Progressive arguments for staying in the EU

[SpookyFrank]

But despite all the convincing arguments on both sides, I just can't see past the EU's support for the scandalous appropriation of the traditional Devonshire pasty recipe by the dastardly Cornish.

e2a: And don't even get me started on clotted cream

 

[laptop]

Until the day you come up with a workable strategy for achieving them, your 'aims' are dreams.

There is one such strategy, that followers of Trotsky fall back on when they're losing an argument, but which only the RCP (afaik) came clean about.

There will only - can only - be a revolution, they say, when the conditions of life of the working class are dire enough that the class is forced into it.

In one long word: immiserationism.

Hence, for example, the RCP attempted to sabotage campaigns against hospital closures, declaring this activity counter-revolutionary.

Over the years I've heard many followers advance arguments for leaving the EU that boil down to this. They would rather impose on the working class the purity of real, naked, US neo-liberalism and see what rises from the ashes. Usually while doing this they claimed some exclusive right to define what is "socialist".

 

[skyscraper101]

as i've said on one of the other threads, i really don't know.

my initial gut feeling is that if david cameron wants something, it must be wrong.

but then when IDS and gove and the biggest right wing twunts on the tory back benches want the other thing, that must be even more wrong.

I think a very large proportion of the voters will be making up their minds on the basis of simple rationales like this.

I just don't think most of the UK electorate are that engaged with any more complex arguments about such things as neo-liberalisism and socialist idealism.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

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

lol, former education secretary Michael Gove can't even do joined-up writing.

 

[brogdale]

I think a very large proportion of the voters will be making up their minds on the basis of simple rationales like this.

I just don't think most of the UK electorate are that engaged with any more complex arguments about such things as neo-liberalisism and socialist idealism.

Is it possible to become engaged with notions that are concealed?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

Agree with this. An argument for staying in the EU has to involve a belief in changing, or at least an aspiration to change, the EU a great deal from within. And those changes are about the opposite to anything Cameron is pretending to negotiate.

It is also valid to make the opposite point, though - any argument for voting out needs to start from the point that those that will be in power in the UK directly after leaving are fully wedded to neo-liberalism and are the enemy.

This referendum is basically asking people to choose what style of boot they want to be kicked with.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

I agree, but it won't happen.
One of the reasons it won't happen is because the above doesn't suit the media and political narratives of either side over the last 40 years. Acknowledging that the EU means neoliberalism - and that leaving the EU
means exactly the same, sans revolution - isn't a narrative our political classes are willing to give voice to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We've still got a way to go to reach US-level absence of social and worker rights. England now has the most expensive university fees in Europe, so they've managed to do that within the EU. But stripping away various rights for holiday, sickness and part-time workers would require leaving the EU. Yes, the EU is viciously neoliberal. Doesn't mean things couldn't be even worse outside the EU with the atlanticist cunts like Gove given free reign.

That's the argument the 'out' people need to counter, imo.

 

[lazythursday]

Let's pretend for a minute the last ten years had gone very differently, and we had a left-leaning Labour government getting stamped on by EU institutions for trying to enact policies that were mildly social-democratic. Of course in that circumstance I would vote to leave - and the political consequences of that vote would likely boost the left. But what we have is precisely the opposite and I just can't see how a Brexit vote won't strengthen the far right.

So yes, it's a choice between which style of boot gets to kick you, but by god I think they will be able to put new steel toecaps on the Brexit boot after the vote.

 

[gosub]

Agree with this. An argument for staying in the EU has to involve a belief in changing, or at least an aspiration to change, the EU a great deal from within. And those changes are about the opposite to anything Cameron is pretending to negotiate.

It is also valid to make the opposite point, though - any argument for voting out needs to start from the point that those that will be in power in the UK directly after leaving are fully wedded to neo-liberalism and are the enemy.

This referendum is basically asking people to choose what style of boot they want to be kicked with.

I can't see how there wouldn't be a General Election after a Leave vote. The public will have told pretty much the entire political establishment to think again, whilst there is no real consensus among Leave as to what to replace EU membership with. You'd need an election and some fluidity of current party system to get heads round it

 

[agricola]

If we leave, the EU is even more guaranteed to go badly wrong (because it will be Germany and its hangers-on vs the rest) and the UK will probably bring in some form of freedom of movement for labour anyway (given what business would have to do with a smaller pool of workers, ie: put wages up and improve conditions), albeit without the access to benefits or much rights whatsoever.

 

[red & green]

The real issues are being hidden and everything revolves around free movement of eu nats and benefits - right now for a uk cit with a non eu spouse or partner it is better to be in the EU due to the much better reunion rules -

But I suspect there will be no discussion of the issues raised here during a referendum - expect more xenophobic and racist rhetoric about " immigration "

 

[FiFi]

We've still got a way to go to reach US-level absence of social and worker rights. England now has the most expensive university fees in Europe, so they've managed to do that within the EU. But stripping away various rights for holiday, sickness and part-time workers would require leaving the EU. Yes, the EU is viciously neoliberal. Doesn't mean things couldn't be even worse outside the EU with the atlanticist cunts like Gove given free reign.

That's the argument the 'out' people need to counter, imo.

This is about where I am at present. The EU is bad, but things could be a lot worse outside!
It's not really a very inspiring or motivating choice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can't see how there wouldn't be a General Election after a Leave vote. The public will have told pretty much the entire political establishment to think again, whilst there is no real consensus among Leave as to what to replace EU membership with. You'd need an election and some fluidity of current party system to get heads round it

What is the mechanism for triggering that? Now that there are fixed terms, there would need to be a no-confidence vote in the Commons, no? I can see pigfucker planning for that, preparing a narrative that sees him saying that he's the right person to lead the UK through a difficult period of transition.

 

[gosub]

What is the mechanism for triggering that? Now that there are fixed terms, there would need to be a no-confidence vote in the Commons, no? I can see pigfucker planning for that, preparing a narrative that sees him saying that he's the right person to lead the UK through a difficult period of transition.

Its messy. You can do it with 434 MP's without no confidence (but that's finding 434 politicians thinking above and beyond their jobs). Cameron stays, he'd lose a no confidence vote 325 mp's and then things get constitutionally messy; Brenda allowing Boris to be PM to side step a no confidence vote?


Thank you Nick Clegg

 

[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?

OK, let's have a go at answering this.

I agree that we have to look at how the EU has developed, and in my opinion the way it has developed overall makes it far more difficult to believe that it is something which will bring progressive change to us in the future than it was, say, 30 years ago.

As far back as the time of the 70's Common Market referendum it was argued by some on the left (eg Tony Benn) that any potential British socialist/progressive government would be limited in what it could do by our membership of a larger European grouping. That was the "left" argument for getting out then, and if it was valid then, it's far more valid now.

Not only are there far more partners now than there were then, meaning that a hypothetical progressive British government would have to persuade more partners to allow it to follow its own socialist-inclined policies, but the EU constitution now explicitly dictates the limits which individual governments of member nations can act in ways it didn't back then.

As I mentioned in my previous post, neo-liberalism has now been written into the EU at a constitutional level, which means that any incoming socialist-inclined government (think of some of the things which Corbyn has advocated, and which have significant levels of support among the electorate, like re-nationalising the railways) would not be able to carry out the progressive policies it was elected on and still remain within the EU because the EU constitition forbids it. This has been covered a number of times before on various threads, and maybe someone with a better memory than me can confirm and expand.

I agree that the immediate future if we vote to leave the EU is not all automatically great for progressive change, but it would allow at least the possibility of a future government bringing in progressive policies, a possibility which the EU constitution now explicitly rules out. And that is why I have been persuaded that leaving the EU is now a necessary (but not a sufficient) pre-condition for any significant progressive change in Britain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree that the immediate future if we vote to leave the EU is not all automatically great for progressive change, .

That's a contender for understatement of the year. The immediate future looks fucking awful.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry but this idea that the EU is the only thing holding back capital is not just nonsense, it's dangerous. I've quoted it before but I'll do it again because it can't be said too many times

People mistake ameliorationism - farming subsidies and all that "good" shit - for effective brakes on the ingress of capitalism into national economies.

 

[andysays]

That's a contender for understatement of the year. The immediate future looks fucking awful.

The immediate future looks awful either way. But in my opinion the longer term future at least has a possibility of being better if we leave than if we stay.

And I hope I can rely on your vote when the "understatement of the year" is chosen

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People mistake ameliorationism - farming subsidies and all that "good" shit - for effective brakes on the ingress of capitalism into national economies.

Or, people are under no illusions, but see ameliorationism as better than nothing. I'm a broken record on this, but I still don't hear answers - those worker rights currently protected by EU law, such as part-timers' holiday/sick pay entitlement, which of them will remain when the UK leaves the EU? Who among the ruling tories doesn't want to strip workers of as many rights as they can as the UK establishes its own sets of worker rights? What makes anyone think this won't happen?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The immediate future looks awful either way. But in my opinion the longer term future at least has a possibility of being better if we leave than if we stay

It also has a possibility of being worse. I can see exactly how it could get much worse very quickly if Atlanticist Tories start dictating the agenda as new UK-specific bills of rights and regulations are drawn up. How do you see it being better? Serious question - I don't see any reason for optimism on this front. The UK isn't suddenly going to turn into Norway.

 

[andysays]

It also has a possibility of being worse. I can see exactly how it could get much worse very quickly if Atlanticist Tories start dictating the agenda as new UK-specific bills of rights and regulations are drawn up. How do you see it being better? Serious question - I don't see any reason for optimism on this front.

I've only said it will create a possibility of being better, not that better will be automatic.

But how that might begin to happen would be a Conservative party in disarray following a Leave vote losing the next General Election to a sort-of-social-democratic-ish Labour party which was actually able to pursue vaguely progressive policies because they were no longer automatically prohibited by our membership of the EU.

And that might be a start and might enable further possibilites being opened up.

How do you (or anyone else) see any significant progressive change coming about if we stay in the EU?

 

[laptop]

vaguely progressive policies ... automatically prohibited by our membership of the EU...

Which are?

 

[butchersapron]

Which are?

Well the sort of basic timid social democracy of corbyn for starters.

 

[laptop]

Other social democrats even find ways to do state ownership... and expand it to run London buses and stuff in the UK.

What specific policies are impossible?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

those worker rights currently protected by EU law, such as part-timers' holiday/sick pay entitlement, which of them will remain when the UK leaves the EU? Who among the ruling tories doesn't want to strip workers of as many rights as they can as the UK establishes its own sets of worker rights? What makes anyone think this won't happen?

The question I would like to ask is where did these EU-level protections arise from? Are they present because labour is strong enough on a European scale to push for them? Or are they just vestiges of a post-war social-democratic impulse, soon to be eroded as corporate interests capture more and more of the EUs institutional power.

In other words, if we end up staying in the EU, how do we ensure that those worker protections are not stolen from us at some point anyway? What democratic forms exist for us to exact influence on the decision makers to prevent this?

 

[butchersapron]

The question I would like to ask is where did these EU-level protections arise from? Are they present because labour is strong enough on a European scale to push for them? Or are they just vestiges of a post-war social-democratic impulse, soon to be eroded as corporate interests capture more and more of the EUs institutional power.

In other words, if we end up staying in the EU, how do we ensure that those worker protections are not stolen from us at some point anyway? What democratic forms exist for us to exact influence on the decision makers to prevent this?

They're not capturing power - they are in power. These protections are residues of the social-europe nonsense that was defeated in the early 90s - a period that the pro-eu left are stuck in. They didn't like thatcher, they had no purchase elsewhere, they looked to european top-down legislation.

What do these regulations mean in Greece - nothing. Zero.

Nothing.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

They're not capturing power - they are in power. These protections are residues of the social-europe nonsense that was defeated in the early 90s - a period that the pro-eu left are stuck in. They didn't like thatcher, they had no purchase elsewhere, they looked to european top-down legislation.

What do these regulations mean in Greece - nothing. Zero.

None.

Well quite. I was attempting to be somewhat rhetorical in my question-asking.

 

[butchersapron]

Lots of nationalists saying in/out would be good for the nation - the assumptions of shared interests there for all to see. Nothing about any internationalist vision, nothing about holing below the waterline the body imposing austerity across europe as tool for capital. Lot of self-interest. Or at least, talking politically in these stupid terms.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The question I would like to ask is where did these EU-level protections arise from? Are they present because labour is strong enough on a European scale to push for them? Or are they just vestiges of a post-war social-democratic impulse, soon to be eroded as corporate interests capture more and more of the EUs institutional power.

In other words, if we end up staying in the EU, how do we ensure that those worker protections are not stolen from us at some point anyway? What democratic forms exist for us to exact influence on the decision makers to prevent this?

Those are good questions. Specifically wrt part-time worker pay and conditions, these rules came in within the last 20 years. So not vestiges of the post-war settlement - the UK's post-war settlement had been pretty poor wrt women in the workforce generally, and this is an example of that. It's wrong to think of these things being imposed on the UK by Europe, though - the UK is part of Europe, some of the impetus to get these rules came from the UK.

How do we keep these protections and work for others? Same way as always, no? Remaining in the EU doesn't magically solve anything any more than leaving does.