Progressive arguments for staying in the EU
- Thread starter Magnus McGinty
- Start date
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Our democracy may appear more democratic but it's pretty much an illusion IME.
We managed to elect then re-elect an austerity pushing government twice all by ourselves without any need for the EU to insist on us doing it, all on a mandate from something like 24% of the potential electorate. That's about as much democracy as we have.
Also worth pointing out that the main reason the EU has a democratic deficit is because the national politicians (particularly UK politicians) knew that making it democratic would undermine their positions and lead inevitably to a more federal Europe where national politicians were sub-ordinate to elected EU commissioners, president etc and they didn't like that idea. At least the democracy that we do have in the EU is based on a form of PR.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
re the thread title, has this one been done yet?
If we leave then we're leaving a trade block where free trade is balanced at least to some degree by social and environmental protection, with freedom of movement for all citizens within the block, and with at least a degree of democratic representation and scrutiny via the European Parliament.
We would be leaving that, but would remain within the WTO, so would essentially remain fully signed up to the worst of the neoliberal free trade rules that we're objecting to from the EU, but with a body that has no social or environmental protections, and specifically excludes them from it's remit, and without any democratic representation to that body, and we'd lose the clout within the WTO to stand up to it in any meaningful way.
That makes fuck all sense to me. For at least as long as we're in the WTO I'd prefer to stay within the EU and fight within that organisation to protect / extend those social and environmental protections, rather than attempt to do the same in a stand alone UK that was attempting to do that inside the WTO on it's own.
If we leave then we're leaving a trade block where free trade is balanced at least to some degree by social and environmental protection, with freedom of movement for all citizens within the block, and with at least a degree of democratic representation and scrutiny via the European Parliament.
We would be leaving that, but would remain within the WTO, so would essentially remain fully signed up to the worst of the neoliberal free trade rules that we're objecting to from the EU, but with a body that has no social or environmental protections, and specifically excludes them from it's remit, and without any democratic representation to that body, and we'd lose the clout within the WTO to stand up to it in any meaningful way.
That makes fuck all sense to me. For at least as long as we're in the WTO I'd prefer to stay within the EU and fight within that organisation to protect / extend those social and environmental protections, rather than attempt to do the same in a stand alone UK that was attempting to do that inside the WTO on it's own.
gosub
~#
Where to begin : please expect a longer reply in due course
In the mean time, rationally, anti austerity will find article 126 as ingrained as workers rights and social protection articles.
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
Seems like an appeal to authority. Remove the carrot and stick. You are adding another layer of bureaucratic authority on whose terms? As if putting yourself into the hands of supra national authority mitigates the neoliberals. That IS neoliberalism at its heart.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
not necessarily. Depends on the nature of that supranational entity. And you're (as in the UK govt - this isn't 'us' here) not 'putting yourself into the hands of a supranational entity", you're joining that entity. You think nothing 'from Brussels' has been initiated by the UK?
Supranational entities can add a layer of authority, but can also add a layer of protection. They're a double-edged sword.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
not when that body also enshrines social, environmental and human rights protection policies within it rather than pure free trade, as in the case of the WTO.
To call the EU a neoliberal project is really misunderstanding the term or misunderstanding the EU. The EU was founded on the basis of solidarity between nations, as well as the social, environmental and human rights protection it has a long history of providing state subsidies for industries, farming, economic regeneration of depressed regions and countries. That really isn't neoliberalism, though more recently there has been more of a move in that direction stemming really from the ECB and associated economic and finance directorate, there's still no way that it can be described as being a pure neoliberal project in anything like the same way the WTO can.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
ok, I'd agree that's probably the key element of the current EU set up that needs to be changed, and I suspect will end up being changed once the advocates of the current fad for austerity are removed oen way or another (which I think likely to happen at some point when it's really clear how badly the policy has failed), but there's a huge difference in the implementation of that between EURO and non-EURO countries.
The UK can be admonished and asked to reign in it's deficits, but it can't be fined for not achieving it, nor can it be held to ransom by the ECB in the same way as Greece because we print our own money.
Stability and Growth Pact: country-specific recommendations 2015 — EU - European Union business news and information | eubusiness.com
Last edited:
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
From what I've been reading the EU has been following a solidly neo-liberal path since the 90s. The reality is that the 'Social Chapter', etc. and any good that has brought also harks back to the early 90s and Maastricht? That's 20 years ago!
And since the most recent Eurozone crisis, the EU is a very different beast again with its very clear austerity agenda. Any nods to workers rights are encapsulated in how that's best for business and capital interests.
And since the most recent Eurozone crisis, the EU is a very different beast again with its very clear austerity agenda. Any nods to workers rights are encapsulated in how that's best for business and capital interests.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
It not semantics, you've made an utterly dishonest attempt to turn a poll of people view into a factual statement. Your point doesn't stand at all.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
join the warsaw pact instead. Is that still a thing. Probably is
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
I think the Non-Aligned Movement is still going.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
It's 20% of the potential electorate; 37% vote on a 66% turnout with a registration rate about 82%. No mandate at all. But you knew that.
My point, of course, is that (since the passing of cde. Benn) few of those who bang on about "sovereignty" call for the UK to leave the rather more sovereignty-sapping NATO and WTO.
Odd, that.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
so if not semantics then you're actually disputing the idea that the UK press is more rightwing than much of the rest of Europe?
Odd that you're presumably basing this on your personal opinion on it (as you've not given any other sources), and seeing that as trumping the opinions of thousands of people expressed via that poll, and they all must have got their perception of the political bias of the media in their countries wrong.
this seems a really odd thing to be getting wound up about, at worst I maybe should have said 'among the most rightwing press in Europe', but yes the overall point stands, we have a seriously rightwing press here, more so than in much of Europe.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Depends where in Europe, Polish media is way more right-wing than here so is Spain.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Only really in certain elements of the EU, particularly the finance ministry.
But in that time period, they've introduced many tighter environmental regulations, such as air pollution, engine efficiency, renewable energy, which aren't neoliberal policies
toblerone3
Grrrrr
.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Dunno about Poland, but I'd dispute the idea that the Spanish media is more r/w than here. El Pais is still widely read.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
El País isn't left-wing at all anymore. It is well to the right of even the Guardian, their attacks on Podemos are even more extreme than the Graunid's anti-Corbyn stance.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You're right. I'm out of date. I used to read it regularly, but I don't any more.
This from wiki
Defence of military action in Libya, the US in Syria, and presumably the EU in Crimea.
That's disappointing to hear.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I Have no idea I don't have familiarity with the press of enough european countries to make such a judgement, and I don't believe that you have either.
Poll's of people's perceptions need to be interpreted carefully. For example, this piece on how right/left wing people think they and the political parties are. On a whole of Scotland level there's relatively little difference between Labour and the SNP. However,
The fact that British people believe the press has a right-wing bias tell's us more about them than it does the press.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Right now, Nick Robinson is telling us about the cheeses
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
The WTO route would also involve signing bilateral trade agreements with the EU member states. Switzerland has 210, for instance. Not only would this be the most massive ball-ache, we would lose the advantage of having a bloc negotiate trade deals for us - this would mean being knocked down the priority order when cutting deals with other nations/blocs.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
I find it hard to see a scenario in which Brexit is a positive economically. We do over half of our trade with the EU, and Brexit would seem to threaten that.
The populist draw of the Brexit camp is limiting immigration - but it is worth noting that the two European countries outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland) still have to obey the four freedoms of movement (people, capital, goods, services). This is a non-negotiable part of being a member of the single market (either via the EEA or EFTA), and the only way of achieving it would therefore be to remain outside both, with the (inevitably crappier) bi-lateral trade agreements which it would imply.
We would also get screwed by regulations designed to shift business to the continent which we would have no say in determining, and no recourse to challenge within the EU's legal mechanisms. To give just one example: last year the ECJ overturned the ECB's new rule which would have forced euro clearing institutions to relocate to the Eurozone. An appeal would not have been possible if the UK was outside the single market.
The populist draw of the Brexit camp is limiting immigration - but it is worth noting that the two European countries outside the EU (Norway & Switzerland) still have to obey the four freedoms of movement (people, capital, goods, services). This is a non-negotiable part of being a member of the single market (either via the EEA or EFTA), and the only way of achieving it would therefore be to remain outside both, with the (inevitably crappier) bi-lateral trade agreements which it would imply.
We would also get screwed by regulations designed to shift business to the continent which we would have no say in determining, and no recourse to challenge within the EU's legal mechanisms. To give just one example: last year the ECJ overturned the ECB's new rule which would have forced euro clearing institutions to relocate to the Eurozone. An appeal would not have been possible if the UK was outside the single market.
newbie
undisambiguated
It's dismal right enough.
The framework of demands from US capital is laid out plainly enough with both TTIP and P(acific)TP. Investor 'rights' trump public policy at all levels of their domestic arrangements, and they insist on exporting that arrangement worldwide.
As you say the current process is opaque and undemocratic so we have to guess which national governments are pushing which way, but there are hints:
The UK with its special relationship is already the Atlanticist bridgehead, the EU country militarily, politically and economically most closely aligned to Washington and Wall St. Post-Brexit indyUK would be in greater competition with the EU for profitability based inward investment, but with a government made up of Leave campaigners (in whatever alignment) - cue clear push that it's in national best interests to go further in liberalisation, light touch regulation and the rest.
None of us knows what will happen. Not all of us think the US economic, social and regulatory model is admirable. IMO we're likely to get some form of TTIP come what may, but an independent UK will get a much nastier version than rumpEU.
Similar threads
