Bollocks to Brexit

[The Real Ravenhurst]

Well, I think it’s deeper than just that, though clearly that’s a start. The culture of the EU is complex. I think the Commission has a lot to do with it, and like all civil services, they have a tendency to control, only they get more role in originating and shaping policy than certainly the UK civil service do. I also think the multi-stranded structure promotes a culture of lobbying by special interests including industry (i’ve done my bit at that) and the physical remoteness of Brussels from everyone’s home country loosens the sense of responsibility to electorates (and anyway MEPs are on average less significant players than MPs). I also think the more countries the EU acquires, the more that promotes a sense of the desperate need to keep control and order. Nanny knows best.

I (clearly) voted remain. But I think the fact that remaining in the EU is so manifestly better than leaving it in the way we are doing and getting more so all the time, leads to a kind of denial that there is also much wrong with the EU. If we ever have a third referendum and if we (remain) are to win it, we have to recognise that people can have real reasons for not liking the EU, including left leaning people.

https://diem25.org/what-is-diem25/

[Iris]

https://diem25.org/what-is-diem25/

They lost me at sentence 1:

"For all their concerns with global competitiveness, migration and terrorism, only one prospect truly terrifies the Powers of Europe: Democracy!"

It is precisely Democracy in the sense used which has given rise to the evils of Brexit and Polish and Hungarian nationalism.

[Iris]

Well, I agree, which is why I voted remain. But I don’t think we should let the fact that, of those two choices, remain is clearly better than leave, blind us to the limitations of only having those two choices.

So what are the left-wing arguments in favour of Brexit? And what are the choices beyond the binary? (Or, to be pedantic, now ternary: leave chaotically, leave on the May-EU27 negotiated terms, or remain?)

Remain-and-seek-reform is an inevitable consequence of remain. It *is* remain.

[Iris]

They lost me at sentence 1:

"For all their concerns with global competitiveness, migration and terrorism, only one prospect truly terrifies the Powers of Europe: Democracy!"

It is precisely Democracy in the sense used which has given rise to the evils of Brexit and Polish and Hungarian nationalism.

And having read the entire Manifesto I'm no less gobsmacked. With the exception of a couple of paragraphs on refugees the whole thing could have been written by a Farage or a Le Pen. Remember that UKIP started as a vaguely leftish idea before the racists took over.

There are far better ways of achieving reform than making fanciful demands without the support of people with some power in language that near fascists will adopt.

[JohnToo]

They lost me at sentence 1:

"For all their concerns with global competitiveness, migration and terrorism, only one prospect truly terrifies the Powers of Europe: Democracy!"

It is precisely Democracy in the sense used which has given rise to the evils of Brexit and Polish and Hungarian nationalism.

Gosh. It almost sounds as if you’re saying that we shouldn’t let the People make decisions because they can’t be trusted to make good decisions. Government by technocracy? Government by intelligentsia? Government by economic power?

I suspect your use of Democracy “in the sense used” was very deliberate. Could you elaborate?

[Rutabaga]

Gosh. It almost sounds as if you’re saying that we shouldn’t let the People make decisions because they can’t be trusted to make good decisions.

Isn't that a bit too binary, yet again? The choice surely isn't "remove democracy altogether" (has anyone suggested that?) or "let the people freely make all the decisions", but a definition of democracy that assumes people are not being manipulated to vote in a certain way by outright lies.

[JohnToo]

Isn't that a bit too binary, yet again? The choice surely isn't "remove democracy altogether" (has anyone suggested that?) or "let the people freely make all the decisions", but a definition of democracy that assumes people are not being manipulated to vote in a certain way by outright lies.

I’m sure we’d all agree that enabling people to be better informed, and less misled, when they vote is one obvious improvement.

I think that there are other things though. Reducing the cynicism edging off into desperation that is created when people feel that voting won’t change anything has to be part of it. (“If voting changed anything they’d abolish it” as a still-hero of mine called his autobiography.) People might not vote for extremists if they didn’t feel that voting for more moderates didn’t have any effect. We’ve rehearsed many times how part of the Brexit vote in the second referendum was people taking what was perceived as a rare opportunity to stick it to the man. The real ravenhurst’s link was couched in naive language but i’ve got a lot of sympathy with the view that people would feel more positive about the EU if it felt more democratic.

[JohnToo]

So what are the left-wing arguments in favour of Brexit? And what are the choices beyond the binary? (Or, to be pedantic, now ternary: leave chaotically, leave on the May-EU27 negotiated terms, or remain?)

Remain-and-seek-reform is an inevitable consequence of remain. It *is* remain.

Small, only very slightly exasperated sigh.

I am not in favour of Brexit under the present or any foreseeable circumstances . I don’t know how many more times or more clearly I can say that.

But the way this debate has gone here mirrors wider debates. We all recognise that Brexit will be a disaster and should be stopped. So we need to persuade people that the EU is a good thing. So someone (me) saying that there are nonetheless significant flaws with the EU is perceived as at best disloyal and at worst in favour of Brexit. Now of all times surely we need to break away from the extreme polarisation that is damaging so much of our national discourse.

But it also matters because quite a few people, including left-leaning people, voted Brexit because of the flaws they see in the EU. If we have a third referendum, we need to win it. That means recognising the legitimate reasons why people don’t like the EU so that we can craft arguments for remain that respond to their views. Telling people they are wrong is a recipe for another Brexit vote.

Remain and reform? I might have some hope for the reform bit with Corbyn, but I can’t see much evidence of the necessary desires and appetites from any previous UK governments.

[Iris]

Small, only very slightly exasperated sigh.

I am not in favour of Brexit under the present or any foreseeable circumstances . I don’t know how many more times or more clearly I can say that.

I didn't suppose you were. But I was hoping for a follow up to this:

If there were a better alternative, there would surely be a principled left wing case for Brexit.

I'm away on a phone (and with a mind fried by hours of wrestling with Sophocles on Oedipus) so I'm afraid you won't get much coherence and detail from me in return. So feel free to take a pass.

[The Real Ravenhurst]

Remain-and-seek-reform is an inevitable consequence of remain. It *is* remain.

I've heard literally no-one in the FBPE/'People's Vote' campaigns even mention reform, let alone advocate any kind of serious programme for it. Which doesn't mean they're not right about the lies and corruption behind the Leave campaign, but it does indicate that they are so busy being furious with leave voters (and remain voters who are not remainy enough) that they don't appear to have given any thought to the other part of the question.

[JohnToo]

I agree. I started to write a post/essay on “what would a better EU look like” but struggled to move beyond the principles (democratic, not right wing/corporatist dominated, subsidiarity) to how to achieve those - what the appropriate structures look like - because I have read remarkably little discussion of that.

[Iris]

I've heard literally no-one in the FBPE/'People's Vote' campaigns even mention reform, let alone advocate any kind of serious programme for it. Which doesn't mean they're not right about the lies and corruption behind the Leave campaign, but it does indicate that they are so busy being furious with leave voters (and remain voters who are not remainy enough) that they don't appear to have given any thought to the other part of the question.

Or they recognise that there's such a distance to go to drag a divided country away from the cliff that the Tories are determined to chuck it off that there are far more urgent tasks?

And I think your allegations of "fury" towards leave voters is unfair. I've heard no great groundswell of rage towards voters from anyone other than the disaster capitalists that their unicorns don't actually exist. Any rage has been reserved for the politician who preaches listening to his members but who seems not to have noticed that they want him to oppose Brexit with all his will.

[Iris]

I agree. I started to write a post/essay on “what would a better EU look like” but struggled to move beyond the principles (democratic, not right wing/corporatist dominated, subsidiarity) to how to achieve those - what the appropriate structures look like - because I have read remarkably little discussion of that.

I suspect that the structures don't need too much tweaking - Parliament needs strengthening and given the formal authority to do what it has the informal right to do and propose legislation, but that's almost it. The results of those structures might need more work.

Also, your periodic reminder that "democratic" is not the opposite of "right wing/corporatist dominated". People, time and time and time again have supported right wing parties who represent the interests of corporates. The best parties have recognised that those interests can easily be aligned with the interests of the people - because corporations are run by people, employ people and owned by people. And I don't just mean the superwealthy.

[Edit]
And if we're talking about political and structural reform, don't we have a rather more urgent task at home? Local government is a neutered dogs breakfast of impotent, often corrupt petty fiefdoms, the government of the nations and regions is variously obsessed with nationalism, unable to function because of entrenched positions, underpowered and in the case of the largest part of the country utterly absent, while national government has been pushed by party interests and a voting system that renders many of us irrelevant into a sea of short-term jockeying. And that's without talking about the world's second largest legislative chamber, which is also among the world's least accountable.

[Iris]

Also, your periodic reminder that "democratic" is not the opposite of "right wing/corporatist dominated". People, time and time and time again have supported right wing parties who represent the interests of corporates. The best parties have recognised that those interests can easily be aligned with the interests of the people - because corporations are run by people, employ people and owned by people. And I don't just mean the superwealthy.

Okay, own up. Which of you is on Corbyn's speech writing team?

[Rocky]

Or.....let’s forget about reforming the EU. The relevant question is: are we better as a full member out out of it? At this time, that’s the only thing that matters. Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay brothers have been using cultural hegemony to shape the views of the masses to be anti-EU. From my perspective it’s a huge con-trick to benefit a few of the elite.