It would seem from comments received here, on Twitter, and rather more generally that those seeking Brexit do so from within some sort of bubble.
The impression they give is that Brexit wipes a slate clean and that forty three years of legal, economic and social history will be swept away and some new era where all is open to negotiation for what those advocate Brexit clearly still believe to be one of the greatest independent trading nations on earth will emerge.
This is fantasy. More bluntly, it is untrue. And to suggest it as the basis for decision making is deeply irresponsible.
I have made clear that I believe that there are serious weaknesses inherent in the structure, let alone the practice, of the EU. Anyone, anywhere on the social, economic or political spectrum would, I am sure, want reform of something in the EU. But, that said, there is no magic wand. Within or without the EU what has been done is extant, and wishing it otherwise will not change it.
In other words, whoever wins this referendum, the starting point for reform is, effectively the same. And the scope for negotiation may also be limited: Brexit will not (except, perhaps, in the imaginations of Farage and Galloway) result in the UK just turning its back on Europe. It will instead mean negotiating a new relationship with it.
If that new relationship is to be based on tariff free trade - and the UK is heavily dependent on that at present - then in a negotiation of 27 embittered nations against one it can fairly be presumed that remarkably little ground will be given. If the UK wishes in that case to avoid tariffs and other practical obstacles to trading it will, no doubt have to agree to comply with EU trade standards, the free movement of capital, the free movement of people, EU VAT rules and many, if not most, of EU working standards.
The list could be more detailed: what I am saying is that EU regulation would need to apply for tariff free trade to take place. In other words, nothing would change from where we are now unless we were willing to suffer considerable cost in the form of barriers to trade. Nor would we save admin cost post Brexit either: the precedents suggest that having access to EU markets requires a contribution to the EU's cost of maintaining them. In that case contributions to the EU will also continue.
This is the reality of Brexit. It is that a very great deal of the relationship with Europe will not change at all. To pretend otherwise is to peddle a myth.
But it is worth noting what might change.
It is likely that some vital protections for employees will be relaxed.
The probability is that the UK will behave even more like a tax haven than now.
As a result is is very likely that inequality will rise.
New trade deals, negotiated from a position of weakness with countries like the USA, are very likely to require the irreversible privatisation of public services, including the NHS.
Freedom of speech, already deeply imperilled, is likely to be reduced still further. The right to oppose will be diminished in every walk of life.
There will be labour shortages in critical areas.
We will have a flood of returning pensioners from abroad, putting the NHS under strain.
The cost of imports will rise. Our exports will earn less.
It is not a pretty picture.
And my fear is that these realities will not be reflected in debates. Which is deeply worrying.
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:
If they have been abroad for any length of time, and have no residency in the uk, they will be disqualified from NHS care. They will have to re-qualify for residency or have a EHIC issued by their new country. If they lived outside the EEA they will have neither.
In any case, they are required to register in their new “home” to establish residency.
Claiming a state pension is a whole new ball game. If you have no uk residence you have to register to get your pension paid to you…
Most keep a uk address. Less trouble, still use the NHS, and have not the grief coming back “home” that they WILL get otherwise. The U.K. Is not kind to its returning citizens. Oh, and if you are awarded the pension credit element to the (poor) state pension….you won’t get it abroad.
I have one relative who contracted cancer while living in Spain. Nightmare does not describe it.
I am pretty sure that there are mistakes in your post.
First, for UK pensioners living in the EU, the healthcare is already paid for by the UK via the S1 form and its consequences. In effect the NHS is ‘contracting out’ its care to other EU health services. Likewise, an EHIC card is issued by the UK to UK pensioners, if they live abroad (EU) and are registered with the healthcare service of their country of residence.
Second, there were significant rule changes which took effect from April 2015 and which give access to NHS care to EU-resident UK pensioners, even for elective treatments.
What will change (in the event of Brexit) is the mutual healthcare agreements between EU citizens resident in other EU countries. Then non-economically active UK residents in EU countries will be obliged to take out private healthcare insurance, which for pensioners is likely to be unaffordable. So I think Richard is correct in saying that there will be an influx of returning pensioners, who will not only put extra strain on NHS resources but will often also be looking for accommodation (not all will have retained their homes in the UK) therefore increasing competition for housing.
My own personal experience of routine and emergency healthcare in Spain and France has been first rate. Speaking the language well in both cases certainly helped, but the hospital in Taragona that gave emergency treatment to my partner was astonishingly efficient. They dealt with the fact that we were not residents of Spain, but resident in France and using a UK EHIC card without batting an eyelid.
You are correct, of course. However, expat residents who have not established residence in the UK (and if they have no home here and have lived abroad (even in an EU country) will not be able to receive free NHS care; maybe; possibly. It’s a bear-bit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11633938/Government-U-turn-on-NHS-access-for-expats.html
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/movingabroad/Pages/Introduction.aspx
And it’s only going to be further complicated by whatever form of brexit may happen….
Thanks for the reply, and the links. I certainly agree that the situation is murky and in talking about rights after a Brexit, we are indeed guessing.
A very rough summary of what changed last April is that pensioners resident in the EU acquired some improved rights, while those living outside the EU (or more precisely outside the EEA or Switzerland) lost some rights. This is also from the Telegraph (quoting a Dept of Health statement):
“UK state pensioners who live elsewhere in the EEA will now have the same rights to NHS care as people who live in England. This applies to all pensioners who receive a UK state retirement pension and are registered for health care in Europe with an S1 form
…
Former UK residents who return there to settle will be eligible for free NHS care immediately, according to the spokesman.”
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11571256/British-expats-from-outside-Europe-must-pay-for-NHS-hospital-care.html)
It could be logical to say that after Brexit, residents of the EEA could also lose these rights, and as you say, have to claim residence on their return to the UK.
But to stay on topic, I think it’s very likely that pensioners resident in the EU would lose their reciprocal healthcare rights and that would force many to return to the UK. It’s possible that those rights might effectively disappear before any follow-up negotiations are completed. Provided they have the right to remain, residence would surely be established as soon as they declare themselves liable for tax in the UK?
What date will the UK be released from European legislation if the vote is to leave?
For instance the OJEC rules and tendering; many tenders span months / years and award assessments are determined by these rules. At what point would these be dropped.
And VAT?
Realistically – many years after June 23, at best
The alternative legislative programme to replace EU law will be staggering, and very, very costly
Not made simpler by the fact that they differ. Directives are issued to be [made] law in the host country. Regulations are law over all EU states.
Many other regulations are issued VIA the EU, but FROM other international standards and regulatory organisations.
Then the other major stumbling-points are trade between countries with agreements with each other via a common bond, like the EU, which we will no longer have if an abrupt brexit is established. The foreseen action will be to join the EEA and just continue with things as they are, but that is not a done-deal either, and the major stumbling points of current EU membership will still remain, freedom of travel across borders and the EU laws we will have rid ourselves of, will then be present again.
Lose:Lose.
No change in fact.
The only cases where I suspect you’d be wrong are those which would benefit ordinary people, like the upcoming agreement on mobile roaming charges. I can see that being stopped immediately.
Hi Richard,
The link below is to a document written by Jean-Claude Piris former Director General of EU Legal Services.
It explains in exquisite detail all of the nuances of a Brexit but from their EU legal perspective. From reading the document twice, it is clear that the Outers are not telling the public the full facts on any possible trade deals and how they are to be achieved.
http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-355-en.pdf
Many thanks
Well worth reading
I may blog it
Hi Duchie
many thanks. Very interesting read. I will need to re-read this as it is well worth examining in detail. I’m even more sure that leaving the EU will be a mistake. Thanks to Richard also for his thoughtful comments as usual.
Richard, as usual, your blog and the many people who so wisely comment on the things that matter, explaining points which are not aired by the presstitute media. Many thanks for your excellent work.
I was of the opinion for UK leaving the block of nations mainly because of the undemocratic way in which the UK parliament is by-passed with non elected bods making laws.
Thanks to your explanation of so many areas you’ve covered, I agree with you on better in than out. You rightly point out the bad things which need to be addressed, hopefully with the right people in power voted in by a government OF, FOR and BY the people.
thanks
Ultimately I am far less pessimistic on Brexit than you Richard. The main (and very large) issue I see is with David Cameron doing the negotiation.
Remember the Eurozone economy is the one in depression and needs ‘export-led’ growth. Further there is no problem with open borders as such – I would just limit open borders to the rest of the Eurozone under the condition they introduce progressive policies like the UK.
Wouldn’t the Irish simply veto any restrictions on the UK that are likely to result in retaliation from the UK?
The woodford report is pretty good reading. I don’t agree with it all because it is in neo-classical language:
https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impact-brexit-report/#trade-and-the-manufacturing-industry
Here’s the crunch paragraph.
“In addition, falling tariffs, the decline in manufacturing and Europe’s diminishing importance in the global economy mean we doubt that even the absence of a trade deal with the European Union would hurt the United Kingdom’s overall exports materially. The benefits of being in the European Union are smaller than they were a few decades ago, when a Brexit would have been a far bigger deal. However, the effects will vary across sectors. Brexit would give Britain a crucial opportunity by allowing it to broker its own trade deals with non-European Union countries; indeed Britain could even have a unilateral free trade policy. Non-European Union countries may find negotiating with Britain easier and quicker than dealing with the European Union’s bureaucratic machine, as Switzerland has shown.”
Similarly David McWilliams over in Ireland doesn’t see much of a problem:
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/02/22/we-will-do-just-fine-if-theres-a-brexit
It is in no-one’s interest to upset the 5th largest economy in the world. Particularly when there is no demand from anywhere else!
Well I like David
But I have to say that is a brave view to hold in Ireland right now
And this would be ugly for the North
I quite liked his book the “Pope’s Children” about modern Ireland. The last paragraph: “However, if Britain begins to fracture thereafter, all bets are off. Why don’t we come back to that next week?” is interesting. I live in Northumberland north of Hadrian’s Wall and know many Scots who would see Brexit as an opportunity to split from England and would bet good money that a 2nd referendum would be successful if it were to happen.
You might want to correct your fifth paragraph, Richard.
I don’t think even the most deranged commentators are suggesting that the EU will turn its back on Europe. the UK, perhaps.
Thanks
Corrected
There are myths on both sides. I don’t care I simply want to get our government under proper democratic control rather than subject to the increasingly totalitarian dictats of Europe.
The social contract between the people and government is vitually broken. Once the break occurs then the government is illegitimate and then taxation becomes nothing more than extortion.
The deal must be that the government is democratically elected by, accountable to and serve the people. In return we the people gladly pay our taxes trusting they will be put to good use toe benefit of civilised society as a whole.
If the special interests avoid paying their taxes then they should have no influence over government.
Taxation and representation go hand in hand…
Dutch political cartoon describes the referendum better than any essay or speech ever could.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon~p3761431/3618886/
An article in the new Statesman reflecting why progressives have a case for leaving is interesting- I’m vacillating as I have little faith in EU reform given its dyed in the wool neo-liberal credentials:
here’s a compelling quote:
” A single European nation suits the US government, its multinationals and its military. One leader is a lot easier to deal with than many. The same goes for a single currency. This is clear in moves by the EU and the US to impose the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which will allow the corporations of both blocs the chance to exploit each other’s markets, smoothing out “obstacles” in the process. The NHS would be targeted by US health-care companies and trade union rights threatened. Negotiations to bring in TTIP have been taking place in secret. There is no voting involved, no pretence at democracy, little proper coverage by the media. The main parties are broadly supportive. With TTIP comes the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, whereby business can take governments to court if its profits are infringed upon. This is mind-blowing stuff, but our politicians say nothing.”
This as well: “Our membership of the EU undermined the major debates and warped most of the policies being put forward in the build-up to the election. The EU will influence the future of the NHS just as it helped smooth Tory privatisation of the Post Office and the organisational break-up of the railways; it is in tune with austerity and drives a larger and more deadly version in the eurozone; it escalates problems linked to housing, work, wages and education; creates worry and stirs up anger and threatens people’s sense of self. A lazy acceptance of establishment propaganda and a fear of being branded “xenophobic” have silenced many liberals and left-wingers. And yet the EU is driven by big business. This is a very corporate coup.”
The fleecing by asset seizing of Greece, the forced emigration from Portugal/Ireland/Latvia and the continuous erosion of workers security whilst being in while the IMF strut (literally in the case of Lagarde) around imperiously implementing the next austerity driven asset seizure has me now swinging like a pendulum with this vote.
Bill Mitchell’s point in his blog today is also compelling:
” Here we have the Left once again eulogising about some dream world they call ‘Europe’, which in reality, has turned into a disintegrating and dysfunctional amalgamation of Member States, devoid of their own national sovereignty and quite clearly not serving the interests of their citizens.
When the citizens do express dismay through the political process, one or more of the EU institutions (Council, Commission, ECB) exacts its toll on the nation in particular, in recent times with the IMF in tow or leading the charge. Think back to June last year and the way the ECB treated Greece and turned Syriza into a front-line, neo-liberal austerity attack dog.”
I’ve still got some reading and thinking to do!
Neil Wilson’s points (on Bill Mitchell’s blog) seem germane:
“outside the EU we can cancel PFI contract that are currently close A&E departments at hospital. And they can be cancelled without compensation if parliament chooses — as they should because they are a rip off.
Similarly outside the EU we can nationalise the Railways and other institutions — again at a compensation level set by parliament not the ‘market’ as required by EU law.
And most importantly of course we would be outside article 123 of the EU treaty which prevents access of a government to a simple overdraft at a central bank. So we could end the corporate welfare of government bonds paying risk-less income to the wealthy.”
Neil needs to get real
We can of course cancel PFI without compensation
And then save the banks
The comments are naive
And Neil is naive if he thinks banking can survive without gilts
Richard, we paid for the banks in 2008, if they had been nationalised at the time you wouldn`t be able to make this argument.
Whilst so many bemoan the neoliberalism of the EU the irony is that the EU is that way in large measure because of the open market reforms promoted by successive British governments. An unwelcome indication of the success of British influence!
Now of course, as a result of these successes we have to undo that policy both at home and abroad…
It is on this point where more work needs to be done to present a convincing narrative that the Project can be turned around. The success of successive British Governments, regardless of which brand or combination of brands of the same product are elected, in driving this agenda across not just the UK superstate but also across Europe is evidence of the failure of progressive forces in the UK.
There is no evidence so far presented which suggests that situation will change one iota. Until such time as that evidence is forthcoming, ie that progressive forces in the Nation’s of the UK can achieve a change in a centuries old policy and approach to Europe of the British/English State, any argument which says the Project can be turned around/revived/made properly democratic by continued membership influence of that British State is going to convince no one.
The floor is still open…..
I repeat again:
1. health care disaster in Greece-3 Million outside the health care system and Lagarde says: ‘I’ve got my money back.’ FFS
2.Mass emigration from Latvia and fire sales of assets.
3. Farmers in Greece who are deserting olive orchards.
4. Over 50% youth unemployment in Spain whose intergenerational cost will be massive/ housing evictions while massive ghost towns of unused housing lie around.
5. Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon that talk junk economics.
6.Health disaster in Portugal “Healthcare is also under pressure. “Today, nurses complain that drips are of such poor quality they have to go through three or four to find a good one, and swabs fall apart and leave bits of lint in the cuts they are meant to clean,” said José Carlos Martins, president of the Portuguese Nurses Union.
The union estimates that one million Portuguese avoided going to see a doctor last year, and 500,000 went without treatment, due to measures which include raising once nominal contributions in casualty wards to as much as €50. In the past four years, some 3,000 out of 37,000 nurses have lost their jobs.”
7. Workers rights protected?-as zero hour contracts and unions are further stripped of any bargaining power?
8. The Troika pulling all the strings.
Richard-and you think that is ‘keeping the peace’ and can be reformed-how bad does it have to get before we say to hell with this crap? As far as keeping the peace is concerned there is a greater likelihood of neo-fascism storming across Europe (particularly in the North) which will be because of the Union.
And how is leaving going to change this?
Well..I’m beginning to consider that it sends a sign and might well be a ‘release valve’ that could ease the build up of tensions that might lead to a neo-fascist explosion.
In Britain it could also mean that the problems would no longer be ‘projected’ onto Europe so we could see our own Government as more responsible for the economic mess at a local level and begin to see what a sovereign money issuer can do without EU deficit hysteria and debt/GDP ratios bedevilling everything.
As far as workers rights are concerned-pan European alliances would still be possible (the internet doesn’t recognise borders!). Don’t forget that in 1975, when as a 15 year old I represented the NO campaign in a school debate(!), the Unions were largely against it as not advancing the interests of Labour -by heck were they right! Tony Benn wasn’t far off the mark either. The system needs something to shock it out of its neo-liberal torpor. Don’t forget, people are suffering and dying out there because of the Troika and the primacy of balance sheets.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-referendum-business-boost-cameron-they-say-brexit-will-hurt-uk-jobs-1545373
“Business needs unrestricted access to the European market of 500 million people in order to continue to grow, invest and create jobs. We believe that leaving the EU would deter investment and threaten jobs. It would put the economy at risk,”
Why do we have such inept businesses in the UK?
No business can survive without access to customers
Your comment makes no sense
“Your comment makes no sense”
OK.
“No business can survive without access to customers”
Absolutely. I’m not suggesting that.
500 million souls across the EU and they can’t find the *staff* they want. You’ve heard the complaining about ‘skills shortages’ and the like.
They are either not trying, or they are inept.
Here’s the issue:
Business puts out an advert for jobs. Any that are matched with the available workforce will disappear near immediately. That means that the ‘total vacancies’ number released every month by the ONS are jobs for which there is no current match, much as the outstanding bids and offers on the stock market are for shares where there is no current buyer or seller at that price.
Business then has a choice:
1. Invest in training somebody that is available up to the standard required.
2. Invest in plant and machinery to make the job redundant.
3. Don’t bother filling the job and let the competition steal a march on you by doing 1 or 2.
(We’ll assume that the bidding of people from competitors has already got to the futility point where alternative strategies have come to the fore).
All of those cost money, and business doesn’t like spending money. So it lobbies for a further option – nick somebody suitable from somewhere else in the world.
Allowing unskilled migrants into the country is great for the business involved and great for GDP, but it offloads costs onto the existing unemployed (who don’t get trained) and society at large (which struggles to maintain an infrastructure that can cope, and suffers lower productivity and wage growth ). Again business gets to socialise their costs to increase private profit, and we see the impact in terms of lower productivity and lower business investment across the economy and a degree of social unrest.
This is banked straight to the profit share.
A rational immigration policy is one that concentrates on high value individuals and one that makes those visas very expensive for the businesses involved. That way business is more likely to choose to improve the capital stock of the nation rather than going straight for the ‘nick somebody else from abroad’ option.
Yes we need the release valve of immigration to get around persistent shortages on the supply side, especially in high value services, but business should never profit if they use that option. The value should really accrue to the state to offset the additional social costs of maintaining a higher population.
Because full employment is when you have more vacancies than people to fill them. In other words you can walk out of a job and into another one. Business should always be short of people and forced to innovate to get around that restriction. That’s how we progress. That’s how we avoid a persistent chase to the bottom.
You do realise that you are assuming a world where change happens instantly?
The world of pure, Chicago, economic theory?
The reality – the saltwater economic world of Keynesianism – realises the world does not work like that
This is no minor issue: timing differences are at the fire of major economuc debate
My point is this.
The issue at hand in the EU debate is whether *unskilled and semi-skilled people in the EU who wouldn’t otherwise get a visa or asylum* in the UK should be permitted to come into the UK to work.
If you separate out that set of people, then you find that *at best* they don’t reduce the wage at that level of work and at worst they do reduce the wage at that level of work.
But far more important than that they don’t *increase* the wage a resident is going to get for a job, nor do they *increase* the chance of a resident getting a job.
Given that we are not creating sufficient housing, nor improving our schools and hospitals to cope with the influx (e.g the level of language support and functional skills required in my local primary school is not something that is attracting additional central government funding), then the actual real costs of immigration are simply not in the figures.
And then there is the impact on existing immigrant communities. There was a big spread on the front of the local Asian newspaper about how local curry houses may all have to close down because they can’t get the immigrants from the sub-continent they need with the required skills. Unfortunately there aren’t many skilled curry chefs in Romania.
The excessive visa restrictions we have on the rest of the world – which are required to balance the lax ones in place to the EU – are stopping existing ethnic minority communities dealing fairly with parts of the world they originate from.
So the oft-quoted figures relied upon by the left are skewed by aggregation, and skewed by omission.
If there is logic in the first half of your submission I can’t find it
So I gave up on the rest
I think the gist was: We need already-trained curry-cooks from India because there are none in Romania.
May I suggest that training a Romanian is not an impossibility?
After all, the local Chinese take-away has a nice young Polish woman in the cooking department.
Many building sites have already-trained Polish builders doing the job. Just as well, because the BRITISH building firms are training very few.
I fact over the entire UK the very large problem is that there is little investment in workforce education/training, leading to the also large problem with moribund productivity.
It seems, to me at least, that low unemployment based on poorly-remunerated self-employment [frequently bogus] is not really the solution to any problem.
I note the imminent arrival of a standardised state pension….I really must start to get my head around why George thinks an increased pension would lower costs….as if I didn’t know already. It seems [likely] that many mid-class pensioners with private pensions will be better off, while those in the pits would lose out with the loss of pension credit….SO complicated trying to get inside the head of a politically-inclined person with grand ambitions and no social graces…
If we leave, Europe will change. If we stay, nothing will happen other than a greater leap to the right. We need massive reform for Europe to work. I struggle to see your logic for staying in with all that Europe has and is still putting Greece through.
Read my first post on the subject
And do you think us leaving will change that?
Yanis Varoufakis does not
You need to consider Spain, Italy and Portugal as well. Greece is the poster-child for the problem. France is looking infirm, Ireland could probably lower tax further, but if we depart the EU then it will probably have an influx of financial services from London/UK.
Germany is not too bothered about brexit, especially Frankfurt:
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/why-frankfurt-is-about-to-rival-london-as-europes-new-financial-capital-a3181636.html
Meanwhile, the deal struck threatens to cause major upset in the EU if we vote to stay in. After all, quite a few countries are already wondering why they got a bum deal…
Or, to put it anothr way, the foundations for change are there
“Meanwhile, the deal struck threatens to cause major upset in the EU if we vote to stay in. After all, quite a few countries are already wondering why they got a bum deal.”
Implying that the policy of the British State in apparantly achieving ‘special membership’ status, as the price for continued membership, involving opt outs for issues like effective banking regulation and so on will lead to a position in which any number of other countries will seek similar status for themselves. That seems to me at least, if no one else, a more than reasonable interpretation of the likely scenario.
What does that mean though?
Well it most certainly and very definately does not mean progressive change. Quite the opposite. The policy of the British State in setting into stone a membership deal for itself which takes all the worst bits of economic neo liberalism, political neo conservatism and social neo feudalism whilst discarding all elements of social, employment, and environmental rights and protection etc is likely to drive the direction of change in the European Project being pursued by the other countries in Europe who are complaining in the same direction. Once again the centuries old policy of the English/British State influencing and driving/controlling Europe in its own image is being put into place.
Assuming the position that Voltaire’s hero did in the satire Candide in this scenario is not going to cut the mustard I’m afraid.
Impossible to say that leaving will bring about change I would like to see, it would take those with minds like yourself to ensure we become progressive, and able to meet the challenge. I just don’t see the new Europe with its right wing agenda working. The brakes need putting on, Europe is moving too fast.
I think it is interesting to have a look at these slides from A. Bagnai, an Italian economist.
http://albertobagnai.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-euro-A-success-story.pdf
The presentation is focused on the Euro seen from an Italian perspective, but the last part explains what really is Europe, which are the underlying political goals and how it is governed.
The EU has been created to affect the distribution of wealth by reducing the perimeter of state, reducing salaries, the provision of public services and to compress democracy moving the decision making to Bruxelles, “safe” from electoral processes.
If you agree with the conclusions, and I can’t see how not to agree, provided that these points have been openly stated by important European leaders; than it is clear that no reform is possible and the cost of staying in is way more than the cost getting out.
There is surely no hope for the future inside, there is some hope outside.
The idea that no reform is possible is absurd
It is perhaps absurd – in every place that is outside of Germany.
If we stay in at least Boris will be watered down somewhat, and as for that rail line, well. It was enough to make me come off the fence, count me in. Hope tou manage catch a little vit D.
Simon lists a bunch of stuff that if very bad about the EU. Richard responds “And how is leaving going to change this?” and elsewhere says “The idea that no reform [in the EU] is possible is absurd”.
But surely progressive voices in the UK have a better chance of reforming our own country than reforming an EU super-state. I accept the stakes are higher – neo-liberalism could run rampant in an independent UK, unrestrained by slightly more centrist forces in Europe. And I accept that the Tories have at least four years to further undermine our civilisation. But for optimists, doesn’t an independent UK offer greater prospects of decency prevailing?
I admit I see the EU as a restraint on UK madness right now
“I admit I see the EU as a restraint on UK madness right now”
But the important part for me is that if a left wing government is elected (e.g. Corbyn) then if the EU tries to tie the government’s hands we should tell them in no uncertain terms to piss off.
OK
I suspect the point being made here is that the tail is wagging the dog. That is to say far from being a brake on British State neo liberalism etc Europe is being driven in the opposite direction by continued British State influence acting as an internal parasite on the internal body politic of Europe and the Project which only ejection can stop if the Project is to change in a positive and progressive direction.
Until a convincing narrative which clearly demonstrates this has not, is not, and will not be the case the argument for continued UK superstate membership will struggle.
The floor is still open……
Richard,
By and large,I agree with your post, certainly to the extent that the EU will continue to exert its gravitational pull on the UK regardless. It could also be said quite fairly that one can only reform the EU from within.
However, this issue is not one that is easily decided. For the sake of debate I raise the following matters:
1. THE TREATIES OF MAASTRICHT AND LISBON, TTIP etc:
Being outside of the Eurozone does not let one off the hook completely. One of the greatest objections that you encountered in devising the PQE proposal was the EU’s prohibition on monetary financing. Trading with the EU may imply compliance with EU standards, it does not require compliance with Maastricht, Lisbon etc.
Issues that you have raised regarding tax havens, inequality, worker protections etc. are essentially domestic. To the extent that there are outside influences there may well be a case to suggest that the negatives of TTIP and EU restrictions outweigh the positive of EU standards and protections.
2. BARRIERS TO TRADE
Your comments on tariff-free EU trade would be better suited to a situation where the UK had a trade surplus with the EU. It doesn’t. Besides which, the barriers could work both ways. Are we sure that in the medium to long term, a loss of tariff-free EU trade would be detrimental in net terms? An argument either way would need to be substantiated not assumed.
You stated that “The cost of imports will rise. Our exports will earn less”. These points need not apply to non-EU trade. Either way, both points may simply imply a relative increase in production for the domestic market, a shrinking of the traded sector and, as such, decreased economic dependency.
Is more trade necessarily better? I am not sure that the doctrine of comparative advantage retains a lot of value in the shifty world of multi-national supply chain management.
3. ‘LABOUR SHORTAGES’
You state that “there will be labour shortages in critical areas”. In market terms, that’s how wage rises are secured. The UK’s ongoing unemployment has had an adverse influence on wages and working conditions. If structural adjustment occurs in the wake of specific, isolated shortages – so be it.
4. UK/US TRADE
Avoiding the TTIP is major attraction for progressive advocates of Brexit. Is there any real reason to assume that the UK would need its own separate version? There are plenty of clear examples (eg. Australia) where an FTA with the US pushed the balance of trade in favour of the US. Where is the case for the necessity of an FTA?
5. UNWANTED ALLIES?
The big rent-seekers of Wall St are funding anti-Brexit campaigners. That’s not an entire argument in itself of course but, on balance, it is not a good sign either.
“Wall Street weighs into Britain’s EU vote: Goldman, JP Morgan back ‘in’ campaign” , Reuters, 21/1/16. http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0UZ1U4
6. PROBLEMS — PERMANENT OR TRANSITIONAL?
Brexit would signify an historic change. If the Brexit advocates are suggesting that there won’t be adjustment problems they are being irresponsible. On the other hand, leaving the EU may be difficult, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is worth staying.
Thank you for this post – interesting perspective.
I’m interested in this bit:
“Freedom of speech, already deeply imperilled, is likely to be reduced still further. The right to oppose will be diminished in every walk of life.”
Could you elaborate further or redirect me to where you’ve written on this?
Many thanks,
Samuel S. Thorp
I have written on it in the conext orf academia today
Follow links in latest blog on the site