For those who think Brexit will be easy I suggest reading this paper. It makes clear the sheer scale of the legal challenges the UK will face.
Now I am not saying legal challenges need stop any process if it is worthwhile doing. But in this case there is no obvious gain unless you want to take away workers rights and stop the NHS recruiting the vital overseas workers it needs to keep functioning. So we just get the mess.
It's not a pretty prospect.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I have passed this link to my LibDem friend who thinks leaving the EU will be a doddle. Like Chris Grayling on the Today programme this morning, my friend has no idea of the complexity of the issue, and does not want to know.
What is possibly worse than Chris Grayling’s simplistic logic, is that interviewer John Humphrys, (who I suspect is against Brexit personally) made a dreadful fist of countering Grayling’s argument. This whole mess that Cameron is inflicting on us is challenging most mainstream journalists, who are either too lazy, too dim, or too partisan to dig deep into the issues; a bit harsh maybe, but many prefer easy soundbites, and playground debating tactics.
Michael Gove’s attempt to blag us about the legal status of the negotiations so far, is a classic case in point. It took most of the mainstream media several days to get to the bottom of that particular canard, and Gove, our Justice Minister, was proved wrong in law.
Given that Goldman Sachs and the US Treasury secretary are advising the UK to stay in- is this another too big to fail argument being applied to the EU in order to protect financial services yet again while economic disaster rains down on populations (Latvia/Greece/Portugal?Spain/Ireland)?
Maybe it is
But in that case we fail by leaving when we have to stay and change
There is no option B
According to this report, they are funding the in campaign rather heavily too.
I attended a talk given by Anne Pettifor at St Catharine’s College Cambridge a few weeks ago. One of her off side comments was that “Goldman Sachs could not believe their luck when they managed to get Greece into insoluble debt underwritten by the ECB, or Germany.”
The EU is being controlled by the finance industry, and I am beginning to wonder if we should not break off from it.
Sorry – the link to the report!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/20/goldman-sachs-funding-eu-in-campaign-with-six-figure-sum-to-britain-stronger-in-europe/
What, and become a wholly City controlled tax haven instead?
Greece chose the option it did. There were other choices it could have made but the government for whatever reason in defiance of the people’s vote, chose to go into hock to the IMF and allow Germany to asset strip their country. (Merkel wanted the airports). We can, should it become necessary, make different choices whether we are in or out of the EU.
The argument for the UK to remain a member of the EC needs to refocus away from the negatives of Brexit and tackle some of the questions previously raised.
The context is firstly that the caricature painted by the little englander’s of everything being dictated from Brussels is the opposite of that which exists in reality. EC level directives on employment rights such the WTD, health and safety and a raft of other stuff from Europe goes through national Parliaments and onwards into the processes of companies operating here and is sublely changed. Giving a lie to the idea and argument of loss of sovereignty.
The flip side is that despite all these employment laws etc from Europe the practical reality in the UK is that the flexibility of operation by which EC regulations are reinterpreted down through the national legislatures and company processes has resulted in far less protection than the original intentions. The proliferation of zero hours contracts (which sees one member of this household with two practical degrees working anything from 4 hours to 15 hour shifts not including transport times), “voluntary” opt outs from the WTD amongst other work arounds employed, and increases in the time period eligibility, along with the costs, of going to an IT means that the level of actual protection from such employment rights is actually worse then before they were introduced.
Meanwhile the UK has got a special status deal which has apparently upset a number of other member states who will no doubt be looking to achieve similar deals on a number of grounds, not least of which is the competitive disadvantage to themselves of the UK Deal to stay in. A deal which includes opt outs from financial regulations and tax policy towards corporations etc.
This approach, as previously spelled out, represents a continuity of the British/English States towards power balance in Europe which spans several centuries.
The UK tail is wagging the EC dog. To put it bluntly, because subtlety and nuance do not seem to be encouraging the questions posed to be tackled, the long standing policy of the British State has been responsible for the EC increasingly adopting neo liberal economic, neo conservative political and neo feudlist social approaches thinking and practices.
The idea put forward that the Project throughout Europe can be turned around by continued UK membership unless the pre requisite of current British State continuity is no longer operating in the way it has for several centuries is pure fantasy. Can anyone seriously see, in a context in which the UK has obtained a special deal to opt out of financial regulation etc, the UK leading the charge or playing any positive role whatsoever in an EC adoption of anything like the Tobin Tax?
Particularly with a EC membership which was broadened rather than deepened (another policy success for the continuity approach of the British State over the centuries) many of who will be seeking to obtain a similar deal for themselves. As a trojan horse for US business interests continued UK membership, without a radical change within the UK, will be pushing for every dot and comma of the TTIP, along with those member States it championed when it sought to broaden the EU rather than deepen it.
It is not just the voters and people in the UK who have a stake and an interest in the outcome of this referendum. People’s across the EC will be impacted one way or the other with this result. So far no compelling argument has been put forward for remaining which tackles the reality that continued UK membership will make it more difficult if not impossible for the Project to be turned around rather than driving the EC further towards neo libralism, neo conservatism and neo feudalism in the interests of big business and small elites.
Even developing countries have an interest here as chronicled by this article in Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/23/trade-officials-promised-exxon-ttip-will-erase-environmental-obstacles-worldwide?
where EC officials promised oil companies a free ride on environmental regulations through TTIP. That is not going to change with continued UK membership without change in the UK itself. And that means a totally different arrangement within these islands to the one which has existed for three centuries. So far, the only realistic scenario to achieve that is one in which England out votes the periphery areas of the UK superstate to exit with the potential for a constitutional crisis proving the means to end the British State.
Now I for one don’t enjoy writing this, as I voted to join in the last referendum. However, I, among others, have previously attempted to raise such questions in as subtle and nuanced way as possible in the hope of steering towards a more positive narrative that tackles such issues and which provides some positive argument that they can be resolved through continued membership.
The floor is still open…..
How will BREXIT stop international recruitment? I’d have thought leaving would allow recruitment from a wider pool (the whole world, not just the EU).
Why should leaving affect workers rights, assuming there is a democratic mandate within the UK to have them at whatever level the government of the day decides? You seem to be saying you don’t accept the legitimacy of the British government (of whatever flavour it may be over time) to decide these things for the country.
The aim of Brexit is to help the ant-immigration cause
The Brexit movement is a broad church. There are plenty within the movement who want to make it easier for skilled people from across the world to enter into the UK (not just the other 27 EU countries). Count me into that group.
It seems madness that Romanians and Bulgarians can go through the quick ‘EU passport route’ but Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, Americans, Singaporeans, South Africans, Fijians, Barbadians etc. (with all the historic and cultural links) have to stand in the long line, and face stiff restrictions on their right to remain.
Oh dear
Is that really all that matters in life?
Especially as we will all be queuing more if you get your way
Queuing at the airport was just figurative of the broader problem of the right to remain.
You’ve said there are recruitment problems for the NHS, as there is elsewhere. You seem to want to keep an arrangement that makes it harder, not easier, by excluding candidates who would otherwise fit in well here (same language, similar way of life etc.).
And you’re saying ‘is that all that matters in life’. Odd reply.
Far from it: the aim of Brexit is to reduce immigration
How can that help?
Over years working off and on around the City, they have always seemed to me to be clearly anti-EU, and of course anti-Euro (all that nice FX business that disappeared…). They’d love the idea of the UK, or rather the City and South-East, as the world’s tax haven, a business in which todays City is deeply embroiled. On balance, I’d see the EC and other European countries as being far more suspicious of US/UK approaches to financial services and more likely to implement tougher regulation. The Tobin tax for a start. We already know of Cambourne’s efforts to block potential EC legislation, as they ‘protect’ the City
Thats not to deny the role of the EC in Greece’s problems. As for Goldman’s role in Greece, they were acting in their own interests as usual – arguably both Greece and the EU were victims of Goldmans fiddling of Greek debt.
I’d agree that the Brexit debate and referendum arose primarily out of UK politics and competition between UKIP and the traditionally anti-EU right of the Tory party, who see the EU getting in the way of their divine right to rule the country on their terms.The dishonesty of the arguments about the impact and scale of migration promoted by UKIP/Tories using their control of the mass media has been breathtaking. They seem to see UK has evolving into a ‘Russian doll’ of gated communities, with a big fence around the Borders keeping out migrants (unless they are rich oligarchs with money to launder) and more local fences to keep the feral (and genetically deficient) poor out of their lives
Also worth recalling Boris Johnson’s previous observations that most of the UK’s problems are not caused by Brussels and that leaving the EU will solve very little
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10052646/Quitting-the-EU-wont-solve-our-problems-says-Boris-Johnson.html
Robin,
The only publicity we should give Boris is the names of his backers.
https://tompride.wordpress.com/
To be clear, I regard Boris as congenitally dishonest and corrupt – thanks for the extra evidence, as if any more were needed. I just found it wonderfully ironic that in a brief moment of lucidity he effectively admitted that leaving the EU would do nothing to help with the more fundamental problems
As ever, he is incapable of being consistent for more than 5 minutes….
Well looking at the paper there is certainly no easy way out.
Concerningly many people seem to think that Brexit means all the “bad” immigrants will melt away and that houses and jobs will magically appear in their absence. This viewpoint is of course helped along by those moronic elements of our media and “free press”.
Helen’s point about mainstream journalists “who are either too lazy, too dim, or too partisan to dig deep into the issues; a bit harsh maybe, but many prefer easy soundbites, and playground debating tactics” hits the mark perfectly.
As for Goldman Sachs their overarching powers sadly extend way way beyond the EU, their greed is infinite,I dont think UK brexit will impact on their global blood sucking activities one bit.
On a more local issue I have always thought the agenda of UKIP, while on the face of it is anti immigration and pro “working class”, is really about serving and protecting the city boys and their fraudulent monetary activities, another good reason NOT to leave (imho).
I am not saying that I have made Up my mind completely, I am still listening to debates and thinking.
But there are those, in the Tony Benn tradition, who argue that with Parliamentary Sovereignty, we have more potential for a genuine Labour Government to come to power and limit the powers of the banks through Westminster. At the moment, much economic policy is dictated through the Maastrict Treaty and Lisbon Treaty. We are advised to limit deficits to 3%. This should be under the control of a democratically elected government. We need to make sure that we can regain the Keynesian powers to cure recessions and prevent banking failures through regulation. The neoliberal delusional austerity and debt repayment imposed on European countries is causing high unemployment.
John Hilary has said that yes, the Tories are doing the same, and would get worse under a Brexit. But he states, ok, we have the potential to get worse, but e also have the democratic space created to get much better, with a Labour government unharnessed from the neoliberal treaties.
This comment is intended to add to the debate, not argue with the in – campaign, which does have some good arguments too. But the debate for out is not confined to the vicious Right, which plays on fears of immigrants, and nasty people who want to get rid of human rights.
I think the current environment is changing many of the constraints you note
And remember, w chose to be much tougher than the EU demanded on ourselves
And we are not in the eurozone
” chose to be much tougher than the EU demanded on ourselves
And we are not in the eurozone” That’s very true. This will not change if we exit, indeed some argue it could embolden the austerity. My argument for Exiting is the hope that it could trigger a groundswell against austerity – but I may be quite wrong here.
Bill Mitchell writes:
“But we can deduce several things based on historical experience. It is highly likely that the benefits of exit would outweigh the costs, if the exit decision is, simultaneously, accompanied by a decision to reject the flawed neo-liberal, austerity approach in favour of a fiscally active policy stance that seeks to maximise well being of the citizenry.”
That’s fine in theory but I would worry that the chance of that happening in Britian with a supine populace bedazzled by 40 years of myths seems as likely as Halley’s Comet passing over as I type. Rock/hard place again.
Bill is decidedly optimistic
It is worth looking in more detail how our original membership of the EEC was engineered and how it was only achieved by the considerable use of deception both then and in the following years. In 1974 I readily admit that, when I was young, I was deceived by Edward Heath’s presentation. Later Mrs T challenged various aspects with a vigorous wave of her handbag.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html
Fifty years later we have not managed to influence much, the onward move towards their original plan of control. Personally I think that with the significant pressure being exerted by the banks and markets, and aided by Cameron and Osborne, we will stay in.
I can see that you will choose to stay in Richard but there are tough legal challenges whether in or out. If by chance the vote is to come out, then there will be initial upheaval but I am sure we have the overall resources to make the best of it.
I doubt it, very much
Although this is slightly off subject I had for the longest time despised the EU. But one thing I do know is that although some export is possible abroad beyond the EU (JCB and a Northampton shoe manufacturer selling to China) in the majority of cases the UK cannot compete with emerging economies such as that of India, China, Indonesia etc. We just don’t have the work ethic that these countries foster. I remember vividly the miners and car factory workers striking for better pay. They earned more in one week than I could earn in a month, but it was not enough for them. Even though wages here in the UK are depressed, our labour costs far exceed those of emerging economies and we simply cannot produce enough at a cost we can export at. We don’t have off shore oil any more and shale is proving disastrous for the US, Australia and Argentina and the US can produce meat and Russia is one of the largest grain exporters along with the US. We have no steel, coal, shipbuilding industries left and their will be no resurrecting them so trading within the EU is our best market source, however limited it is. Just an observation since I originate from the north and live now, near Corby (defunct) steelworks.
I have concerns about the EU but I would rather us leave NATO to be honest.
NATO has not been very effective when you consider its roles where murder has become rather commonplace. It’s toothless.
The EU on the other hand has somehow helped Europe to remain peaceful since WWII.
If we leave, other countries will want the same deal and then the EU will begin to fall apart. There maybe rampant competition and even protectionism. This is already taking place. Without the common bind of the EU these behaviours could get worse to the point where real conflit is created – and I suspect it will some of the newer nations where it will kick off first.
Does that ring a bell at all?
Again, Tory ideology is blind to the effects of some of its objectives because it simply hates Europe. It will not be a clean break; it will be very messy.
And I also agree that Europe is not the problem; the problem in the UK is within the indigenous banking system that it the problem.
I agree
There are signs that conflict is waiting in the wings whether we are in or out-there we all sorts of alliances and entente cordials before WW1 -it didn’t stop it happening. I think the reality is we can’t be sure what will happen but the EU itself is hardly a peacemaker-it has degraded and dragged down a huge sector of its own population including a health care catastrophe in Greece -if that’s peace making them I’m Uncle Tom Cobley.
If anything is likely to cause social upheaval it’s a combination of austerity/oligarchy/proxy wars in other parts of the world.
In reality Europe has already fallen apart in everything except a legal sense.
Simon
You seem to discount whatever unity already exists. I can assure you that without any treaties or legal bonds at all, the disaggregation of the EU could be much worse, much nastier and more risky.
If Europe goes down then I’d rather it unwind slowly than just implode.
Also the biggest pressure to Europe is from the forced (sometimes economic) migration from failed Arab/oil producing states – not necessarily from EU citizens exercising their right to work where they want. Arguably this is situation created by American sponsored interference in that region.
One of the biggest issues for the EU is how the business sector has used the free movement of people to bring down the cost of labour by being allowed to create a sub-market for themselves within the treaty framework. This should not have been allowed as all it has done is turn popular sentiment against the EU.
An example of where a political idea meets the market and the idea comes off second best and how markets do actually pervert freedom rather than enable it.
I wonder what Michael Sandel would make of that?
Good question
I have not checked
But he wrote a good article on the US election for the Observer, I think
Surely if Goldman Sachs are financing “the stay in” campaign, then that alone should have people running towards the exit!!
On a serious note there will ne issues and challenges in leaving the EU…but nothing worthwile has ever come out of something that was easy to do.
I have to say that in this case that understates the issues
I would prefer to stay in Europe but I am against the levels of immigration that we are seeing. Net migration figures of 300k are unsustainable. No wonder the NHS and most public services are on their knees. No wonder there is nowhere for anyone to live. Any ideas on how we can stay in Europe but stop these absurd levels of immigration?
Actually, the NHS would be crushed without migration
I did a two pager on “this is how the EU functions” in terms of institutions, law making, laws & the role of politicians. What was striking was how deeply embedded politicians are, at all levels of the EU.
My hypothesis is that many of the Uk politicians talking about how easy Brexit is going to be, have little idea with respect to the functioning of the EU & the steps needed for the UK to extricate itself, if indeed it comes to that. I’d also observe that there is a very high level of ignorance within the UK on how the EU functions. Your starter for 10 is: the difference between a directive and a regulation and the meaning of the phrase “framework directive”. 🙂
Sounds a useful paper – could you share it with us please?
Sandra Crawford
“through the Maastrict Treaty and Lisbon Treaty. We are advised to limit deficits to 3%. This should be under the control of a democratically elected government.”
But it should be pointed out that France, a founding member of the Euro, has never remotely complied with the Euro stability pact – never mind the Maastricht Treaty advice. So the French have de facto always treated such requirements with the contempt they deserve, without any comeback whatsoever!
Dave Hansell
“Can anyone seriously see, in a context in which the UK has obtained a special deal to opt out of financial regulation etc, the UK leading the charge or playing any positive role whatsoever in an EC adoption of anything like the Tobin Tax?”
Difficult I agree, but I think that any enlightened administration is going to find it easier to impose a similar tax if it is an EU policy rather than if they are trying to do it as one country’s administration on their own.
“So far no compelling argument has been put forward for remaining which tackles the reality that continued UK membership will make it more difficult if not impossible for the Project to be turned around rather than driving the EC further towards neo libralism, neo conservatism and neo feudalism in the interests of big business and small elites.”
It is likely to be worse still if the EU disintegrates, when the US or big corporations pick each country off one at a time. The Google Chief Executive actually made a special trip to Brussels but didn’t trouble himself with visiting the UK – even though it was 10% of his turnover..
As for TTIP there is already a lot of opposition in Germany and Holland and the French haven’t even started yet — so I cannot see it getting signed any time soon.
I know these responses are all least worst options — but that is just how low we’ve sunk. And I think years of taking our eye off the political and economic ball with all the effort to extract ourselves from the EU would assuredly not improve things.
“Difficult I agree, but I think that any enlightened administration is going to find it easier to impose a similar tax if it is an EU policy rather than if they are trying to do it as one country’s administration on their own.”
Thanks for taking the time and touble to engage May, it is appreciated.
I suppose what I’m trying to get at there is this:
If it is accepted that it is a matter of historical record which continues to this day that the policy of the English and subsequently the British State, through the UK superstate which preceeded the larger original European version, has been to prevent and contain any power on the European mainland from pursuing an approach at odds with the economic liberalism and social feudalism of that British State, then the next question to consider is how successful has British policy been in shaping EC policy and the Project towards neo economic liberalism/ political conservatism/social feudalism?
If it is accepted that the answer to that question is that the evidence points to the UK having shaped the EC in that way through the influence its membership brings than the question has to be raised as to how likely it will be that the EC will adopt anything like the Tobin Tax or any regulation,financial, environmental, social, employment whatever which constrains corporate oligarchys in a context in which:
– Continued UK membership is based on the special status opt outs that Cameron has negotiated and where
– other member states will be actively seeking similar arrangements. And you can bet your pension, whilst it is still being paid, that the UK, if it votes to stay in, will be actively supporting such deals because they further the neo liberal etc agenda of the British State.
Which in effect means that the important point is not disintegration of the EC but the disintegration of the Project. If the UK opts out the current deal is no longer relevant, other member states upset at the competitive advantage the deal gives any continued UK membership now have no example to point at to get similar opt outs . If we stay in than the Project disintegrates as more and more member states pile in to get a similar deal and Europe ends up as the free trade zone without the social and other protective elements of he project which is precisely the outcome the British State wants and the US Corporates are salivating over and using the political lobbyists in Washington to achieve.
That IS where we are. Putting on the shoes of a European committed to the social project rather than being a big business club for US MNC’S I would not be wanting this US trojan horse, which is the tail wagging the dog, anywhere near membership as it is pushing the project in the wrong direction (De Gaulle got many things wrong but he was spot on with his assessment on that point). The British State has not had an administration which has come anywhere within a million light years of “enlightened” since Callaghan lit the fuse on blowing away the post war mixed economy consensus, and that was around four decades ago.
It’s just not going to happen whilever the British State exists within its current moribund form. Consequently, the only scenario in which that is going to change is one in which the UK superstate is dismantled into its constituent parts which will provide the necessary breathing space for more enlightened administrations to evolve. Otherwise, forget it, it’s not on the cards.
Well, this is becoming intellectually challenging from both sides, isn’t it! Having lived on the Continent and raised a family there for over a decade (now back in the UK) I have always been culturally ‘pro-European’. Hence I started off supporting the ‘Stay In’ campaign, acknowledging all the well-publicised negatives: democratic deficit, austerity economics, bureaucratic profligacy (e.g. ritual decamping to Strasbourg), etc. but believing that the UK would be more effective in influencing reform from the inside to the benefit of the entire European Project.
However, having pored over seemingly endless analyses from many different socio-economic angles (phew!), not least ‘Tax Research UK, I’m gradually drifting towards ‘Brexit’. The prospect of voting along-side IDS, Gove, Johnson, Howard, Rees-Mogg et al. goes firmly against the grain but there are more important issues at stake than personal animosities. The future is, of course, bigger than current personalities and prejudices.
On finance I’m accepting Bill Mitchell’s advice (http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33017); on sustainability and democracy I’m falling back on the basic Schumacher principle that ‘Small is Beautiful’; and philosophically (?) I’ve been influenced by the musings of ex-pat John Ward (https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/100-reasons-for-eu-brexit). This is not to say that I’ve finally made up my mind.
Richard, I hear what you say and trust your judgement on tax issues but there is another side to the debate that is not just about immigration, flag-waving little Englanders, national ‘pride’ and such emotive issues that appeal to the hard-core right-wing & UKIP constituency. There is a strong progressive argument for leaving the EU which is not being effectively articulated and is crowded out by conservative propaganda.
I guess my point is (at last): if someone like me – with time on their hands and slightly more than a passing knowledge of economics, politics and history – is agonising at such length over the pros & cons, how on earth is the bulk of the voting public going to reach a reasoned decision based on what’s fed to them in sound-bites by the MSM?
I fear that the final vote will primarily be affected by emotional sentiment and a depressingly low turn-out, especially among the young.
In any event, the world won’t come to an end. Life will just become easier or more difficult for UK residents, depending on whatever government is in power. Was it ever thus!
John D
But it is exactly as you suggest, an emotional decision – if it were all in £sd it would be easy. It isn’t. It is either we are part of Europe or we are not. If we are not part of Europe as we are a small offshore island off Europe what on earth are we part of?
If it is just the world then as an international island of 60million souls or so we are alone with only the Commonwealth left, which might be fine but surely those geographically close need nourishing, as it were.
I come back to the advantage of an established talking shop. After all, very simply, if you need to talk, you first need to establish one. At least it is already there. The Commonwealth is another emotional union but arguably closer and also largely Anglophone (mind you the EU is now also pretty much the same) and effectively trade is an also ran but it is surely not a realistic alternative but these days just a plus?
MayP
Thanks for your response.
I totally agree it’s not simply about LSD. I don’t think the original idea for the EU (not to be confused with the Euro aberration) was just a financial project either. But it has been hi-jacked by the monetarist idealogues, with terrible social repercussions that are not likely to end any time soon.
Being formally linked to the EU is not a requisite for our survival. Nor is reconstituing a Churchillian ‘English Speaking Union’. We can be ‘anything’ we want! The limit is our socio-political imagination. Yes, I’m being intentionally provocative – but for future generations we should really be having a much more creative dialogue, covering the principal determinants for a happy, peaceful and prosperous nation. It’s not like a GE every 5 years. It’s a once in a life-time opportunity that could be a blue-print for a generation or 3.
The referendum was called to appease the Conservative right-wing and to garner votes from possible UKIP supporters. Now the PM finds himself hoisted by his own petard. But the real losers are us, the people, as the whole affair has been reduced to a political farce.
I don’t have any simple solutions. Like most of us here I read what specialists have to say about different topics that make up the whole – viz. economic independence, the environment, tax regime, trading associations, cultural links, democracy at home and in the work-place, freedom to make local choices and so on and so forth. It’s a long list and probably impractical to cover all bases within such a short time.
However, I believe any realistic decision should be based on known facts, intelligent evaluations, projections and, yes, an emotional element in terms of ‘what kind of a society do we want for our grand-children’.
Of course, it’s not going to happen like that, hence it will be a wasted opportunity. Once the hiatus is over, whichever way the people vote, those of us who oppose ideological Neo-liberalism should focus relentlessly on limiting its cancerous growth. In or Out – that has to be the priority.
The best laid plans of mice and men … who knows how it will pan out in the long-term? Human beings are consistently inconsistent!
I find your observations to the point John D -I also think that IS a progressive argument for getting out but it has been corralled by the white noise of knee jerk notions of Sovereignty immigration. I simply do not know how you can reform an institution that puts the primacy of bank balance sheets above lives -how much worse does it need to get before we can say ‘this ain’t working’ -stepping over dead bodies in the street? The EU not only hates its own population but also a tool (sic!) of NATO and thus plays a negative Goe-political role.
Like you I haven’t decided. Certainly Bill Mitchell thinks the Left can realign better after a collapse of the EU but I don’t really know whether he is right. I’m swinging like a pendulum on this.
You and me together Simon. I agree with everything you say. Confused.com!
John D/Simon, your posts encapsulate beautifully my thoughts and dilemma!
“stop the NHS recruiting the vital overseas workers it needs to keep functioning.”
I know there is little we can do now but IMV this is an extremely selfish position the UK has taken. There is unlikely to be a surplus of trained medical staff in the rest of the world. We should train our own. Unfortunately our politicians do not plan for anything long term at all.
Its starting free speech is being undermined by this govt in its own interest – “Staff at the Swansea-based DVLA have been told not to express anti-EU views on Facebook or Twitter in the run up to the referendum.” [1]
[1] http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/dvla-staff-told-not-criticise-10974381