What does the British EU referendum mean?

Andrew Rawnsley, the main political commentator for the British Observer newspaper (22 February) tells his readers what the coming British referendum on EU membership means and then completely contradicts himself. His argument is full of sonorous phrases about Britain's future. Prime Minister Cameron he opines,
'Was absolutely right when he declared that "the choice goes to the heart of what kind of country we want to be"... the decision will be much more epic than choosing a tenant for number 10 ...'

But earlier in his piece Rawnsley has a different explanation of the meaning of Britain's EU referendum. He writes
'It is certainly correct that this (the referendum) will be a climactic struggle for the soul of the right that has been brewing for so long...' He then goes on to worry that the campaign of great and good that will call for a yes vote might serve as a lightning rod for the floating anger that the British have with their establishment.  He denounces the 'Outers" as he calls them for having no vision of Britain's future at all, and hopes it will be that particular weakness that eventually sees them off.

The truth is that neither Rawnsley's 'Inners' nor his 'Outers' have any 'vision' for the future of Britain. Rawnsley was instead right on the mark when he described the referendum as a decision that will be a 'climactic struggle for the soul of the right' (if they have a soul - and all with proportions guarded!) The referendum is not about 'visions' or otherwise of Britain's future, it is about the fate and future of the right. (Significantly Rawnsley himself offers no concrete description of anybody's vision for Britain.)

That was not always the case. In 1975 a weak Labour Government (and Britain's establishment) were pondering what to do about a fragile ruling class whose authority (and Empire) was bleeding away while facing the frightening rise of a huge and combative trade union movement. Membership of the Common Market (and the 'Outers' have always been right about the political character of the European project) was seen at that time as a political as well as an economic means of strengthening Britain's ruling class against the threats they faced. The left and the trade union movement who broadly opposed entry and who were led by Tony Benn and Michael Foot, were clear about this. The left lost. It set the scene for a decade of struggle which ended with the defeat of the British working class movement as it was organised then.

2016 is not a rerun of 1975. Would that politics and history were so simple. The economics of the EU were designed to create big multi-national corporations to challenge US and now Chinese economic strength. The 'contribution' that the UK makes to this European aspiration is the City of London. The City brokered most of Europe's loans to Greece, to Spain and Portugal and to Ireland for example. They circulate Russian thieves' money from Russia's oil and gas into German industries (and political parties) and London property. Now it seems the City of London will be promoted even more in Europe by the 'Inners' (Cameron won new assurances) and 'defended' from EU banking rules or taxes by the 'Outers.' In practice the City will carry on doing what it pleases either way. Why? Because the City and the other great corporations that originally sprang from Europe are now globally based, taxed in tax havens, producing 100 new billionaires a year and, from a strictly economic point of view no longer need the EU. They are no longer attached to the old geo-political competition between Europe, the East and the US.

As for the politics of the EU they remain as corrupt and undemocratic as the politics of the nation states which they claim to unify. The leaders of the EU embraced the drastic neo-con remedies first espoused by Reagan and Thatcher and have ruined whole nations and populations as a consequence. They are not reformable, in fact barely accessible as far as the vast mass of the European population is concerned. However a new European left has arisen and now moved in several countries into the mainstream of politics and are beginning to debate openly what a new Europe could look like. Central to the future of this new left Europe is the reaction to war and the refugee question.

These brief sketches of European ruling class economics and the accompanying political responses are enough to demonstrate that neither entry nor exit of Britain into or out of the EU as it exists has anything like the same stakes as those involved as in the 1975 decision. The fact of the massive refugee/immigrant crisis across Europe is actually more likely than anything else to influence British referendum voters. From that point of view (and whatever George Galloway and others might want) a vote 'no' would be a racist vote. And this is not unconnected with the other fact. Andrew Rawnsley is wrong. The coming British referendum is not at all about contesting visions of Britain's future. That has not been an option via a pro or anti EU vote for a decade or more. It certainly is about the strength of racism and the recomposition of Britain's right wing. And while visions for Britain's future will be effected by decisions made about refugees and immigrants they depend on what happens to Trident, about welfare and austerity, about joining in America's wars and what should be done about the City of London' global web and about Scottish independence. The referendum is important for working out who the Tories are now and how powerful are the British racists. Big questions, but not the same thing as Britain's future.