Must the left give up on the EU?


 

Defending the EU is unlikely to win you many votes nowadays, if it ever did. It’s a bit like immigration: even the most blinkered could probably force themselves to see its benefits, but it’s just a lot more convenient and safe to rail against both, whilst politically of course being a sure vote winner.

David Cameron’s ‘veto moment’ won instant plaudits from 62 per cent of those polled straight after last week’s Brussels summit. On the ‘In/Out’ question, almost half would support Britain’s withdrawal from the EU if asked today, against only 33 per cent standing firm in the ‘Yes to the EU’, camp.

EU1For all their posturing, a Labour government would have probably done what the prime minister did.

If Europhiles, such as myself, have been left aghast at what has happened, we shouldn’t really be that surprised. Standing up for the EU can often feel like a losing and lonely battle.

The British have always spoken of “Europe” as if it were something which existed elsewhere; an alien and remote entity, forgetting that we are also part of it, whether we like it or not. That may not be always the case with the EU.

But, for all its faults, and there are many, a future sliding further and further away from it is not something those on the left should be relishing.

Europhiles have never really been vocal or convincing enough in praising the EU. Just hiding behind words such as ‘jobs,’ ‘growth,’ and ‘prosperity,’ as evidence, doesn’t cut it with the electorate. Concrete examples have been sorely lacking. Here’s a handy list to help.

Commenting after UKIP’s strong showing at the 2004 elections to the European Parliament, The Independent wrote:

So used have we become to these [EU] advantages, that we forget to mention them. But they belong in the political debate.

It could be argued that some of the policies to have come out of the EU have been far more progressive, especially in terms of workers’ and consumers’ rights, that those ever passed by successive British governments. At least, there is a gold standard with which all governments must respect.

Yet, if pro-Europeans have been reluctant to wear their ‘Europeanness’ with pride, then maybe it’s because they never really believed it.

John Harris quotes this passage from one of Tony Blair’s biographies, neatly summing up Blair’s reticence to Europe; Blair was:

“…a pragmatic and competent manager of Britain’s membership of the union without ever committing himself fully to it and… without winning, or even entertaining, the argument in favour of membership with his own electorate.”

Certainly, its democratic deficit harms its reputation, and makes it that much harder for its supporters to stick up for.

A week later, things have become to look a little clearer. The debate has already started to shift away from the narrow focus on Britain’s veto, and the implications in using it, to the wider consequences of what was exactly put forward in Brussels. In essence, we are confronted with two challenges: Britain’s isolation from its EU partners, and where this leaves the left.

And for the left the picture is pretty bleak.

As far as the BBC’s Paul Mason is concerned, what was drawn up would make US Republicans swoon and dance with joy:

“…by enshrining in national and international law the need for balanced budgets and near-zero structural deficits, the eurozone has outlawed expansionary fiscal policy.”

The proposed EU treaty has to all intents and purposes “buried Keynesianism”.

Everything many on the left have been arguing against in recent months has found its way onto the ‘Merkozy doctrine’:

What is proposed, amounts to the same old mantra of “fiscal discipline”, based upon the stability and growth pact that was flouted from the start, but this time brutally enforced with painful sanctions and accompanied by dilution of democracy in the weaker nation states.

With perfect timing, Tuesday brought forth more grim news for Greece. Severe austerity has widened their budget deficit and deepened its recession.

In other words, from a left-wing perspective, ludicrous though it may sound, one could argue that in fact David Cameron may have ended up making the right decision for all the wrong reasons. Of course Cameron’s reasons for opposing were more to do with protecting the City of London from tighter financial control, whilst he breathtakingly ignores the calamitous lessons of 2008 and the perils of loose regulation. And yet, he may have badly miscalculated.

One analyst believes Cameron’s grandstanding could spectacularly backfire. Rather than protect the interests of the City, his stance could have the opposite effect and make the UK more vulnerable to EU law.

Furthermore, eurozone partners will take great delight in punishing Britain:

“Far from defending the City against ill-conceived initiatives originating in Brussels, the government may actively invite them. The reason is that it has marginalised itself politically, and that it has only increased long-standing suspicions in the rest of Europe that British Euroscepticism and the City of London are natural bedfellows.”

And this form of retribution could materialise in the form of the much resisted financial transactions tax. This past week has left the EU, and its supporters on the left, with something of a conundrum. Owen Jones rightly argues that it shouldn’t just be the job of the right to challenge it.

If an attachment to the EU borders on the romantic for some, for others it has been a priceless weapon against nationalism; as one commentator noted, on his last assignment in Brussels:

“…many of Europe’s worst follies can be blamed on the selfishness and cynicism of governments, not Brussels bureaucrats.”

Last week’s defiant act by the PM being just the latest example.

The EU is about to enter another new phase. Whether we like what happens or not, we’re going to be powerless to do much about it from the outside looking in. As Tory leader, William Hague liked to crow that Britain should be in Europe, not run by Europe.

Cameron’s veto has meant that we’ll be out of Europe, but run by it: virtually excluded from all the key decision-making, without influence, yet still answerable to it. It also leaves the left vulnerable in terms of safeguarding its own political and economic interests, whether they be at home or abroad.

Defending the EU just got that little bit harder.

See also:

Public support for Cameron’s EU walkout already unravelling – Will Straw, December 13th 2011

What exactly did Cameron get from the EU summit? – Shamik Das, December 13th 2011

EU summitry is futile; this is a global financial crisis, not a eurozone crisis – Ann Pettifor, December 9th 2011

Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

There is a role for the Left in the EU, if it wants it – Dr Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos, October 29th 2011

This entry was posted in Multilateral Foreign Policy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Pingback: Richard Astley

  • Pingback: Sean PdeC

  • Pingback: Political Planet

  • Pingback: Hitchin England

  • Pingback: Patron Press - #P2

  • Pingback: SMTaylor

  • Pingback: Ben Mitchell

  • Pingback: Michael

  • Ed’s Talking Balls

    ‘For all their posturing, a Labour government would have probably done what the prime minister did.’

    Well said. Shame the Labour Party has to huff and puff and squirm when asked what it would have done. Even by his own tremendously low standards, Milibank looks very weak when pressed on this.

    ‘Europhiles have never really been vocal or convincing enough in praising the EU.’

    I disagree on the former part – the likes of Ashdown never shut up. You’re of course correct as regards the latter! It probably doesn’t help that it’s a series of irritating, usual suspects who repeat the unpopular messages. Still, it’s hard to polish a turd.

    ‘Certainly, its democratic deficit harms its reputation, and makes it that much harder for its supporters to stick up for.’

    It’s refreshing to hear a Europhile admit such defects. Chuck in multiple sets of unaudited accounts and you have the ingredients of an organisation not fit for purpose.

  • Pingback: Polittiscribe

  • Pingback: Donald Vieth

  • Anonymous

    Paul Mason is wrong. When the Marshall Plan was introduced, a central part of the Treaty under which aid was provided required European countries to introduce laws stipulating Balanced Budgets! Yet, the period of the Marshall Plan, during the 1950’s was the period of classical Keynesian intervention!

  • http://twitter.com/jonworth Jon Worth

    If you start from the wrong place you’re not going to win the argument. Starting from the pro-European / eurosceptic frame doesn’t do anyone any good, because it leads you straight into the problems with the EU that you outline, and no-one can defend those. Here are a few tips for how to better go about it.

  • Pingback: Linda Rothstein

  • Pingback: TheCreativeCrip

  • Pingback: MustBeRead

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Moss/596176256 John Moss

    The City was not loosely regulated in 2000-2008, it was badly regulated by a flawed system which was set up by Brown and Balls. Their failure was to regulate process, not risk. Then, when it came crashing down, the poor bloody taxpayer had to stand behind the few banks left, (aonther Brown/Balls failure, allowing mega mergers instead of defending competition) or the whole world would have collapsed.

    With the exception of Germany, all the left wing Governments of Europe followed Brown’s lead and spent more than they got in in tax for a decade. Well that just doesn’t work and now we all have to pay.

    They have proved Thatcher right on a massive scale, Socialists eventually run out of everybody else’s money!

  • John

    If ‘eurozone partners will take great delight in punishing Britain’, doesn’t that actually tell you everything you need to know about our current relationship with them?

  • Stephen Wigmore

    “The British have always spoken of “Europe” as if it were something which existed elsewhere”

    Maybe because that’s how most people genuinely feel. And maybe you should start actually trying to redress that rather than just complaining about it and blaming “the right wing media”.

    A good start would be: ” Concrete examples have been sorely lacking. Here’s a handy list to help.”

    But: “Certainly, its democratic deficit harms its reputation, and makes it that much harder for its supporters to stick up for.”

    So what are you doing to try to remedy this? Don’t just blame the right-wing media, as long as Europhiles refuse to face up to the problems of the EU and offer a positive critique to counter the negative critique posted by the eurosceptics they will be marginalised and ignored and rightly so.

    And: “The proposed EU treaty has to all intents and purposes “buried Keynesianism”.”

    So why are you slamming Cameron for vetoing it? Oh yes, because he’s a Tory and because right wingers like what he has done. If you oppose things because of the people who support them, regardless of what their content actually is then you’ve given up on rational argument, reason or logic and don’t deserve to be heard. Sort yourselves out and then people may listen to your attempt to sort out the Country’s attitude to the EU.

    And: “Furthermore, eurozone partners will take great delight in punishing Britain:”

    In which case why are you defending them? This is petty, petulant, school-yard stuff. How dare they threaten the people of this country?! Why the hell do veto exists if their use is a crime that demands “punishment” from the rest of Europe. If that is the attitude of the EU this is not an organisation we should be a part of. Especially if they are punishing us for rejecting the Merkozy crazed deflationary, recessionary, sadistic policies that you and the rest of the Left know will only cripple and beggar Europe.

    “Cameron’s veto has meant that we’ll be out of Europe, but run by it: virtually excluded from all the key decision-making, without influence, yet still answerable to it.”

    No we won’t. The only change is that we won’t get to attend meetings for a fiscal union that we wouldn’t be part of anyway. The rest of the EU goes on and there is no reason we should be excluded from influence. Especially since FU can’t work for both political and economics reasons (that the left knows all too well) and even if it does will take years to implement.

    “Defending the EU just got that little bit harder.”

    Defending it would get a lot less difficult if you actually faced up to its shortcomings and didn’t just feel an atavistic need to defend it from all comers. Then the British people might actually start to listen to and respect what you have to say. The way forward is clear. Do europhiles and the left generally have the courage to take it?

  • Riversm00nraker

    We are where we are. – Offshore!

  • Pingback: Rachel Megan Barker

  • Pingback: Will Clegg fight against a Fresh Start on the EU? | Left Foot Forward

  • YouGov Tracker

  • Touchstone Economic Tracker

  • Best of the web

  • Archive