The UK referendum on the EU

As many of you will be aware, mounting disquiet in europe has led to increasing support for far right, left and separatist parties across the EU. In the UK mounting pressure from UKIP and longstanding divisions over the UK's place in the EU led to Conservative Prime Minister David cameron pledging to attempt to renegotiate Britain's place in the EU and then put the issue of continued membership to a referendum. His party succeeded against the predictions to win a majority government and as promised he has attempted to renegotiate and a deal has been secured with the referendum date set for 23/06/2016.

The issue is internationally significant as the UK makes up part of the centre right in europe and its removal will shift power internally towards the poorer south and east and away from the north. As the UK is a net contributor removal would also lead to either reduced investment in the net recipient states or a rise in tax amongst the contributors to account for the shortfall. It would also end a secondary flow of money from the UK supplementary benefit benefit system to families in EE and likely negatively impact life there. (a minimum wage job in the UK + attendant top up benefits is larger than the average wage in poland)

The details of cameron's deal are here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

the main points are a removal of the treaty commitment for 'ever closer union' for the UK and a tapering suspension of in work benefits for eu immigrants for 7 years.

The broad arguments for each side are as follows:

Remain:

The UK is stronger within the EU than outside as it has a voice on decisions
better trade deals with entities like china and the US are possible because of collective bargaining.
Much of the UK employment protections come from EU legislation
The EU is democratic as the UK can elect MEPs and has a seat on the council for their head of government.
The EU would penalise a british exit and any trade deal would leave us with less control over our own affairs a la Norway or switzerland,
Businesses would leave the UK for the EU.
Free movement of people is a net benefit for the UK.
The UK benefits from investment by the EU
The EU prevents russian influence from growing in ee
Paris would take the financial market from London if we left.
the relationship with the US would be harmed.
A vote to leave will likely trigger a new Scottish referendum which most polls predict would lead to a break up of the UK.
The ECHR's authority and the Human Rights act would likely be scrapped shortly after exit


Leave:
free movement of people has depressed wages and strained infrastructure as most migrants are low skilled and low paid.
The native working class cannot compete for wages as their living costs are higher than those with family in EE.
The vote to join in the 70s was made with the promise of trade union only and the Eu has explicitly become a political project.
The Uk representation has never successfully opposed a motion in the EU.
EU law has overridden UK government policy despite that government being elected
Britain pays more in than it gets out.
German leadership of the EU is wildly out of tune with public opinion.
The EU creates excessive red tape which is hurting british industry.
The UK is the EU's largest trading partner with a trade deficit which makes any trade war self defeating.
other countries have free trade agreements with the EU despite not being members (Canada, South Korea)
The executive of the Eu is unelected.
The CAP subsidises the French unfairly and prevents proper importing from the commonwealth of food which keeps food prices artificially high.
The ECHR's authority and the Human Rights act would likely be scrapped shortly after exit


The Battlelines:

Remain:
The labour party led by Jeremy Corbin who, in his youth, opposed the EU as being a Capitalist tool to keep workers down.
The SNP led by Nicola Sturgeon who have as an end goal an independent Scotland within the EU.
The Prime minister David Cameron and a portion of the Conservative party.

Exit:
UKIP- an explicitly right wing anti eu party led by Nigel Farage- notable for taking a significant share of the votes if not the seats in the last election.
Boris Johnson- mayor of London and one of the likely successors to Cameron. He is joined by another faction within the conservative party.
Assorted 'bennites' the remnant of the followers of the late Tony Benn on the left of british politics- this is where Corbyn had his origins.

Outside the politicians there is a split with unions, banks,and industry declaring both ways. The legal profession is likewise split however the inclination there is for the leave campaign. The Army and the Crown have not commented as is traditional.

The press is likewise split with the sun and mail backing out and the guardian backing in. the telegraph will likely tacitly back out.

Any discussion of UK politics online tends to include childish name calling 'little englanders, EUSSR, Camoron, Corbynazi etc etc'. I'd be obliged if we could avoid that- it adds nothing to what is an important debate.

What are your thoughts kiwis? in or out?

 

[JU 199]

Spoiler: Never mind

Developments.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mily-considering-dramatic-brexit-intervention

The royal family is seriously considering making a dramatic intervention in the referendum debate with an announcement that it supports Britain remaining inside the European Union.

That the royals are prepared to risk provoking a potential constitutional crisis shows just how deep their anger is at parts of the British press and senior politicians.

According to a senior source close to official figures, there was particular resentment at the Sun’s newspaper’s depiction of the Queen as a Brexit supporter.

But the anger runs through the generations at Buckingham Palace: there was fury at the claims about “workshy” Prince William, a campaign mounted by two papers with an anti-EU stance, the Daily Mail and the Sun. And there was a feeling last week that rock bottom had been hit with a story in the Mail that Kate was now posher than the other royals.

Using outside experts who advised that the intervention would need to be presented by a figure with impeccable European credentials, a strong affinity with the continent and the character to speak out, the family has decided that the move should fronted by Prince Philip.
“He has been hugely impressed by the way the EU stepped in, not just once but several times, to save Greece,” said one official with knowledge of events. “He admires what Tsipras and Varoufakis achieved – in fact he told friends he sees something of his younger self in the charismatic, motorbike-riding, eye-for-the-ladies Varoufakis. Mind you,” added the source, “he also thinks the Greeks would never have got into this mess if the colonels had still been in power.”

Another well-connected source explained that the royals now see a tightening conspiracy between the pro-exit papers, notably the Sun, Telegraph and Mail, and certain politicians. “The leader of Vote Leave is Michael Gove – that awful little leaker who put it about that the Queen wanted out. They can’t stand him. And as for Boris, the other main outer – he’s a cycling maniac from Islington. All he has done for the royal family is make it difficult to get around London in a decent-sized Daimler. And the third of the trio – Farage – what another awful little man.”

Part of the reason for stepping into the debate in such an unprecedented way is huge disappointment in the prime minister, David Cameron.

“purred down the line” when he telephoned her to tell her Scotland had voted against independence. “The cheek of the man. There was real fury about that comment. And the irony of it – coming from a fat cat,” said a source.

Remaining questions of strategy are being resolved by an inner circle at the palace. On timing, the date picked for Philip to make a nationwide address is 10 June, crucially just two weeks before the referendum on 23 June. Courtiers have noted the added poignancy of 10 June – it is Philip’s 95th birthday.

On which platform to use, the source said: “We want to avoid that ‘bloody little man’, as Charles called BBC royal reporter Nicholas Witchell.”

Kensington Palace sources say the choice is a tight one between ITV’s news anchor Tom Bradby, who is preferred by Prince William, and Prince Harry’s strong favourites Ant and Dec. Harry argues that the Saturday Night Takeaway presenters would reach a different demographic and be particularly appealing to “people in the north with accents”.

“William says that chap at ITV, Bradby, sees things like us. And there is a strong feeling that we should do over the Bleating Broadcasting Corporation. Serve them right for cocking up the Queen’s water pageant with those disc jockeys instead of using a Dimbleby.”

Another insider said early proposals to do a live broadcast have been rejected in favour of a pre-recorded session because of Philip’s propensity for swearing. “The words have to be perfect,” she said, “but we’ve got time to iron things out between today – 1 April – and June.”

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Developments.

View attachment 81100

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mily-considering-dramatic-brexit-intervention

Posted on April 1st.

 

[JU 199]

Posted on April 1st.

Oops

Here's something else instead

Leaked Brexit email claims David Cameron has 'starved' NHS

Tory MPs furious over message from Cleo Watson of Vote Leave campaign, which has support of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leave-attacks-david-cameron-letter-nhs-staff

The Brexit campaign group backed by the justice secretary, Michael Gove, is trying to persuade senior NHS staff to sign a letter that includes a direct attack on David Cameron, who is accused of having starved the health service of funding.

In an email leaked to the Guardian, Vote Leave’s Cleo Watson tells clinicians that her group desperately needs doctors, nurses and pharmacists to warn that Britain’s health service is being damaged by the EU.

A draft version of the letter included by Watson says: “David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt must accept responsibility for this – they have starved the NHS of necessary funding for too long.”

She says in the email that the letter will be published on Monday to mark the start of a week in which “out” campaigners will focus on NHS issues such as cost, patient care and safety, immigration and EU directives.

The inclusion of a line directly criticising the Conservative leader has triggered a furious reaction among some of the party’s MPs because Vote Leave has Gove, the London mayor, Boris Johnson, and cabinet ministers Priti Patel and John Whittingdale among senior committee members.

The letter describes the health service as a great British institution that families rely on. “But as it slips into financial crisis the NHS itself needs some urgent attention. The NHS is being asked to make huge cuts at a time of rising demand. Patients are having to wait longer for treatment, hospital deficits are increasing and doctors are on strike after being told they must take a pay cut,” it says, claiming that Brexit would hand billions back to the service.


EU referendum: 250 business leaders sign up as backers of Vote Leave
Read more
”Remain” campaigners accused Vote Leave of changing its position on the NHS, arguing that the group’s chief executive, Matthew Elliott, had supported spending cuts, opposed ringfencing of the NHS and proposed more privatisation in the past.

James McGrory, a spokesman for Britain Stronger in Europe, said: “You cannot trust Vote Leave with the NHS. They are people who have spent their political lives championing policies which would destroy the NHS as we know it.

“It’s rank opportunism for them to now don the clothes of protectors of the NHS.”

A Vote Leave spokesman rejected the claim, arguing that the NHS was struggling because of EU membership. “If we Vote Leave we can stop handing over £350m a week to the EU and can instead spend our money on our priorities like the NHS,” he said.

A senior Department of Health source hit back by claiming the government had provided an additional £10bn for the NHS and said that “every Conservative MP stood on a manifesto to deliver this package”. They added: “So we expect every Conservative MP to have absolutely nothing to do with this letter.”

In an increasingly fierce battle over Britain’s future relationship with the EU, which is causing stark divisions in the Tory party, the source claimed that independent experts had said Brexit would cause an “economic shock”.

It follows an article by Hunt that was branded as scaremongering by out campaigners.

Cameron and Gove have tried to maintain a strong relationship throughout the referendum campaign, despite Gove’s decision to campaign vocally for Brexit. There are claims that the prime minister has started ignoring ministers campaigning to leave, but Downing Street sources say the justice secretary is still invited to sessions in which Cameron prepares for prime minister’s questions.

Nick Herbert, the chairman of Conservatives In, called on the party’s MPs and ministers to “distance themselves from this wholly unacceptable attack on our party”. “I find it hard to believe that any senior Conservative would want to be associated with direct criticism of the prime minister and our achievements in this crucial area, not least ahead of local elections,” he said.

Cameron, who was attending a summit in Washington on Thursday and Friday, said his encounters with other world leaders had underlined the fact they believed Britain’s best interests lay in remaining in the EU. “What I find is it’s very hard to find a leader of a friendly nation that wishes Britain well, that believes we would be better off outside a reformed EU. I had some brief discussions about this with Prime Minister Modi [of India] last night and we will have further conversations with him today.”


Vote Leave releases list of serious crimes by EU citizens in Britain
Read more
The prime minister’s comments came as another leading figure linked to Vote Leave told the Guardian he would like to see the entire EU project dissolved.

Nigel Lawson, a former Tory chancellor, said: “Well you could say that once upon a time it served a useful purpose, in confining Germany. You could make that case – and I really bought into this in the 50s. But it’s passed its sell-by date; it’s served its purpose.

“I see no purpose in the European Union now at all. I think that if it ceases to exist we’ll have better relationships.”

Lawson argued there was more hostility between European countries now than there had ever been at any time since the second world war.

Advertisement

“The great majority of people in Europe do not want to be part of a political union,” he said.

Asked about the impact the referendum was having on his party and whether Cameron’s premiership was a price worth paying for Brexit, he said the prime minister had “already said he’s going to stand down”.

Lawson argued, however, that Cameron had a duty to remain in place with his cabinet in the aftermath of an out vote in order to implement the people’s verdict in the most effective way.

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER
From: Cleo Watson
Date: 29 March 2016 at 13:36:03 BST
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Urgent call: Doctors


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Dear Colleagues

I hope you have had a restful Easter.

Next week is the Vote Leave NHS week, when we will be hitting a number of issues that affect staff and patients, including cost, patient care and safety, immigration, EU Directives and TTIP.

We will be publishing a letter on Monday from respected doctors, nurses, pharmacists and so on and we desperately need you to suggest any clinician contacts that you may have. It would obviously be great to kick off the week with a really strong list to accompany the letter, the draft text of which is below.

If you could forward me the details of any current or retired healthcare workers I would be incredibly grateful.

Advertisement

Best regards

Cleo

The NHS is a great British institution that families rely on in times of need. But as it slips into financial crisis the NHS itself needs some urgent attention. The NHS is being asked to make huge cuts at a time of rising demand. Patients are having to wait longer for treatment, hospital deficits are increasing and doctors are on strike after being told they must take a pay cut. David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt must accept responsibility for this – they have starved the NHS of necessary funding for too long.

If we Vote Leave on 23 June we will be able to spend more on our priorities like the NHS. If we put the billions that currently go to EU bureaucrats into the NHS instead it would hugely improve patient care. For example, the £350 million a week we hand to Brussels is similar to the entire yearly Cancer Drugs Fund budget.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

Your post has actually put me in a complete state of doubt. I was already in a complete state of doubt, but this just crystallized it.

As much as people hate lawyers, perhaps for good reason, a post like this really demonstrates the "thinking like a lawyer" concept.

You very succinctly capsulized an incredibly complex issue without judging the numerous arguments for and against it, simply presenting them.

I still have no solid opinion. My Anglophilic tendencies cause me to think fuck the EU, what have they done for anything at all?

Then I think that things like the ECHR actually beckon toward a future where human rights actually have real protections.

Then I think that the EU idea of "human rights" seems to include, these days, the right not to be offended, and there is no such right.

This may be superficial, but ISTR freedom of speech is buried somewhere like in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, like some kind of fucking afterthought. In Murrica, that is the FIRST fucking Amendment. It is considered the absolute bulwark of freedom against goddamn everything.

So I'm pretty ambivalent even about that ECHR thing.

And then, there's the whole fuck the French thing. I'm in for that.

Then there's local stuff like the potential breakup of the UK itself. That would suck but I don't really care about it.

I still slightly tend toward the stay option, but the UK should preserve its options and retain the ability to threaten to leave, but without actually doing it.

ETA: Also what's your opinion. I just noticed I couldn't tell from your post. If you're deliberately reserving opinion, I'll get that.

The ECHR is not an EU institution.

 

[Vitriol]

The ECHR is not an EU institution.

membership of the ECHR is a requirement of the EU. Without it we would likely have withdrawn during the abu hanza case.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

membership of the ECHR is a requirement of the EU. Without it we would likely have withdrawn during the abu hanza case.

Which would've put Britain on par with the only European country that's not an ECHR member, i.e. Belarus.

 

[Vitriol]

Which would've put Britain on par with the only European country that's not an ECHR member, i.e. Belarus.

But able to deport Hanza which was a major government goal for 15 years. The Conservatives have made it pretty clear they see the ECHR as an obstruction and would favour a canadian style bill of rights.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

But able to deport Hanza which was a major government goal for 15 years. The Conservatives have made it pretty clear they see the ECHR as an obstruction and would favour a canadian style bill of rights.

Fair enough, if that's the civilisation circle they're aspiring to. 50% of British economy is owned by Russian mafia anyway.

 

[Vitriol]

Fair enough, if that's the civilisation circle they're aspiring to. 50% of British economy is owned by Russian mafia anyway.

citation needed

 

[JU 199]

citation needed

Citation is for pussies who care about stupid, gay facts.

More news
http://europe.newsweek.com/leave-remain-brexit-poll-arguments-443642?rm=eu

As Britain’s EU referendum approaches, it looks as if the “Remain” campaign could be losing the argument.

Or that’s what a poll published by research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) shows. In a survey, GQR found that voters prefer many of the key arguments put forward by campaigners who favour a “Brexit” to those advanced by pro-EU groups.

And, when respondents were asked how they would vote in the referendum for a second time, after they had been run through all the arguments, they were more likely to say they would vote to leave than before.

Subscribe now - Free phone/tablet charger worth over £54
Before they had seen the arguments, 41 percent of those surveyed said they would vote to stay in the bloc, while 37 percent said they would vote to leave. Afterwards, 40 percent said they would vote to leave, while 39 percent said they would vote to remain.

“At the moment, the Remain campaign aren’t triggering strong emotions,” says James Morris, a GQR pollster, “it really is quite dessicated.”

For example, while 56 percent of voters found a pro-Brexit argument about curbing EU migration convincing, and 58 percent were at least somewhat convinced by the argument that leaving the Bloc would “give Britain back control of its own laws,” the strongest arguments for Remain, such as the risk Brexit might pose to jobs, mostly convinced only about 41 percent.

Morris thinks that the best strategy for Remain would be to do more to highlight the uncertainty and risk involved in voting to leave —tactics often dismissed by figures on both sides as “project fear.” “The only strong weapon that the remain side have,” he says, “is basically just to say ‘is it really worth taking the risk’… without getting into any of the substance of the arguments.”

 

[Splendid]

You'll always be welcome in NAFTA guys.

 

[JU 199]

A perspective from Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu

During a break from that 10-hour Eurogroup meeting, in which I had struggled to reclaim some economic sovereignty on behalf of my battered parliament and our suffering people, another finance minister attempted to soothe me by saying: “Yanis, you must understand that no country can be sovereign today. Especially not a small and bankrupt one like yours.”
More

Coming into the highest level of European decision-making from the academic world, where argument and reason are the norm, the most striking realisation was the absence of any meaningful debate. If this was not bad enough, there was an even more painful realisation: that this absence is considered natural – indeed, considered a virtue, and one that newcomers like myself should embrace, or face the consequences.

Prearranged communiques, prefabricated votes, a solid coalition of finance ministers around Schäuble that was impenetrable to rational debate; this was the order to the day and, more often, of the long, long night. Not once did I get the feeling that my interlocutors were at all interested in Greece’s economic recovery while we were discussing the economic policies that should be implemented in my country.

From the day I assumed office I strove to put together sensible, moderate proposals that would create common ground between my government, the troika of Greece’s lenders and Schäuble’s people. The idea was to go to Brussels, put to them our own blueprint for Greece’s recovery and then discuss with them their own ideas and objections to ours.

My own Athens-based team worked hard on this, together with experts from abroad, including Jeff Sachs of Columbia University, Thomas Meyer, a former chief economist at Deutsche Bank, Daniel Cohen and Matthieu Pigasse, leading lights of the French investment bank Lazard, the former US treasury secretary Larry Summers, and my personal friend Lord Lamont – not exactly a group of leftist recalcitrants.

Soon we had a fully-fledged plan, whose final version I co-authored with Jeff Sachs. It consisted of three chapters. One proposed smart debt operations that would make Greece’s public debt manageable again, while guaranteeing maximum returns to our creditors. The second chapter put forward a medium-term fiscal consolidation policy that would ensure the Greek government would never get into deficit again, while limiting our budget surplus targets to levels low enough to be credible and consistent with recovery. Finally, the third chapter outlined deep reforms to public and tax administration, product markets, and the restructure of a broken banking system as well as the creation a development bank to manage public assets at an arm’s length from politicians.

I am often asked: Why were these proposals of your ministry rejected? They were not. The Eurogroup and the troika did not have to reject them because they never allowed me to put them on the table. When I began speaking about them, they would look at me as if I were singing the Swedish national anthem. And behind the scenes they were exerting pressure on the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, to repress these proposals, insinuating that there would be no agreement unless we stuck to the troika’s failed programme.

What was really going on, of course, was that the troika could simply ignore our proposals, tell the world that I had nothing credible to offer them, let the negotiations fail, impose an indefinite bank holiday, and then force the prime minister to acquiesce on everything – including a massive new loan that is at least double the size Greece would have required under our proposals.

Tragically, despite our prime minister’s acceptance of the troika’s terms of surrender, and the loss of another year during which Greece’s great depression is deepening, the same process is unfolding now. Only a few days ago WikiLeaks revealed the troubling transcript of a telephone conversation involving the International Monetary Fund’s participants in the Greek drama. Listening to their discussion confirms that nothing has changed since I resigned last July.

Once I put it to Schäuble that we, as the elected representatives of a continent in crisis, can not defer to unelected bureaucrats; we have a duty to find common ground on the policies that affect people’s lives through direct dialogue. He replied that, in his perspective, what matters most is the respect of the existing “rules”. And since the rules can only be enforced by technocrats, I should talk to them.

Whenever I attempted to discuss rules that were clearly impossible to enforce, the standard reply was: “But these are the rules!” Once, while I was pushing hard for the argument, resulting from our team’s policy work, that primary budget surplus targets of 4.5% of Greece’s national income were impossible, and undesirable even from the creditors’ perspective, Schäuble looked at me and asked me, perhaps for the first and last time, an economic question. “So, what would you like that target to be?” At last, I rejoiced, a chance to have a serious discussion.

In an attempt to be as reasonable as possible, I replied: “For the target of the government budget primary surplus to be credible and realistic, it needs to be consistent with our overall policy mix. The budget surplus number, when added to the difference between savings and investment, must equal Greece’s current account balance. Which means that we can strive for a higher budget primary surplus if we also put in place a credible strategy for boosting investment and delivering more credit to exporters.

“So, before I can answer your question, Wolfgang, on what the primary surplus target ought to be, it is crucial that we link this number to our policies on non-performing bank loans (that impede credit to exporters) and investment flows (which are reduced when we set the primary budget surplus target too high, scaring investors off with the implicit threat of higher future taxes). What I can tell you at this point is that the optimal target cannot be more than 1.5%. But let’s have our people study this together.”

Schäuble’s response to my point, addressing the rest of the Eurogroup while avoiding my eyes, was remarkable: “The previous government has committed Greece to 4.5% primary surpluses. And a commitment is a commitment!”

A few hours later, the media was full of leaks from the Eurogroup, claiming that “the Greek finance minister infuriated his colleagues in the Eurogroup by subjecting them to an economics lecture”.”

Those were just a few excerpts. It's an interesting essay.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Welp, the opinion polls seem to be down to "how many people are called in set areas".

Within the same week I have seen one poll put Brexit 4 points ahead, and another that put Remain a staggering 7. It really is remarkable how bad the polls are at the moment, and nobody is sure how accurate any of them are after last year's clusterfuck.

The FT's Poll of Polls however, hands Remain a very narrow lead as of the new financial year of just 3%.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

A perspective from Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister

Worth noting that despite his unhappiness, Varoufakis says (in the headline, no less) that "leaving is not the answer".

Varoufakis belongs to the leftist tradition that sees European political unity as a good in theory but doesn't like the form it has taken. (Despite what a lot of Brexiters will tell you, the EU is explicitly a free-trade oriented, neoliberal organisation). Even after getting mauled by the troika, Varoufakis believes that it's easier to get to a 'social Europe' by reforming the EU than destroying it and starting from a bunch of sovereign nation-states.

Corbyn is roughly taking the same line (not entirely surprising as Varoufakis is one of his informal advisors). Corbyn's a bit of a late convert to this concept, though, in the past he's seemed more of a left eurosceptic. But it seems that whatever Corbyn's personal beliefs he's seen that most of his party and its voters are pro-EU, and unlike some other issues he doesn't want to fight them on it. If I had to try to guess about what's inside Corbyn's head I'd say he's instinctively anti-EU but doesn't see it as a very pressing issue (unlike Trident or NATO).

 

[AnOminous]

Worth noting that despite his unhappiness, Varoufakis says (in the headline, no less) that "leaving is not the answer".

Good. I was wondering what I was missing there, because his whole statement read like a denunciation of the EU and a good reason to leave, i.e. that it is run by inhuman technocrats completely out of touch with reality who want to fit countries they don't understand onto the Procrustean bed of whatever incomprehensible ideology they're pushing, apparently by cutting and chopping at random.

 

[JU 199]

Worth noting that despite his unhappiness, Varoufakis says (in the headline, no less) that "leaving is not the answer".

Varoufakis belongs to the leftist tradition that sees European political unity as a good in theory but doesn't like the form it has taken. (Despite what a lot of Brexiters will tell you, the EU is explicitly a free-trade oriented, neoliberal organisation). Even after getting mauled by the troika, Varoufakis believes that it's easier to get to a 'social Europe' by reforming the EU than destroying it and starting from a bunch of sovereign nation-states.

Corbyn is roughly taking the same line (not entirely surprising as Varoufakis is one of his informal advisors). Corbyn's a bit of a late convert to this concept, though, in the past he's seemed more of a left eurosceptic. But it seems that whatever Corbyn's personal beliefs he's seen that most of his party and its voters are pro-EU, and unlike some other issues he doesn't want to fight them on it. If I had to try to guess about what's inside Corbyn's head I'd say he's instinctively anti-EU but doesn't see it as a very pressing issue (unlike Trident or NATO).

I meant to copy the paragraph with thoughts on staying inside but I got distracted

 

[Splendid]

the EU is explicitly a free-trade oriented, neoliberal organisation

When I think of free trade, the first thing I think of isn't enacting a shitton of new laws for all sorts of tiny little things and creating the retarded monstrosity that is the ECHR.
And then there's the EU's blatant attempts to legislate social policies in member countries as well.

 

[Mark Corrigan]

(Despite what a lot of Brexiters will tell you, the EU is explicitly a free-trade oriented, neoliberal organisation).

That's a very interesting aspect of discussion on the EU that rightists think it is "socialist" while leftist think it's "neo-liberal", whereas in reality it is neither - i.e. you can find arguments in support of and against both points of view - and is a result of a series of political compromises between a growing number (28 at the moment) of sovereign nations. It only shows how strongly both sides are firmly entrenched within their own camps and how little actual discussion there is on the issue.

 

[AnOminous]

That's a very interesting aspect of discussion on the EU that rightists think it is "socialist" while leftist think it's "neo-liberal", whereas in reality it is neither - i.e. you can find arguments in support of and against both points of view - and is a result of a series of political compromises between a growing number (28 at the moment) of sovereign nations. It only shows how strongly both sides are firmly entrenched within their own camps and how little actual discussion there is on the issue.

It could have different parts of it that do both things, but do neither of them well.

 

[Splendid]

That's a very interesting aspect of discussion on the EU that rightists think it is "socialist" while leftist think it's "neo-liberal", whereas in reality it is neither - i.e. you can find arguments in support of and against both points of view - and is a result of a series of political compromises between a growing number (28 at the moment) of sovereign nations. It only shows how strongly both sides are firmly entrenched within their own camps and how little actual discussion there is on the issue.

So sounds like you agree with me then that there should really be a USE and a EAFTS?