By Daniel Margrain David Camerons (failed) attempts at diplomatic arm twisting of European leaders was made with a view to appeasing right wing Europhobe factions in order to strengthen the pro-EU position within his party and, by extension, satisfy others outside such as the Henry Jackson Society who lobby it. Any EU concessions offered to Cameron on economic or social policy in return for continued EU membership would undermine whatever vestiges of power the EU has in terms of protecting ordinary people from the rapaciousness of corporations...... http://cultureandpolitics.org/2016/02/22/the-eu-referendum-in-or-out/ Having read the full article, the arguments in favour of the UKs continued membership of the EU sound pretty solid and reasonable to me. Both sides of the debate are considered in the piece. Taking the pros and cons of the issues into account, I agree with the conclusion of the article and if I were voting tomorrow I would vote to stay in. However, I'm also open to persuasion. Any thoughts?
best thing here is you have months to decide which plays perfectly because you want to see how the crisis in europe plays out anyway. If it gets much worse you may want to cut and run.
I think your article is very strong on the source and likely outcome of leaving the EU and particularly on how the campaign ought to be fought http://cultureandpolitics.org/2016/02/22/the-eu-referendum-in-or-out/ and I think that goes along with what Corbyn said in his article he would be doing http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/20/jeremy-corbyn-comment-britain-eu-reform I confess with this part of what Corbyn had to say I was a bit confused as it seemed to me that the deal had been done and yet Corbyn speaks of actively working within Europe for change of a totally different dimension to that which Cameron is wanting. It is easy to understand why Cameron and Corbyn may already be having difficulties getting on, though Labour appear to be keeping a very low profile if it is indeed their intention to move in this way. However it does show how this could be changed into a campaign by the left towards bringing Europe back from the brink - using things which people are arguing are reasons to get out. Four months I do not think is long enough for such a campaign which maybe why Cameron decided to have the referendum early and quick. I still am not sure how the supposed things which can be changed can be changed to something else, can you enlighten me on that. Going back to your article which for the most part I thought was excellent - I think the conclusion seemed weak after all that was said. People are worried they have lost their democracy because of the EU, they are blaming the EU for Europe's move to the right, despite the reality it began with us so I think the article would be stronger if it had added all the other likely outcomes to rights and to the Right likely to happen which were put in, in the conclusion because that is a vote I think worth working for and having. The vote in it's current form supported by the political thinkers in power in Westminster - and lets not pretend they do not matter as they will be the people implementing policy is making Britain's choice and that choice is to settle for the forseeable future in a new elitism where working people lose their rights and are increasingly disposable. It also opens the door to xenophobic actions. Explain to me though how the deal can be changed from the beginning of the changes the Right want to a positive change to resettle the EU on a path working for the people of Europe. Your article in no way goes with Cameron's position. Is there not a possibility people will just think that means their answer must be out?
An interesting read. The bits that caught my attention were those related to what the socilaists wish from the EU. For example this: Is there any real reason to suppose that socialists can through "effective political organization" be effective when the history of the EU suggests their influence to date hasn't been that good? In other words, is this hope of what might be a good enough reason to vote to stay in, in the light of such travesties as the EU's decision to negotiate with the US for TTIP behind closed doors? A slower and thus softer landing of even harsher neo-liberal policies only means that the jolt of it's landing is cushioned - not that the landing is halted.
