Progressive arguments for staying in the EU

[weltweit]

 

[redsquirrel]

Nine out of 10 of the country’s top economists working across academia, the City, industry, small businesses and the public sector believe the British economy will be harmed by Brexit, according to the biggest survey of its kind ever conducted.

Lovely progressive stuff

 

[NoXion]

I honestly don't get why Varoufakis thinks staying in the EU is a good idea. Surely he of all people should know why the EU is something to be cast aside if at all possible?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I honestly don't get why Varoufakis thinks staying in the EU is a good idea. Surely he of all people should know why the EU is something to be cast aside if at all possible?

It is complicated but I think it has a parallel with the idea of socialism in one country not being viable. He has read his history.

 

[newbie]

I honestly don't get why Varoufakis thinks staying in the EU is a good idea. Surely he of all people should know why the EU is something to be cast aside if at all possible?

his statement is here

The reason public services are failing is the rolling austerity that cloaks a vicious class war against Britain’s poor; a war that would have happened even if the UK border were hermetically sealed.
.
.
.
Brexit would not restore sovereignty, rationality or public services to Britain, but it would hasten the disintegration of the EU. Might this be a good reason to vote leave? Progressives must make a judgment call: do they believe something good may come out of the collapse of our reactionary, undemocratic EU? Or will its collapse plunge the continent into an economic and political vortex that no Brexit can shield Britain from?

 

[butchersapron]

It is complicated but I think it has a parallel with the idea of socialism in one country not being viable. He has read his history.

Given that he's not a socialist I doubt that is his reason. And if it were, it would be irrelevant.

 

[butchersapron]

....and it's also quite amazing that in under a year vf has managed to make himself appear as the hero of the break crisis rather than one of the villains as he was correctly judged at the time. The liberal left memory is a truly scary beast.

 

[newbie]

Lovely progressive stuff

It's not is it? It's a bunch of self-interested professionals chosen for the survey because they belong to royal societies, which immediately sets the klaxons off. They're stating their case without mentioning that the EU gravy train provides lots of cushy jobs for economists. If Leave lose any economists who lined up with them are likely to have damaged their career, and they're not natural gamblers like politicians. Which may or may not explain the sting in the tail of that article.

relatively few economists have publicly come out saying that leaving the EU would be good for British growth, and only a handful have signed up in support of the pro-Brexit group Economists for Britain.
.
.
.
Economists for Brexit, who base their forecasts on a model developed by the Cardiff University professor and arch-monetarist Patrick Minford, argue that a fall in sterling, a bonfire of labour protections and the abolition of import tariffs will boost trade after a brief period of uncertainty. The free market group has said job losses in areas of the economy protected by the EU, such as agriculture and manufacturing, will be more than made up for by a booming services sector.

I'm presuming that Economists for Britain amd Economists for Brexit are the same thing and it's just sloppy journalism. Edit: nope, see below

 

[newbie]

So Economists for Brexit. There's apparently only 8 of them. Here's their statement on some of the area that might concern this thread. I'm not sure much comment is necessary, except that the author is one Tim Congdon (to be found at www.timcongdon4ukip.com) who quotes himself in point 4.

Four areas of regulation can be highlighted. First, European governments have been more emphatic
than the global average about the dangers of global warming (Robinson, 2008). The EU has therefore
adopted the renewables agenda with greater zeal than most of the world’s nations and forced member
states to replace low-cost by high-cost energy sources. Coal-fred power stations have been closed
down, offshore wind farms built and so on. In an article in the Financial Times in January 2014, Lakshi
Mittal, the Indian entrepreneur with interests in steel and heavy industry in many countries, warned
that EU’s energy policies had undermined the competitiveness of its manufacturing industries. The
recent problems of Tata Steel bear this out.
Second, the EU has pressed for social legislation (such as the 2003 Working Time Directive and
the 2004 Gender Equality Directive) that adds to companies’ costs and reduces employment. Open
Europe, a think tank that regards itself as neutral in the referendum debate, estimated in 2011 that EU
social legislation by itself made the UK worse off by £15 billion, about 1 per cent of national output
(Booth et al, 2011).
Third, control over fnancial regulation passed from UK authorities to EU bodies connected to the
Commission as a result of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Since then, several new interferences – including
the cap on bankers’ bonuses and an outright attack on fnancial derivatives businesses – have
damaged the City of London and reduced its growth. For 40 years to 2008, the City had been the
most dynamic and successful part of the UK economy.
Finally, literally thousands of regulations to ban substances and manage processes have emanated
from EU institutions since 1973 - and particularly since the drive for “the single market” began in
1992. They have affected activities that range from fne art auctions to herbal medicines, and have
disturbed established and proftable businesses. Often the only aim has been to impose on the UK a
standard already existing in France or Germany, even though the UK had previously been happy with
its own arrangements (Congdon, 2013).
1

 

[laptop]

So Economists for Brexit. There's apparently only 8 of them. Here's their statement on some of the area that might concern this thread. I'm not sure much comment is necessary.

That summarises a progressive case for staying rather well...

 

[butchersapron]

Why are anti progressive (eugh!) economists (double eugh) being listed and quoted on this thread?

 

[newbie]

Why are anti progressive (eugh!) economists (double eugh) being listed and quoted on this thread?

no specific reason other than following a link and not much liking what I found.

We've had the discussion about labels. I doubt anyone is any happier with 'progessive' than with left, lefty, leftist, socialist or anything else. But some sort of collective name is useful, if only to differentiate from the more repellent end of the out campaigning: what would you prefer?

 

[laptop]

Why are anti progressive (eugh!) economists (double eugh) being listed and quoted on this thread?

It was handy to be reminded of why the Mintonites want to quit:

1. They like (or deny) global warming and the EU has taken more steps to deal with it than individual governments would;
2. They want to repeal the Working Time Directive and the Gender Equality Directive
3. They don't want the City regulated; and
4. They object to "literally thousands of regulations to ban substances" so seem to prefer that capital had more freedom to poison us.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Usually, if a mainstream economist is pronouncing on something then the truth is to be found in the opposite direction. There are exceptions of course, with some academics attempting to break out of the neoclassical echo-chamber, but as a general rule it is best to ignore economists.