretaker prime minister – with a caveat that it could be anyone but Corbyn. Labour rejected this on the grounds that Corbyn was the leader of the largest opposition party and therefore was the only viable candidate for the position. This was unacceptable to pro-remain Tory MPs. On 21 August Corbyn called for cross-party talks to discuss ‘all tactics available to prevent no deal’, warning that ‘the country is heading into a constitutional and political storm.’ Those talks concluded on 27 August with an agreement that Labour would not pursue an immediate vote of no confidence in the government but would, with others, seek a legislative approach which would involve extending Article 50 if there were a prospect of no deal. However, Tory MPs opposed to no deal whose support would be crucial for this strategy to succeed were not present at the talks. The next day, Johnson prorogued Parliament, leaving Corbyn fruitlessly demanding an audience with the Queen.
Protests have been called across the country over the next few days against what has been called a ‘Tory coup’. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell declared that it was ‘an undemocratic outrage at such a crucial moment for our country, and a historic constitutional crisis.’ Owen Jones histrionically announces that ‘This is an attack on a democracy fought for through the blood and sacrifice of our ancestors.’ Michael Chessum, national organiser of Another Europe is Possible, has called for ‘a mass movement of protest and civil disobedience.’ Momentum national organiser Laura Parker says ‘we’re going to contact all Momentum supporters and encourage them to protest, occupy and blockade on Saturday.’ Meanwhile, another smaller but vocal section of the left, which had openly espoused Leave from a chauvinist perspective as in the interests of ‘British workers’ is openly supporting Johnson’s move, on the basis that suspending Parliament is re-enfranchising those who voted Leave in 2016. Facing both ways, the ‘Lexit’ supporting Socialist Worker says that ‘it is crucial that these protests are anti-Tory and for forcing Johnson and the government out – not protests against Brexit. And they must be open to people who voted Leave.’
All this sound and fury signifies nothing. In calling for opposition to prorogation as an attack on democracy, the left is telling us to side with the anti-Brexit faction of the ruling class. However, in order to give its stance a progressive gloss, it has to obscure the political content of what is taking place and focus instead on its form. Parliament exists to broker the differing interests of the ruling class while giving the working class an illusion that it has some political influence. This allows it to sanction wars and austerity beneath a veneer of ‘debate’. The effect of Brexit has been to bring previously latent divisions between sections of the ruling class to the forefront, to the extent that Parliament can no longer perform its primary role. Rather than use this as a golden opportunity to expose the parliamentary charade for what it is, the majority of the left’s concern is quite the opposite: to shore it up and present it as a vehicle to protect the interests of the working class. Socialists have to be clear: what confronts us now is not a struggle over basic human rights, or the right to vote or protest. The only interests at stake with prorogation are those of the ruling class, not the working class. Over questions such as racism, austerity and war the ruling class remains united, and these have to be the focus of our resistance.
Revolutionary Communist Group
