My mood was lifting as yesterday progressed: those I talked to and much that I read confirmed that people had really voted for Remain on Thursday. And that they intended to do so again. The reasons were pretty obvious. For brevity I will reduce them to a limited list, starting with the negatives.
First, there is the fact that Brexit is, and has only ever been a serious project for the hard-right. It has the aim of destroying regulation that protects most people from abuse. It makes it possible for for Britain to be a tax haven. And it lets capital flow, if not unfettered then at least with greater freedom than ever through London and that will impose even greater cost on us all than the City does now. This arch-neoliberal project is clearly about increasing inequality and people reject that.
Second, they also reject an idea that clearly tears apart the UK's national commitments, whether to the Union; the Good Friday Agreement or to those countries who have been our partners for so long now. They realise that the resulting loss of trust in the UK makes the idea of future deals laughable. Who wants to partner someone who has proved they will not keep their promises?
Third, there is the failure to people. That is the failure to consider those from Europe who live and work here. And the failure to consider those from the UK who live and work in Europe. And the failure to consider all those who have their rights stripped from them, whether they have as yet exercised them or not. This abuse of people's freedoms is unacceptable. Let's ignore the costs. There are principles at stake.
Fourth, there is the obvious fact that Brexit is not possible. It should be obvious to anyone bar Theresa May, and now Jeremy Corbyn, that there is no way the negotiated deal will pass parliament. And it is even more obvious that there is no such thing as No Deal. Quite literally the day after a No Deal Brexit the UK would have to go to the EU to get a deal: there is no other way that arrangements with the EU, and other countries, could be managed but by doing that. So first of all No Deal does not exist. And second, there is no evidence from anywhere that any such deals will be offered on better terms than now. For example, the US has said they will only do a trade deal with us if we respect the Good Friday Agreement, and that requires that we be in the Customs Union with the EU and single market. Australia, India and China will do deals but only with enhanced migration rights. And the EU will, I am sure, do a deal, but at considerably greater cost than the one we have. And all that will take years and in the meantime the cost will be enormous, and probably unsustainable as people literally die because, for example, we cannot trade the drugs and other essential products needed for their well-being. At a practical level Brexit it impossible both in reality and politically, with every outcome worse than at present.
There are then very good reasons then to reject Brexit because of the harm it will cause. And they have become more apparent over time, not less. You only have to care for this country (the UK, that is, and not just England), or to care about the people who live here, or to worry about your neighbours, and to be concerned about your neighbourhood and how it might function, to realise Brexit is a disastrous idea based solely on division and the abandonment of any sense of community. And to most people such things matter.
But let's ignore the negative. Let's look at the positive. The positive reasons for staying in the EU are that it has worked. We have had more stability in Europe. We have let people move to work. We have permitted travel. And study. And this has increased understanding. The removal of borders has improved people's lives. And it has reduced tensions.
And we did manage the collapse of the Iron Curtain better by having the EU. Not perfectly, because nothing is perfect. But better.
Whilst we have also enhanced the rights of many groups in society. From workers rights, to environmental regulation, to defeating tax abuse, we are better off for The EU. And we have less regulation than trying to comply with 28 competing regimes would require.
I could go on, but the summary is that the result is that we are better off.
But there have been negatives. The EU has been too heavily influenced by neoliberalism. But the answer is not to ditch the EU. It is to ditch neoliberalism. And when Brexit is solely about promoting neoliberalism it has to be the worst way possible to achieve that goal. But worse are the arguments that the EU cannot beat neoliberalism: that way lies the path to fascism and the corporate state because this is to acquiesce in the plan.
And it is simply not necessary. I am deeply frustrated by many EU regulations. I mistrust the motives of those who advised they be created. I think they are harmful. So I want to change them. And that I know if I have never changed anything by turning my back on it and pretending it is not there. Whilst some of the claims about what is not possible are simply lies. State intervention is possible in the EU. As is nationalisation. And so too is the NHS, which Brexit is intended to destroy. What may not be possible is 1945 blanket nationalisation. But so what? It did not work in that form. Surely that is obvious? Selective nationalisation is however possible, as is the Green New Deal. As is a state investment bank. As is regulation to control business, which has the potential in the right hands and with the right motivation to be at least as powerful as nationalisation. So let's reject the nonsense. Because most of the Lexit claims come from parts of the left's spectrum that are deeply materialistic, profoundly antagonistic to most people and have zero electoral prospect, and I presume we remain democrats.
Which the EU is. Indeed, as Westminster now proves day in and day out, it may be significantly more accountable than our own failed system. That sets the bar low, but it shows how absurd the claim that the EU is undemocratic.
All of this motivated a tweet I wrote yesterday, which said:
I can understand why right-wingers want Brexit. They want to destroy regulation and let a financial elite run rampant. But I find Lexiteers incomprehensible. They want to create an environment that destroys regulation and lets a financial elite run rampant. And that's insane.
Of course that's not a perfect summary of my argument. But it addresses my deep frustration with those on the left who willingly line up next to George Galloway in delivering what Nigel Farage wants, with not a hope of ever actually achieving any of their real goals.
The EU is imperfect. Like just about every government, everywhere right now it is too influenced by big business, and it needs to be more robust in the defence of democracy given the threats within its boundaries. But of all the options available the three Rs of Revoke, Remain and Reform are the only one that makes any sense now.
Which is why, I suspect, not a single serious tax justice or Green New Deal campaigner I know wants Brexit. Not one of us wants the perpetuation of corrupt financial elites and the existing market structures, but we all think change is best effected through the EU and not outside it.
This is not the time for the left to permit Brexit.
Or to think it must acquiesce with what is fundamentally harmful to all the left stands for, just because an illegally and corruptly run election campaign once secured a vote by use of illicit means.
This is the time for the left to be positive about the goals we want to achieve, be they the Green New Deal, enhanced tax justice, better union and worker rights, better control of key industries, improved corporate accountability and co-ordinated minimum pay regulation, and demand Revoke, Remain and Reform, which is the only plausible left wing platform for the EU within the UK right now.
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:
Thanks Richard
I agree with all of that. Can I add a link to my own analysis on Progressive Pulse? http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/lessons-from-the-local-election-results It also has an analysis on Northern Ireland, which is too often ignored.
Sean
Might I share the Northern Ireland part here?
I think it especially useful
Most certainly.
Thanks
Excellent. Cancel Brexit and start addressing the real issues, inequality and the climate emergency.
Richard,
I suppose that if the Labour Party’s position was judged by the left electorate to be objectively pro-Brexit, then they would have performed relatively better in Leave type areas in the north than they did in Remain type areas in the south. Since this is the reverse of what happened, the original premise cannot be true.
If the conclusion is drawn that Labour needs to be out-and-out Remain, then the Party will need to abandon its traditional northern working class voters in pursuit of southern middle class ones. And that is what Galloway ( and Corbyn, and McDonnell …), not unreasonably, deplores.
This is nonsense
70% of Labour voters are Remain
Why is Labour abandoning most of its voters?
“Why is Labour abandoning 70% of its voters?”
Because it’s not abandoning 60% of its seats.
65% of Labour voters voted Remain. But 61% of Labour constituencies voted Leave.
A quirk of the First Past The Post system?
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
They won’t do so again
And anyway, I am bored by politicians whose only interest is power without principle
Couldn’t agree more. At the root of our biggest challenges lies a crisis of Global Governance. The power of the neo-liberal model is maintained because we now live in a World which is controlled by Global capital flows, while our only systems of regulation remain national. No country, even with an elected mandate, can fight this system on their own. France clearly demonstrated this in 2012 when Francois Holland was forced to reverse his socialist policies by financial markets after only 18 months.
Hard though it is to build consensus, the only path to make progress towards Global regulation is through international cooperation in bodies such as the EU, UN, and yes even the WTO. The capitalists know this, which is why their top objective (executed through Brexit and Trump) is to undermine and dismantle these institutions, which have the potential to regulate their power. The idea that the labour party would assist them in doing this is lunacy.
Agreed
Spot on. Nice to see a proper left leaning analysis with a coherent policy.
Be great if the Labour leadership could read this and get a refresher on what social solidarity with Europe should look like.
Revoke and remain should be no brainer for all those on the left, if we can recognise that then we can all move on to the even more important bit regarding reform. Now is the time to build an agenda for such EU reform. Goodness knows it needs quite a bit in my humble pro European cooperation opinion.
Thanks
The EU treaties have neoliberal biases and goals locked into them. The process of amending an EU treaty is byzantine and extremely onerous. The Reform element of Revoke, Remain, and Reform is utterly unrealistic. You’d have to be a fantastist to believe than any EU treaties will be reformed along non-neoliberal lines.
The best that the UK could do if it Revokes and Remains is to ignore those parts of the treaties that are neoliberal, refuse to abide by ECJ decisions to overturn progressive UK Government policies (such as renationalizing rail and water assets), and dare the EU to do something about it.
I dispute all that
I accept the EU is about markets
And it certainly promotes competition
It so happens the U.K. also does the latter: it’s pretty key to blocking monopoly
And I also note the UK has a market economy, which needs regulation
Are you saying we should not regulate markets
Nor challenge monopoly and unfair competition?
If so, why?
And how are you replacing markets?
I’m sure that if the UK wanted re-nationalise anything, the EU – if the justification were given – would live with it. And we also have the pound – not the Euro – which we print ourselves with our own central bank.
There is an idea that the EU’s anti state neo liberalism is somewhat over cooked:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/02/labour-leavers-wrong-idea-about-eu-neoliberalism
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/02/uk-brexit-team-seeks-to-exploit-eu-concern-on-corbyns-state-aid-plans
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation.
The only barrier I now see to a Labour Government negotiating with the EU about these issues of selective and appropriate nationalisation is the reputational damage done by BREXIT and ill-informed nonsense about the EU being anti-statist.
Will they ever take us seriously again? That is my worry.
As for things byzantine – if you want byzantine lets try a No Deal shall we and see what we can get out of that? Or how about more TTIP?
Oh – and if there is a candidate where I live, Green it is of the EU too.
Thanks PSR
So, in summary, support the Green Party.
I have already noted here that I will be voting Green on 23/5
I did co-create the Green New Deal
Great to hear!
And I was aware that you were one of the founding group (along with Caroline Lucas of course!) and do appreciate this work helped provide a coherent alternative to the unsustainable infinite growth economics that totally dominated thinking up until the 2008 crash.
I just wish that you would now work more closely with the Greens to help us continue to shape and refine our thinking in this area.
I’m not even sure if Revoke, Remain & Reform is a left wing posture to take,
it’s just the most sensible thing to do, quite centrist really, of very broad appeal.
Ken Clarke would like it, the Lib Dems would like it, most Labour voters would like it, the Greens would like it,
I’d be delighted, it was what I wanted to do in the first place!
the only people who won’t like it are the nutters on the fringes,
what bewilders me is that no effort has been made to start the reform process at home, if David Cameron really wanted to stay in he could have backed off on the austerity and given the precariat a bit of hope before asking them to vote,
then we’ve had two years, nearly three now, wasted that could have been used to alleviate a lot of the problems that pushed people over the edge into voting Brexit out of exasperation,
I find the sheer paralysis and lack of initiative astonishing, why are we lumbered with such a lumpen headed political class these days?
are we really going to continue to spin in ever decreasing circles until the UK is smashed into a thousand pieces?
is this farce simple evidence that, at present, collectively, the human race is just too stupid to be able to save itself?
Maybe I and others who failed to become politicians are responsible for this mess
It us a responsibility to consider
Richard, I don’t think you should blame yourself. There is a system fault in operation here.
Thanks for posting this. I hope you don’t mind if I send it to those I know who would be interested.
PSR, thanks for the links.
Share away?
well if you’re going to shoulder some of the blame Richard, then I guess I should do,
but in a way the politicians have been just like the bankers prior to 2008,
both groups have said ‘now now, don’t worry your little heads with all this complicated stuff, we’re responsible people and we know what we’re doing, go do what you’re good at and leave banking/politics to us’
after 2008 the bankers sat at those commons enquiries looking sheepish and saying “why didn’t you stop us?”
will these moronic politicians try to pull the same stunt when it all goes horribly wrong?
well fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice and shame on me,
now it’s apparent they haven’t a clue what they’re doing maybe it is time to step up and intervene because the politicians certainly don’t appear to be the safe pair of hands they’ve always claimed to be.
idk how much help I’d be but I don’t mind knocking on doors and answering the telephone,
anyone else feel up for a bit of democracy?
According to the Guardian
‘The government is planning to offer a “comprehensive but temporary customs arrangement” until the next election, which would allow the next prime minister to shape what happens after that.’
Difficult to see how Labour could agree to that, but even more so how it could be something the EU could sign up to.
Are we not headed towards a second referendum and, just possibly, a remain result?
Your point that ‘there is no such thing as No Deal’ is something that deserves to be hammered home. I think it would be a new thought to many.
What is absurd is that this is what the withdrawal agreement offers
yes.. what is a No Deal Hard Brexit?
is it withdrawing into isloation like the Japanese did for a couple of centuries and shunning all external contact?
if it isn’t then of course new arrangements would have to be created immediately,
so we quit our job, storm out sticking up two fingers, then get straight on the phone asking if we could do a bit of cash in hand work at the weekends because we’re in a pickle?
oh and could we borrow the works van because Aunt Maude is moving next Saturday?!
Spot on
I like your comment about “power without principle” . I did not join a political party to follow the whims of an uninformed electorate.
And yet that is what politicians seem to think they must do
And then wonder why people think they lack leadership qualities
Precisely.
When it comes to BREXIT, populism is the rule.
But social justice?
The environment?
Austerity?
Ohhh no – the politicians are not listening at all it seems.
PSR…..
oh I do cringe each time the word popular/populist/populism is used/misappropriated,
as a media buzzword it’s an abbreviation of a phrase that’s loaded with cognitive dissonance in an almost Orwellian manner,
if something is a popular idea then many people must agree with it so it should be good yet the media say that populism is bad?
so what currently is populism? isn’t it really an abbreviation of ‘a popular misconception’?
so if Brexit is a populist movement surely the statement should be:
Brexit is a movement based on a popular misconception.
and if Nigel Farage is a populist, surely he’s a peddler of popular misconceptions?
but now concern for the environment cannot become a popular movement because populism is discredited,
so what is ‘popular’?
CND was popular during the Cold War, but burning Witches was popular in the middle ages?
picking your nose is a popular movement amongst children, should we rally around that?
maybe we should ridicule stupidity to highlight it?
Matt B
Sorry – but what is your point?
The populism I’m referring to is that which seems to have been stirred up by the internet; by lies and those who fall for them.
Cringe if you want – you do not bother me – but the term ‘populism’ is all we have at the moment to call it. What would I call it if it were up to me?
How about ‘nascent fascism’? That’s what it actually is really.
Does anyone know what Labour’s positive campaign message is to get Labour’s voters out for the EU elections.
Tell me if you find it…..
SteveH 07/05/2019 at 11:23 am · ·
There is a very positive reason to vote Labour in the EU elections.
https://labourlist.org/2019/05/labours-euro-election-result-matters-heres-why/
“7th May, 2019, 8:30 am
Labour’s Euro election result matters. Here’s why
Sabrina Huck
Even if Labour MEPs end up being part of the next European parliament for only a short time, a strong electoral showing for Labour in the UK could have a big impact on the whole of Europe. Labour MEPs could shift the balance of power in favour of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the group in which Labour and our sister parties are organised.
This is significant: the biggest group in the European parliament will choose the President of the European Commission.”
Unfortunately for reasons best known to themselves the Labour leadership has chosen to ignore this.
Whether we end up in or (god forbid) out of the EU it is undeniable that implementing the 2017 manifesto would be easier with a Socialist in charge of the EU.
What happened to solidarity?
The Greens will also take part in that vote
So all that says is vote progressive
Fair comment.
To clarify, my solidarity comment was aimed at the Labour leadership and not yourself.
I find it very disheartening that currently there is no positive message coming from the Labour Party. It all appears to be a bit defeatist, and that’s not a good look.
“Are you saying we should not regulate markets?”
The Veblen Institute published a report showing how European trade policy was challenging the right of states to regulate financial services. That clearly would need to change:
https://www.finance-watch.org/publication/financial-regulation-challenged-by-european-trade-policy/
OK Richard (& PSR and others) who else is on board for this reform in the EU?
How are those parties doing in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden? The answer for all SEVENTEEN of the above is abysmally.
The answer to that question in the ‘big hitter’ states not in that list — France, Germany and the Netherlands – is no where near well enough.
Against that we have some mixed results in Spain (mostly good for the left, but where Vox are gaining seats & where the treatment of Catalonia is very troubling, Greece and Portugal.
However you slice it the chances of progressive reform in that context are very low indeed.
And what chance of p[rogressive reform might there be in England without Scotland, which is what the alternative is?
I’d suggest close to none at all
In fact, I’d say the exact opposite
So why do you want that?
Ned
All I’m going to say is this.
The EU is as it is because it reflects the membership of many of its countries in that the member states are very neo-liberal in outlook. There are exceptions – such as Greece and Spain – but we really do need the big hitters to shake off the neo-lib voodoo that has crept in via the back door of their own politics.
Reform of the EU begins at home in the politics of the member states – not in the EU itself. And this also includes the UK.
There is only one exception in all of this and this is the ECB – the only EU institution that should be wound up as soon as possible as far as I am concerned and which is as invalid as is the currency it prints.
The EU is better off without the Euro and the ECB – it was a step too far and a very unaccountable one too.
Agreed
Well for England and Wales with FPTP, there’s a very good chance.
Survation’s most recent poll (just a month ago ) has Labour with a clear lead in England and Wales (they were the only polling company who got the GE in 2017 right and they use much larger samples than most – they had Labour ahead last November too).
https://www.survation.com/general-election-voting-intention-in-england-and-wales/
FPTP could actually be a friend to progressive reform at the moment.
That the rUK, or just England, would be an open door for a right-wing neoliberal rampage is a claim often made, but the evidence for any kind of appetite for it is weak (unless you can show me otherwise).
It’s almost as if those who use it as a threat don’t think proper left policies would be popular and effective (they were popular enough for a huge swing in 2017).
The Remain and Reform argument requires that a significant leftwards shift is required in at least a dozen of the countries I’ve listed above (to get the clear majorities required at Council level and the Euro Parliament). Lexit requires a marginal shift in just one, but apparently that’s impossible.
Pardon?
You think we should take that as evidence when both Labour and Tories got 28% in the local elections?
And there were swings from Labour to remain parties
So shall we deal with reality?
With respect Richard, I was attempting to deal with reality in my first response to your post here.
I asked you how well our potential reform allies might be doing across Europe and gave you a long list of countries where they are doing very poorly indeed. You chose to reply to this by making claims about England and in doing so presumed an Independent Scotland (which would be great of course), but that’s no answer at all.
Who specifically are the parties across Europe who are in favour of the kind of reforms you are proposing here? How well are they doing at home and in the EU Parliament? Our little exchange here about UK Polling evidence and intentions is one that you (and others who make grand claims about EU reform) need to have regarding many more (if not all) of the other 28 member-states, but it appears that none of you have (please point me to any analysis if you’ve got any to hand).
In the absence of these answers you are offering nothing more than ‘Revoke, Remain and More of the Same’ (which has a nice ring to it, but I don’t think is a campaign I could get behind myself).
No you weren’t trying to deal with reality
You were saying because you have not won the arguments in those places as yet you want to walk off in a huff and play in a corner by yourself
Actually, across the EU the S&D, to some extent + Greens + GUE/NGL are all looking for major reform
Why not look at that and celebrate and support it?
Thanks Richard – I don’t doubt that there are potential supporters of reform ‘on paper’, but when you get to the nitty gritty they’re simply not their in sufficient numbers to reach the relatively high bar to instigate the processes underwhich these reforms are implemented.
I wish it was not the case, but there’s no indication that such a progressive movement could be marshalled at the moment.
Having said that, I’ll definitely be voting Green in the EU elections to help to bring that coallition together even if it is, as I suspect, an utterly futile gesture.
Seems to me about a week after the Thatcher-Reagan-big-bang-boom-boom-bubble-bang neoliberalism inherited the world and now it’s unstoppable without global co-operation or catastrophe.
5G/AI/robotics might give the bubble legs for another couple of decades, perhaps enough for the 1% to become the 0.0001% or maybe only a few hundred people (I never said I was good at sums).
Global co-operation in reversing it I find unrealistic without at least another, bigger crash or some other unmistakable sign of failure like first-world famine or satellite cascade – with the MSM supporting the big lie the financially literate opposing view seems doomed to go unheard.
Out of the EU, our reputation for incompetence confirmed in spades, our past imperial victims among our “negotiating partners” will enjoy having the least cunning Fox on the planet stop by with his begging bowl.
They’ll treat the UK as Tories treat the poor, the homeless and the disabled.
Basically I’m saying I think we’re screwed unless you smart guys can shout quite a bit louder.
I see the EU as a flawed, badly led but optimistic example to the world of separate nations trying to act together for their mutual benefit – essential if we’re to address the problems consumerism, growth-at-all-costs, ignorance and hubris have created.
Increasing fragmentation and nationalism is the opposite of what the world needs, but it creates precisely the conditions the worst of the capitalists thrive on – competition and conflict.
Regions or their rabble-rousers fighting for freedom from historic alliances/associations/incorporations generally perceive a financial advantage to themselves.
The number of them surprised me: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/map-european-regions-fighting-for-independence-vote-europe-countries-state-a7979051.html