I have never been much of a fan of David Miliband. Seemingly clone like in hisbehaviour; it has always been hard to discern any original political contribution he had or might make. His espousal of centre ground politics in the Observer today does little to shake that impression.
I do not wish to leave the EU: I have made that very clear. The reasons are partly pragmatic. I do not want the economic and social chaos of leaving imposed on this country.
They are also cultural. As a citizen of two EU countries at present I have always felt European. As a child of the 1950s I was also brought up with an ingrained sense that peace had to be a better alternative to war, and that European cooperation was the basis for that.
Economically it so happens that I also think European cooperation good news: costs are reduced, markets are enlarged, driving common standards up is a good thing, regulation has overall been a big win for many, especially in employment and these days on tax. The list goes on.
But, this does not mean I embrace the centre ground of Nick Clegg, Philip Hammond and David Milliband and believe that the political solution to the UK's approach to the EU will be found in embracing the status quo, the failed politics of austerity and the dedication to the power structures that support existing wealth inequality. The Brexit vote was many things to many people. Amongst them was a clear rejection of this policy agenda that so obviously left most people behind.
Some do link this agenda with the EU itself. In that centre-right and even far-right governments of member states have sought to use the EU to promote this agenda, and have tried (sometimes successfully) to reflect that culture in its institutions that is correct: it would be wrong to say that this has not happened. But to reject the EU for this reason would, I believe, be akin to rejecting democracy because it's not been good at delivering many reforming, left of centre, UK governments in its history, which is also true. I do not reject democracy for that reason. So I will not the EU either. What I instead want is the EU to reflect the wishes of such reforming left of centre governments, and of course it could very easily do that. They just have to be formed first.
Whatever David Miliband says he is not likely to be a part of that process, most especially if he chooses Philip Hammond as an ally. The fact that he does not want us to leave the EU does not, that issue excepted, make him a politician whose ideas I can support, because that would be to sell out on all principles of reform that are needed if the EU, as well as the UK, is to succeed socially and economically.
We need to restrain market excesses and not permit them in the false belief that it is only markets that permit state sector activity.
We need an interventionist state dedicated to sustainable full employment for those who want work.
We need progressive taxation to help create greater equality.
We need a social safety net.
We need a state that is permitted to act in the full interests of those it represents, and that is not just an enabler for corporate power.
And all of those things will be easier to deliver if there is international cooperation.
That is why we need to be in the EU to reform it. Preserving the EU we have is an absurd political goal when it has obvious failings at present. But creating an EU that works is, and should be,as much a part of left of centre thinking as any internationalist project has ever been. If David Miliband wanted to show leadership ability he would say so. But he isn't. His vision is a fudge. No wonder he never sold well.
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:
I agree with all of this. You can put a lot of sense into a short blog.
When we tried an interventionist state trying to have theoretically sustainable full employment way back in the mid late 20th Century sadly it did not work, because it was based on declining industries and central control of new capital that was allocated on political rather than economic or business needs. I recall being told firmly by an expert that all this computing stuff would always be limited to large plants, kit and buildings that would require detailed state control in its management etc. The idea of computers in the home and ordinary workplaces was laughable. I recall this is what the Department of Education thought at the time.
It didn’t work?
The best period of growth, opportunity and reduction of inequality and it did not work?
What’s the definition of working?
As someone who had a major public sector budget to control at the time the 1976 Crisis is still an occasional nightmare. I went from hey big spender to lord of the meanies almost overnight. In the private sector a swathe British Companies were gone and going because of the restrictions and control of capital. New start and new industry bit the dust as we subsidised the old and dying ones. Some of the growth was indeed just that as unusable coal piled up in the fields of Yorkshire. As for equality, the old aristocracy may have gone but the political and media class that replaced them were just as greedy, more or less from the same schools, and as arrogant and selfish. As for the holidays, we were allowed only a small amount of foreign currency per head if we intended to venture to the wilder shores of Calais and Boulogne.
But that was an oil crisis
And a failure to understand floating exchange rates and the consequence of fiat money
we have no reason to repeat those mistakes now
“Preserving the EU we have is an absurd political goal when it has obvious failings at present. But creating an EU that works is, and should be,as much a part of left of centre thinking as any internationalist project has ever been.”
I trust that sentence includes encapsulation of the aspirations that ;
a) The Commission accounts are finally passed as correctly audited after circa 22 plus years , by a flagship body of independent auditirs .
b) Carte blanche farming subsidies are not allocated by Brussels scribes merely on the basis of photoshopped aerial phtos of southern european olive groves/ vineyards/ orangeries et al showing abundant yield when in reality the opposite is the case.
c) Commissioners are not national -government nominated but directly elected on fixed terms either by communal popular suffrage or ( in extremis) by sitting Eurooen Parliamentarians.
Certain I am others can add even more relevant reforms.
You make three points
a) Is absurd: all UK plcs would fail the test imposed by public auditing: you need to learn the difference before making absurd comments
b) Again, wholly simplistic but farm subsidy is clearly in need of reform
c) By the EU parliament
@ Richard Murphy re points a) b) and c) reply.
a) not at all absurd and fully justifiable. If not by you then by the overwhelming jury of the court of ( UK) public opinion, which consideration contributed as an input to the Brexit outcome . Do not even begin to understsnd your logic. All, if not the majority, of plc s produce audited accounts in their annual reports as a matter of statutory obligation . Why not a glorified taxpayer funded suora-statal unelected bureaucracy? If your contention holds then why even bother with Commission auditors who have for years gone through the motion of analysing the books and writing a letter of rejection as to the veraciy thereof ? All doubtless at great taxpayer fee expense.
b) ” Simplisticism ” usually elicits the greater part of the glaring truths.
c) IMHO by 5 year communal suffrage to synchronise with European Parliament elections to minimise costs and effect economies of scale.
What you seem not to realise is that public sector audits are to a vastly higher standard than private sector audits, where the dirt is swept under the carpet
As you don’t seem to know that I do not give your comments any credibility
Richard – what evidence do you have that David Miliband favours the maintenance of some sort of austerity-based status quo, and of power structures that support inequality? Look at what he has been doing for the past few years – hardly suggests that these would be his priorities.
Whatever his politics were nearly 10 years ago, neither his thinking nor that of many Labour MP’s of his generation is frozen in time. The clock has not stopped for thinking members of Labour. And, to be fair to Miliband, he says he reluctantly agrees with Hammond on some things – that’s not the same as choosing him as an ally.
He’s not chosen to comment on the detail of British politics for sometime now because of his responsibilities elsewhere, but I would be willing to bet he would agree with most of what you say here.
I’m not an apologist for David Miliband, and I’m aware that you do not indulge in the kind of binary thinking -“if it ain’t socialist it must be neoliberal/pro austerity” – as some on the further Left of Labour do, but I do think it’s a little unfair to make assumptions about the motives of a mature and thoughtful contributer to the present debate.
I have seen no hint this Miliband has changed his spots
Has anyone?
Not me. I’d say this is an attempt to offer a faux political centrism in order to stop any real centre ground parties from developing. Naturally it has to be offered by an established right-winger so that control by the right may be maintained… voila! The return of Miliband, still really at a loss for a political role since it became obvious she was going to lose and he bailed on Hillary.
As I said. thinking within in mainstream Labour, and with his former colleagues, has developed and changed since 2010, and he has not had any reason to comment in detail, publicly, about UK Labour policies, but I think that the burden of proof about his political spots remains on you, Richard, as you are the one suggesting that he, who heads a humanitarian organisation, is interested in maintaining structures that perpetuate inequality.
He remains committed to the politics of neoliberalism – as all he mentions are. It perpetuates inequality.
“Look at what he has been doing for the past few years…”
You mean being paid a fabulous amount of money: nearly half a million quid to “work” for a “charity” that is a well known front for the US Intelligence agencies?
My personal rule of thumb is to never, ever, trust any British journalist or politician who has ever worked, or studied, in the United States of America.
That includes Milibands D, and E.
Not all rules of thum are useful
I’m going to give up the defence of DM now, because it’s not my mission and this is the place for more interesting things, but it was actually an attempt at a defence of evidence-based views, for which I admire and often rely on from Richard. Nobody here has given me any evidence for the view that DM holds the sort of views described in the text and comments. I am a mainstream Left Labour member, and all I read re DM in the comments, (not from you RM) is the usual LW prejudice against anyone drawing a huge salary, whatever their responsibilities, and an anti-American prejudice, leading to an irrational trashing of a humanitarian organisation with a solid history and reputation for helping people in crisis round the world. Just saying.
For heaven’s sake: the man’s a Blairite and always has been
Look at all he’s ever said or done
I’m not doing Labour party politics here: I’m not a member but let’s not leave reality behind either
I basically agree with all of this.
Bill Keegan says much the same in today’s Observer – he calls for Europe to save us this time (like we helped them in WWII to some degree) and would like to see the EU work with the Left.
All I would say to this is that again, I agree but I would warn the people involved to exercise caution – the Right would love to tell the people of this country that the Left were conspiring with the EU to stall the (ahem) ‘People’s BREXIT’. But it could still be done. The Left could just do what the Right does all of the time: say one thing and do the other. Except that this time it is real people who could benefit.
And you are quite right about the other issue too – the creeping neo-liberalisation of the EU has to be stopped and I would like to see the Left in this country lead the charge. Firstly they should insist on rejecting the Euro throughout the EU and go back to separate national currencies. And having done this, the ECB should then be wound up for good in my opinion and the leadership of this org’ sent packing back to Chicago and Goldman Sachs.
The point is that for all the bullshit about sovereignty, what this period of EU austerity and BREXIT has taught me is that the perhaps the only sovereignty worth having is concerning one’s currency. That is the big lesson. The amount of suffering that has been dealt out in Europe because of Europe wide imposed austerity by the ECB is a crime against humanity – plain and simple.
The ‘de-nationalisation’ of European currencies into the Euro is something that Professor Michael Hudson says (2015, p. 464) was also advocated by one of the high priests of neo-liberalism – ‘Fried-Rich’ (sic) von Hayek because only markets could allocate money in the economy efficiently!!
But EU austerity also polarises exactly what the Tory party have actually done in this country since 2010 – they have always had the power to print money (more pounds) to help the economy and ordinary people. Instead they chose to purposefully choke off real money and therefore a genuine recovery and consequently make life harder for millions of their fellow countrymen whilst the rich got richer and Banks made even more money.
Unforgivable in my view. And I will not forget nor forgive. Nor should any of us in my view.
Time now to usefully alert any here who may have missed it to this Bill Mitchell blog on the consequences of austerity in Germany, largely unreported here so news to me and I suspect many others http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36615 In brief, it appears that monies which should have been spent on maintaining essential bridges and roads have instead simply not been collected and spent (shuffled off into tax havens instead, one suspects). An economic collapse is now likely as the transport system on which the country relies for just about everything ceases to function. What to do? “The austerity-obsessed German government is claiming the solution lies in private-public partnerships with the private sector stumping up the funding.
We have been down this road before in many Anglo nations and have learned the hard way — PPPs are generally disastrous.” says Bill. Sounds like they’re planning a national Teutonic PFI to me, what a horror that would be. It appears a planned, deliberately implemented eternity of debt servitude fills the horizon for the German people then, and Draghi has been working hard too to nobble the Sparkassen, the local banking network, by saddling it with unnecessary and unrealistic bureaucratic obligations. I agree with Pilgrim – again! – about sovereignty and money but identify that more with the Sparkassen than with the CB network, incidentally.
Good stuff from Bill
“Good stuff from Bill.”
As always.
He will be speaking at a Fringe meeting in Brighton on Mon 25th Sept. It’s not necessary to be a Labour Party member to attend.
Details at the end of his current blog posts, along with a request by the organisers for crowdfunding his travel expenses.
Maybe see some of you there?
Also relevant, “The fiscal role of the KfW — Part 1” : http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=26324
” …(shuffled off into tax havens instead, one suspects)”
As most of them are moribund if not defunct with the completion of AEOI next year and in Germsny sprcifically several high profile
” establishment ” offenders are now physically behind bars as a result of their indictments, why not try ” diverted to implementing Merkel s suicidal charge towatds making Germany a benefits Valhalla for every economic migrant north of the Sahel at the expense of the standard of living of indigenous employed Germans who are forced to subsidise said folly “?
That has the greater ring of truth.
P S On reflection ” Valhalla” should more appropriateky be utilised to describe the Swedish current socio/ economic disaster which for the same reason is on the cusp of social implosion.
if you think AEOI solves the problem then you also do not know about its limited application and the loopholes within it
I have the feeling you may be a hired hand……
Pilgrim, there’s no ‘creeping’ neo-liberalism in the EU. It is already a de facto neo-liberal ‘state’ and has been for quite some time. What the pan-Europen progressive left parties need to do urgently is to unite in a co-ordinated campaign to oust neo-liberalism root and branch. And the UK should play a prominant role, in or out of the EU. Time is running out for shilly shallying. The European population needs to be told the socio-economic truth and how to take action. It’s doable if the political will is there. Corbyn needs to wake up and smell the coffee – or should I say the espresso – and get his ass into gear. Just saying.
I agree
John D
Tut tut.
The EU is not a ‘state’ – de facto or otherwise. Please (if I may Richard) – no ‘Leave’ rhetoric here thank you.
But do let us have a more fine grained analysis (or an attempt at least).
It (the EU) is a collection of states brought together by a treaty. These states all seem to share the Neo-lib view so the potential that exists at each national member state level to change the EU (ECB) is stymied anyway. They all basically agree with austerity (elements in Spain and Greece aside) which is very unfortunate. But that is the real nature of the problem. It is the pro-neoliberalism in each member nation that has to be smashed first for the EU to change. Remember we do not have the Euro in the UK but we still have austerity. Do you get it yet?
Defeating the neo-liberalisation of the EU starts a lot closer to home I’d wager in every member state.
That is why we need a new Left to take the ECB on and to awaken the Left in Europe – as you concur with me.
On the matter of ‘creeping’ Neo-liberalism or not – tell me: Do you imagine that Draghi and Co have finished with the EU yet? Have they achieved their objectives then? Is it all over? A done job? If so, well why should we bother then?
Here’s why……
If you read ‘Democracy in Chains’ and Monbiot you will see that the Neo-libs operate by stealth. They creep on – because they are greedy and they always want more. This is also their failing and also our opportunity to catch them out and put a stop to it. Eventually.
The blog about Germany from Bill M. is shocking. But believe you me, much worse is to come because as I said, the Neo-libs will keep creeping on as long as we let them.
@JohnD
…while Angela Merkel looks set to win yet another term.
With she and Macron in charge for the next few years, good luck with defeating neoliberalism in the EU!
Thank you, Richard, for a succinct picture of your views on these issues. Much appreciated. The section below is the key one I struggled with leading up to the Brexit vote;
“And all of those things will be easier to deliver if there is international cooperation.
That is why we need to be in the EU to reform it. Preserving the EU we have is an absurd political goal when it has obvious failings at present. But creating an EU that works is, and should be,as much a part of left of centre thinking as any internationalist project has ever been.”
I voted Remain in the end for exactly the reason you state but it was a marginal decision when considering the question; what would be the best way from now onwards to rid ourselves of neoliberal economic ideology infecting political power?
I subsequently found it easy to discuss with people who voted Leave on this issue because I could quite easily see their argument; it’s easier to rid a national government of neoliberal dogma than a vast, sprawling international organisation which has been so infected. As our subsequent General Election proved.
Pragmatism. Do what is within your arms-reach then reassess and go on from there. I’m working to remove damaging neoliberal policies from the UK government palette of options and afterwards I’ll get on with reforming Europe :). I suggest a number of Leave voters may have had exactly this thought in mind when deciding which way to vote.
Thanks
@AllanW,
“…it’s easier to rid a national government of neoliberal dogma than a vast, sprawling international organisation which has been so infected.”
Absolutely.
We could potentially be just months away from that happy outcome for the UK.
Whilst for the EU, years or even decades.
And if anyone but Labour win in the UK? Watch out…..
“And if anyone but Labour win in the UK? Watch out…..”
That’s democracy!
But try overturning the right-wing Polish, German, Spanish or Hungarian governments from the comfort of Cambridgeshire.
Not so easy.
But the EU can, and is, doing that
But for the entire bloc to change would require every EU Gov to abandon neoliberal policy in sync.
How likely is that?
When the UK is (hopefully) on the cusp of abandoning neoliberal capitalism’s worst excesses, France, and soon Germany, will have near full-term centre right governments.
For all 27 stars to contemporaneously align in a truly leftist direction is asking for a miracle.
I just don’t see it happening, sad to say.
I simply disagree with you
And I also happen to think tipping points happen
I do hope you’re right : )
The usual tosh.
The EU is a neoliberal project, it’s there for big corporations – not least transnational financial service corporations which have a European anchor here in the City of London, and through that vector have a main role in the European Services Forum which has such an influence on the Commission. In fact the ESF chair is usually from the City.
Out of the EU – we still have that globally dominating industry here, still trying to use the UK as a model for its global ambitions as well as influencing policy via the EU. We need to recognise and reject that. As yet, public awareness of how the transnational financial service firms of the City call the tune on our national policy making, is too low
But – if we work at it – and stop whingeing for an EU that doesn’t and never did exist, we have more chance of transparency on that whole phenomenon out of the EU.
End of.
Your self congratulatory stance and indeed your attempt to sound morally superior because you can take advantage of having 2 passports is rather sickening
As usual you seek to alienate
Just one example, I have two passports because as a matter of fact I am a citizen of two countries. There is nothing morally superior about that. It’s just a fact
But it does contextualise your comments
I don’t see why we have more transparency out of the EU?
The power and influence of the City of London has been hidden by the fog of the EU – not least by the lack of reporting on anything happening in the EU beyond a catastrophe here or there, when all journalists fly to that point. Zilch reporting on the important law changes in the EU that have affected us – and certainly no reporting on the power structures that allow for corporate dominance. And within that, the role of the financial services industry, out of London. How many people know what I’m talking about re the European Services Forum?? but it’s sure been running our lives. Here the City’s lobbying mechanism is called TheCityUK. TCUK is not London, or British, its the voice of transnational financial services, for which The City provides consolidation, loaded with all the City’s historical baggage that gives it ‘gravitas’ and hides it true nature.
We have more chance of forcing things into the open without the fog of the EU and the cross channel distance of Brussels, though it will be a struggle – the City has been there for a thousand years.
It’s indicative that through 3 and a half years of negotiations, there was very little reporting here on the massive negative aspects, including the threat to food standards, of the EU/US trade deal, TTIP. But when Liam Fox started talking about a UK/US deal, in the US, recently, the media started reporting straightaway on these aspects. Hopefully (depending on what we allow/don’t allow) there cannot be the secrecy on UK trade deals that have been the mark of EU trade deals.
Considering the importance of the structures/strictures of what trade deals tie us into, this will potentially be a really big change – in transparency.
There is enough out in the open right now, to show the necessity of forcing May to dump Fox from that position. He is working for US corps (see his connection with the powerful US big business lobbying group ALEC, that proposes pro business legislation there) and is selling us out.
The EU does need to be reformed, the extent to which it pursues Neo Liberal ideology and enshrines neo liberal dogmas into the EU constitutional fabric are well set out in this Corporate Watch publication.
https://corporatewatch.org/publications/2015/false-dilemmas-critical-guide-euro-zone-crisis
pp.83.
Changes in EU structures:
using the crisis as a good excuse
Summarised below are the major changes to the EU’s structure. They are the precursors to two key features of greater integration: the fiscal compact and the banking union explained in more depth below.
i) The European Semester proposed in Spring 2010 and adopted a few months later, stipulates that national budgets must first be approved by the Commission before they are shown to national parliaments. Each April EU member states are required to present to the Commission and the Council their draft national budgets, and wait for recommendations, comments and approval by July each year. In Autumn the governments present them to national parliaments.
ii) The Euro Pact in March 2011 is a commitment by states that the solution to the crisis is austerity: bringing down wages and lowering social expenditure to increase competitiveness. It is not legally binding.
iii) The ‘Six Pack’ transformed the above into six legislative proposals, the most important of which is the strengthening of the Growth and Stability Pact which includes making stricter enforcement rules such as semi-automatic sanctions and fines.
iv) Fiscal Compact: is also known as the permanent austerity treaty as it stipulates that states must tighten their budgets, which if not within the 3% limit must follow an adjustment programme to lower the ‘structural deficit’ (which is the deficit if there were no recession). The fiscal compact leaves individual government’s manoeuvring to make alternative policy suggestions impossible.
Diem 25 plans to reform the EU from within, it is not going all that well I would suggest. The UK Hung Parliament and Brexit vote may prove to be the catalyst for greater dissent in other EU countries equally disenchanted with the Neo Liberal doubling down, since the 2008 crisis and now further since Article 50 was invoked following the Brexit referendum.
On Subsidiarity and the Euro, it should always be emphasised that the ECB and EU monetary policy is an exclusive competence of the commission and therefore not subject to the arcana of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity protects democratic ideals, exclusive competencies of the commission do not.
It seems to be a hard position to defend that somehow the UK needs to not go through with Brexit as the FT suggests here.
https://www.ft.com/content/aa79df04-7dd2-11e7-ab01-a13271d1ee9c
When there are no grounds for believing the EU has adopted a reform minded stance, will adopt such a stance or that the present crop of functionaries is even capable of imagining a stance other than their full speed ahead for a federal neo liberal Europe, and to a degree that would make James Buccannan very proud.
I don’t see how nation states can be genuinely autonomous in a globalised world, the route to a more civilised world can surely only be through powerful supra-national bodies, such as the EU
Hi Andy,
It’s a question of subsidiarity for me. The direction of travel of individual communities should be determined by those communities and what requires wider consensus and decision making should be delegated to the Central bodies which are overseen by Subsidiary decision making bodies, and where a power of recall of authority still rests with them.
If Consensus based political economy is desired and a functioning democracy an aim, it is very important to express the checks and balances that are to be applied to globally operating entities.
The EU as a powerful supra national body can be tested against democratic and economic metrics, as can the results of the NAFTA agreement between North and south America. NAFTA has not worked out well, Heres a link to the 20-year report on its impacts.
https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/nafta-at-20.pdf
Enlargement of the EU has also had adverse effects on the periphery of the EU, the answer is not trade deals like CETA or TTIP. Of course the Much commented upon suggested US/UK trade deal, chlorinated Chicken and all, is not what many of us want for The UK.
It is a leap of faith or faith based statement to say that Globalisation can only work with powerful supra national bodies like the EU. If those powerful Supra National Bodies are not Democratic and in many respects aggressively anti – democratic, we need to make sure that the Oversight and rights of recall of representatives or of delegated powers are properly enshrined in the treaties between members and the constitutions of the Supra National Bodies themselves.
The EU is in a very real sense a newly minted or certainly nascent Supra Regional Super State. To me, that’s a bad idea and in many respects, we have seen a sort of Enclosure of the Information economy leading to similar fall out with a new type of Urban Serfdom emerging as the means of wealth creation flows into those with first use of the massively enlarged FIAT money supply.
So the Extent to which Nation states and regional government can be genuinely autonomous is actually a function of International Law and if that is a democratic based process honouring and protecting Democratic rights of Citizens rather than the Corporate Rights of Supra National Global Corporations there is no reason to believe that the only way to do things is by concentrating power into supra national organisations.I think that it is a fact that the past 40 years has seen the direction of our political economy in the direction of Massive Centralisation of Economic and Political Power. Has that lead to a better society?
Hi Roger,
I do share some of your concerns, but the EU is a long way from being a super-state, and more importantly, for our global proximity it is the only show in town. Despite its many failings, it is a reality we have to choose or reject and as the balance of what is good for the UK is firmly within the EU, I choose a soft-as-ducks’ down BREXIT, or better, a shift in public opinion that allows convergence and reform and a better and united progressive EU.
Roger
Sorry to bang on about this but……….
Please let us remember that the EU is made up of member states who basically agree with each other about a lot of things (trade, austerity etc.,). As soon as we start to talk of ‘super states’ the danger is that we start to forgetting about the countries the EU is made up of and the inherent power that those states have to change the EU so that the social, economic and democratic objective it was founded on are not hijacked by asinine American ideas about social-economic life. The EU is the sum of its parts – economically and philosophically.
Only the currency in my view (the Euro) can be argued to be truly ‘supra’ in its conception and its management (via the very unaccountable ECB).
What we need to happen is for the individual member countries to use the democratic system within the EU to get off the neo-lib horse and start to challenge the ECB. Then the spell will be broken. I live in hope of that for a better Europe as well as remaining in it.
You are right PSR
What democratic system?
Hi PSR,
The EU has gone very badly off track, the Commission is far too powerful in my opinion.
It is correct that the many European States have gone down the Neo Liberal Rabitt hole and that if they changed direction then the EU may be redeemable.
For any hope of the process starting in that direction, My own view was and still is that Brexit and Trump were a good thing as has been the resurgent Labour Party with its Democratic Socialist agenda.
On Statehood, the if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? perhaps the jury is still out on that question but the Charlemagne element of the Spinola group EU federal fanatics certainly see the EU as a project of statehood, do neo liberal ideologues in the individual states go along with it? one has to conclude that yes some of them do.
The EU needs to be much more respectfully of its own constitutional provisions of subsidiarity. That the EU has baked Austerity into the fabric of its own rules is deeply worrying as is making the Euro compulsory for all member states. I live in Sweden where I am happily married to a Swedish Wife and Swedish Children in Swedish Schools whilst I remain a UK citizen, I am almost certain that I will eventually choose to become a Swedish Citizen. Sweden has a much more engaged attitude to the EU Parliament and EU parliamentary process the Swedish Parliament reviews and liaises with its EURO MPS in making amendments to legislation. Sweden is very good though at consensus, much more so than we Brits, that said the Swedish Appetite to remain outside NATO remains High and the Swedish public opinion of EURO membership is also still strongly against. Karl Bildt Piece in project syndicate is quite good.He recently suggested more Europe and Less Brussels. Reinfeldt the last PM here before Bildt, who also leads the same party the Moderate Party in the early 90’s, throws up an interesting question about Neo Liberalism in Sweden, the Reinfeldt Tenure was not a success with the various economic liberalisation of Schools and also the railways seen as being abject failures. When Stefan Löven was elected it was obvious that the “Markets´´for which read Washington Consensus neo liberal establishment, decided to punish the Swedes by attacking the Kroner. This factor of international political economy can not be ignored, the Political landscape is littered with the Landmines of Neo Liberal ideology and suggesting that the EU is a symptom of national politics rather than a driver of geo political policy in accordance with its role in service to Global Capital is I think an argument that fails the DUck test. What was TTIP , or CETA , National Parliaments were largely becoming skepÃ¥tical as Public opinion set against those Trade deals but the recent ECJ case which said that CETA might not need to be accepted at National Government level tends to suggest that the EU is not the whipping boy of the National Governments but in fact the Commission and ECJ itself seems to have a rather more inflated view of its own constitutional position vis the whole edifice.
We will see how long Mrs Mays Minority government lasts, we will then see if Mr Corbyn is able to finish the Job he started in the June election. There are choppy waters ahead with overheated stock markets and a financial system probably more over balanced than in 2008, events will more than likely see Mrs May Out of office and indeed another UK election probably before next Summer. Mr Blairs Centrists, (( Left Wing Neo Liberal Fanatics) (The Left wing of neo liberalism is a bit like choosing whether Hitler or Mussolini was to the left or right of each other,) ) are still briefing against Mr Corbyn and his alleged support for an extreme Hard Brexit. Mr Corbyn it seems to me advocates a Social Democratic Brexit and the policies advocated under the 2017 Labour Manifesto such as the regional Investment Bank may well be illegal under EU law as currently constructed. If the EU reforms and becomes worth being a member of then the EU in that guise would welcome a non-neo liberal UK into its community of interests.Until the EU starts the process of reform and Mr Macrons election in France was not a good sign that the neo liberal Establishment has decided to yield to a more democratic breeze, I think we need to get used to doing things our own way for a few years whilst the rest of the European population not least in Germany and France cotton on to the Corporate capture of their political class. ( See my earlier Link to the corporate watch report, I have a series of very in depth Blogs on Brexit regarding the misteps of the ECB and the EURO particularly, here is the Blog link.http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/02/meet-fuggers-brexit-euro-and-clueless.html
Roger
‘I think we need to get used to doing things our own way for a few years whilst the rest of the European population not least in Germany and France cotton on to the Corporate capture of their political class. ‘
So fundamentally we agree then?
The fight back against Neo-liberalism will and can only start at home, in the national Governments of each EU member nation both here and in Germany, Sweden etc. The positive side of this is that a lot of people here and in the EU continent are going to get pissed off with lower living standards as they measure their self worth against what the market is offering. The bad side of this is the Right wing reactionary contingent here and Europe lying in wait to turn this anger into something ugly.
Is time on our side for an epiphany – a revelation of what is happening to our democracies and the EU? I do not know. I hope so.
However Roger, we must not lose sight of the fact that (1) there are still good reasons to be part of the EU (no queues at Dover and illegal immigration held at Calais to name but two) and (2) if we are not part of Europe, who do we trade with instead? America?
That would be jumping out of the frying pan only to end up in the fire because we would be sidling up to the very cradle of Neo-liberalism itself. Not a good idea in my view.
Hi PSR,
It looks like we do fundamentally agree with the proposition that Membership of a Democratic EU not wedded to neo liberal dogma is a good good thing.
How we achieve our political objective to secure a Democratic European treaty that allows for the ability of individual states to implement policies to serve the democratic and economic interests of its own voters is a big question.
The CETA and TTIP trade deals are rather large black marks in the EU copy book for me, Mrs Merkel was at pains to have Mr Trump not rule out TTIP in principle which he did not, if you recall The German Chancellors state visit to Washington to see the New President.
A starting point to voters actually voting against neo liberal candidates would be to get the word out as to its very existence, Not many will have read Marowskis Road from Mt Perelin and whilst Montbiot is quoted above and linked to, Mr Montbiot does not represent any part of the Establishment I would hitch my particular carriage on to.
In your aide memoir paragraph I think we may perceive slightly different benefits to EU membership, Culturally the diversity of Europe is something that pre dates and will, of course, outlive many iterations of the EU as a Political institution. It is also I think a trivial point regarding ques at Dover. On the EU refugee/Migrant crisis, that is a Geo Political Mess with its roots in the Neo Conservative and Neo Liberal US Establishment and their Military industrial complex. Freedom of Movement based upon the Economic necessity for individual EU states would not be a problem where the race to the bottom in wages and working conditions were not sanctioned by EU policies and certainly those promoted by the ECB.
CETA is an interesting question as to whether the UK remains bound to its terms post Brexit, regarding frying pans and Fryers the point is academic TTIP is already a trajectory into that particular Fire anyway, the argument that the EU block has a stronger Hand against US strong arm tactics is at best a weak argument, my own view is that The UK has an independently sufficient set of cards to make international trade deals on perfectly good terms with who it pleases. The idea that Trade deals are a good thing is not something I accept as an in principle given.
Corporate Power is at the heart of this question and the reality of the Global Oligarchy and the US oligarchy in particular. If you accept that the USA is in fact an Empire and that the US empire is in fact ruled by an Oligarchy one needs really to look at what is going on in the US oligarchy, I see at least 3 Factions and possibly 4. The Bankers ( Wall Street), The Media and Californian Tech Moguls, Traditional Large Manufacturing, The Military Industrial Complex. Mr Trump’s problems seem to me to be based upon his not having a large constituency in any one arm of the Oligarchy but with some weak alliances in perhaps Wall Street and Traditional Industry. The US Oligarchy will have different faction taking different sides in the Brexit EU question and it is about control of the Economic Playing Field which is increasingly dominated by Finance since 2008 this dominance has been reinforced and not curbed.
Before the referendum I did this blog called Brexit Schmexit, where I argued that the US election was a key driver as to whether or not Brexit would have a chance of success, A Hilary Win would have Made Brexit very difficult. Bernie Saunders would have been a Sort of Corbyn effect and the effect of Trump is still an open question, the US deep state still seems to wish to be free of Mr Trump particularly his opposition to NAFTA, Follow the money on NAFTA and Its the Big Corporations and especially the Banks who have won, Mr Trump looking at this might wish to reconsider how many Goldman Sachs alumni he has stuffed his administration with. https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/03/brexit-smexit-why-we-should-all-be.html
I read this article in the Independent on line today and read the comments with interest also.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hard-brexit-philip-hammond-liam-fox-political-suicide-leavers-like-me-second-referendum-a7892806.html?cmpid=facebook-post I disagree with the Writer and many of the comments, what surprises me most is the discourse is still very low information.
I suspect the Voters got it right on balance and leaving is the best thing for the UK for now always with the proviso that the more extreme Elements of Mrs Mays Cabinet do not get their fully Chlorinated Chicken Trade deal with the USA. https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/09/democracy-unfolded-emergent-reality-of.html This Last Link is a Poem I wrote, I do believe the Political Establishment did not dream that Brexit would see a Yes Vote, the EU is, in fact, Neo Liberal enough for even the most avid Neo Liberal. Now the Neo Liberal Trick of not letting a good crisis go to waste will be in full flow. The Crisis is not, however, Brexit. The real Crisis is the rotten core of Financialised Monopoly Capitalism practised By both the EU, The US and the UK, there will continue to be a great deal of the Pot calling the kettle Black I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I This 1990 Video of Mrs Thatcher reporting to the House on the European Council meeting at Rome held on 27/28 October. Marks I think the Watershed for where The Neo Liberal EU kicked in. That Mrs Thatcher is the Poster Girl of Neo Liberalism along with President Reagan is somewhat paradoxical but it stems back to Factions in the Oligarchy. Industrial Capitalism and Finance Capitalism are really not batting on the same side a point pointed out By Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope but also by Marx in Kapital.
“Talk about cenÂtralÂiÂsaÂtion! The credit sysÂtem, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surÂroundÂing them, conÂstiÂtutes enorÂmous cenÂtralÂiÂsaÂtion, and gives this class of parÂaÂsites the fabÂuÂlous power, not only to periÂodÂiÂcally despoil indusÂtrial capÂiÂtalÂists, but also to interÂfere in actual proÂducÂtion in a most danÂgerÂous manÂner– and this gang knows nothÂing about proÂducÂtion and has nothÂing to do with it.” –
See more at: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/#sthash.d4gs1dAX.dpuf
Marx, CapÂiÂtal VolÂume III, ChapÂter 33, The medium of cirÂcuÂlaÂtion in the credit sysÂtem, pp. 544—45 [Progress Press]
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/01/the-iron-law-of-oligarchy.html
Tony Benn and Dr David Owen both make very interesting points in questions to Mrs Thatcher, it is also interesting to read the body Language of Ken Clarke and John Major through the Debate, Neil Kinnock is also providing much material for the Spitting Image crew.