In a recent article, Peter J Verovsek criticised left-wing supporters of Brexit, claiming that they were backing a ‘statist, nationalist initiative’ that could only benefit the right. Peter Ramsay replies, arguing that it is left-wing Remainers who are stuck in the past and that a fetishism of the supranational and the cosmopolitan is the real problem for the left

Ramsay, Peter

English

LSE Research Online

How	EU	membership	undermines	the	leftIn	a	recent	article,	Peter	J	Verovsek	criticised	left-wing	supporters	of	Brexit,	claiming	that	they	werebacking	a	‘statist,	nationalist	initiative’	that	could	only	benefit	the	right.	Peter	Ramsay	replies,	arguingthat	it	is	left-wing	Remainers	who	are	stuck	in	the	past	and	that	a	fetishism	of	the	supranational	and	thecosmopolitan	is	the	real	problem	for	the	left.Peter	Verovsek	reminds	us	that	‘since	Marx,	the	left	has	been	a	self-consciously	internationalmovement	that	seeks	to	transcend	both	the	nation	and	the	state.’	He	insists,	therefore,	that	Brexit	can	be	no	good	forthe	left	because	it	is	an	attempt	to	revive	the	nation.	And	Lexit	is	no	better,	he	claims,	because	it	is	an	attempt	torevive	the	state.Let’s	start	with	Brexit	–	because	if	you	are	genuinely	interested	in	transcending	either	nation	or	state,	you	have	tostart	with	Brexit.	It	is	leaving	the	EU	that	challenges	and	disrupts	the	British	state	in	its	contemporary	form.Remaining	in	the	EU	means	not	challenging	or	disrupting	the	smooth	operation	of	the	actually	existing	political	formof	capitalist	rule	in	Britain	today.	The	EU	is	not	a	foreign	superstate	that	rules	over	Britain.	The	EU	is	a	political	formthrough	which	the	British	government	collaborates	with	other	European	governments	in	order	to	govern	Britain.	Theother	EU	member	states	do	the	same	for	their	own	populations	and	territories.	They	collaborate	with	each	other	byconstitutionalising	various	restrictions	on	economic	policy,	and	by	making	law	in	intergovernmental	forums.This	intergovernmental	process	means	that	European	governments	are	more	accountable	to	each	other	than	theyare	to	their	domestic	legislatures.	The	capitalist	nation	states	of	Europe	have	been	transformed	by	EU	membershipinto	capitalist	member	states.	Brexit	represents	a	serious	blow	to	this	form	of	remote	and	unaccountable	government,the	one	by	which	we	are	actually	ruled.	This	blow	is	experienced	as	such	by	the	British	state’s	political,	bureaucraticand	academic	cadres	who	have	as	a	result	been	relentlessly	negative	about	the	vote	to	Leave,	and	the	prospect	ofimplementing	it.	And	it	is	why	the	support	of	so	much	of	the	left	for	Remain	is	profoundly	conservative.So	if	you	wish	to	get	beyond	the	state	then	Brexit	is	a	first	step.	But	even	if	that	is	right,	surely	we	are	still	left	with	theproblem	that,	as	Verovsek	puts	it,	the	‘nation-based	character	of	Brexit	betrays	the	internationalist	principles	thathave	grounded	the	left’?	Though	Verovsek	does	not	make	the	claim	explicitly,	he	implies	that	only	Remaining	in	theEU	is	consistent	with	internationalist	principles.	But	this	is	to	mistake	the	EU’s	inter-governmental	politics	and	itscosmopolitan	market	freedoms	for	genuine	internationalism.The	mere	fact	that	some	institutions	are	supranational	does	not	mean	that	they	are	internationalist.	Nor	does	the	factthat	these	supranational	institutions	impose	free	movement	of	capital	and	labour	on	the	nations	that	obey	their	rules.Internationalism	is	the	creation	of	solidarity	between	the	peoples	of	different	nations.	The	EU	has	systematicallyundermined	that	solidarity	within	its	own	borders,	pursuing	policies	that	have	created	a	northern	core	and	a	southernperiphery	with	disastrous	consequences	for	the	states	in	the	periphery.	Its	approach	to	the	migration	of	Africans	andAsians	across	its	borders	is	about	as	far	from	internationalism	as	you	could	get.	This	is	not	an	accident.Verovsek	is	keen	to	invoke	Karl	Marx’s	authority,	mentioning	him	three	times.	But,	for	Marx,	overcoming	thelimitations	of	the	nation	and	of	the	state	was	a	democratic	project	that	required	the	political	activity	of	the	producers,the	majority	of	the	population.	Transcending	the	state	is	a	question	of	democracy,	a	question	of	the	state	being	firsttransformed	into	an	instrument	of	the	majority	of	society.	This	remains	first	and	foremost	a	political	struggle	overcontrol	of	the	nation	state.	The	development	of	the	EU,	the	widening	and	deepening	of	the	scope	of	itsintergovernmental	law-making,	and	of	its	technocratic	political	approach,	has	occurred	precisely	as	the	left’sinfluence	over	the	national	political	economy	of	its	member	states	has	declined.	The	EU’s	rise	and	the	old	left’sdefeat	are	two	sides	of	the	same	coin	of	de-democratisation.	The	EU	was,	and	remains,	the	organised	effort	ofEurope’s	ruling	classes	to	evade	political	accountability	to	electorates.	Its	democratic	deficit	is	structural.Once	the	nature	of	the	EU	is	grasped	it	is	apparent	that	the	chief	obstacle	to	the	development	of	a	genuineinternationalism	–	of	political	solidarity	between	the	peoples	of	different	nations	–	is	not	the	moribund	British	nationstate,	but	the	counterfeit	of	internationalism	that	is	liberal	supranationalism,	and	its	chief	institution,	the	EU.	Brexit	isnot	the	end	of	the	left’s	aims,	but	the	beginning.	For	real	international	solidarity	to	have	a	chance	in	Europe	we	needdemocratic	movements	for	Grexit,	Fraxit,	Deutschxit	and	all	the	rest.British Politics and Policy at LSE: How EU membership undermines the left Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-27Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-eu-membership-undermines-the-left/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/But	again,	even	if	this	is	correct,	surely	a	return	to	the	British	nation	state	is	still	no	gain	for	an	internationalist	left.	AsVerovsek	points	out,	supporting	Brexit	brings	the	left	‘into	a	political	coalition	with	free	market	Tories,	the	anti-immigrant	UKIP,	and	the	Murdoch	press,	all	of	whom	threaten	to	coopt	the	leftist	project	with	their	neo-colonial	visionof	a	‘Global	Britain’.	And,	Verovsek	claims,	nationalism	is	the	real	source	of	Brexit:	‘Given	Brexit’s	entanglement	withEnglish	nationalism	and	its	scapegoating	of	foreigners,	it	hardly	seems	an	appropriate	vehicle	for	the	left.’	All	this	isapparently	obvious,	providing	that,	like	Verovsek,	you	don’t	bother	to	reflect	on	the	incoherence	of	the	right’s	politicsthat	he	has	described.As	elite	Remainers	do	not	tire	of	pointing	out,	a	neocolonial	Global	Britain	is	a	non-starter	because	Leaving	the	EUcan	only	diminish	Britain’s	political	influence	in	the	world.	This	is	exactly	why	true	internationalists	will	embraceBrexit.	Any	true	internationalist	should	celebrate	the	diminution	of	Britain’s	baleful	influence	in	world	politics	–	itsendless	war-making	around	the	globe	and	its	hypocritical	assertion	of	the	moral	superiority	of	its	political	institutions.The	Empire	is	long	gone	and	good	riddance.	No	Tory	fantasy	about	Brexit	will	bring	it	back.The	old	Tory	Eurosceptic	right	is	disoriented	by	the	disappearance	of	the	world	in	which	it	belongs.	In	its	confusion,	itfinds	itself	doing	the	work	of	the	left	by	disrupting	the	careful	efforts	of	the	ruling	class,	work	that	most	of	the	leftrefuses	to	do.	What	is	truly	depressing	is	just	how	many	leftists	are	committed	to	the	project	of	maintaining	Britain’sinterfering	global	role	through	participation	in	supranational	capitalist	organisations.If	neo-colonial	Global	Britain	is	unrealistic,	it	is	also	at	odds	with	UKIP-style	populism,	which	again	is	only	awkwardlyrelated	to	English	nationalism.	Critically	the	well-attested	rise	of	English	national	feeling	is	an	expression	of	theweakening	of	British	national	identity.	Where	the	far	right	of	the	1970s	adopted	the	Empire’s	Union	Jack	as	itssymbol,	today’s	far	right	has	increasingly	adopted	the	St	George’s	cross.	The	changed	symbolism	is	significant.	Farfrom	English	nationalism	presaging	a	return	to	an	assertive	imperial	Britain,	it	is	further	evidence	of	the	fragmentingand	decline	of	the	old	national	loyalties.That	left	wingers	should	mistake	these	morbid	symptoms	as	signs	of	the	right’s	strength	only	indicates	the	left’s	ownoverwhelming	sense	of	weakness,	and	its	isolation	from	the	mass	of	the	population.There	is	of	course	an	element	of	self-fulfilling	prophecy	in	the	left	relying	on	its	condemnation	of	English	nationalismto	back	the	political	status	quo.	Nothing	is	more	likely	to	fuel	the	rise	of	the	populist	right.	As	the	left	abandons	thepolitical	nation	and	retreats	further	into	the	embrace	of	the	supranational	bureaucratic	networks	of	the	British	state,	itwill	further	alienate	itself	from	the	millions	of	ordinary	people	who	correctly	believe	that	the	British	political	class	andthe	British	state	bureaucracy	do	not	have	their	interests	at	heart.	Those	millions	are	left	with	nowhere	else	to	turnthan	the	populist	right.	Social	democratic	parties	across	Europe	are	currently	experiencing	the	disastrous	effects	ofsuch	an	approach.	Myopia	is	too	kind	a	word	for	this.Which	leaves	us	with	the	last-ditch	of	the	left	Remainer:	reforming	the	EU.	Verovsek	agrees	that	the	EU	is	no	‘socialdemocratic	paradise’.	He	too	is	opposed	to	‘European	directives	requiring	competition	in	the	provision	of	publicservices,	court	decisions	that	imperil	international	collective	bargaining,	as	well	as	its	suppression	of	Greekdemocracy.’	But	he	urges	that	‘Instead	of	counterproductively	supporting	Brexit,	the	British	left	should	push	forchange	within	the	EU	where	it	can	make	a	real	difference	at	the	global,	systemic	level.’If	the	British	right	is	living	on	fantasy	island,	then	much	of	the	European	left	seems	to	inhabit	a	fantasy	continent.	Theleft	is	being	wiped	out	across	Europe.	Although	European	leftists	are	unable	to	convince	their	own	electorates	athome,	they	pretend	they	can	reform	Europe	as	a	whole.I	do	not	doubt	the	sincerity	of	Verovsek’s	sympathy	for	the	Greek	people,	but	his	unwillingness	to	absorb	the	veryclear	lessons	of	the	Greek	experience	is	a	symptom	of	the	left’s	broader	intellectual	senescence.	In	2015,	it	wasobvious	to	the	EU	that	the	Greek	people	were	not	willing	to	Leave	either	the	Union	or	the	Eurozone.	As	a	result,	theEU	was	able	to	impose	an	economic	catastrophe	on	the	Greek	people	to	make	sure	that	the	big	banks	did	not	haveto	bear	any	of	the	cost	of	their	reckless	lending.	As	Costas	Lapavitsas	has	pointed	out,	Greece	teaches	us	that	evenif	you	believe	that	the	EU	is	fundamentally	reformable	(which	for	the	reasons	given	above,	I	don’t),	there	is	nochance	of	reforming	it	unless	nation	states	are	willing	to	walk	away	[1].	Brexit	is	anything	but	counterproductive	forthe	left.British Politics and Policy at LSE: How EU membership undermines the left Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-27Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-eu-membership-undermines-the-left/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Verovsek	also	criticises	the	specific	position	of	Lexiteers,	who	argue	that	a	programme	of	nationalisation	and	stateintervention	in	the	economy	is	prevented	by	membership	of	the	EU.	He	points	out	that	other	EU	states	maintainnationalised	public	transport	and	free	university	tuition.	It	is	true	that	the	operation	of	EU	rules	and	regulations	leavesmore	room	for	manoeuvre	than	British	governments	have	availed	themselves	of.	But	Lexiteers	do	not	mean	a	little	bitof	nationalisation	here	or	there.	They	favour	wholesale	state	intervention	in	the	economy,	and	the	EU’s	neoliberalconstitutional	order	would	be	a	constant	source	of	legal	challenges	to	any	truly	radical	socialist	government	of	the	oldschool,	fulfilling	the	hopes	of	neoliberal	thinkers	for	capitalist	international	cooperation.Verovsek	is	also	doubtful	about	the	desirability	of	the	state	socialist	industrial	policies	of	the	twentieth	century.	As	ithappens	I	share	those	doubts.	But	even	though	I	am	not	convinced	of	particular	Lexit	proposals,	I	am	at	one	withLexiteers	in	seeking	to	end	constitutional	restraints	on	intervention	in	the	economy	by	democratic	governments.	Thatought	to	be	a	basic	commitment	of	any	democrat.	If	the	people	cannot	control	the	economy	they	cannot	control	theircollective	life.	And	to	exercise	democratic	control	over	the	economy	requires	bringing	the	EU	to	an	end.Verovsek	warns	the	left	that	it	should	be	fighting	the	‘fetishism	of	the	nation-state’.	But	look	across	the	ruling	elitesand	you	will	find	almost	no	enthusiasm	for	the	nation	state:	not	in	academia,	nor	among	the	experts,	bureaucrats	andpoliticians	that	academia	has	trained.	What	you	will	find	is	an	all	but	ubiquitous	fetishism	of	the	supranational.Supranational	cosmopolitanism	is	chief	among	the	ruling	ideas	of	our	age,	the	ideas	of	our	ruling	class.	Anyone	whois	serious	about	political	change,	about	reviving	the	democratic	internationalism	of	the	left,	will	find	hope	for	it	not	inelite	supranational	networks	but	in	the	insurgent	rebellious	nations.____________Note:	This	article	first	appeared	on	LSE	Brexit.	It	gives	the	views	of	the	author.	Featured	image	cedit:	ChrisDodds	(CC	BY-SA	2.0)About	the	AuthorPeter	Ramsay	is	Professor	of	Law	at	the	London	School	of	Economics.			[1]	Costas	Lapavitsas	‘The	Left	Case	Against	the	EU’	paper	presented	to	Europe	After	Brexit	conference	SOAS,	22September	2018[2]	See	Wolfgang	Streeck.	Buying	Time:	The	Delayed	Crisis	of	Democratic	Capitalism	(Verso	2013)	Chapter	3British Politics and Policy at LSE: How EU membership undermines the left Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-10-27Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-eu-membership-undermines-the-left/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

How EU membership undermines the left

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/109828/1/europpblog_2018_10_20_how_eu_membership_undermines_the.pdf

How EU membership undermines the left

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online

LSE Research Online