Leavers on the 'left' - Main arguments and analysis please...

[xenon]

Yes, Vintage Paw, that ultra-utilitarian argument can be made: anyone making it surely forfeits any claim to care about the welfare of the people as such; rather, they want to forward their ideology at most any price.

There is no one here that has been advancing that argument though. Straw man.

Spike the guns you are facing, there are more held by others but these are the ones you can see.

In short. Choose your own aphorism. But that is how I would attempt to clumsily summarise the progressive leave. Yet, I am still undecided .

 

[ska invita]

eu is anti working class, pro austerity, neo liberal, against my interests and what I believe in. look at Greece, look at the plight of refugees....

Lets look at Greece and the plight of refugees...

Greece needed to borrow billions off the troika and got the expected terms. They tried hard to bargain, but the one trump card they had was to leave the Eurozone. Yet they didnt do that as the public by vast majority didnt want that to happen no matter what else was going on. The greek public didnt want to leave and even Yanis Varoufakis doesnt want to leave. Why do you think that is? Di you think they are deluded about the nature of the EU? Genuine question... Why do you think that is, and how is the uk different?

As to refugees, you are suggesting voting to Leave is somehow going to be better for the plight of refugees! What it is is a vote for an Australian migrant system with purple UKIP wallpaper in the new detention centers. And what momentum it might give to political racism we'll have to wait and see.... Refugees and migrants in general are the punch bag and collateral damage of an exit.

And thats what this will be if it goes brexit. A disruption.

Were you for Scottish independence? I was, and a big part of that was the disruption it would cause. I want that same disruption you do. But what I calculated at the time is that independence under the snp wouldn't fuck over particularly the poorest in Scotland, and that the transition could be done in a successful and positive way. It was still a gamble but I thought it would be alright.

To me this ukip led Exit is the exact opposite... Its short term impact is unknown and the people must vulnerable to any more financial pain do not even exist in the minds of Johnson and Farage. What is the price of this Disruption and who might pay it? Are you confident it won't make peoples lives even harder?

If a Scottish equivalent of Johnson and Farage were the dominant power behind Scottish independence there is no way on earth I'd have backed it, would you? How is this different?

 

[brogdale]

The greek public didnt want to leave and even Yanis Varoufakis doesnt want to leave. Why do you think that is? Di you think they are deluded about the nature of the EU? Genuine question... Why do you think that is, and how is the uk different?

A genuine and good question that I might have struggled with had I not read the conversation with Stathis Kouvelakis linked to in this post...
Well worth the time it takes to read.

 

[inva]

Lets look at Greece and the plight of refugees...

Greece needed to borrow billions off the troika and got the expected terms. They tried hard to bargain, but the one trump card they had was to leave the Eurozone. Yet they didnt do that as the public by vast majority didnt want that to happen no matter what else was going on. The greek public didnt want to leave and even Yanis Varoufakis doesnt want to leave. Why do you think that is? Di you think they are deluded about the nature of the EU? Genuine question... Why do you think that is, and how is the uk different?

As to refugees, you are suggesting voting to Leave is somehow going to be better for the plight of refugees! What it is is a vote for an Australian migrant system with purple UKIP wallpaper in the new detention centers. And what momentum it might give to political racism we'll have to wait and see.... Refugees and migrants in general are the punch bag and collateral damage of an exit.

I don't know why Greek people didn't want to leave, maybe they felt it was too great a risk, maybe they thought they wouldn't be able to withstand the punishment threatened by the markets given what had already been inflicted on them. I don't have any reason to think they were deluded.

I'm not suggesting that voting to leave will be better for refugees, but the EU is the subject of the referendum not Farage or Australian systems, and the EU is a callous murderous institution. I won't support it.

 

[ska invita]

I'm not suggesting that voting to leave will be better for refugees, but the EU is the subject of the referendum not Farage or Australian systems

That's where we disagree then. This is not a vote in a vacuum, its one with ukip style right in the ascendancy and set to feel justified to act off the back of a leave vote.

The impact of it isn't happening in a vacuum it's happening in a particular moment in time with particular consequences. I think those consequences need giving serious thought and recognition. What I see leave doing is enabling and empowering the different flavours of kippers...moving us away from the eu and nearer to a U.S.model. Fuck that.

Will come back on the Greek stuff tonight.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Their one mp will do all this?

 

[inva]

That's where we disagree then. This is not a vote in a vacuum, its one with ukip style right in the ascendancy and set to feel justified to act off the back of a leave vote.

The impact of it isn't happening in a vacuum it's happening in a particular moment in time with particular consequences. I think those consequences need giving serious thought and recognition. What I see leave doing is enabling and empowering the different flavours of kippers...moving us away from the eu and nearer to a U.S.model. Fuck that.

Will come back on the Greek stuff tonight.

UKIP or whoever can feel whatever they like, they'll have to learn you can't always get what you want in this life.

The current government hasn't just been able to do whatever it likes, a potentially even weaker Tory party may be less able still. Our struggle, our demands, our past victories is still what's holding them back - eu or no eu.

 

[YouSir]

That's where we disagree then. This is not a vote in a vacuum, its one with ukip style right in the ascendancy and set to feel justified to act off the back of a leave vote.

The impact of it isn't happening in a vacuum it's happening in a particular moment in time with particular consequences. I think those consequences need giving serious thought and recognition. What I see leave doing is enabling and empowering the different flavours of kippers...moving us away from the eu and nearer to a U.S.model. Fuck that.

Will come back on the Greek stuff tonight.

What's the difference between UKIP economical ideals and Tory ones? The right already has power, they already cast every argument as one where only they are 'reasonable'. They already paint even Corbyn as a nutty, out there radical. And the media does the same. The EU is much the same with its commitment to 'opening markets'. Every faction currently involved in governing at the moment would happily, say, privatize the NHS, or remove worker protections. What stops them is their fear of public backlash. The public won't become corrupt neo liberals just because Boris or Farage tangentially wins.

I don't get the argument that a Leave vote fuels the vicious right, they're already in charge. Nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Is Johnson significantly to the right of pugfucker anyway?

 

[TruXta]

(((pugs)))

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

 

[ska invita]

I don't get the argument that a Leave vote fuels the vicious right, they're already in charge. Nothing to fear but fear itself.

have you seen the Exit campaign? Does it blow wind in their sail or not? Like Dotty said exit will cause a disruption. Who do you think will be best placed to make the UK in their image in the wake of that disruption?

 

[DotCommunist]

Will come back on the Greek stuff tonight.

that piece brogdale linked to is a depressing but informative one

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

have you seen the Exit campaign? Does it blow wind in their sail or not? Like Dotty said exit will cause a disruption. Who do you think will be best placed to make the UK in their image in the wake of that disruption?

A split Tory party with a tiny majority? That single kipper in parliament? I dunno, who?

 

[YouSir]

have you seen the Exit campaign? Does it blow wind in their sail or not? Like Dotty said exit will cause a disruption. Who do you think will be best placed to make the UK in their image in the wake of that disruption?

Whoever wins the subsequent election after the Tories have a civil war. Which is going to be far more complex than 'Boris was Out, Out won, he wins'.

More generally though the choice you make there is to let your vote on an issue which will have an effect on all of us for the next century be decided by the right's capacity to rig the debate by placing itself on both sides - or voting on the issue on it'd merits. Which is what the referendum should be. Though many on the left seem willing to capitulate to a rigged public discourse.

 

[weltweit]

.. More generally though the choice you make there is to let your vote on an issue which will have an effect on all of us for the next century be decided by the right's capacity to rig the debate by placing itself on both sides - or voting on the issue on it'd merits. Which is what the referendum should be. Though many on the left seem willing to capitulate to a rigged public discourse.

That is a good point well made.
Either remain or leave the government will still be tory until the next election.
And at that election what happens is anyone's guess.

 

[Azrael]

[...] The impact of it isn't happening in a vacuum it's happening in a particular moment in time with particular consequences. I think those consequences need giving serious thought and recognition. [...]

Absolutely. Not only would Out empower the hard right, it may well strip Britons of their right to live and work in Europe, students of their right to study abroad at the same price as citizens, crash the economy, and above all, whip up a climate of hatred against migrants and refugees. Those aren't the people causing harm, but they're the people who'd suffer the consequences. Cameron and co can jet off to Tuscany and forget it all.

Voting Leave 'cause you want Britain to be an independent country, sure, I get that: but voting Leave to stick it to rich leaders who'll sail through whatever, at the expense of ordinary people?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The current Junker Commission isn't the EU: if the center-right EPP hadn't done best outa the 2014 election to the European Parliament, a social democrat could've been elected instead.

Brexit won't do anything to help turn the EU around: only campaigning for more progressive groups will do that.

I can never tell whether this sort of argument stems from confusion or is merely disingenuous.

The Social Democrats in the European Parliament are neoliberals, as the EPP are and as the ALDE are and the "Conservatives and Reformists" are. Anyone proposed by the European Council and accepted by any of the four largest European Parliament groups will inevitably be a neoliberal. Yes, there might have been someone else as Commission President, a Marin or a Prodi. But that would have represented only a different face pushing neoliberalism. Further, even that different face would have been presiding over the same team of Commissioners, nominated by the same governments. It wouldn't even be the same political orientation but pushed by different people, it would have been the same orientation pushed by the same people bar one.

Further, the basic direction of the EU is determined not by elections to the mostly decorative parliament, nor by the staff of the Commission, but by the Treaties. Writing enforced neoliberalism out of the Treaties is not a matter of "campaigning for more progressive groups". Even if the GUE/NGL were to somehow gain an overall majority in the European Parliament, that would not change the underlying Treaties. They could only be changed to remove their neoliberal spine if all 28 countries simultaneously elected non-neoliberal governments, those governments lasted long enough to draft and agree new treaties and then they were ratified in all 28 states. That will not happen. Anyone who thinks about it at all knows that will not happen. Presenting it to people as an alternative way forward is complete bollocks.

There are rational arguments for the Remain side, but such arguments are necessarily about the consequences for British domestic politics. Anyone talking about Another Europe or a reformed EU is a fool or a knave.

 

[Azrael]

It stems, I suspect, from disagreement over what "neoliberal" means: a mixed state being at its heart, most all social democrats support a strong, competitive market economy; neoliberals wanna cut the state back to the bone, along with regulation that saves capitalism from itself.

As for the EU treaties being neoliberal: yes, they're undoubtedly pro-market, particularly the four freedoms; but they also impose significant restrictions on the freedom of companies to do what they like (short of a handful of narrowly-drawn civil wrongs).

It's true that changing them's hard, but that's directly tied to the EU being an alliance of nation states, and not a federal republic. If there's popular will across Europe, with a social democratic bloc in the European Parliament, and a majority of European governments being social democratic, there'll be a powerful mandate for change.

What's the alternative? The EEA? Bilateral trade treaties between European states, without any of the social directives? They'd allow European countries to cut wages and protections as they raced each other to the bottom. That'd undoubtedly make the buccaneer free market crowd happy, but it wouldn't do much for workers' rights.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It stems, I suspect, from disagreement over what "neoliberal" means: a mixed state being at its heart, most all social democrats support a strong, competitive market economy; neoliberals wanna cut the state back to the bone, along with regulation that saves capitalism from itself.

As for the EU treaties being neoliberal: yes, they're undoubtedly pro-market, particularly the four freedoms; but they also impose significant restrictions on the freedom of companies to do what they like (short of a handful of narrowly-drawn civil wrongs).

It's true that changing them's hard, but that's directly tied to the EU being an alliance of nation states, and not a federal republic. If there's popular will across Europe, with a social democratic bloc in the European Parliament, and a majority of European governments being social democratic, there'll be a powerful mandate for change. People can "campaign for progressive groups" until the heat death of the universe and it will be a complete waste of time in so far as altering the neoliberal nature of the EU is concerned.

What's the alternative? The EEA? Bilateral trade treaties between European states, without any of the social directives? They'd allow European countries to cut wages and protections as they raced each other to the bottom. That'd undoubtedly make the buccaneer free market crowd happy, but it wouldn't do much for workers' rights.

No, it stems from you talking bollocks about something you either don't understand or believe your audience doesn't understand.

All of the four largest European parliamentary groups are neoliberal by any meaningful definition of that term. Your attempts to exclude one of them, the Social Democrats, from that category is simply obfuscatory. Further this shit about "popular will across Europe", a strong (neoliberal) "social democratic bloc" in the largely decorative parliament and "powerful mandates for change" is bollocks. None of that allows the Treaties to be changed. That could all be true for the next thousand years and it wouldn't change the basic reality of the EU. It wouldn't change anything even if the former "social democrats" were actually still social democrats. The EU can only be substantially changed, not by "powerful mandates" or "strong blocs" or anything similar but, by all 28 countries simultaneously electing meaningfully left wing anti-neoliberal governments, drafting new Treaties and ratifying them. Even one country can block any such change indefinitely. There has never once in history been left wing governments elected in every single state simultaneously and there is zero prospect of that happening in the reasonably forseeable future, particularly now that the former social democrats are among the keenest neoliberals.

You know that this is true, which is why you don't talk about the actual process that change would have to involve and instead stick to vague waffle about powerful mandates. It's cynical shit, relying on a general ignorance of the actual EU institutions and treaties to persuade.

 

[Azrael]

No, it stems from you talking bollocks about something you either don't understand or believe your audience doesn't understand.

All of the four largest European parliamentary groups are neoliberal by any meaningful definition of that term. Your attempts to exclude one of them, the Social Democrats, from that category is simply obfuscatory. Further this shit about "popular will across Europe", a strong (neoliberal) "social democratic bloc" in the largely decorative parliament and "powerful mandates for change" is bollocks. None of that allows the Treaties to be changed. That could all be true for the next thousand years and it wouldn't change the basic reality of the EU. It wouldn't change anything even if the former "social democrats" were actually still social democrats. The EU can only be substantially changed, not by "powerful mandates" or "strong blocs" or anything similar but, by all 28 countries simultaneously electing meaningfully left wing anti-neoliberal governments, drafting new Treaties and ratifying them. Even one country can block any such change indefinitely. There has never once in history been left wing governments elected in every single state simultaneously and there is zero prospect of that happening in the reasonably forseeable future, particularly now that the former social democrats are among the keenest neoliberals.

You know that this is true, which is why you don't talk about the actual process that change would have to involve and instead stick to vague waffle about powerful mandates. It's cynical shit, relying on a general ignorance of the actual EU institutions and treaties to persuade.

Kindly dial it back or this'll become yet more bombardment, which this campaign's seen more than enough of.

Treaty change may require unanimity, but as you know, with the spread QMV, directives and regulations don't. Nor d'you need a social democratic government in every EU country to horse trade for treaty changes (which changes, exactly, d'you want to see?).

If you believe that neoliberalism doesn't require a belief in maximum deregulation and in a minimal state, what does it require?

Most important are the alternatives to the EU: how will switching to bilateral trade treaties improve workers' rights? Or are you proposing that an entirely new pan-European organization be established? If so, how will it it come about, and avoid the flaws of the EU?

This isn't getting started on the economic destabilization of the whole process of dismantling the EU, which is going to harm workers more than anyone.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Kindly dial it back or this'll become yet more bombardment, which this campaign's seen more than enough of.

No. You are deliberately misleading people and the only appropriate response to you is to point that out bluntly.

Treaty changes require unanimity. Everything else only exists within the boundaries set by the Treaties. The Treaties are the central issue. Nothing can be fundamentally changed without changing them. You know this. You are deliberately trying to confuse people about it however.

No, you don't need governments made up of the neoliberal former "social democrats" in all 28 countries to remove neoliberalism from the basic structure of the EU for the simple reason that almost all of the former "social democrats" are themselves devotees of neoliberalism. Not that there is any possibility of 28 governments of former "social democrats" coming into being anyway. What would actually be needed is 28 simultaneous and reasonably long lasting left wing governments of the non-neoliberal left, all agreed on the need to draft and ratify a new Treaty or Treaties. There is no possibility of that happening in the remotely forseeable future, given that it has never happened at any point in the past, even when the former "social democrats" were still social democrats, and even one country can block such change forever.

Therefore no fundamental or significant progressive change to the basis of the EU is possible. And therefore you are lying to people when you suggest otherwise, despite knowing that the EU is, at its core, an agreement between neoliberal governments to march in lockstep towards a neoliberal dystopia, pausing only to brutalise any state that seeks to change direction.

I can respect people who argue that while all of the above is true for various conjunctural reasons voting to leave now, given the balance of political forces in Britain, would make things worse. That's a reasonable position that honest people can put forward and defend without lying to their audience. Telling people that we can reform the EU away from its neoliberal structure is simply a lie however and it should be responded to as a lie.

 

[Azrael]

No. You are deliberately misleading people and the only appropriate response to you is to point that out bluntly.

Treaty changes require unanimity. Everything else only exists within the boundaries set by the Treaties. The Treaties are the central issue. Nothing can be fundamentally changed without changing them. You know this. You are deliberately trying to confuse people about it however.

No, you don't need governments made up of the neoliberal former "social democrats" in all 28 countries to remove neoliberalism from the basic structure of the EU for the simple reason that almost all of the former "social democrats" are themselves devotees of neoliberalism. Not that there is any possibility of 28 governments of former "social democrats" coming into being anyway. What would actually be needed is 28 simultaneous and reasonably long lasting left wing governments of the non-neoliberal left, all agreed on the need to draft and ratify a new Treaty or Treaties. There is no possibility of that happening in the remotely forseeable future, given that it has never happened at any point in the past, even when the former "social democrats" were still social democrats, and even one country can block such change forever.

Therefore no fundamental or significant progressive change to the basis of the EU is possible. And therefore you are lying to people when you suggest otherwise, despite knowing that the EU is, at its core, an agreement between neoliberal governments to march in lockstep towards a neoliberal dystopia, pausing only to brutalise any state that seeks to change direction.

I can respect people who argue that while all of the above is true for various conjunctural reasons voting to leave now, given the balance of political forces in Britain, would make things worse. That's a reasonable position that honest people can put forward and defend without lying to their audience. Telling people that we can reform the EU away from its neoliberal structure is simply a lie however and it should be responded to as a lie.

Disagreeing in good faith isn't lying.

You've not said how the social democratic parties are "neoliberal" in any substantive sense; you've not specificed which treaty changes you want to see; you've not said how domestic reform is likelier absent the EU; and most importantly, you've not said which pan-European replacement you'd like so see, let alone offered evidence that it's likely to come about.

This is the case for Lexit?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Disagreeing in good faith isn't lying.

I know. You are not arguing in good faith.

 

[Azrael]

I know. You are not arguing in good faith.

Even if you were right (you're not), it does nothing to help the Lexit case. You haven't shown that the alternative is better, or that an exit vote is economically wise. Give that, it's little wonder that accusations of lying are all that's left to you.

 

[ska invita]

More generally though the choice you make there is to let your vote on an issue which will have an effect on all of us for the next century be decided by the right's capacity to rig the debate by placing itself on both sides - or voting on the issue on it'd merits. Which is what the referendum should be. Though many on the left seem willing to capitulate to a rigged public discourse.

but but but Corbyn is for Remain

Ive convinced myself that Leave is inherent with dangers - itll be bad for migrants, it will embolden and empower the ukipish right, it'll immediately hurt financially, and the poorer the more itll hurt, etc etc etc.... that said, now ive convinced myself i feel sick at the thought of remain winning and nothing changing. Like I said to dotty i want that disruption as much as anyone.... You had a sense of the establishment in nerves this week and it felt good to me............my heart wants more of that feeling of change.....

...but my my mind reckons the stakes are too high, and the odds for a good outcome too low. What makes me not totally despair at the notion that we'll carry on as normal if Remain wins is that in my understanding the current system is far from stable, and there are ruptures and earthquakes building all along the faultlines. If its disruption we want we probably wont have to wait long for it, as it can come in many ways still. And I think when it does the left will be better able to deal with it by not handing the ukip right this victory now.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

No one has yet given me an evidence-based case to convince that socialism would and could be built here outside the EU, if such a case is given on this thread please point me to it. Tbh though, if we leave then the short and medium term look set to be a carnival of reaction. Not that i can endorse the EU at all.

 

[brogdale]

No one has yet given me an evidence-based case to convince that socialism would and could be built here outside the EU, if such a case is given on this thread please point me to it. Tbh though, if we leave then the short and medium term look set to be a carnival of reaction. Not that i can endorse the EU at all.

You saying that without the EU socialism is impossible?

 

[Biscuitician]

While i don't like the Eu for the reasons already given, surely leaving (even though the process will take a few years to resolve) puts us at the mercy of the Tories in power?

 

[TruXta]

We're already "at their mercy", so what's new?