A persistent theme of my Christmas conversations was that people feel disenfranchised. It would seem that large numbers of people now feel alienated from both the major political parties, feeling that neither does in any way represent them and what they want.
Of course, many of those saying this are pro-EU membership. But they were at least half the population the last time there was a count. They may now be more.
In the Labour Party they are much more than that. As Politics Home reports this morning:
Research by YouGov on behalf of Queen Mary University and Sussex University found that 72% want another poll to be carried out, compared to just 18% who do not.
The poll of 1,034 Labour members also showed that 88% of them would vote to stay in the EU if another referendum took place.
Of course this is only a survey. And I accept my own bias in wanting to believe this. But the proportions are pretty significant. Even allowing for all the usual biases these results are likely to reflect Labour Party opinion. And that does not mean the opinion of the fading neoliberal wing in that case: this is a survey across the membership and this is likely to overwhelmingly reflect Momentum opinion.
This is profoundly worrying for Labour, which might be thought to be the natural party of allegiance for many of those I was talking to at this time of the year. I was astonished by the anger many felt with Corbyn and his relucatnce to lead on Brexit. One of the mildest mannered, least political men I know has taken to writing to MPs on the issue.
And I have a very strong sense that the frustration that many share of not knowing who they could vote for in a general election if one were called, as Labour wishes, is widespread.
The Brexiteers know they have to vote Tory come what may in any election. And given that this is the issue of the moment, that is what they will do. That alone explains why through all the Tory failing their vote has held up. UKIP has failed. Only the Tories offer what the right want.
But at this crucial movement the left, in the form of Labour, are clearly failing to provide an alternative. I head people wishing the SNP would stand in England as a result. And there was serious discussion of voting Green, since the LibDems are no longer considered viable as a party of protest for a multitude of reasons that were offered to me. But Labour has not got even reluctant support from many I spoke with. There were many who would not vote for it if Corbyn retains his current stance, come what may.
What is more, if he keeps that stance I cannot see him getting his members out to campaign with any conviction. They do not believe in what he is planning.
I would suggest as a result that the last thing Labour wants right now is an election. There are very good reasons why they would not win it. And most revolve around not listening to what people who do, or would like to, support Labour want. That is to remain in the EU.
Labour needs to get its head around delivering what the Labour Party wants. Or its demand for a general election will deliver another Tory government.
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 know exactly how you and they feel. I’m utterly exasperated with the Labour Party’s stance on Brexit and utterly astounded that the official opposition is trailing the most incompetent, divided, divisive and spiteful government in my memory.
But
I have little choice. And if there was an election this Thursday I’d still vote for my sitting Labour MP, Rupa Huq. At least she is personally a convinced Remainer and on the evidence of the last three and a half years, a good constituency MP.
The only way of breaking out of this trap that I can see is the “Progressive Alliance” that I think you’ve mentioned before. I’d happily vote for any Green or Lib Dem candidate that had a fighting chance but too few currently have. Unfortunately I fear that the Labour Party is far too tribal to take part.
You are right: it is far too tribal
Although its members are not
In my school modern history classes – in 1960s – I remember arguments for electoral reform. 50 years later and – nothing.
We have a bit of a mish mash, now I’m in Scotland, which needs reforming after 20 years. ‘List’ MSPs in Holyrood appear to see it as a job for life. Where are the voices for change in England? I have friends in a constituency in South East who either never vote ( the children – ‘there’s no point’ ) or despair of finding a candidate who they can honestly support ( parents – ‘they’re all the same’ ) I have seeded the idea of supporting electoral reform but they seem too defeated to even consider such an action. All very dispiriting. Tipping point must come. The system is not working for the citizens.
Agreed…
Hazel says:
” ‘List’ MSPs in Holyrood appear to see it as a job for life. ”
Agreed this is a nonsense. Once, (maybe twice) list appointment, but after that to have appointees in a democratic system with no electoral approval becomes …..silly, to put it mildly.
It’s a terrible indictment of our democracy that both the Prime Minister AND the leader of the opposition are advancing an irreversible Brexit, at a time when MPs and the country as a whole are equally divided, or possibly now pro remain.
If we are to get parties that respect the broad view of public opinion, instead of advancing their own private agendas, then we need to adopt ranked choice voting. This not only ensures that all elected MPs always have majority support, but also ensures that every citizen’s vote counts in the election, and gives moderate central or local independent candidates a fairer chance of winning.
You are right that this is worrying for Corbyn, especially as (unlike many commentators and Labour Party members), he understands two very important facts.
First he knows that his party HAS to appeal to non-metropolitan leave voters. You can see a range of their concerns here from someone who has actually bothered to talk to them:
https://braveneweurope.com/luke-telford-understanding-leave-voters-motivations-in-northeast-england
Secondly, he understands what the EU is and what remaining in it will mean: More of the thin gruel of the status quo.
Make no mistake, the EU that you would like us to remain in is irreformable. A few weeks ago you were kind enough to respond to a challenge I made regarding EU reform with a set of excellent proposals that, if implemented, could save the EU from itself, however, you failed to address my contention that such reforms were impossible.
Subsequently I wrote a short piece which I called “#RemainAndReform? Go on then, tell us how.” in which I asked if anyone at all had proposed a reform agenda or roadmap that took into account such non-trivialities as the current direction of travel, the electoral landscape across the EU, the make-up of the Commission, Council & Parliament etc. Where should pressure best be applied, by whom, to what end and in what timescale can we expect results?
I forwarded my little question to people who used the #RemainAndReform hashtag, prominent ‘progressive’ remainers, groups like Another Europe Is Possible and DiEM25.
So far only DiEM (UK) have replied – and then only to tell me that they don’t necessarily expect victory! From the Lexit side I received a response from Lee Jones (of QM London & ‘The Full Brexit’) who replied with links to a couple of pieces (including one from Yannis Varoufakis) which were the only two he’d found since the time he first started asking the question before the referendum. Neither actually confronted the political landscape.
To be clear, I wasn’t asking for individuals to produce a long explanation themselves — I was just asking for them to point me to anyone, anywhere, who has.
Perhaps some of your commentors would like to have a go at my little challenge:
https://medium.com/@AdrianKent/remainandreform-go-on-then-tell-us-how-4ad9944a77f6
The current little flurry of, frankly insulting, ‘everything’s wonderful’ tweets from EU bigwigs marking the 20th birthday of the Euro shows what we’re up against and unless someone (anyone) can show how it can be reformed, I’ll continue to believe that we’re much better off taking our chances outside.
Happy New Year!
Nothing Corbyn wants to do cannot be done in the EU – read George Peretz
And of course the EU is reformable – that’s just a crazy comment for an organisation that has changed greatly
And if Corbyn holds his party in contempt – as he is – he is nothing
And in the meantime you want chaos and mayhem
Wow, that’s some reform agenda – which only the hard right and hard left can buy
Actually, it’s where the hard left join with the hard right in contempt for most people
That’s where you are, it seems
Richard it is clear from your posts that you are not a fan of Corbyn – which is fair enough.
However I think you are being unfair to him by saying he is showing contempt towards Party members.
During the referendum campaign he argued for remain.
There is nothing he can do while in opposition to reverse Brexit so it is entirely logical to want a General Election first and then a referendum — which is the Party’s policy as decided at the last Conference.
No it is not
It is only policy because – as I know – he is not committed to Remain
And it was only wise when those options made sense – which they do not any longer
You’d rather leave than change your mind on that? That’s Theresa May’s approach – and it’s really not hard for people to spot, as they are
It’s naive to pretend otherwise
A couple of points. I think we could probably both agree that the last Labour Manifesto would not be sufficient to properly reform our society – a reasonable first step perhaps. That it’s relatively conservative proposals may have been (just about) possible to acheive within the EU only serves to show how little wiggle room we have.
More relevantly here, that the EU has reformed in the past does not offer us any hope that it is capable of the kind of reforms that I think we agree are necessary – in fact the direction of that reform in the past and the stated direction of the Commission now clearly demonstrates how misplaced your hopes are.
Thus far the outcome of the reforms have only served to take power away from democratically elected national governments, and have been handed to insitutions who are now more used to interacting with each other than their own populations. This path-dependent dead-end has now, I’m afraid, led us to the point where significant reform is now impossible.
Chris Bickerton’s essential ‘The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide’ makes this very clear – the power structures are too remote, too diffuse and the bar set so high (unanimity for Treaty change etc) that the chances for meaninful reform are essentially zero (and that’s before you consider the 60%+ right-wing governments across the EU).
Is it ‘crazy’ of me to ask for evidence that this reform is possible? Beyond bland assurances NO ONE has actually stated explicitly how this reform can be achieved.
As for contempt for the people, I’d be comfortable with another vote on the issue, but would most definitely be taking a more active role in promoting a Lexit leave next time around.
Labour could go much further than its manifesto and still be way inside EU rules
Stop making excuses
Richard, no don’t read George Peretz. Mr Peretz’ article was long on generalities and devoid of specifics. On Labour’s National Campaign Day for Rail, read the EU’s 4th Railway Package. The EU are committed to the disastrous division of infrastructure and operations, and forcing commercial tendering for rail service franchising. France are having to constantly submit to the ECJ over rail, and Labour would too. Mr Corbyn’s other repeated possible example of EU interference in Labour’s revival of our economy is support for steel. –
Also not mentioned by Peretz. I wonder why? If I were a judge he was advocating to, I would tell him to stop spouting irrelevancies and deal with the real issues.
With respect, it is you who is looking at the detail and he who gets the substance
I will blog about this today
The EU has a permanent secretariat, but then so does the UK Government. The assumption is that a professional Civil Service follows the policies of their political masters – though of course that is dependent on the individual professionalism of the staff (and “Yes Minister” documents many of the ways that Sir Humphrey manages to implement his own policy either through inaction or through persuading the politicians to change their policy).
For the UK, government Ministers, who set policy, are appointed by the Prime Minister and don’t have to even be members of parliament. They are answerable to Parliament committees but otherwise have free rein. The PM is now, by convention, a member of the House of Commons (the last Lord to be PM was the Marquess of Salisbury in 1902, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home renounced his peerage to enter the Commons in 1963).
The EU follows more the American model of separation of powers, with executive power lodged in the European Commission. However, the Commission can only act within the Directives and Regulations passed by the legislature – the Council of the European Union (the upper house, roughly equivalent to the US Senate or German Bundesrat) and the European Parliament (the lower house, roughly equivalent to the US House of Representatives or German Bundestag). The Commissioners themselves are nominated by the Member States – after the election of the President (nominated by the European Council and subject to a yes/no vote in the Parliament), each Member State (except the President’s home) nominates a Commissioner and the President decides on who gets which job. Again, the Parliament hold hearings and have a yes-or-no vote on the makeup of the Commission. This all now happens shortly after the election of a new Parliament.
Distinguishing the various Councils and Presidents is tricky, but it appears to me that the European Council is specifically the heads of government of each Member State, while for the Council of the European Union it is the responsible Minister of State for whatever topic is being discussed, or a suitable delegate. Each of these Councils has a President, which for the European Council is an elected position (held by Donald Tusk of Poland), but for the Council of the European Union is held by a member state on a rotating 6-month basis (currently Romania). These Presidents act much like the Speaker in the House of Commons, directing debate but with no executive power of their own. (Which makes David Cameron ‘negotiating’ with Donald Tusk utterly pointless – he needed to negotiate with other heads of state and with Jean-Claude Juncker.)
So, if you want to change the behaviour of the European Union, you need to:
* Get progressive governments elected in the other Member States. This directly changes the make-up and hopefully the behaviour of the European Council and Council of the European Union, and influences the election of the President of the Commission and President of the Council of the European Union. It also influences the selection of the other Commissioners.
* Get progressive members elected to the European Parliament. This has direct effect over the Directives and Regulations that are passed. It also influences the election of the President of the Commission, and the makeup of the Commission.
This means that Labour has to engage with similar-minded parties across Europe – who sit together in the Parliament as the Party of European Socialism. Groups like Momentum must try to find and encourage similar-minded people – who are likely equally disillusioned with the state of their ‘natural’ party – to become active, join or re-join their local social-democratic party, and push to overthrow both their national government, and get progressives into the European Parliament. Above all Momentum must work hard – if we remain part of the EU – to get out the vote at European Parliament elections, and to explain exactly why it is important to vote. Our priorities have been skewed.
Frankly, Labour party policy on this topic is much like the left has behaved for the last twenty years – “we’re not going to change anything so what’s the point?” The only way you can effect change is to try. Leaving leaves us with no voice, but we still have to effectively follow what the remaining EU population decide because our economy is too small in comparison.
Thanks
Oh come on Adrian!
With the exception for me of the ECB (a bridge too far and it and the Euro should be abandoned tout suite), we have to recognise that the EU institutions have been captured by individual interests which means that we have to change the individuals who man those institutions.
And to do that, we change the individuals who make up our sovereign (home/national) Governments who are members of the EU.
Change and challenge starts through democracy at home.
As a New Year’s Resolution, I suggest that you and those who go down the EU ‘they’ll never change line’ get your heads around this as soon as possible.
Happy New Year to you too.
I agree PSR
The claim is ridiculous
Richard, PSR & Mike Dimmick – So lets get this straight…before we can start to significantly reform the EU we have to (at the very least):
– Ensure that there are progressive / pro-reform governments in a clear majority of European States (and for significant treaty change likely all of them).
– Ensure that a large portion of their Commissioners are replaced too.
– Ensure a progressive / pro-reform majority in the European Parliament.
– Trust that the (routinely secret) discussions that take place at Council level are in line with the progressive demands of each electorate.
– Ensure that each country’s representatives & civil servants at the EU are also actually receptive to and dedicated to enabling this change (despite their previous selection, contacts, worldview, preconceptions, lobbying chums etc).
– Ensure that none of this is unduely influenced by the massive lobbying interests involved at every level.
All of the above assumes that the actual mechanisms by which policy is developed at a European level are capable of supporting these developments – Chris Bickerton’s book plainly suggests that it is not (it’s only £2.99 on kindle at the mo btw). Mike’s comment above about the structure is good, as far as it goes, but misses a lot of the structural and organisational detail that would almost certainly scupper any significant reform).
Then, when all of this is in place, we have to guide them through the torturous process and horse-trading involved in negotiating and drafting the necessary reforms and do this before the wheels really come off (likely with GFC2).
Oh and we have to do this starting from a position where around two thirds of member states are governed by right-wingers, where some are heading further right and in a Europe where the rich North has shown nothing but contempt for the beleaguered periphery since 2008. We have to do this to an EU which by every indication (from the Roadmap , to the statements of the northern (’Hansiatic’) Finance Ministers, to the Services Notification Directive etc) is trotting merrily off in the wrong direction.
I won’t go as far as to suggest that expecting the above is crazy, but it is certainly very optimistic indeed.
So let’s be clear
a) You have no faith in the chances of the left in Europe
b) You have little faith in democracy
c) You do not realise WTO rules may be worse than EU ones for the UK – and can be enforced against us
I think the problems are all yours
A common currency is of great practical use for consumers and businesses travelling, purchasing and providing services across soft borders. It saves on the vagaries of currency conversion rates and transaction fees. Of course, the traders hate it, because that’s how they make their money. It’s notable that a lot of prominent Brexiters either are, were, or have a connection with currency trading.
From a macro-economic perspective, though, it’s necessary to have the whole currency area pulling together with a common fiscal and monetary policy. The Euro has a common monetary policy, but not a common fiscal policy, meaning that different member states can drive in different directions at the same time (some using spending to fund growth, others using austerity). However, they are somewhat bound in how they can behave through the European Fiscal Compact (‘Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union’), which replaced the Stability and Growth Pact in 2013. This is the treaty that we need to set fire to: it sets completely ridiculous limits on both deficit and debt to historically-unattainable levels. It is monetarist, neo-liberal nonsense.
Setting debt levels in primary legislation is crazy. It leads to problems like the US Government having to shut down because some arbitrary debt ceiling has been reached (although this one is because the US works on annual budgets, and last year’s spending bill hasn’t been passed, with Trump essentially vetoing it because his pet border wall scheme isn’t funded). If we consider ‘debt’ as instead ‘total amount of money saved with the Government’ we should be asking why there is any limit on how much citizens and businesses choose to save with their government.
You ignore the problem of differing productivity Mike
That’s the euro problem, in a single line
Richard Murphy says: “the problem of differing productivity” & the Euro. But doesn’t that apply within a sovereign state too? A state where the government governed with the interests of all of society as paramount would through the various levers at its disposal make adjustments and transfers so that every part of the population shared in the general prosperity irrespective of their inherent advantages or disadvantages. In the Eurozone, where this does not apply, certain regions build up large financial balances while others build up debts.
And as yet the Eurozone has no mechanism to deal with this
Mike Dimmick & co.
There are ample resons to suggest that the EU may not be an Optimal Currency Area. I’m not sure that a fiscal union, per se would resolve that problem entirely and there is a lot more to it than ‘differing productivity’. Currencies and exchange rate fluctuations serve a purpose, they externalise economic shocks and adjustments.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/optimal-currency-area.asp
https://www.experimentalforschung.econ.uni-muenchen.de/studium/veranstaltungsarchiv/sq2/mundell_aer1961.pdf
I agree: it clearly is not. We always have Gordon Brown to thank for realising that.
I always opposed the euro
Perhaps we could turn the argument around? What is that you want to do, that you think the EU is stopping the UK from doing? And I mean the EU/EC rather than the ECB.
As Richard and others have pointed out, on the usual issues (migration, state support) the EU is not a significant constraint, despite claims from both further left and right. As far as democracy is concerned, it’s is arguably no less democratic than the UK, perhaps more in current circumstances. And on laws, this is mostly about sharing regulations and standards, most of which both protect consumers and workers and enable the trade on which jobs and the economy depend. As well as sharing the cost of those regulatory bodies with 27 other countries. We can already see that the number of people having to be recruited to replace those those bodies, along with extra customs, DexEU et al is approaching the total number employed by the commission!
@Robin.
Richard has already suggested a few reforms necessary (most would likely require Treaty change or incur significant interference from the ECJ) — they are excellent and can be read here:
https://braveneweurope.com/richard-murphy-what-i-think-labour-should-be-saying-on-europe
A more comprehensive (and similarly excellent) statement of the Treaty changes necessary can be found in this piece from the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation in collaboration with PRIME Economics.
https://www.rosalux.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2017/Democratic-choice-to-Europe.pdf
Unfortunately for the Remain&Reformers, the authors note on P4 “We are also aware that reform of the existing EU treaties is extremely difficult in view of the existing political majorities and the rules on amending the treaties that are in force, since the unanimous agreement of the Member States would be required.”
I think they’re under-playing the difficulties.
I was arguing for democratic reform
As I also make clear in a post today, a great deal is possible without it
My view remains that your view Richard that a more radical government is needed and indeed desired by many in this country is very true and has been for some time.
Labour is strung up by its own fears. And this has created a vacuum which the BBC fills with too much time being given to those who have something to say – usually the Leave contingent or the latest bright young and misdirected thing from the IDEA or IFS.
We need to start hearing something new and Corbyn or whoever it is needs to be seen to be reaching out. Yvette Cooper’s recent idea about cities for example was just old hat to my ears.
And, if after that the Tories still remained in power after the next election, I would not blame him. At least he would have had a go. I would then say that England is lost at that time and then we can all decide whether or not we want to stay here.
A sad conclusion I grant you but…………………………………?
Indeed, but…………?
But..…………….well, if it came to pass that I was now going to be living in a country that had stopped believing that there was a better way to live and would rather live in the gutter of fascism and benign ignorance etc., in the sort of State that Thomas Hobbes warned us about for example (‘nasty, brutal and short’) then I would fuck off tomorrow and leave them to it to be honest.
Such people (like the chap who came over to my house on New Year’s Eve) would have to live through something like that for a long time before they became open to change. So be it. But that does not mean the rest of us who are capable of more imagination should suffer too.
There is nothing judgemental or superior about my attitude. Those who have been brutalised by racist bigots like George Osbourne and Lynton Crosby should be left to come around perhaps in heir own time? That’s all. Many are perhaps too far gone. Only harsher real life lessons will help. Then if they don’t get an epiphany – they don’t. But at least those of us who truly think for ourselves don’t have to put up with it.
I repeat The Great Brexit Conceit was assuming you had the knowledge that taking back control meant you knew the WTO had nothing to do with preventing government’s directly subsidising businesses outside of general infrastructure provision. It meant you definitively knew that the evil EU was the organisation arbitrarily imposing these rules.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf
Apart from having the positive freedom to nationalise monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic businesses exploiting their customers having government freedom to provide subsidy is important to tackle global warming if you believe such a phenomena is taking place.
Accordingly Brexit appears to be a false bill of goods if you firstly recognise economic migration into the UK could have been dealt with by implementing existing EU rules and UK ones concerning enforcing Minimum Wage. Secondly, that there was little point leaving the EU if as an organisation it was merely implementing WTO rules in regard to direct subsidies to businesses. This was especially so given the UK was not part of the disfunctional Eurozone system.
Interesting Survey. My 4 quick takeaways are these:
1. More surveys required.
Clearly we cannot assume that the 60% Remain / 40% Leave split of Labour supporters that existed in 2016 is the same now. Over the past 2 years the demographic shift (younger supporters becoming eligible to vote) scandalous revelations, a chaotic turn in events and recent polls like the one above all suggest that the pro-Remain group should be larger. So this survey would suggest that more information is urgently required to confirm these findings – and to see how the Pro-Remain majority splits among the different electorates in FPTP Westminster terms.
2. Progressive Alliance required.
Whatever happens FPTP voting will still be there when the GE arrives, a fracturing of the left vote can only be remedied by a progressive alliance. Needless to say a pro-Remain stance would help Labour to form that alliance.
3. The beauty of a 2nd referendum
They way things are I get the distinct impression that Labour would win a GE with a pro-Remain stance and partly because that would increase their turnout.
Remain supporters who don’t have strong party affiliations and didn’t bother to vote in the last referendum would turn out in droves if they had a clear reason to do so.
The problem for Labour is that having a pro-Remain majority population is nice but how does that majority split among the electorates? That question gives rise to 2 thoughts:
a. The survey discussed in this post suggest that most respondents want a 2nd referendum and not merely because they want to vote Remain. Many will want an official result that validates and finalises their choice.
b. The main beauty of deciding the outcome via 2nd referendum (as opposed to GE) is that the referendum implies proportional representation (no electorates, no FPTP,).
4. Why it might not be a good idea for Labour to take a pro-Remain stance prior to a 2nd referendum.
Its not mainly for fear of losing Labour brexiters at the next GE (that’s a secondary consideration).
The primary reason is that a pro-Remain Corbyn would discourage and divide Pro-Remain Tories. Not all of them but many. A Remain vote would be confused with a “Labour vote”, Simple and plain. There are millions of Remain tories and we need all of them (well, most of them) to win that referendum.
According to the survey above 72% of Labour members want a 2nd poll. So Labour should bring it on and make sure that they’ve the HoC numbers to get it. That would require co-operation among members in different parties. The more multi-partisan it looks the better and the greater is the chance and margin of its success.
Regarding this (and similar suggestions):
“Nothing Corbyn wants to do cannot be done in the EU”.
On balance I tend to agree but have mixed feelings about the prospects of reforming the EU from within. The dispute between Italy and the EU at the moment doesn’t inspire optimism. On the other hand I was recently reminded of this
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2012/may/15/hollande-merkel-financial-transaction-tax
occasion in 2012 when France and Germany were agreed on the idea of introducing a financial transactions tax (Tobin tax) and David Cameron’s govt. was the obstacle. With the lesson there being that the Tories are more of a problem than Europe and always have been.
Adrian is correct to observe that the only reforms that are possible within the EU are those that extend and reinforce the direction of the past 30 years – that is, taking democratic socialism off the table as a policy option for member nation states.
After 30 years of entrenching neoliberal rules, the EU stands condemned as an obstacle to progressive policy. The onus is on Remainers to outline a realistic road map for changing the EU’s direction. So far they have signally failed to do that.
The onus is not on Leavers to prove that it is easier for UK voters to reform UK policy than it is for UK voters to reform unelected EU agencies because it is self-evidently the case.
Remainers who claim confidently that renationalising public utilities and using the state to aid worker owned enterprises and aid local firms when allocating public procurement contracts would not be struck down by the ECJ show that they don’t understand how unpredictable courts can be.
The honest answer is that nobody knows for certain whether the ECJ would uphold Corbyn’s plans for public utilities, public procurement, and worker own enterprises.
But we do know for certain that if the UK is out of EU, the ECJ won’t have a say on Corbyn’s agenda. Which is as it should be.
Ever since the Single European Act of 1987 the direction of the EU has been to favour policies that redistribute income upwards, undermine workers’ bargaining power, and concentrate political power in unelected bodies.
That approach has failed. That approach has been given more than enough of a trial period and it failed. So the onus is on Remainers to demonstrate convincingly why the EU should be given yet another reprieve and the benefit of the doubt.
Remainers lost the argument when it mattered in 2016. The decision of 2016 needs to be implemented first and given a decade or two to be consolidated before the question of EU membership is revisited.
I have to differ
Respectfully, the claim is ridiculous and assumes a majority of left wing governments could not change matters
Of course the reality is that they could
In response to your last reply to me above I wrote this (there was no reply option there), but it’s just as relevant to your reply to Nicholas:
So to be clear (from my point of view)
a) You have no faith in the chances of the left in Europe.
You are right to the extent that I do not have faith in their ability to mobilise, organise and remain together in sufficient numbers to address the (likely fatal) flaws in the EU. The table in Joe Guinan & Thomas Hanna’s piece (from 2016) shows how weak the left is in too many states.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/thomas-m-hanna-joe-guinan/is-another-europe-possible
That piece also has an excellent, clear, description of how precisely Treaty Change may be implemented (Article 48, since ‘simlified’ by the Lisbon Treaty). The requirement of unanimity makes this pretty much just a ‘theoretical possibility’ given the electoral landscape across the EU. That the agreement of the (captured) ECB is also required for anything financial further drives home the futility of the hope for meaningful reform.
I do, however, have every faith in the ability of left POLICIES to be both effective and popular wherever they are implemented without restriction (and assume that you do too).
b) You have little faith in democracy.
Again you are correct to the extent that I have very little faith in the ability of the EU structure to be influenced in any meaningful way by the democratic decisions of its citizens (for the reasons I’ve noted in previous comments and above).
It seems that I am not alone in this – turn outs across Europe in EU elections have fallen in pretty much every EU election (from 67% in 1979 to an average of 42% in the last).
To add a little flesh to Mike’s description of the EU legislative process too much of the time taken in producing EU legislation is taken up in the ‘co-decision’ procedures with how the legislation will be passed rather than whether it is fit for purpose.
Most proposals come from the Council’s ‘working-groups’ — with preferences usually given on the basis of the particular pet-projects of whoever is currently President of the Council on the 6 month rotating timetable (smaller countries are often reliant on the ‘General Secretariate’ to help them when it’s their turn).
‘Early Agreements’ are often made with the Council, Commission & particular Parliamentary Committees.
This process has been ‘streamlined’ to the extent that from 2009-13 81% of legislation was passed on first reading (the figure was just 27% as recently as 1999-04). Only 3% went to a full third reading. Significant oversight this is not.
I’d also note the demonstrable willingness of the ECB & Eurozone Group to subvert democracy by market manipulations & selective implementation of fiscal rules over the last decade.
Also, the opaque working-group-to-committee-to-and-fro likely couldn’t be better designed to be susceptible to lobbying influence.
c) You do not realise WTO rules may be worse than EU ones for the UK — and can be enforced against us.
This is moot to say the least (I’ll dig out some links if I get the chance), but more significantly, it also makes the typical, but wrong, assumption that the measurement of the worth of the EU is all about trade flows & quantities when the more important measures s are on inequality, redistribution, sustainability, strong communities, robustness and fairness (all of which are always going to be hamstrung by FoM of Capital, the tax competition, the JIT bias of the SM etc. etc. etc.). A fairer distribution of a (slightly) smaller pie is always going to be better than the model of extraction & hoarding the EU and the SM promotes.
With that in imind, I think it fair to conclude that it is the proponents of a reformed EU who have the problem.
So in summary, you do not believe the left has a democratic hope in hell and are willing to sacrifice the well-being of the people of the U.K. on a wild punt
Thanks, but very politely, no thanks
I have no time for such politics, which may have a place in a student union, but even then are treated with derision
Richard, I have presented a patient argument, with supportive links, as to why I believe that the EU at it stands, and in the current electoral landscape, is essentially irreformable (unanimity is now too high a bar to reach). You have responded with unsupported assertions.
I’ll detain you no longer other than to ask whether you think that all Lexit arguments are just wild punts? If so, have you told Larry Elliott?
I have not replied with unsupported arguments
I have simply pointed out that the process for reform exists
You don’t believe in the democratic appeal of left wing politics
And you do want to trash the UK economy
But you can’t accuse me of not having a reasoned argument when I have pointed out the obvious fact that the EU can be reformed – and you just don’t trust that people will want it and will not trust them to do it
Sop please do not say I did not present an argument when I did
And pointed out all the flaws in your case
And Larry well knows I disagree with him
With regard to staying in the EU to change it, no one is saying that this will or could happen over night. It is going to take time and it will take more than changing one member domestic Government.
However, the rising tide shall we say of fascism in Europe that is being enabled by EU policy must be dealt with and I still think that the EU will eventually have to bite the bullet and change its ways otherwise the project is finished in the worst way imaginable and war will follow.
The EU is going to have to learn to ‘invest out’ out right wing extremism or face the consequences.
I agree
The Politics Home survey has fired indignation in many a remainer breast and sharpened another stick to poke Corbyn. As if there hadn’t been enough of these already, from Tories and hostile members of his own party. Before deriding him any further, read this and consider whether the gesture you demand from him would be grand or futile.
http://statsforlefties.blogspot.com/2018/11/do-i-stay-or-do-i-go-labours-brexit.html
The survey I was referring to was by two universities
Shall we get facts right?
And I can tell you – Labour supporters are deeply disenchanted
I spend time talking to them
There is a churn going on in Labour that explains why they are not moving decisively past the Tories in the opinion polls. Traditional working (especially Northern) Labour voters have been and are still abandoning the party. Many went to UKIP in the last decade but are now going to the Tories as they see them as delivering Brexit in some form or other.
They are being replaced in Labour by people voting for the first time – most politically active 18-20 year olds are progressive and left leaning, the ones leaning right are less likely to vote. The odd thing is the stance of the Labour leadership to Brexit which the vast majority of left-leaning 18-20’s have a view on that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. (I’m more convinced than ever that the right-honourable JC fibbed about the way he voted). Of course the LibDems haven’t benefited as they should as they are seen as youth traitors having supported tuition fee rises whilst in coalition – people should really be more forgiving.
I agree with you about a General Election right now. Brexiteers will mobilise behind the Tories. JC’s 2017 GE performance will be his high watermark, the Remain vote will be split and the Tories may even win back a small but manageable majority.
My gut feeling is no GE will happen, a serious push for a 2nd EU Ref will come too late, the EU will offer a couple of concessions (mostly practical like – Euro arrest warrant, guarantees of ferries and flights, perhaps even a six-monthly backstop review…) and May will squeak a deal through. My only hope is that it leaves us so closely aligned to the EU that when the right political figures are in place (not till after the 2022 GE, or even the next one!) that another EU Ref will be called and we vote back in. Worse conditions though – we won’t have the rebate.