It is time to make my position on the EU clear.
Let me state the obvious: the EU is deeply flawed by design. Any arrangement that provides equal rights on the movement of capital and labour when one is inherently more mobile than the other is bound to favour returns to capital over returns to labour, and so it has been. The period during which the UK has been a member of the EU has coincided with a period when there has been a massive bias to capital across almost every part of the political spectrum with inevitable, unjust and unjustifiable consequences. And nothing that David Cameron is doing is helping change that: indeed, he has put reinforcement of the rights of the City of London at the very heart of his campaign as if they did not already enjoy privilege enough.
Second, let me be clear that in recent years there have been policies proposed by a German dominated European a Central Bank that are abhorrent to any right minded person let alone any right minded economist. The treatment of Greece makes it all too clear that the lessons of Versailles in 1919 have been forgotten at direct cost to Greek people and, indirectly, the rest of us as the perverted logic of austerity persists with official endorsement.
Third, some policies that are embedded in the EU, like the common agricultural policy, make no sense in the twenty first century.
And, importantly, democratic accountability within the EU is weak, and since that issue is at the heart of much of what I argue I have to be concerned about that.
Despite which reservations I oppose Brexit and have no doubt that I will be voting to stay in the EU whenever we have a referendum on the issue. So let me explain why that is.
First the EU has, in my opinion, delivered union where there was once conflict. I do not take that lightly. And I think the risk of conflict has not gone away, but is reduced by the continuing existence of the EU. I think that absolutely fundamental in the debate to come.
Second, I am a member of an extended family that is only in the UK because of economic migrancy. I think my extended family has added value to this country. I think many other economically migrant families do. Of course there are issues with migration: the rate at which integration of people into communities is possible is an issue, but let's never doubt that, firstly, the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU suits millions of UK citizens who would lose it if we left; secondly that the most problematic migration we now face arises from humanitarian need and leaving the EU will not change that and, third, many parts of the UK economy would be lost without EU migrant workers. Walking away is no way to solve migration issues.
Third, leaving the EU will indisputably and inevitably make it harder to trade from the UK and as a trading nation we would be mad to impose such a constraint on ourselves. If we want to be worse off, leaving the EU makes sense. And there is no upside: an imposed TTIP would be worse for the UK in every way. To pretend that there is some economic utopia by pretending the UK could operate as the proverbial corner shop standing up against a globalised world is to take heed of the machinations of a febrile mind.
Fourth, there may be weaknesses in EU democracy but it has achieved some pretty good things. No organisation has done more to help crack down on tax abuse. It is intent on delivering more and note who it is who is really taking on multinationals on this issue: we could not do what the EU can to the likes of Apple. And the protection for workers that has come from Brussels has taken labour rights forward by leaps and bounds. There is no doubt that many in the Brexit camp are intent on taking away these rights that have made life better for millions and reduced, if not as yet by enough, the inequalities in our society.
Fifth, argue if you will that the EU does not do democracy but it has got an inter-state parliament. In a global world that is an indication of cooperation that is unique. It is flawed. It could and should be improved. But let's stop pretending anyone gets all they want in life: imperfect as it is the EU delivers more for international cooperation in a democratic form than we can expect to achieve any other way.
Finally, for now, let's note that Brexit is, almost certainly, the precursor for the end of the Union too: Scotland would be holding another referendum on leaving the UK faster than you could imagine if Brexit happens, and don't rule out Northern Ireland pondering its future as well. To say Brexit is literally a little England view is to be kind to it.
I could, and no doubt will, expand these themes over time. But the point is, this is ultimately a decision to be taken by instinct. All big decisions in life are. And there is no doubt that in that context I have only one instinct, and that is that we must stay.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Missing from your pro-EU list: climate change!
We have 5-10 years to avoid a catastrophe. The disintegration of Europe’s multinational law making institutions will bring disarray when we need cohesion and common purpose.
Excellent – except the EU DOES do democracy:
The Council of Ministers are the elected (except in the UK where sometimes they are Lords) relevant ministers of each member state
BUT
Since the Treaty of Lisbon the European Parliament has important voting rights in EU legislation.
Excellent summary.
Can only add that whilst the EU does clearly have a so called ‘democratic deficit’ this pales into insignificance if we had, as a lone, open, trading economy, to try to control world corporations, who are elected by no one and accountable, after a fashion, only to their shareholders.
And the ‘democratic deficit’ is usually at least partly code for not getting what you want. If you associate with 25 odd others and get everything you want then that association isn’t working very well.
Also I’m not sure that the Union Jack wavers would be happy if Britain’s exit were to lead in due course to the collapse of the EU. Even Churchill was in favour of the Coal and Steel Community, not for Britain of course, but very definitely a good idea for the Continentals.
Indeed, why is the EU is never seen as an opportunity for British influence (which arguably it has already been)?
Agreed. Well put. Yet Farage is televised churning out the same untruths and he must know they are misleading. The £55 m a day is the gross figure.
The ‘accounts not signed off for 20 years’ is one that you have exposed time and again. From what I read to be ‘signed off’ all the accounts have to approved, unlike the UK government. God knows why it is done like that.
I understand the EU cut off is 98% -UK Govt, 95%. The Centre, ‘Brussels’ is always passed; the problems is with some national accounts-and these get signed off later on.
IMO we should be building links with movements in Europe who want to reform the ECB and the whole neo-liberal approach.
The accounting issue is utterly spurious
There isn’t a company worldwide who could meet the required standard
I’m not familiar with this untruth being spread from those supporting brexit, with regards to the eu’s accounts. Could you point me in the direction of some of your posts or articles refuting this point?
It’s not an issue I recall writing about
The point is a simple one: the audit opinion on the EU’s accounts is more rigorous by some way than in the private sector, where, for example, it is commonplace for large parts of the organisation not to be audited at all
I went to a talk given by Kelvin Hopkins this week in Cambridge, because I wanted to listen to intelligent debate on both sides. His main stance is that it is anti democratic and controls many of our laws, agricultural and fisheries policies, economic policies. He has said it is anti Labour, anti working class and anti democratic.
You mention above that it has serious flaws, so my view is that the main argument for staying in is not by scrutinising the good, the bad and the ugly about the EU, but having a debate about what chances we have of reforming the EU if we were to stay in so that we can keep what is good, and remove what is bad.
Some EU treaties make it difficult to renationalise the railways under EU competition law, and the Maastrict and Lisbon treaties make it against the rules to spend more than 3% of GPD or monetise debt through the central bank. Farage and Galloway (I do not know how accurate they are) have stated in their rather extraordinary RT interview have said that EU law prevents government from bailing out the steel industry or implementing PQE. They are both in passionate agreement, although politically poles apart, that the EU is anti democratic.
John Hilary of the War on want has major criticisms, including the one last October when he met with Cecilia Malmstrom, the European Communion Trade Commissioner, to talk to her about the unprecendented level of petitions and protests against the TTIP treaty. She remarked that “she does not take her mandate from the people.” He has stated that no real change has been made to ISDS.
These are such serious criticisms and concerns, my major concern is that people cannot make an informed decision unless they are very clear about what powers member states have to gain some democratic control of the EC Commission and remove the Maastrict and Lisbon Treaties, and the TTIP treaty.
If I could be convinced that we could change the bad and keep the good, I would vote to stay in. But our weak media only discusses who is in and who is out, with no real analysis, so it is very difficult to come to a conclusion.
I recognise all those issues
BUT PQE is, for example, already happening in the EU so Maastricht may say one thing but when needs must the EU is remarkably flexible
And yes, I recognise the democratic deficit
BUT again, so what, is my question? Are Farage and Galloway going to give us something better? Is change really likely without the EU?
Far from it: tax haven UK is much more likely
I may have to address this
Richard, you say
“Finally, for now, let’s note that Brexit is, almost certainly, the precursor for the end of the Union too: Scotland would be holding another referendum on leaving the UK faster than you could imagine if Brexit happens, and don’t rule out Northern Ireland pondering its future as well. To say Brexit is literally a little England view is to be kind to it.”
Please don’t forget Wales, who would SURELY follow Scotland with an Indyref of its own (whether or not an increasingly irrelevant Westminster Parliament gave them permission or not – after all, the original 13 Colonies didn’t ask Britain’s permission, nor would Wales, which feels it has been treated as a colony) and a vote to STAY in the EU, which has often been a bulwark for Wales against an over-mighty Westminster Parliament, and which has, in any event, been helpful to Wales through ERDF funding.
Wales has always felt shoddily treated by England (said advisedly), with suppression of native speakers right up to the late 18th century (especially under the “Welsh” dynasty of the Tudors!!), and unlike Scotland, not having its own Bar and Judiciary (even Northern Ireland has its own Bar!) despite having one of the oldest continuous cultures on these islands. And they were only given an “Assembly” when their sense of nationhood demanded a “Parliament”.
Believe me, if Scotland goes, Wales will soon follow.
I wondered if I should suggest that
I admit I had not considered a referendum without Westminster consent as I could nor see that forthcoming
I think you make a good point
I agree that Wales would follow Scotland,
this would give heart to the ambitions of the Cornish Separatists and rumblings about which fault line the North should choose to fracture off from!
I agree that the EU has fostered peace and even decent working and economic conditions.
But I think that the Euro was a big mistake. We know friends in France and Italy and they say things are now just more expensive. They are not nationalists – just hard working people trying to live in the world.
A better way of managing the different currencies – one that could have controlled the money markets – could have been used. Instead a state sponsored new currency was implemented to tackle the problem.
Also there is a side to the whole European project which seems to want to gravitate towards a Yankee race to the bottom economics which seems to put itself at odds with say the other more social institutions and founding objectives of the EU. This remains deeply disturbing.
As for the UK, Cameron seems to have been using BREXIT as a diversionary tactic to throw voters off the scent of his Governments quack doctor economics which are not working. It is of course all Europe’s fault.
The problem is that in doing so, he has now stirred up pro and anti Euro feelings in his own party. He now has to walk it like he talks it – but who to? And then there is the pro and anti factions amongst the electorate. I think young David has been playing with fire and the whole charade might bring him down.
There does however remain something else that has been happening that I also find very troubling and may be actually Cameron’s trump card.
According to some reports, other states have been making it known that if the UK gets a deal, then they want the same deal too. If the EU cracks and gives into the UK’s demands, others will follow. And the Euro-Yanks in the EU can only prosper if this happens. So much for holding the line.
Trust the Tories to appeal to the lowest common denominator – as they did with the sale of council housing, the selling off of state assets etc. They are really good at this sort of divisive stuff. What a shower they are.
But another way of looking at it is that the so-called union is not really a union at all and never was; that its members all some to realise that something about the Union does not work for them – that there is residual discontent with the EU system and the compromises it requires from individual states are beyond them. That is that, what the Tories could be actually exposing, is the truth – that the Euro project could not actually ever work because those in it do not believe in it anymore and maybe never have.
This is a very sobering thought indeed.
The EU is like a marriage
There never has, I suspect, been a perfect marriage and in most there has been a time of temptation and a thought that the grass may be greener
Yet a great many stay because the imperfection is better than the alternative
And most do not regret staying
I think some discontent is good: it is the precursor for change
As for the Euro, it was always a mistake. Non one thanks Gordon Brown enough on that one
But surely the best marriage is between the UK government and its people?
Yes it is deeply flawed and very inefficient and costly but we are not going to be able to change any of that from within because we are now just one little voice and as has been seen it’s not in the other members’ interests to concede anything. They don’t believe our bluff about leaving, so why should they give us anything? We cannot stay because nothing will change. We must leave and then, when they beg to have us back WE can dictate the terms, including stopping the freedom of movement which has seen a million unskilled Europeans take housing, which was already in short supply so that the rest of us have seen spiralling rents.
Oh dear: you are a fantasist
No one will be begging for us to go back
Please don’t post your unseemly comments here again or I will delete them
I don’t think so. Land prices have increased in both emigrant and immigrant countries.
“They don’t believe our bluff about leaving, so why should they give us anything?”
That’s always going to be a problem with PR man Dave as the negotiator. He couldn’t negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag.
‘First the EU has, in my opinion, delivered union where there was once conflict.’
I agree that there has been a welcome absence of European military conflict (although it could be argued that it was predicated on the cold war and NATO) but it certainly hasn’t delivered union economically as you know, due to the flawed separation of fiscal and monetary policy and the operation of ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ trade arrangements. A ‘Union’ that allows a member state to have 3 million outside any form of health care system can’t be called a union but rather a ‘bankers union’ that sucks up assets wherever possible-in that respect the EU is a subset of global banking operations.
So the EU is a contortion as it creates workers rights/environmental legislation while creating the monetary conditions that pull in the opposite direction (zero hour contracts/increased working hours/’forced’ emigration)-this IS a recipe fro conflict and we can see it building slowly. Even before the First World War there were ‘quasi’ unions between Austria-Hungary/Russia/France/Britain-these were eventually trumped (no pun intended) by ethnic/economic/strategic forces. If ‘Union’ doesn’t include genuine economic union then the underlying dynamic will always be to fall apart.
Never the less I’ll vote to stay (for some of the reasons Richard mentions) though rock and hard place comes to mind.
I agree about the flaws
And the rock
And the hard place
One major flaw in the EU are the farm subsidies, some 59 million euros or thereabouts according to Farmsubsidy.org, check it out. Why do dukes and duchesses including royals need tax handouts . The more land the more subsidy, small farmers less subsidy. Of course our agriculture industry is vital, but small family farms as in France don’t receive a fair whack. Much more transparency needed in this area.
I agree: but I still say better the EU than not
Do you honestly think the UK of the right wing would stop such subsidies?
That’s always got to be the question
I think reform is more likely on this within than out of the EU
Both are long shots though
Sorry to nit-pick but the figure is €59 billion. Anyhow, a useful resource you linked to that shows there are many big businesses as recipients of this money and I somehow think they will not take the prospect of losing this lying down.
As for remaining in, I am a reluctant ‘IN’ voter.
59 Billion euros, Not million, Sorry again, dimwit.
“First the EU has, in my opinion, delivered union where there was once conflict. I do not take that lightly. And I think the risk of conflict has not gone away, but is reduced by the continuing existence of the EU. I think that absolutely fundamental in the debate to come. – See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/02/21/i-have-only-one-instinct-on-the-eu-and-it-is-that-we-must-stay/#sthash.YPF7z1RC.dpuf”
Don’t you mean NATO? The presence of significant US forces in Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and UK has surely done more for peace than the EU.
NATO has been itrelevant for a long time
I meant exactly what I said
And precisely because the EU does not have a military command
Richard,
This particular blog mirrors my thoughts, contradictions, fears and hopes in a perfect manner.
There are but 1000 things I despise about the EU. That being said, it is the only body in Europe that offers peace and stability. The offerings may be onerous and neoliberal normative, but there are no other bodies within Europe offering the hope and cohesive which only a robust state can offer. This is important.
The nations of Europe, as they are, are suffering from a deeply collective euroscepticism, perhaps we have exported our Little England mindset of individualism, a fear of the greater good and the supposed “tragedy” of the commons to our fellow EU citizens.
Let us be clear, the tragedy of the commons is only the result of not enough state involvement in ensuring the commons are treated in a fair and just manner. That is the role of both government and civil society. The role of the state is sacrosanct in this process. There must not be allowed to let a state or civil society gap to exist. This was stated years ago, albeit in a different context, by Buck Turgenson.
These are key concerns for Europe and mankind, are we the only ones paying attention?!
James
Not quite
But I am glad to have your company
“There are but 1000 things I despise about the EU. That being said, it is the only body in Europe that offers peace and stability.”
The ever increasing imbalances between the core (aka Germany) and the Periphery (aka pretty much all other countries) are creating an extremely dangerous conflict of interests right in the middle of Europe.These do not show up in mainstream media but all the economic indicators are flashing red now. Since Germany is adamant that its economic policy is here to stay, the imbalances are going to grow to the point where there is a break up, that is a war or a revolution. At that point, we will see how the EU is bringing peace to Europe.
Another angle is, since Germany is a net creditor and all the others are a net debtor, how can economic interests be the same among the European countries?
Because creditors and debtors stand or fall together
It really is in Germany’s best interests that they can be paid
Richard it sounds like you are voting for the idea of the European Union rather than the reality of it. The way the Greeks were treated was despicable. If the European governments had wanted to help the UK they could for example have dealt with migrants moving to the UK in order to obtain benefits by agreeing to raise the benefits in the countries with the most emigrants to a level where this would no longer be the case. This would require a transfer of resources from the richer members to the poorer and have seen them acting as a community but instead the acted in the minimalist way possible.
No, I am firmly grounded in its flawed reality, which I highlight
How could you have missed that?
What I am voting against is the ghastly alternative of those promoting Brexit
Richard,
I completely agree with you about the EU preventing conflict. NATO may (or may not) have inhibited the planet from tearing itself to shreds but it is the EU that has inhibited Europe from doing so. When did Europe last go 70 years without a major war between some or all of its component parts that killed or caused the death of millions of people? We have a lot to be grateful for.
As regards the possibility of the UK voting ‘leave’ but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all voting ‘stay’, is not the simple solution for England to leave the UK and therefore cease to be part of the EU. It is after all only English nationalists, neo-liberals or political opportunists that want to leave.
This had resonance given my watching of Pasolini’s Gospel according to St matthew on Friday
“policies proposed by a German dominated European a Central Bank that are abhorrent to any right minded person let alone any right minded economist. The treatment of Greece ……”
“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us” a fundamental element in the Lord’s prayer. (Trespass = debt). Perhaps I’m missing something but the dominant partner in the German gov is the Christian Democratic Union – perhaps the “Christian” part is just window dressing? With respect to the EU, many flaws (like demoscracy) but stay in & fight to make it better.
What’s going to be more interesting to me is the effect that the next 4 months is going to have on UK politics in general.
It doesn’t look on paper that the OUT campaign can muster the numbers but this depends of the combined force of UKIP and the Tory right who should not be underestimated. Voter turnout and raw political fear tactics around migration and “control of our country” on both sides are likely to be the biggest determinant of the result, with economics being a side show for most as nobody can reliably predict the likely financial outcome.
If Farage can add significantly to the 13% of UK voters achieved last year, on the issue which we know his target audience is most passionate about, plus with the Tory right wing singing to the same tune, the most likely winners irrespective of whether the end result is OUT or IN, in my view will be UKIP and the biggest losers will be the Tory party who are being increasingly split on this issue.
So cohesion and alliances amongst the left leaning parties is essential if they are to avoid an OUT success, but more importantly to find common ground for a future coalition to take on what could be a much stronger right wing nationalist force in future.
Personally the logic says IN is the better option, but if the OUT vote wins what is essential for the future of the UK is that the left has found its feet to steer a newly independent UK in the democratic direction it so sorely needs, while still supporting those within the EU who aim to achieve the same economic democracy so desperately needed within the Eurozone countries.
The strategies for after the vote need to be worked on now, as I have a sneaky feeling the result may be closer than most people think.
It’s important to look at the consequences of the result. After an ‘out’ vote, the Tories would finally ditch their ‘one nation’ wing and unite under Johnson. He would probably win a snap election and go on to complete the privatisation of the NHS, the destruction of the welfare state, the repeal of all ‘red tape’ = employment and H&S legislation and tie us into a TTIP deal with the US.
If ‘stay in’ wins, Boris and crew will split off to form a separate party and the Cameron’s govt would probably lose a vote of no confidence. It might just be Labour’s best chance, though you wouldn’t bet on them not blowing it.
I strongly suspect Johnson’s motives are all about winning the Tory leadership whether the referendum result is ‘in’ or ‘out’.
But since the fixed term parliament act I don’t see how the snap election you refer to could come to pass? In the event of a severe Tory split, the ruling rump could potentially by subject to a no-confidence motion, but there’s no actual mechanism for an incumbent PM to call a snap election now, is there?
I look at the politics of Cameron’s EU ‘renegotiation’ with despair: he and his government have no foreign policy at all – it is a complete vacuum, into which diffuse vacuous ideas, only to dissipate in the face of disinterest – and the political imperative is to ‘talk tough’ so as to impress the ‘Kippers and the press…
…Without endangering our favourable trading relationships.
That would be a challenge for an accomplished diplomat and a skilled political prestidigitator; it is a recipe for fiasco in the hands of the self-interested and the wilfully ignorant.
Cameron’s media skills and deft deceptions in domestic politics fall short of what is needed: worse, he went into these ‘renegotiations’ having painted himself into a corner.
And who is actually campaigning?
The ‘in’ campaigners on the left, who are almost by definition politically inept and ineffective in the media; and well-funded ‘Out’ campaigners, whose organisation is encumbered by embarrassing loons – who serve to distract us from the sinister motives of those who seek to weaken human rights and environmental protection.
Day 1 of Brexit. Mobile phone roaming charges escalate, travel insurance charges escalate, 2 million Brits in EU feel insecure and start to come home, key foreign workers in UK leave to make sure of a job back home. Day 2 of Brexit
Sorry Matt C. I meant to write ‘after a vote of no confidence and a successful leadership challenge.’ It’s Boris’s final resort if the stay ins win. he doesn’t give a fig about the EU, he yearns to be our glorious leader.
For once, I do not entirely agree with Mr. Murphy.
The basic idea is that the EU is doing harm, but also more good than harm, actually just a bit more good.
I agree about all the flaws outlined at the beginning. I hardly agree with the pros.
“EU has, in my opinion, delivered union where there was once conflict”
While it seems to have neutralized the French/German rivalry, we had the Ukraine carnage, an artificially frozen conflict in the Balkans that requires constant vigilance, Greece on the brink of a civil war and the so called “peace missions” executed by NATO but sponsored by EU, like Libya and part of Afghanistan. It doesn’t look that peaceful to me, after all.
“the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU suits millions of UK citizens”. Travel has never been a problem way before the EU (scholars traveled from university to university and from court to court since the middle ages) and UK has been the job generator of Europe in the recent past, so the flow that matters is the opposite one.
” most problematic migration we now face arises from humanitarian need and leaving the EU will not change that” agreed, but it will allow an autonomous boundary control in the interest of the UK, if no agreement is found with other countries.
“parts of the UK economy would be lost without EU migrant workers” since it is not in the interest of the industry to let them go, why should we suppose that they will be forced to flee UK?
“leaving the EU will indisputably and inevitably make it harder to trade” Yes, transaction costs will rise but it will be good for an economy with a such a deeply negative balance of payments to be able to impose some barriers to favor domestic productions. It is the good occasion to start claiming back the full industrial matrix lost after Thatcher “counter-reforms”, especially if we enact a QE for the people.
“an imposed TTIP would be worse for the UK” staying in the EU might mean to be shackled to the TTIP without open negotiation, actually.
“UK could (not) operate as the proverbial corner shop standing up against a globalised world “. There are plenty of small and large countries which operate inside way less binding conventions than the EU which do well, like Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, New Zealand etc. The world trend after WWII, anyway, is toward having more smaller countries rather than fewr bigger ones.
“No organisation has done more to help crack down on tax abuse”, yes, but it did little anyway and the problem is more a problem of political will: there is no reason why the current government couldn’t crack down on Channel Islands or Gibraltar. There is no reason why international pressure (including military) can’t end other fiscal paradises around the world.
“the protection for workers that has come from Brussels has taken labour rights forward by leaps and bounds” This is a serious issue, and the one I still have doubts about. I would like to see a detailed analysis stating which workers rights came from EU directives. However, since they are now UK laws, I have few doubts that the Tories are going to take them away but they won’t be in power forever.
“Brexit is, almost certainly, the precursor for the end of the Union ” it may well be but, remember, it is the austerity and the right wing policies that fed the SNP popularity. Take them away, move to fully fledged Keynesian policies ,and the risk will go away. Again, the Tories won’t be in power forever.
Just few of my points, just to fuel the debate.
Thanks
Richard there is much I agree with in the post you have just thanked, I personally see no problem in a brexit, yes in the short term there will be massive upheaval, but with careful management we could, with the right government in office plan according to our needs.
You reiterate the need to export forgetting that our balance of trade has been in deficit for over ten years now and we can’t see any end to this in the future. Professor James Wolfensohn described the dilemma facing the whole of the western world relating to the transfer of trade east to west. Speaking to an audience of Students at Stanford University he said that “when he was a student the west held 80% of the worlds GDP and the developing countries just 20%, that has now changed and in the future the developing world will have 65% and rising and we will be left with 35% and he projects that China and India between them will have 50% of the worlds GDP by year 2050”.
It goes without saying that the future for all of us in the west looks pretty bleak unless we change the whole way we think about trade and finance.
My premise is why do we need to export, given the technology that exists today there are machines that can replicate anything that anyone else in the world can produce without the need to import on the scale we do at present. That doesn’t mean we stop trading altogether, but that we don’t need to import everything as a necessity.
Our economy has been in the thrall of Neo-Liberal economics now for over forty years, based on the principles that the private sector knows best and competition is vital for efficiency, which of course is all just bunkum, and has meant the destruction of the very means we so say need to trade our way out of debt.
Staying in the EU would mean that we have the job of convincing the whole of Neo-Liberal Europe to follow our way of thinking should we radically change our current perspective. I believe that is highly unlikely, and sincerely
wish Yanis Varoufakis every success in his objective of uniting people in the whole of Europe against the Neo-Liberal agenda. He himself doesn’t know whether he will in any way succeed, but Greece is locked into Europe and he sees little option other than to pursue his mission. Greece of course is the window we all looked through and witnessed the treatment these Neo-Liberals were prepared to mete out.
Finally and put simply for brevity, we are a sovereign country with it’s own sovereign currency, recognising we need different government to implement it, we can spend directly into our economy to create jobs and wealth for people without doing harm to the environment. It’s called a planned economy, this is the 21st century and if we continue as we are at present, we will end up back with the same living conditions as in the 1800s and before, lets stop looking backwards and look to a future of our making, not that, that is handed down to us from a corrupt elite that wants to enslave us.
Thanks
Just to point out that Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand are all members of the Asian Pacific Economic Co-operation area and New Zealand is part of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Japan is also a member of the APEC. There is Mercosur which covers most of South America. There is also the recent COMESA the common market for eastern and southern Africa. The trend is to large groupings of nations.
Indeed
And for good reason
All the mentioned treaties are way different from EU. They are free trade agreements. All these countries do not have the rules on fiscal policies forced onto European countries and, crucially, they do not have the same currency.
The trend on the number of states is exactly the opposite, I’m afraid. In 1950 there were 101 independent countries. In 1960 it was 145, in 1970 it was 167, in 1980 it was 174, in 1990 it was 196, in 2000 it was 209, in 2010 it was 213. Numbers may vary a little depending on the way you count them but there is a clear trend that shows how large super-national “empires” get fragmented in smaller entities.Trying to build a new one is an anachronism.
We do not have the same currency either
And it’s pretty convenient of you to ignore the ending of empires
I’m torn, the archetypal floating voter, but currently tending towards Brexit.
I believe in increased international co-operation on human rights, taxation, trade and freedom of movement. I think the net amounts we contribute to Europe are reasonable. I consider corruption in the EU to be a major irritant, but insignificant in the (economic) scheme of things. I believe our position in the world will be diminished by an exit. And yet…
As Richard says: “Of course there are issues with migration: the rate at which integration of people into communities is possible is an issue”.
I live close to a provincial town where Polish has become an unofficial second language. That makes me feel like a stranger in my home town. I live close to a site where a 6,000 new homes are about to be built to service a vast business park. The new jobs will largely be for low paid warehouse workers, so I assume many of those properties will be occupied by Eastern Europeans, and my alienation is about to be magnified. Many of these properties will no doubt be snapped up by investors so rented – occupation rates will be maximised and the residents’ concern for their immediate environment will be minimised. And yes, I struggle to accept that my taxes should pay child benefit to children in foreign countries at rates far in excess of what would be paid by their home State.
Pre-dating these (selfish?) cencerns were my thoughts on worker protection. I have long been concerned about the impact of immigration on British wages (years ago when the tabloids endlessly bitched about immigrants moving here for benefits, I would tell anyone that would listen that people move here to work). I want to see more evidence around this, or at least a grown up discussion of the existing evidence. My current understanding is that immigration has a positive impact on wages at the mid- and upper end of the range, but a negative impact at the bottom end, and that even this may be reversed in the medium term. If that is correct, perhaps my concern is unreasonable? But it is hard for me to accept that Big Business in Britain is so keen on free movement of people if it isn’t because of its depressive effect on wages.
Perhaps aside from the latter point, many people will consider me a racist or nimby for having these concerns, and by their standards no doubt I am. But I invite them to convince me I’m wrong. I expect Britain will vote to stay in because too many people will be worried about the economic impact of Brexit. But the immigration question will be very important to a great many people. People like me that just might be the key to the referendum.
Just to add to my reasons for voting ‘in’, I am enormously concerned about our country shifting to the right if Johnson and his ilk succeed. But still…
I agree with more or less everything in the article. I also would like to add the importance of the EU for those working in scientific and technological research and for universities. I am not a fan of the EU in its current state but personally my livelihood might be under threat with a Brexit. And I am not the only one, there are millions of us both here and across the EU. I can expect total disregard for the human factor from Farage but I find it difficult to accept people who say that we have to leave the EU because of the way it treated Greece and its people and then siding with the xenophobes with the result that Greek citizens working in the UK and sending money to their families will probably have to leave. Same with the Brits living in Southern Europe, many of them elderly, what would happen to them? Without mentioning those who want to vote NO to ensure Scotland becomes independent or they want to weaken Cameron, or they want freedom from all trade agreements. I don’t think that people realise all the ramifications of a Brexit and how it will affect many people’s lives. There is a strange perception among some people that voting for Brexit is voting against multinationals, austerity and neo-liberalism. Multinationals are big enough to survive and to them it would only be a minor inconvenience. Neo-liberalism is everywhere, you can’t escape from it so easily. And the referendum is not and should not be just about ideology this is mainly about people’s lives, jobs and freedom of movement.
Thanks
One thing I think you’ve covered many times before Richard, is the generally obstructive behaviour of the last few British Governments with respect to EU tax-law reform, to which, off the top of my head, I could add trying to water-down air-quality, pollution, data-protection and pesticide regulations.
Are there any instances where the Tories, the Coalition and/or New Labour have actually been the driving force behind any positive ‘progressive’ policies? I stand to be corrected, but I can’t think of any right now. In which case, wouldn’t they be better off without us?
This is possibly a little tenuous, but if it is the case that we’d have to accept most of the regulations to continue trading with them, then wouldn’t this be a benefit to us too?
There is no choice here.I believe that the free movement of labour between economies that are at vastly different levels of development is a crazy idea. How can we have all the ideas you put forward onbthid blog come to fruition if there are always workers from other less developed nations willing to work for less than is desired for our economy to grow stronger. The right want out to shed us of our workers rights while still encourage immigration to further their economic philosophy. The centre right want in because they believe the above can be achieved remaining in,as Europe is moving well to the right. For me the European project should be a long term endeavour, it’s the right thing to do but not at the pace it is, the brakes need putting on. Britain deciding to leave may achieve this.