Brexit – saving May’s deal?

A New Year and time to put some thoughts to paper once again. Not that a lot has changed with pretty much the same story dominating the media. With Brexit we are still mired in the deep impasse that has existed more or less since the referendum. As the estimable David Allen Green reminds us: “In a matter of weeks, UK will leave EU by automatic operation of law, without a deal. This is the default unless deal is agreed, or there is an extension, or A50 is revoked. None of these three possibilities currently seem likely.”

The deal that David Allen Green refers to is in a Withdrawal Agreement. It is worth reminding ourselves of this. The deal is about how the UK formally leaves the EU. It provides for a transition period, more realistically a standstill period, which will last for two or possibly four years. This is to allow for the brand new, comprehensive trade deal between the UK and the EU that everyone says they want. Most trade experts reckon that even four years is a tad optimistic for negotiating and implement such a new deal. But we can for the moment safely kick this particular can down the road.  More immediate and pressing issues are at hand.

The key one is can Theresa May get her deal through parliament? For a second time the UK parliament is about to start debating this Withdrawal Agreement (WA). A vote is expected to take place next week. According to most informed observers the WA is almost certain to fail. For one reason or another most Brexiteers dislike the WA, even though it does achieve what they want – leaving the EU. However, many Brexiteers fear that, in part because of the Northern Ireland backstop, any future trade deal with the EU will leave the UK so closely aligned with the EU that the UK becomes a rule taker. The infamous BINO outcome – Brexit in name only.

A majority of the rest of the MPs also oppose the WA, either because they oppose Brexit altogether, or as Labour claim, they insist they can get a better WA. So the best guess, note guess, not a prediction, is that the WA will fail.

However all is not lost for Theresa May and her WA. She and the government are trying to frighten enough MPs to vote for the WA on the grounds that the alternative is a No deal Brexit. Something that would be so damaging to the economy that nobody in their right mind would allow it to happen.

The difficulty for May is that the majority of Brexiteers prefer a No deal outcome to the WA. Indeed for many, possibly most of them No deal is their preferred outcome. The prospect of No deal is most unlikely to win over this group of Brexiteers. Quite the opposite.

On the other hand those who oppose Brexit or hope for a better WA don’t seem to believe that the government would actually, when push comes to shove, go through with a No deal outcome. Some of the recent moves in parliament are designed to avoid a No deal.

An alternative approach for Mrs May would be to threaten recalcitrant Brexiteers not with a No deal, but with No Brexit. The prospect of revoking article 50 and remaining in the hated EU might well concentrate the minds of all but a few Brexiteers.

The difficulty for Mrs May with this approach is that neither she nor the government can seriously push for this – remaining in EU. If she did make this a realistic option, then while she might win back Brexiteers, she runs the risk of losing as many pro Remain MPs. I am thinking of the likes of Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry for example.

So, somehow the government has to make revoking article 50 genuinely possible, but not definite and not with government support. The most recent amendments in parliament, which in principle return power to MPs, may well paradoxically work in favour of May’s deal. Not at the moment though. Jacob Rees-Mogg for one doesn’t appear to be worried.

However, as someone once said, a week is a long time in politics. So, to recap, the WA is still unlikely to pass in parliament, but it cannot be completely ruled out. MPs work and vote in mysterious ways.

Further speculation can await the result of the vote on the WA next week.

The Single Market includes the free movement of people

As people scurry about trying to figure out just what Brexit might mean in reality, much of the focus has centred on the Single Market and the free movement of people. Most Remainers and probably a majority of Leavers seem to want the UK to stay in the Single Market. This makes a great deal of sense, as the EU will remain our largest trading partner. However the Single Market has never been just a free trade area, contrary to the myths propagated by eurosceptics. From its beginning in the 1950s, the Single Market (formerly known as the Common Market) has had at its heart the commitment to the Four Freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, money and people. This is what every country signed up to when they joined the EU. Even those countries, such as Norway, which are not in the EU, but are in the Single Market have to sign up for all of the four pillars, including the free movement of people.

Yet this did not stop many in the Leave campaign from claiming that with Brexit the UK could stay in the Single Market, yet somehow opt out of the free movement of people. Now, post referendum we have almost a bandwagon of people on the left joining in. The latest to do so includes Stephen Kinnock and Seema Malhotra from the Labour party. In an article for the New Statesmen they argue that somehow the UK can impose controls on immigration for EU states, yet remain in the Single Market.

It is rather disappointing that so many people from the left are so quick and willing to advocate limiting the free movement of people from the rest of the EU. So much for the great internationalist traditions of Labour.  It seems Labour will stoop as low as it can to appease voters in its former heartlands.  Nothing of benefit tends to come from appeasement. The undoubted hardships for many across the UK do not come from immigrants, but from the failures of successive UK governments, including Labour governments.  But this not something most Labour party members are willing to discuss. Much easier to just blame immigrants and the EU.

However at this moment the key question is whether restrictions on the free movement of people is even remotely possible. I would suggest it is not. This for the simple reason that the Single Market is a package and the moment you start to demand exceptions the whole thing will very quickly collapse.

The UK wants to keep three of the four pillars of the Single Market – the free movement of goods, services and money – but to establish restrictions on the other pillar, the free movement of people. Which is fine and dandy for the UK and any other member state that has similar concerns. But what about the other member states?

Let us take the free movement of services. For most commentators this seems to equate to protecting the financial sector and the City of London in particular. As Stephen Kinnock and Seem Malhotra put it: The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity. Leave aside for the moment just why the Labour party should have suddenly become the saviours and protectors of financial services. Instead ask, why would all the other 27 member states agree to this? If exceptions are to be made to the four  pillars, why not to the free movement of services? What if Germany and France for example were to demand restrictions on passporting rights? Or what if some member states wanted the right to impose restrictions on the free movement of goods or money?

I other words once you start demanding concessions on one pillar of the Single Market, you are effectively calling for the end of the Single Market. If the UK can demand and get concessions on what it wants, there will no argument for denying this right to all the other member states. If the Single Market is beneficial to the UK, which I believe it is, then you accept all its terms and conditions. You cannot expect to pick and choose and not expect others to do the same. As Angela Merkel has made clear the UK will not get to cherry pick the bits of the Single Market it likes.

The UK once again seems to be reduced to pleading for special treatment. At the same time ignoring the concerns of the other 27 member states. We should be given everything we want and they rest should just sign on the dotted line. This line of thinking seems to ignore that the EU has repeatedly made concessions to the UK. The opt outs on Schengen and the euro for example. David Cameron also managed to get some, admittedly minor, concessions for the recent referendum. All to no avail, a majority in England and Wales still voted to leave. So what incentive do the other 27 member state for offering further concessions? Appeasement does not seem to work. It is time to get real about this. Talk of ending free movement of people yet staying in the Single Market is just that – all talk and no substance.

 

No justification for an early election

All Hail Theresa May, our soon to be new Prime Minister. Last one standing gets the job, no election needed. This is a shame for the members of the Conservative party. An election would also have added much needed mirth for the rest of us throughout the summer as May and Leadsom battled it out between them. However this is a purely internal Tory party matter. They have the right to elect their leader any way they like.

Of course there is the small matter that the leader of the Conservative party is also right now the Prime Minister of the UK. As such there have been some loud calls for an early general election, mostly from the usual suspects, i.e. the opposition parties. However there does not to my mind exist any justifiable reasons for another general election. Not on constitutional grounds, nor on precedent, nor on political grounds.

As regards the constitution, or what passes for one in our non constitutional democracy, we do not directly elect a PM. Only the voters in his or her constituency can actually for for him or her. In a parliamentary democracy we vote for parties and can only do so in our own constituency. 99.9% of voters never, ever, get the chance to directly vote for a Prime Minister. At the last election, if you wanted David Cameron as PM, you had to vote conservative, while if you wanted to vote conservative, you had to do so knowing that David Cameron would almost certainly be the PM. Choice there was none. The same applied to potential Labour party voters. Those who voted for other parties knew that none of their candidates was likely to become PM. So, it seems to me that Theresa May has as much democratic credentials as all other PMs.

Precedent, which is an important part of our non constitutional democracy, also confirms that Theresa May does not require an early election. None of the changes in PM between elections has resulted in an immediate election. At least not in the last 100 years or so. Gordon Brown, John Major, Jim Callaghan et al succeeded to the post of PM without an immediate election. The same has happened in Scotland, Northern Ireland and I am sure, in Wales. There have been three changes in First Minister in Scotland in less than 20 years and none of them felt obliged, or were seriously pressured into calling an early election. So, again, precedent favours Theresa May.

As regards the politics, this too does not warrant another election. What political purpose would an early election have?  The government has not lost a vote of confidence and still has a working majority at Westminster. The Brexit vote is hardly a reason for another election. Though parliament is notionally sovereign and the referendum was technically advisory and not binding, it would be difficult for parliament to just override the result.  Whilst anything is possible, it does not seem to me to be terribly wise for politicians to seek to ignore the result. As Theresa May says, Brexit means Brexit.

This however is where it all gets very interesting politically. Despite Theresa May’s repetitions, nobody, including May herself, knows just what Brexit means. The fine details of Brexiting will provide much scope for argument, disagreements, anger, bitterness, insults and just possibly, some serious negotiations. Once these negotiations or non negotiations get properly started anything become possible. Including an early election. If the government cannot get its preferred position through parliament then it would have no option but to lose a vote of confidence and call for another election. The Tories got us into this mess. It is up to them to get us out of it. Or fail in the process. We may get another election before 2020, but not immediately. Let’s give Theresa May and her merry band as much rope as they need to hang themselves.

 

 

Switzerland and Brexit

All eyes have rightly focussed on the recent Brexit vote and what it will mean in practice, in particular for the UK’s continued membership of the Single Market.  The key to this is most likely to be the free movement of people. Since its inception in the 1950s, the free movement of people has been one of the cornerstones of the Single Market, and its predecessor, the Common Market.

What is important to note is that a country does not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Single Market. You just have to sign up to the four key conditions: the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. You also have to pay a fee. This is the case with both Iceland and Norway, who are full members of the Single Market.

Switzerland is slightly different, in that it is not a full member of the Single Market, but has full access to specific sectors, but not the financial sector for example. Switzerland’s relationship with the EU is covered by a series of Bilateral Agreements and these include the free movement of people. However in February 2014, the Swiss voted in a referendum, by 50.3% to impose quotas on migration from the EU. The referendum gave the Swiss government three years to meet this requirement. That is until February 9th, 2017. For this to happen a new agreement with the EU needs to be reached very soon, for Switzerland to have the time to pass the necessary legal changes in time to meet this February 2017 deadline.

This is why what happens with Switzerland is potentially crucial to the UK’s hopes of remaining in the Single Market without the free movement of people. The omens are not good.  After two and a half years of negotiations no meeting of minds, let alone a new agreement had been reached. The most that might have been agreed with Switzerland would have been something similar to the emergency brake on immigration, that David Cameron managed to negotiate with the EU. However after the Brexit vote that is no longer on offer. And having been rejected by the UK, it is very unlikely that the EU would be interested in offering a similar deal to Switzerland.

Switzerland is already suffering the consequences of the 2014 vote, as it is no longer part of the Erasmus programme, and the EU has stalled on any further bilateral agreements. No new deal is in the pipeline and the reality is that without a new deal, all the Bilateral Agreements will come to a shuddering end in February 2017. This is due to the inclusion of a so called guillotine clause. If any part of the agreements is abrogated, the whole thing ends.

Switzerland is beginning to seriously run out of time. The Brexit vote ended the emergency break option. This leaves Switzerland between a rock and a hard place. Either it tries to hold another referendum, perhaps on keeping the Bilateral Agreements, including the free movement of people, or it prepares for life outwith the Single Market.

The Swiss experience does not offer much hope for those Leavers who assumed that the UK could get its cake and eat it. If there is to be a deal on ending or limiting the free movement of people it will now have to be offered to both Switzerland and the UK. As the previous offer – an emergency brake – has been rejected by the UK, it is not clear that there will be much stomach in the other 27 member states for any further concessions. Any limit to this foundational principle effectively ends the EU. As any offer would have to applicable to the other 27 member states.

The blindness of the Leave campaign as to what was happening in Switzerland is yet another example of how irresponsible the whole campaign was. Unfortunately it is the rest of us who will have to suffer the consequences. Unless you live in Scotland, where independence offers a way out of this mess.

 

 

Without Boris – some clarity, but more questions

Well, who saw that one coming? The rise and fall of Boris in just over a couple days. Boris must have an awful lot of enemies, both within and without the party for this to happen so quickly. From the words of Michael Gove and his wife, it seems that Boris was not reliably Brexit enough. After all Boris was always a bit of a reluctant Leaver, and his vision of a post Brexit UK sounded too close to the current position for many. Too many as it turned out.

The key divide, post Brexit, it seems to me, is between those who will reluctantly accept the result of the referendum, provided the UK stays in the Single Market, and those who want completely out. Without Boris it looks like the outers have won. All the four remaining candidates for the Tory leadership are committed to taking the UK out of the EU. Even Theresa May seems to have come down on the side of leaving the EU completely. The sticking point for her appears to have been the need to control immigration from the EU. Something that is incompatible with the Single Market.

This is potentially momentous. It does clear this aspect up quite considerably. The negotiations with the EU should be simpler, if not easier, and over sooner rather than later. Some arrangement will be needed to ensure access to the Single Market for goods, but it will be almost impossible to get more, access for services for example, without accepting the free movement of people. Which all the candidates have more or less ruled out.

This has made life a whole lot trickier for lots of people, including Scotland’s attempts to remain in the Single Market, let alone the EU. But not just Scotland, the two Irelands and even tiny Gibraltar will feel the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market.

In the case of Scotland this will both clarify and complicate matters. Staying in the Single Market, but leaving the EU, while not optimum, would nevertheless be an acceptable outcome for many. You get most of the benefits, trade and the free movement of people, which most Remainers value highly. It also and most importantly means that there will be no land border between Scotland and England in terms of trade. The downside for those in favour of independence is that this option might well make independence less appealing to some of those No voters who are reconsidering their position.

If, on the other hand, as now seems likely, the UK leaves the Single Market, this makes the choice very binary. The only way for Scotland to remain, not just in the EU, but in the Single Market, would be to become independent. However, with the rest of UK no longer in the Single Market, the trade and other links with rUK would become crucial. England will almost certainly remain Scotland’s most important trading partner. Can we ensure open access to England if Scotland remains in the EU? The question of a hard land border rears its ugly head again. Even those most in favour of remaining in the EU might baulk at independence if it meant restricted access to England.

However these questions are just as important for the republic of Ireland, perhaps even more so. Ireland has always been closely tied to the UK. Ireland has effectively been part of the British Single Market for decades. The Common Travel area ensures hassle free travel across the British Isles. Ireland only joined the UK when the UK did, and may never have done so, if the UK had not. Now of course as an established member of the EU, Ireland will face some very difficult choices if the UK does leave the Single Market. Can the Common Travel Area survive? Will there have to be a hard land border between Northern Ireland and the republic?

Paradoxically, this could help Scotland. If Ireland manages to successfully adapt to the UK leaving the Single Market, while remaining in the EU, then there is no reason why Scotland could not also do so.

The withdrawal of Boris will also impact on the Tory party itself. It is most strange that the Tory party does not have even the option of electing a leader who is in favour of remaining in the Single Market. Remember, most of the cabinet were in favour of at the very least remaining in the Single Market. While some have clearly changed their mind on this, can the same be said for all Tory MPs? This must be dreadful for the likes of Ken Clarke, John Major et al. While they are the old guard, presumably some of the current crop of Tory MPs share their view that leaving the Single Market will be disastrous for the UK. After all around 40% of Tory voters voted Remain. if, even 30% of Tory MPs are opposed to leaving the Single Market, it may prove impossible for the new PM to get this through Parliament. Whilst most people, at least in England and Wales, accept that the UK has to leave the EU, it is less clear how many people will be prepared to accept leaving the Single Market. As the Chinese saying has it, we live in interesting times, and they only look like getting even more interesting!

Brexit – Will it happen?

A week is a long time in politics, someone once said. Well that was ancient history, as it seems that now, even a day is a long time in politics. At least as far as Leavers are concerned. Barely had the result been announced before we had the hilarious spectacle of leading Leavers more or less confirming that their whole campaign had been a pack of lies. There will be no £350 million coming to the NHS, this was just campaign rhetoric. Even the central campaign claim that leaving was the only way to bring down immigration from the EU has been shown to be a big fat lie. Daniel Hannan on BBC Newsnight stated loud and clear that there would be no reduction in EU migration. Not only that but the free movement of labour within the EU would continue. Hannan told presenter Evan Davis: “Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed.” Well, I think going to be disappointed will turn out to be a bit of an understatement.

However things might get even worse for all those who voted to leave the EU. Will it actually happen? Before the UK can leave, the UK government has to invoke article 50 of the EU treaty. Once invoked this sets off a two year timetable, at the end of which the UK will be out of the EU. Having just voted in a referendum to leave, why has the government not already invoked article 50? It seems that the government has no intention of invoking this article, perhaps ever. Even the leaders of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, have stated that the government should wait. For a new Prime Minister to be elected by the Tory party? Longer?

Why all this delay? Tom Short posted on Facebook this comment from the Guardian, which may explain why Boris et al are backing off from taking the UK out of the EU. “And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step (leaving the EU) started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.”

Faced with this prospect it is no wonder that the likes of Johnson and Gove prefer to do nothing and wait and wait. David Allen Green, who blogs as Jack of Kent, has an excellent post in which he details just how significant article 50 is to all this. Or rather, how the failure to invoke article 50 effectively means there will be no Brexit.
How will this go down with all those who did vote to leave, expecting that this would in fact mean leaving, and leaving as soon as possible, preferably immediately? Not very well I imagine. As Green notes, “This will not please Leave campaigners, and rightly so. It means the result of the referendum will be effectively ignored.”

Could something like this actually happen? I have my doubts. Firstly the other 27 member states may try and force the UK to either invoke article 50 or to publicly ignore the referendum result. I cannot see the 27 being willing to just sit around waiting for the UK government to make up its mind. I also do not see the 27 being willing to engage in informal negotiations prior to invoking article 50. I suspect they will want to get this over and done with as soon as possible.

As will those who voted Leave on the basis that leave meant leave. To try and ignore the result in any way would be an enormous affront to democracy. All coming from a group that claimed that the EU was undemocratic! The damage a delay or any attempt to circumvent the result would cause is likely be catastrophic. It would probably make most of those who voted to leave feel even more alienated.

The fact that leading members of the Leave campaign can even consider any of the above, whether it is postponing starting the leave process, or staying in the Common Market, which would include the free movement of people and all these regulations that they claimed were so damaging, just confirms that the Leave campaign was run by a bunch of charlatans, unwilling to take responsibility for what they have unleashed.

Luckily for us in Scotland it matters not a jot what they do or don’t do. If they try to somehow delay or circumvent the result they simply expose themselves as undemocratic and untrustworthy. A perfect reason for leaving the UK. If they go ahead and leave the EU, this provides another justification for Scottish independence. Well done guys!

Why I will vote to remain in the EU

The EU referendum is almost upon us, and a pretty depressing affair it has been. It has proved difficult to get enthused as the whole referendum is primarily a nasty cock fight among the Tories. However the EU is important and my local Green party branch in Dundee is asking members their views on how they will vote. I submitted the following.

I will be voting to remain in the EU as the EU has been and continues to be the main promoter of peace and prosperity in Europe. From the beginning the key aim of the EU is to bring the countries and the peoples of Europe together, both to increase prosperity and to make war among EU members unthinkable. The way to bring countries and people together continues to be the Common Market, or Single Market as it is now known. This market covers goods, services, money and of course the free movement of people. The common market continues to work well, to the benefit of the overwhelming majority of people in the EU. Current economic woes have nothing to do with the common market. They are rather, due to the misguided, neoliberal austerity policies pursued by the member states. I find it hard to believe that George Osborne and David Cameron are really closet socialists and are only pursuing austerity under orders from Brussels.
The EU is primarily a successful common market. It is beginning to develop common policies in some other areas. The environment for example, which I would hope that all Greens would support. Only trans-national action has any hope of success in protecting the environment and countering climate change.
The EU remains in essence a community of independent countries. As such it is about as democratic a body as could be. Some of its procedures could be more transparent, but the decision making process is democratic. The Commission, so disliked by many, has no powers of decision making. The Commissioners do not get to vote on proposals. Decisions in the EU are taken jointly by the democratically elected European Parliament and the ministers of the democratically elected governments of the member states. I am not sure how this can be made more democratic.
To the extent that we are opposed to some of the current policies and actions within the EU – on refugees for example, this is not due to some inherent defect of the EU. Rather it is the result of the majority of voters across the EU democratically electing some very right wing and nasty governments. As the UK did just over a year ago. The fault for this, if we are to blame anyone, is the combined forces of the progressive left. We have failed conspicuously to convince our fellow citizens, whether in the UK or in the other 27 member states, to elect progressive parties. Blaming the EU for our failures is a distraction from the urgent need to campaign across the EU for progressive policies.

Brexit – what next?

So far in the debate, or shouting match should that be, over the EU, there has been little or no examination about what might happen if there were to be an out vote.  Lots of claims and counter-claims, but not much light. There is no doubt that the UK would survive and could indeed prosper outwith the EU. The real question rather is what kind of country and economy would the UK have to become?

Various academic studies have looked at the options that might be available to the UK after a Brexit vote. Some overlap a bit, so I reckon that there are in reality only four options for life after a no vote. I have excluded the Swiss model, which involves a series of bilateral agreements with the EU. This model has proved somewhat unsatisfactory for both parties and the EU has made it clear that it would not repeat this kind of arrangement. The four remaining options are therefore as follows:

1. The Norwegian model – joining the EEA (European Economic Area). This involves full membership of the Single Market with all that implies, including the free movement of people. The UK would have no say in the rules governing the Single Market and would still have to contribute to the EU budget. On the other hand the UK would no longer be part of the common agricultural or fisheries policies.
2. The Turkish model – joining the EU’s custom union. This gives continued access to the Single Market, but only for goods, not for services. The UK would also be subject to all the EU rules governing that part of the Single Market.
3. The WTO model – effectively no special arrangement with the EU. Trade would be bound by WTO(World Trade Organisation) rules on tariffs. Again would only cover goods and not services.
4. A special UK agreement with the EU. This is the option that most Brexit supporters want, at least on the right. The UK would get continued access to the Single Market on its own terms and would be able to opt out of the bits it didn’t like – free movement of labour etc.

As regards the Norwegian model, this would seem to be the most easily achieved, yet the worst outcome for the UK, especially those who want out of the EU. Getting out of the common agricultural and fisheries policies would be a very high price to pay for giving up all influence and votes in the key decision making bodies. This model would also mean that the UK would remain subject to all the rules that the Eurosceptics most dislike about the EU.

The fourth option, a special UK deal with the EU is difficult to envisage. It relies on the rest of the EU regarding the UK as so important that they would do almost anything to keep the UK in. Not sure if there is any evidence this is how the rest of the EU sees the UK. Sure, they would like us to stay, but not at any price. This option effectively abolishes the Single Market and would seem more of a pipe dream that a realistic possibility.

This leaves the second and third options as the ones most realistically available. There is probably not a great deal of difference between the two models. Both models would however require quite significant changes within the UK. As a paper from OpenEurope puts it: “Britain will only prosper outside the EU if it is prepared to use its new found freedom to undertake active steps towards trade liberalisation and deregulation.”  It is not difficult to see why the right wing in Britain is so keen on leaving the EU!

In practical terms this trade liberalisation and deregulation would mean some rather unwelcome developments. Much of what remains of health and safety regulations and protections for workers would be open to further attack from our nasty Tory government. In addition, UK firms and workers would find themselves exposed to whole new levels of competition from low-cost countries. Finally, OpenEurope conclude that in order to be competitive outside the EU, Britain would need to keep a liberal policy for labour migration. As the paper notes with some understatement, these developments would be politically very sensitive.

So far most of the campaigning for an out vote has been by those on the right. It is relatively easy to see why. They by and large favour a deregulated economy with as much trade liberalisation as possible. This is not a view shared by all on the right of course. UKIP’s opposition seems to be more a combination of political – sovereignty, and opposition to immigration. As the above shows, it may not be possible to achieve all that those opposed to the EU want.

On the other hand there is a growing number of people on the left who also support leaving the EU. I do find this a bit perplexing. Leaving the EU and in particular leaving the Single Market is not going to do anything for the (already) precarious rights of workers. Claims that the EU is an undemocratic, neoliberal club are also a bit far fetched in my view. Furthermore it is not at all clear how the UK leaving is going to make any positive difference to this state of affairs. As I pointed out in my previous post, to the extent that the EU is neoliberal and pro-austerity, that is because the voters in almost all EU states have voted for neoliberal and pro-austerity parties. Just how the UK leaving is going to persuade voters in Germany, Finland, Slovakia etc to become more left wing is a bit of a mystery to me.

In short it seems to me that none of the likely post Brexit options offer the UK much, at  least from a left, progressive perspective. I can understand why some on the right would welcome leaving the EU. And for this reason we need to examine much more closely the implications of a No vote and what that might mean for the economy and society.