This is an compiled rough-draft version of two e-mailed commentaries that I wrote in late December 2019 regarding Boris Johnson's general election victory in the United Kingdom and Brexit. I may expand upon these commentaries later.

1. 1
The (British) “national question” remains
Stephen Cheng (originally written in December 2019)
See here for commentary on the recent general election in the United
Kingdom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGpaJEL8t-s
https://www.cnn.com/uk/live-news/uk-election-day-2019-dle-ge19-gbr-intl/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/boris-johnsons-conservative-party-wins-uk-election-with-
commanding-majority-sky-news-projects.html
Rather apparently, the Conservative Party under Boris Johnson won, indeed dominated, the
election through an emphasis on Brexit. The Labour Party with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm went
down considerably. Clearly, Brexit & British/English nationalism in general remain forces to be
reckoned with. Then again, all of that was apparent since the July 2016 referendum when the
British public voted with a majority for Brexit. The pro-Brexit sentiment still existed as a key
political factor in the spring 2017 general election when Theresa May's Conservatives won their
Pyrrhic (or Cadmean) victory against Corbyn's Labour. Now, Johnson and the Conservatives
have a solid victory--we'll see if their leverage is just as solid in coming months. Indeed,
throughout the next year.
I'm busy with matters on my own end, but I thought I'd sketch out a couple of things here before
I can think about writing more extensive analyses & commentaries in a couple of weeks. First, as
this e-mail's subject line indicates: the "national question" remains. We see that quite clearly in
this case, since the Conservatives won on a pro-Brexit platform. We've seen it in Greece in
recently past years, given that the "far left" there, generally of a "neo-Bolshevik" (Trotskyist,
Maoist, etc.) orientation, has long been in favor of "Grexit". Incidentally, the neo-Nazi Chrysi
Avgi (Golden Dawn) also advocates "Grexit".
What do I mean by the national question? Namely, the issue & cause of the right of nations to
self-determination. Historically & very broadly speaking, the Left favored struggles for national
self-determination as means of opposing imperialism and supporting bourgeois-democratic
revolutions. Indeed, Vladimir Lenin, one of the leaders of the Bolshevik fraction of the Russian
Social Democratic Labour Party, published a pamphlet in favor of left-wing support for national
independence struggles: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-
det/; https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm. Whatever one has to say
about anti-imperialist national independence struggles and their political nature as well as
socioeconomic contexts (e.g., Maoism and Hoxhaism as forms of Stalinism; the national
revolutions in China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua and elsewhere allowing
those countries to be involved in the capitalist world-economy on their own terms without or
with less Western imperialist interference) we can at least understand, and perhaps agree about,
the basic reasons for leftist support for those struggles. We see that at work when leftists go on
the streets for Palestine, Kurdistan, etc.
But what does any of that mean in the UK/Great Britain, the birthplace of capitalism, classical
liberalism, industrialization (the Industrial Revolution), and one of the biggest empires in the
world? We know that Brexit is a popular right-wing populist cause within the UK and the rest of
the world. Sure, pro-Brexit right-wingers can portray themselves as being fighters for national

2. 2
self-determination against the European Union and the Eurozone. But we know this kind of
right-wing "ant-imperialism" is based on xenophobia, "nativism", and racism as well as nostalgia
for British imperialism.... to say nothing of nationalist "pride". In other words, there's nothing in
the Conservatives' pro-Brexit stance that's truly pro-emancipation. Yet Britain's Trump managed
to win over historically pro-Labour working-class districts as he led the Conservatives to
victory.
This brings up another related issue: right-wing populism. How did the Conservatives win over
those working-class voters with Brexit? By portraying the EU as the main cause for de-
industrialization and joblessness..... because, let's be honest, the EU from the beginning was an
institution of and for neoliberal capitalism in Europe. I have to admit I was torn on Brexit
because, despite opposing its right-wing overtones & undertones, I wasn't in favor of the EU,
either. Certainly not when you consider the draconian nature of the EU's border control measures
(https://monthlyreview.org/2007/11/01/from-borderline-to-borderland-the-changing-european-
border-regime/) and how the German government pushed for austerity throughout the Eurozone
(Greece is the most notorious
example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/world/europe/greece-debt-
plan.html; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31003070). Likewise with Greece when
SYRIZA won the January 2015 general election. My basic attitude: If SYRIZA can't
successfully negotiate sovereign debt obligations with Berlin and Brussels, then it might as well
go through with Grexit. Just leave.
That said, I don't think there's any doubt that the Conservatives successfully took advantage of
British working-class to EU-institutionalized/EU-style neoliberalism by selectively focusing on
certain aspects of capitalist globalization such as immigration, outsourcing, etc. The sleight of
hand here is not so much the Conservatives opposing the EU for reducing costs to capital (e.g.,
wages, benefits, social services spending, etc.) in favor of the "profit motive" (M-C-M') but
rather the Conservatives & other right-wingers portraying global/continental neoliberal policies
as harmful to "the nation" and its "culture", "character", etc. This is how the Right (to say
nothing of the far right) can direct anger at deteriorating social and economic conditions into
"nativist", xenophobic, racist, "isolationist", right-wing populist and neo-fascist (or quasi-fascist)
channels. It's no surprise, then, that neo-fascists can support social welfare programs.... but only
for those of the "proper" nationality, race, culture, religion, etc. It's no surprise, either, when
paleoconservatives, as well as neo-fascists, oppose militarism and imperialism because they don't
want refugees in their "homeland" (while implying that there's a sinister banking cabal in control
of the world.....).
Seeing as how the Conservatives won, we may see the institutionalization of right-wing
populism in the UK's politics for some time.
As for whether the Johnson administration will successfully go through with Brexit. I think that
remains to be seen for the simple reason that Theresa May, Johnson's predecessor, had so much
trouble with implementation. The problem with this kind of "de-linking", which Donald Trump
has also been trying to do with his trade wars and attempts at leaving NAFTA, is that it's much
easier said than done. That's the case for the UK and the US, which are both economic
powerhouses and world powers (certainly the US more so than the UK since the Second World

3. 3
War). Both countries are deeply enmeshed in the world markets, so economic nationalist/autarkic
agendas are harder to enforce. Not to mention "big business", which is to say the major fractions
of capital such as multinational corporations and financial firms (e.g., Lehman Brothers, HSBC,
Goldman Sachs, etc.), needs not just domestic markets but also international markets in order to
sell goods and services as well as obtain profits (..... and interest and dividends).
But that's a transitional point into another discussion.
Here’s what we do know, though, and forgive me for repeating myself as I recap before moving
on: The Conservatives under Boris Johnson won a solid victory via a pro-Brexit stance. They
also recovered from their Pyrrhic victory on June 8, 2017—the general election from over two
years ago. The Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn, which picked up thirty (30) new
Parliamentary seats that summer, lost tremendously in the most recent election. Labour ceded
sixty (60) seats as of two weeks ago. In terms of raw numbers, back in 2017 the Conservatives
won three hundred and seventeen seats (317) and Labour two hundred and sixty-two (262). Now
in 2019, the Conservatives got three hundred and sixty-five (365) and Labour two hundred and
two (202).
It’s quite a turnaround. Strictly speaking, the Conservatives obtained majorities in both elections.
But in 2017, the Conservatives suffered a net loss of thirteen (13) seats while Labour enjoyed a
net gain of thirty (30) seats. That’s the Pyrrhic-victory aspect—the fact that the Conservatives
even lost seats at all. This became Theresa May’s undoing—she had no choice but to step down.
Now with the tables turned, with the pendulum having swung back in the Conservatives’ favor,
Corbyn, unfortunately from my perspective, is the one stepping down from party leadership.
Indeed, it’s not just Corbyn. The 2019 results have been hailed as one of the greatest losses for
Labour—a historic defeat.
How did this happen? Soon after the 2017 election and not long before the one for 2019,
Corbyn’s Labour appeared to be gaining—sooner or later getting ready to unseat, even defeat,
the Conservatives. Now, Johnson’s Conservatives are in control with barely any opposition to
deal with. That, plus Brexit on the top of the agenda.
That’s key: Brexit.
Back on June 23, 2016, “Brexit” entered the contemporary political lexicon when 51.9% of the
British electorate voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. This narrow
majority was enough to leave the world and political elites abuzz with wonderment and concern.
As I write this in late 2019, I doubt I’m writing anything new, either, by noting that Brexit was a
forerunner to Donald Trump’s victory (or “victory” because, strictly speaking, Hillary Clinton
lost to Trump) in the United States’ presidential election on November 8, 2016. It’s also worth
mentioning here that Trump rode the Minuteman and Tea Party waves to power. Along the way,
he took advantage of popular discontent toward deteriorating social and economic conditions. In
short, and to refrain from further digression, right-wing nationalist populism became a
mainstream force in the US and UK because of public dissatisfaction—not the alleged
machinations of the Russian government under Vladimir Putin.
That’s the key distinction, by the way.

4. 4
You simply can’t explain away Brexit as well as Johnson’s and the Conservatives’ victory via
Brexit, not to mention Trump’s presidency, with “Russiagate”—a nonsensical conspiracy
“theory”. Brexit and the Conservatives’ upset win symbolize the channeling of the British
general public’s dissent into right-wing populist channels.
Other explanations won’t suffice, either. You can’t claim that Corbyn, his campaign, and
Labour’s left wing (not to mention the party’s rank and file) are all anti-Semitic/Judeophobic and
therefore they somehow got their “rightful” comeuppance. There’s just no evidence for the
alleged anti-Semitism of Corbyn and Labour’s left. You can’t argue that laissez faire, “free
market” (or “free enterprise”) economics (strictly speaking, the proper term is “political
economy”) won the day, either. Here’s why: Johnson’s Conservatives promised
to increase spending on the National Health Service, although, of course, not as much as what
Corbyn’s Labour pledged. Indeed, if you look at the Conservatives’ 2019 party manifesto, you’ll
find that they also promised to invest more in infrastructure, technology, education, and business
firms. They even talk about raising wages in the UK!
It’s obvious enough. The Conservatives coopted Labour’s program from 2017. Short of
appropriating the program, they ran with basic social-democratic talking points. Even Johnson’s
slogan, “The People’s Government”, isn’t all that far removed thematically from Corbyn’s “For
the Many, Not the Few”.
How is this possible, you ask? Aren’t we talking about a right-wing party? Aren’t right-wingers
more inclined to promote “free market” economics? Why would they favor governmental
intervention in the economy in favor of the working class? What’s more, didn’t Margaret
Thatcher declare Friedrich von Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty the Conservatives’ Bible on
(political-)economic matters?
All fair questions until you consider that, this time around, Johnson’s Conservatives campaigned
on “One-Nation Conservatism”, also known as “Red Toryism”, a la Benjamin Disraeli. In other
words, Johnson successfully pitched a program combining social democracy with nationalism.
The result? A cross-class political project that’s economically corporatist and ideologically
suffused with nationalism. It’s also a fair question to ask as to nature of Johnson’s appeal to
nationalism. That’s the socially and politically reactionary aspect of Johnson’s “People’s
Government” and hardline Brexit take. The Conservatives aren’t subtle about it, either. In their
manifesto, alongside all the social-democratic policies that they’re at least paying “lip service”
to, they’re also calling for an “Australian-style points-based system to control immigration”.
The implication is sufficiently clear: They want a UK that only works to the benefit of “native”
British residents—“native” on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. Socioeconomic class
differences become subsumed under nationalism. That is, a right-wing nationalist agenda that
includes economic populism. Or economic corporatism. It’s something the United Kingdom
Independence Party, the English Defence League, and the British National Party can get behind.
Not to mention PEGIDA, Combat 18, Oswald Mosley, and Enoch Powell. Oh yeah, and let’s not
forget Strasserist “Third Position” neo-fascists.
What’s not to like? Well, needless to say, there’s much to dislike.

5. 5
Still need to give credit where it’s due, although “giving the Devil his due” is already a cliché.
Never underestimate the ability of right-wingers and the establishment to appropriate center-left
and leftist programs and policy proposals and repurpose them for their own agendas. It’s easy to
scoff at Johnson as the UK’s Trump, but this move was ingenious.
As far as I can tell, though, there’s still the issue of practicability. As I noted in my previous
commentary, this kind of “de-linking” (under right-wing populist auspices as opposed to
“Marxist-Leninist” anti-imperialist attempts at industrializing formerly colonized countries such
as China, Albania, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) is much easier said than done. Sure, Johnson, the
Conservatives, and other right-wingers, not to mention members of the British general public,
want to go through with Brexit. But the details matter, including economic and financial
considerations.
As I mentioned in the previous commentary, the UK is a major financial and economic
component of the capitalist world-system. Brexit, which could mean the UK restricting economic
ties such as “free trade” with the European Union (as well as the Eurozone) and the rest of the
world, would be a major disruption for the financial markets and multinational corporations.
Concerns about neoliberal political-economic stability probably account for why British
establishment figures such as the Conservatives’ David Cameron and New (or “New”) Labour’s
Tony Blair are Remainers.
There’s also the issue of whether Johnson’s One-Nation Conservatism/Red Toryism will hold up
against Big Business’s commitment to neoliberalism. That commitment means continuing with
austerity, deindustrialization, deregulation, financialization, privatization, etc. The Conservatives
mentioned in their manifesto their aim to keep taxes low. That begs the question: Low for
whom? To be fair the Conservatives pledged they’ll fight corporate tax evasion, and rightly so,
but how perseverant will they be in the coming months? And years?
I’m asking because, as Parliament drafts new laws and enforces new policies, there’s a
possibility that the low(er) taxes are actually meant for corporations and banks rather than the
public. In this case, we’re talking about regressive taxation. If that’s so, and I can’t say for sure
yet, then there’s no way the Johnson administration, or any other administration regardless of
party affiliation and/or prime minister, will be able to keep the NHS funded, update
infrastructure, maintain research and development financing, preserve social insurance, etc.
There’s a reason why even the former U.S. President George H.W. Bush referred to supply-side
economics as “voodoo economics”.
Lastly, what if Brexit turns out to be, in fact, England’s departure? Historically and currently, the
UK was a union among England, Wales, Scotland, and the north of Ireland (I’m leaving out the
time when all of Ireland was a British colony). Soon after Brexit became an issue, concerns
about a “hard border” between the Republic of Ireland and “Northern” Ireland arose. The
possibility of a united Ireland was on the table again. Sinn Fein called for a referendum on Irish
(re)unification. Scottish national self-determination also became a “hot topic” in 2014. Since the
Scottish National Party gained thirteen (13) seats in this year’s election, formal Scottish
independence may end up in the news again. With the Irish and Scottish “national questions”
(re)emerging as political realities, I don’t think anybody should be surprised if Brexit becomes

6. 6
an English exit. Whether a united republican Ireland and/or a future Republic of Scotland will
decide to leave or stay in the EU remains to be seen.
To wrap this commentary up, the Conservatives and Johnson can certainly claim a solid victory.
We’ll see if they got more than they bargained for. Or, if you will, whether they’ve taken on
more than they can handle.
Related links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/brexit-aside-boris-johnson-get-done-
conservative
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/24/conservative-manifesto-the-key-points-
policies-boris-johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/boris-johnson-leads-tories-historic-general-
election-win
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/conservatives-bridge-brexit-divide-
tory-landslide
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/27/port-talbot-steelworks-owner-confirms-
plan-to-cut-up-to-1000-uk-jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/14/british-steel-to-axe-almost-1-in-10-jobs
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48027580
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/29/764199387/david-cameron-calls-the-brexit-referendum-his-
greatest-regret
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/next-labour-leader-must-challenge-
sectarian-left
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/why-labour-lost-and-how-it-can-recover-
epic-defeat
https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/12/corbynism-over-labour-s-next-leader-must-unite-
centre-and-left
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/johnson-joins-trump-in-redefining-conservatism/ar-
AAK6Qbv?ocid=spartanntp
https://www.irishpost.com/news/sinn-fein-says-brexit-will-pave-way-united-ireland-within-
generation-173046
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/johnson-refuses-call-for-scottish-independence-vote-
/5212688.html