I think trying to pin many of Brexit’s arguments on a right-wing agenda is to obscure the important wider arguments. I think it’s fundamental to remember that the left has many significant issues with the EU and a long-standing uneasiness with it which, unfortunately, has almost become passé in light of the belief that Brexit has been dominated by the right. Silent ‘voices’ have followed.
Many on the left, including Corbyn himself at one time before he decided to keep quiet about something he has long condemned, strongly consider the EU as a ‘bastion’ of neoliberalism. For example, the EU will influence the NHS and privatisation further, because it is the EU which seeks to advance such concepts throughout the union. The EU strongly agrees with Supply-Side Policies, most of which are opposed by the left. The EU can easily do so when they can over-ride the concerns of national governments. Have we not seen enough of this in the PIIGS? It is also the EU which preaches the need for austerity, a non-negotiable obligation, and promotes the adoption and use of the Euro, eliminating national control over monetary policy (interest rates, exchange rates, money supply). It is the EU which is firmly in the hands of big business. The EU simply fails to meet many fundamental left-leaning policies. Moreover, it controls monetary and supply-side policies, leaving only fiscal policies in the hands of national governments for the time being. One of the EU’s main aims is a centralised super-state. I think we can all agree on that one. The very notion is undemocratic; it is a tool for multinationals and globalisation, both ideas rather abhorrent to the left.
The majority of the British population is sceptical of the EU, and reluctant to go further down this road of political and economic integration. Why are we so sceptical when a country like Greece, which has suffered immensely, isn’t at all at the level of our Euro-scepticism? Yet both countries agree on this: the European super-state is dominated by Germany, as France has consistently lost political and economic influence over the last number of years, whilst the UK has all but lost interest. Has anyone seen Wolfgang Schauble’s comments about the UK and Greece? About the need to keep member states in line and punish those who don't? The House of Commons library research claims that, in terms of regulations and directives, half of all UK laws originate from Brussels and cannot be reversed. This is clearly a loss of sovereignty for all of its member states from the UK to Greece - the two countries at the forefront of a possible exit.
In terms of security and peace, we can sit here in Western Europe and think we’re doing a ‘splendid’ job, because we’re not affected by our own ****-ups. Or you can note, with that awful phrase ‘due diligence’, just how much the EU made a mess out of Yugoslavia and, more recently, Ukraine, because it couldn’t stick to its principles. It caved in to stronger powers. In both examples, the US and Russia had to tip the balance, simply because the EU couldn’t make up its mind and put collective words into collective actions – yet it asks for greater collective developments from its members. It argues for an EU Army which simply wouldn’t be able to agree on anything, because each state has different interests.
The main legacy of European Enlightenment is not, as intended, the collectivisation of political power in the hands of the people - rather, it is in the hands of a technocratic elite with scant regard for democracy. Where exactly was the debate on the issues of bank bailouts? Where was it not practiced? In Iceland, a non-EU state. The freedom of movement which could be argued as 'a race to the bottom in terms of wages'? A common currency, yet no common system of taxation? Where is the discussion of such issues?
I know an argument which would go even further: that a single currency and a single government facilitate the interests of multinationals and globalisation. What else is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) about? Would this not allow the NHS to be a target for multinational health-care companies? Education to be prioritised by multinational companies with more interest in profits than educational excellent? Why is there no vote on this issue? Little media coverage? Broad acceptance by mainstream political parties? What about the Investor State Dispute Settlement which will allow businesses to file a lawsuit against national governments if profits are infringed upon? Again, where is the coverage of such measures in mainstream media? The entire debate has been simplified beyond belief and the real issues often discarded.
The argument of backing the EU in this referendum, simply because the Tories are supposedly against it is weak at best and misguided by denial of the facts. Was it not the Tories who brought the UK into the EEC in ’73? A referendum on joining was only granted two years later. Thatcher and Major yapped about the EU, yet did nothing to remove the UK from it. If you want an illustration of how far Labour have fallen from their initial opposition, look no further than Blair who would have adopted the Euro, consigning the pound to history. The Euro itself has initiated untold misery throughout the PIIGS, yet Brussels responds with what exactly? Demand for greater powers, greater centralisation.
A significant factor behind UKIP’s success is that it has pulled Tory Euro-sceptics and traditional Labour voters, largely because the likes of Corbyn and Blair before him have forgotten their bread and butter electorate. UKIP have capitalised on discontent, largely because Labour has ignored such concerns from their own traditional electorate and the Tories don't have the balls, once and for all, to deal with this topic beyond some 1922 club for cigar smokers.
Even more stunning is that the small, independent parties which prioritise localisation of politics and greater devolution (Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP) refuse outright to challenge the aggressive centralisation of the EU and all its organs.
In words no immortal than this: “Get…Me…Out” should the EU continue down its current path without significant reforms.
If we remain, we accept this status quo and forfeit the opportunity, indeed the right, to question it in future. It is too steep a price to pay. We will be made an example of, regardless the outcome.
