skip to main |
skip to sidebar
 |
| Owen Tudor |
The United Kingdom (UK) voted to leave the European Union (EU) on 23 June 2016. Since then, the government has been forced by the Supreme Court to obtain Parliament’s permission to initiate the Article 50 process to leave the EU, subsequently issuing the appropriate letter to the European Commission. Negotiations only commenced on 19 June, almost a year after the referendum, and no agreements have yet been reached. The government has introduced the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, designed to copy EU law into UK law before leaving the EU, which is due to happen, under the Article 50 process, by late March 2019.
The Trade Union Congress (TUC), with most of Britain’s largest unions, campaigned to stay in the EU[1] on the grounds that leaving risked workers’ rights and decent jobs. A legal opinion setting out the risk to workers’ rights (Ford, 2016) from a leading employment lawyer, Michael Ford, was published ahead of the referendum, as well as a TUC analysis of the effect on jobs and wages (TUC, 2016a).
According to TUC opinion polling immediately after the referendum, 60% of trade unionists voted to remain in the EU, but much larger proportions, including majorities among leave voters, wished to see EU employment laws retained after leaving, and opposed further cuts in government spending to address the economic challenges of leaving. The referendum result was strongly connected to a desire to punish the establishment, together with concerns about the effect of immigration. Generally, older voters, politically conservative voters, and those without qualifications beyond compulsory school were most likely to vote to leave (GQRR, 2016).[2]
 |
| Vasco Pedrina |
Just as in the Swiss vote on the mass immigration initiative two years ago, the issue of migration – together with the social consequences of radical neoliberal policies – was decisive for the outcome of the Brexit referendum. The results in the former heartlands of industry and of the Labour Party speak volumes. The argument was that the European Union (EU), with its free movement of people, was solely responsible for the pressure on wages and for growing social inequalities in the country. Is that really the case?
Of course, following Brexit, the EU authorities would be well advised to take stock and steer a new course – a social one again, at long last – if they really want the EU to survive this great watershed. People are not against the EU as such, according to this year’s Eurobarometer, but they are against an EU that, through extreme measures such as the fiscal pact or unmitigated freedom of establishment, sets off a downward social spiral while only a small minority of the already well-off reaps the benefits of this type of integration.
The UK’s role in the expansion of Europe
But what is the truth about the UK’s responsibility for the current mess? The British like to overlook or forget just who, in 2004 – and with no ifs or buts – favoured opening up the EU to Central and Eastern Europe, allowing free movement of people with as few social requirements as possible and doing without any transitional arrangements when the EU expanded eastwards. And just who was against any kind of flanking measures to the free movement of persons to avoid wage and social dumping[1]. Tony Blair (like a good pupil of Margaret Thatcher), Gordon Brown and David Cameron all, without exception, preached such a policy for decades on end.
