Progressive arguments for staying in the EU

[Magnus McGinty]

I know there's a bit of Brexit support amongst the left, but what's the arguments for staying in? Plenty of UK workers want the freedom of labour movement as they live and work in Europe too and then there's labour laws that would be worse without the EU most probably and the human rights act.

What else, if anything?

 

[J Ed]

Vague but meaningless appeals to 'internationalism' which I see now is a term which not only encompasses 'liberal interventionism' and identification with a neoliberal superstate to come but it is also now used to describe the principles behind trading with non-EU countries after leaving the EU.

These days it seems to mean everything but solidarity between ordinary people across borders.

 

[laptop]

Arguably, the EU has the potential to facilitate solidarity between ordinary people across borders.

I'm wondering whether it already has.

For the rest... depends what you mean by "progressive".

If you mean "tending to overthrow capitalism", not a lot.

If you mean "improving the conditions of life of ordinary people"... well, look at what the people who fund the "out" campaigns want. Less environmental regulation in the UK. Less regulation of employment. And so on... The possibility of suing the UK government over air quality (and not having the case heard by someone who went to Eton with the Minister's father) is not excitingly progressive, but it will save lives.

 

[weltweit]

I know there's a bit of Brexit support amongst the left, but what's the arguments for staying in? Plenty of UK workers want the freedom of labour movement as they live and work in Europe too and then there's labour laws that would be worse without the EU most probably and the human rights act.

What else, if anything?

Britain is part of Europe. Workers in Bolton are working in Europe!

 

[stavros]

A cohesive continent-wide approach to regional and global issues, e.g. fundamentalism, tax dodging, climate change.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Arguably, the EU has the potential to facilitate solidarity between ordinary people across borders.

I'm wondering whether it already has.

For the rest... depends what you mean by "progressive".

If you mean "tending to overthrow capitalism", not a lot.

If you mean "improving the conditions of life of ordinary people"... well, look at what the people who fund the "out" campaigns want. Less environmental regulation in the UK. Less regulation of employment. And so on... The possibility of suing the UK government over air quality (and not having the case heard by someone who went to Eton with the Minister's father) is not excitingly progressive, but it will save lives.

This is an interesting angle. Can you provide any further info/data for those arguments (sorry, lazy of me but I am interested in this angle)

 

[laptop]

A cohesive continent-wide approach to regional and global issues, e.g. ... tax dodging, climate change

Membership of an entity that's large enough to take on the oil companies, the internet companies, etc. The UK government alone is, we can see, much more easily bought off.

(Take as read comlplicated footnote qualifying on what issues it's likely to take them on.)

 

[ricbake]

I'm for the Common Market, Common Security and Foreign Policy across Europe but not ever closer union. There is no reason why Europe can't come together to agree policy on dealing with multinational companies and their tax avoidance
But a full coalition of 28 separate disparate nations is unworkable, unmanageable. The economic problems and the idea that some form of parity can be achieved as a group I can't see happening. Creating a harmony where the national interests of all 28 can be supported and rational decisions can be reached to govern and progress is a pipe dream. I don't understand why membership of Europe couldn't be qualified or in separate tiers to suit different economies. France and the UK are different enough how do you reconcile the differences between Greece and Denmark let alone Lithuania and Luxembourg.

Also I don't understand why we can't censure an administration that hasn't balanced its books in 20 years and will not properly report on its problems with fraud.

I really hope that personalities do not play a large part in the referendum campaign, although Cameron is the main face of the in campaign and he is not a convincing European - Having a choice between George Galloway, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, Chris Grayling, Ian Duncan-Smith or Nigel Lawson isn't my idea of a dream ticket...

 

[stavros]

That being the third biggest member of a strong organisation is better than being the unofficial fifty-first state without much say.

 

[redsquirrel]

Britain is part of Europe. Workers in Bolton are working in Europe!

Christ, even for you...

A cohesive continent-wide approach to regional and global issues, e.g. fundamentalism, tax dodging, climate change.

Does the EU have that? I rather doubt it, there's not much cohesive in it's dealing with immigrants, or with the economic punishment it meted out to Greece.

But even if the above was true, surely that's only argument for staying in if that cohesive approach actually is a progressive one.

 

[newbie]

Christ, even for you...

Does the EU have that? I rather doubt it, there's not much cohesive in it's dealing with immigrants, or with the economic punishment it meted out to Greece.

But even if the above was true, surely that's only argument for staying in if that cohesive approach actually is a progressive one.

obviously everything the EU has done is less progressive than these fine people and all they represent

 

[redsquirrel]

Yeah, yeah, anyone opposed to the (neo-liberal, capital project) EU, is a Tory/UKIP little englander.

And seeing as though you like silly pictures here are a couple for you, guess they're Tories too. Prick

 

[stethoscope]

Innit redsquirrel, what a load of liberal fucking toss.

 

[newbie]

you're not a neo-lib, nor am I, but post Brexit it's not us that will have 'Control', now is it. Nor will it be people who are dead. There are arguments, good ones, against the EU but I think if you tot up 'progressive' between the EU and the UK since the last time we were asked the scales would lean very heavily one way.

Meanwhile I've been thinking about what else you said

Does the EU have that? I rather doubt it, there's not much cohesive in it's dealing with immigrants,

are you proposing that the EU should have common and cohesive rules on immigration rather than leaving national governments to make their own rules? That's potentially a good and progressive idea but your timing is a bit off.

If you'd proposed that prior to the Syria crisis I suspect liberal continental types would have pushed for, and got, a quota system based on humanity, decency and regional economic ability to absorb incomers. No Jungle, no razor wire, sensible arrangements. Leaving those in the photo shrieking in outrage.

Just now, during and after a crisis that's overwealmed almost every national government, each with their own rules, it's a bit of a non-starter. Britain hasn't been overwealmed, of course, because humanity, decency and sharing the burden form only a small part of our national pull up the drawbridge policy.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[redsquirrel]

I think if you see anything 'progressive' about the EU then you are a liberal. That doesn't mean that labour can't use the EU for it's own ends at times when different capital/state agents fight amongst themselves, but go to Greece and claim the EU is progressive.

On cohesion. I wasn't making an argument for a more cohesive EU just pointing out that (i) stavros' implication that cohesion is a necessarily a good thing is flawed and (ii) that I think it's a long stretch to call the EU cohesive.

 

[andysays]

you're not a neo-lib, nor am I, but post Brexit it's not us that will have 'Control', now is it. Nor will it be people who are dead. There are arguments, good ones, against the EU but I think if you tot up 'progressive' between the EU and the UK since the last time we were asked the scales would lean very heavily one way...

So why not actually do the totting and demonstrate which way you think they would lean, not on the basis of the past, but in the present and the future?

For the purposes of this thread, it's really not enough to point out that we who don't currently have control still won't have control if we leave, you need to come up with positive progressive reasons for staying.

It might just about have been possible to claim that the EU still had the potential to be progressive a couple of decades ago, but now, after we've seen neo-liberalism written into its actual constitution in such a way that it can't simply be changed on the level of mere policy changes, it's clearly delusional.

 

[likesfish]

gove wants to leave so making that bastard cry is good enough for me

 

[redsquirrel]

I think any pro-labour argument for voting remain, needs to start from the point that the EU isn't progressive, that it is fully wedded to neo-liberalism and is the enemy.

From then on people can make a tactical argument about why voting to remain is the better option and we can debate about the merits of such an argument. But any socialist should recognise that core truth.

 

[newbie]

I think if you see anything 'progressive' about the EU then you are a liberal.

I don't understand what that means, neo-liberal I get but liberal?? what meaning of the word. perhaps it would help if you found a word to characterise all those who find nothing 'progressive' about the EU.

 

[redsquirrel]

perhaps it would help if you found a word to characterise all those who find nothing 'progressive' about the EU.

There's not one group, but for the one I'm part of - Socialists

 

[newbie]

I think any pro-labour argument for voting remain, needs to start from the point that the EU isn't progressive, that it is fully wedded to neo-liberalism and is the enemy.

From then on people can make a tactical argument about why voting to remain is the better option and we can debate about the merits of such an argument.

it is fully wedded to neo-liberalism, of course it is. So is the UK. So is the US. So is pretty much everywhere else. as a debating point that doesn't really take us anywhere.

 

[newbie]

There's not one group, but for the one I'm part of - Socialists

I'd describe myself as a socialist, and an internationalsist, and a communalist, and so on.

 

[redsquirrel]

it is fully wedded to neo-liberalism, of course it is. So is the UK. So is the US. So is pretty much everywhere else. as a debating point that doesn't really take us anywhere.

Yes it does, it starts the debate from a pro-working class perspective. It separates the liberals (who believe in a nice 'progressive' form of capitalism, which the EU is part of) from socialists.

From that point we can then make arguments as to what course of action best supports labour.

EDIT: For example, the argument that it is in 'our' economic interest to remain part of the EU is liberal bullshit (hence why weltweit makes it).
The argument that labour can exploit the EU to deliver defeats to UK capital is socialist (regardless of whether it is correct or not).

 

[newbie]

So why not actually do the totting and demonstrate which way you think they would lean, not on the basis of the past, but in the present and the future?
.

firstly because I have neither the time, nor the inclination nor the ability. Secondly because the proposition that the EU isn't in any way progressive can only really be demonstrated with reference to how it has developed, what has actually happened as national governments have negotiated and agreed common approaches. Are we supposed to ignore the past and present?

As I said on the other thread, in the event of Brexit the immediate future is pretty clear, prior to the 2020 election all rules and all bilateral negotiations will be carried out by the Tories with a blank piece of paper. I see no progressive opportunity there, do you?

 

[andysays]

firstly because I have neither the time, nor the inclination nor the ability. Secondly because the proposition that the EU isn't in any way progressive can only really be demonstrated with reference to how it has developed, what has actually happened as national governments have negotiated and agreed common approaches. Are we supposed to ignore the past and present?

As I said on the other thread, in the event of Brexit the immediate future is pretty clear, prior to the 2020 election all rules and all bilateral negotiations will be carried out by the Tories with a blank piece of paper. I see no progressive opportunity there, do you?

I don't really have the time to address this properly now, but I'll get back to you later...

 

[kebabking]

...For the purposes of this thread, it's really not enough to point out that we who don't currently have control still won't have control if we leave, you need to come up with positive progressive reasons for staying...

perhaps its time to start thinking about lesser evils being positive?

while the EU has become a vastly more neo-liberal structure than it was previously, it is still a less neo-liberal structure than significant elements within the body politic would like it to be. it, some extent, places a break on the ability of those elements to do what they would like.

moreover, if the UK voted to leave the EU, not only would those breaks - limited as they are - be removed, but the internal politics within the UK would change: it looks pretty certain that Scotland would again hold an indyref, which this time would pass, meaning that at a stroke those 50 non-tory seats would disappear taking the tory majority from its current 17 to the best part of 70. not, i would think, something that would have no impact on its ability to pass legislation.

then, post referendum, you'd have to ask whether its likely that an electorate that had just voted for a xenophobic, insular, 'stop the EU getting in the way of business' proposal in a referendum would be an electorate that would turn around and vote for a non-xenophobic, non-insular, non neo-liberal government. if you think it would, i have an off-plan, beach front home in Northamptonshire that you might like to buy...

it very much seems to me that you can either have a foot of shit, or 2 feet of shit. there are, i'm sure, people who will say that there is no difference between one foot of shit and two feet of shit - however these people can probably be safely described as idiots, and moreover idiots who've never had to live in two feet of shit.

 

[mauvais]

I think any pro-labour argument for voting remain, needs to start from the point that the EU isn't progressive, that it is fully wedded to neo-liberalism and is the enemy.

It's not about whether this is true or not. It's about whether the EU integrated version of this is better or worse than the isolated domestic one, in any living timeframe. That's why totting up achievements matters.

I have near zero faith in what you might call the British left to achieve anything better post-exit, and plenty of belief that the enemies, as you put it, will have considerable successes. I mean, this has held true whilst within the EU for almost my entire lifetime, but the EU has been largely irrelevant to it.

When was the last time domestic progressive forces scored a victory and delivered a major improvement that wasn't part of a larger retreat or dismantled again soon after?

When was the last time the EU delivered the same? Because I can think of some of those, heavily compromised and ultimately part of the same agenda though they may be.

I cannot understand how you can look at the British political landscape, with so little contemporary success for the values you believe in, and think that it's somehow going to wind up better rather than worse once one of the brakes is removed.

 

[newbie]

Yes it does, it starts the debate from a pro-working class perspective. It separates the liberals (who believe in a nice 'progressive' form of capitalism, which the EU is part of) from socialists.

If the choice comes down to nice 'progressive' form of capitalism, which the EU is part of or the explicitly brutal neo-liberal model advocated by British and US capitalism (and that is the choice) then as a socialist my inclination is to go with the workers of Europe and all the protections and infrastructure improvements that collectivity has brought about for them and us.

The alternative isn't some non-neo-liberal opportunity for a workers island, it's TTIP targeted at a compliant Tory government who will happily and enthusiastically surrender on the non-trade aspects which the EU has both the scale and, to some extent, the will to resist. That's the choice we face, not Bob Crowe somehow improving the lot of the working class.

 

[mauvais]

Let me put it another way.

It's not a strategic choice over what will aid the struggle for workers rights and best accelerate us on our paths to an equitable and just society blah blah blah.

It's how many times you want to be fucked before you're smashed over the head for the last time, rolled in a carpet and thrown in a fucking ditch.

That's the status of the British left. They/we/whatever are not in any position to dictate or leverage anything meaningful in this context for the foreseeable future. Where's the history? Where's the track record? Where's the influence? Where's the votes? How much of the public gives a demonstrable shit about anything you have to say, on its own never mind when given any opposition?

It makes me properly angry that we're indulging in academic arguments about the textbook politics of the thing, when to do so means being wilfully and forcefully blind to the utterly miserable prospects that we already have and will continue to have in anyone's imagination. It is ALL about the least shit of the options and if we can't operate on that basis instead of absolutes then the next kicking is going to be a deserved one.

 

[stethoscope]

It's how many times you want to be fucked before you're smashed over the head for the last time, rolled in a carpet and thrown in a fucking ditch

I'm sure that's comforting for the Greeks, who have been on the receiving end of the 'progressive' EU doing just that.

It is ALL about the least shit of the options and if we can't operate on that basis instead of absolutes then the next kicking is going to be a deserved one.

So we end up with the status quo, a neo-liberal EU which reflects the majority neo-liberal governments that make it up. It seems to me that we can't effect any change in our own governments whilst they are part of the wider EU neo-liberal project. But we can at least try and destabilise neo-liberalism and pursue pro-socialist and pro-worker politics on individual governmental levels again if they're out. This is why I think Greece would have done better ultimately to come out of the EU so it could regain some of its own autonomy, instead of being beaten to a pulp by the EU demanding deeper austerity.

I've grappled with this 'shit choice' for years, always siding on the 'to stay in' because I fear what our own government, especially under the Tories will do when out of the EU. The Greek situation completely changed that for me. I still derive more hope that over time, the left can begin to fightback more successfully when they are not having to fight not only neo-liberal, right-wing governments, but also the weight of the neo-liberal EU also flexxing its weight and trying to police everybody in line. It might be a pipedream and I have no real solutions as to how things might be achieved, but it's surely more likely to give rise to the opportunity to shift things to the left than sticking with the status quo and hoping the EU will be a 'moderating influence'. It's not.