Britain and Europe: Even after Brexit, progressives can't stop fighting for broader horizons for cooperation and solidarity

At the weekend, thousands turned out in London to show their support for Britain remaining in the European Union and determination to keep calling for a Second Vote - a deciding say on the final deal

From the government's perspective, and perhaps for some Leavers, the matter is now closed with Theresa May finally appearing to have won the legislative tennis match with the Lords over her Brexit Bill.

Is it over? We expect for Remainers it won't be over until the fat lady sings. Seeing an economic disaster coming, ushered in by a weak government, it won't be settled until Britain is firmly not a member state.

That isn't a surprise. There are plenty of reasons to still question Brexit. Like when the Prime Minister promises a new increase in NHS funding to be part paid by a 'Brexit dividend' that experts say won't happen.

But it's important that 'Remainers', and all those who see broader horizons for people in Britain, don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

The European Union is far from perfect. The EU referendum excluded many, most of all those on Left and poorer working people, in presenting a choice between two establishment, market capitalist and business-centric options.

This was at the core of what we wrote at the time of the referendum. We encouraged those on the Left, for progressives of all stripes, to vote to Remain - in a limited sense, to choose the lesser of two evils.

Leaving the European Union will for sure open the way things becoming harder for the poorest and most vulnerable. And it probably won't even provide any kind of economic boost to offset their losses.

But Europe is an idea and an ideal. The Union itself maintains a minimum level. It has protected standards. But so much is in the hands of, and dependent upon the beneficence of, bureaucrats and national governments, that even the EU is no guarantor of progress.

And it isn't the only way to build the vision of a wider and more connected world. A world of many cultures, many places of residence and work, cooperating with each other in peace.

Fearless Cities is the root of one such fresh alternative. An attempt by those involved in the municipal movement to build links of cooperation, local government to local government, that creates solidarity for democratic control of towns and cities - and brings them together to improve their chances of achieving much larger goals in an interconnected world.

It can't be the only one. We must start building, and rebuilding, these - as the establishment bureaucrats would say - bilateral relationships. Broad networks of many links, in the spirit of cooperation and solidarity to protect our rights and increase our freedom.

Italian Left: Upheavals reveal progressive cross-section - struggle between pro-European current and rejection of neoliberalism. Can they be reconciled?

Matteo Renzi speaks in a university in October 2015. Photograph: Matteo Renzi a San Giobbe by the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia (License) (Cropped)

The Italian left is going through another of its upheavals, a common feature of politics in Italy over the last quarter century. There have been regular clashes and breakups over details and personalities. But this time, there may be a deeper root that can tell us something about the wider experience of progressive politics.

The Democrats as a Broad Front

Since the collapse of the centrist, statist, pentarchy - the five party system - in the 1990s, following the Mani Pulite investigation into political corruption that blew up into an engulfing scandal, the Italian left and centre has struggled to organise stable parties and coalitions.

At the centre of most efforts build a stable organisation of left and centre parties and supporters was Romano Prodi. He was a central figure in the movements La Margherita (The Daisy), L'Ulivo (The Olive Tree), and L'Unione. Prodi also played a central role in getting the broad and varied parties to agree to form the Partito Democratico.

The Democratic Party, the culmination of longstanding efforts to get the left to work together, eventually united most of those who might label themselves democrats - from democratic socialists to christian democrats, along with republicans, socialists, greens and progressive liberals.

But it seems to it wasn't to last. The present discord began with the leadership of Pier Luigi Bersani. From the old left of the movement, Bersani is a former member of the preceding Communist Party and the Democrats of the Left. When Bersani won the party leadership in 2009, it created a rift with centrist, liberal and christian democratic members of the party. They felt it confirmed the Democrats' drift leftwards and some decided to split away, to form new centrist parties.

Bersani, however, still won the primary for the Democrats' electoral coalition, 'Italia. Bene Comune' - which united both the mainstream Democrats and the green-socialist Sinistra Ecologia Liberta, 'Left Ecology Freedom'. Despite promising early polling numbers, the electoral list slipped back over the course of the campaign.

In the 2013 election, thanks to the electoral system, Bersani's Democrats took a narrow majority in the Chamber of Deputies, but the fell short in the Senate. The centre-right of Silvio Berlusconi regained ground and the anti-establishment, libertarian-right, Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement) showed surprising strength. In fact, the Democrats only achieved second-most votes among individual parties, behind Grillo's M5S

A tense period followed in which Bersani tried to find common ground with this new presence in the Italian Parliament - refusing to engage with Berlusconi and the right. However, Bersani's efforts failed. When a President failed to be elected, thanks in part to his own movement failing to agree on a candidate - with even Romano Prodi unable to gain general support - Bersani resigned his leadership.

Rise, Fall and Rise of the Renziani

Since 2013, the Democrats have been through several leaders and Prime Ministers. The resignation of Bersani had cleared the way for the centrist candidate of choice, Mayor of Florence Matteo Renzi - who had been compared to Tony Blair. Renzi's leadership, and Premiership, lasted three years.

During that time it was the turn of the left of the party to drift away, as Renzi held to the course of an unrepentant social democrat of the new style, embracing neoliberalism and adapting to it. That meant implementing measures to meet European Union and Eurozone conditions, in particular 'labour reforms' - the relaxing of employment laws to make hiring and firing easier, that have been deeply unpopular on the left, across Europe.

However, Renzi brought about his own, as it would turn out temporary, downfall with the constitutional referendum held last winter. Seeking to change the electoral system to reflect that of Germany, Renzi staked his leadership on the referendum. This was a gamble that Matteo Renzi lost.

With defeat, Renzi resigned the Premiership. He also resigned the party leadership, but announced his intention to run again. This announcement drove many on the left - socialists, democratic socialists, and even social democrats of strong feeling and other progressives who wish to reject the neoliberal system - to break away from the Democrats. That included party grandees like Bersani and Massimo D'Alema.

Renzi took back the party leadership with a resounding victory. But that has just created a new problem. While Renzi now had control of the Democrats - with a clear Renziani politics that is pro-European, liberal and centrist - he has few external allies.

The leftist groups that broke away formed a series of parties - Movimento Democratico e Progressista (MDP, social democratic), Possibile (progressive), and Campo Progressista (CP, democratic socialist) - that have refused to form an electoral alliance with the Renziani Democrats for the election next year. Instead, along with Sinistra Italiana (SI, democratic socialist), these new parties are organising a new alliance called Liberi e Uguali (LeU/LE), or 'Free and Equal', with the intention to stand against the Democrats as a left alternative option next year.

With left cooperation rejected, Renzi is pursuing the path of Emmanuel Macron, driving the Democrats in the direction of pro-European liberals and will have to pitch for new allies among centre parties - like Piu Europa (+Europa, PE), 'More Europe', that includes Emma Bonino's Italian Radicals.

Cross-section of the Left

This fragmentation, this new unwillingness, exposes a cross-section of the Left that is becoming apparent - and not just in Italy. On the one hand, there is a growing call to ditch neoliberalism. On the other, a strong pro-European sentiment - particularly among young people.

The search for unity and success for the left in Italy led to the assembly of a party out of a great many movements, with a great many ideological commitments. A way was found to find peace between social democrats, social liberals, democratic socialists, greens and even christian democrats.

That has now come apart over a split in priorities between rejecting neoliberalism and supporting the European Union.

Progressives need to wake up to the reality that these are not mutually opposed. They can be reconciled. But to do so means finding a way to reform Europe - to rebuild and renew the Social Europe, in line with democratic principles.

We need to reform Europe, to pursue a continent with a strong social chapter at it's heart. But the first step is learning to cooperate anew. Progressives of different strands in Italy found ways to work together. They, and progressives everywhere, need to do the same now.

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 reasons Progressives should reject Nationalism and choose Remain

The final week of Britain's EU referendum campaign has begun under a dark cloud. The death of West Yorkshire MP Jo Cox, allegedly in an act of Anders Breivik-esque murderous Far Right terrorism, has led to outcry over the tone of the debate - with particular concern regarding the Right's rhetoric on immigration.

It has been easy to think these things don't happen in the UK. People are shot in the street in America, bombs go off amongst civilians in the middle east, violent clashes between the police and the public happen on the continent - extremism may be a way of life for others, but not in Britain.

But it isn't true. Britain and Europe have their own long histories of extremism, all too easily encouraged and inflamed. Our own particular flavour of extremism in Europe is Nationalism. Here are our 4 reasons to reject Nationalism in favour of the EU and Internationalism.

I: The EU was an effort to bring a continent together...

The European Union, formerly the European Community, was founded as an effort to get Europe to think beyond National limitations - not to abandon ethnic, provincial or municipal differences to gentrification, but to accept difference, embrace it and build for the future using diversity as an advantage. It was an effort to try and think bigger and broader, to develop a broad view of humanity and how we might live in peace.

The founding tool of that effort was economics. Free Trade and a Common Market were the starting point. Caught between American competition and Soviet collectivism, Europe took a different path, a more cooperative approach - cooperation between government and industry, industry and workers, upon which base was built for a collection of negotiated minimum standards.

National interests have used their influence in European politics to hijack that agenda over recent years, with conservative austerians using the EU as a vehicle for their policies. Yet the foundation for international cooperation and solidarity remains - it just has to be taken back.

II: ...after Nationalism had nearly destroyed us

Before the efforts to bring the continent together, life in Europe was dominated by Nationalism. Europe's century of nationalism began for real in 1848, the "springtime of the peoples". Europe's progressives rose against their conservative monarchist elites, largely in peaceful protests at first, to demand constitutions and broad rights. Yet the progressive movement split.

Liberals and democrats, in their first expressions, split over their aims. The bourgeois liberals were too concerned about their propertied interests, and the Democrats, who embraced Nationalism as its populist rallying call, drove themselves apart along national lines - sectarian divisions appearing as the general democratic cause was swallowed  and patriotisms with competing interests were pitted against one another. The establishment put down its now divided opposition by force.

But that was not the end of the story of Nationalism. In Italy it found life: Mazzini used it as a rallying call to achieve the unity needed for liberation from foreign rule, then Cavour used it as the means to achieve the unity needed for consolidation under an Italian monarch. In Germany, Bismarck used it as the means to achieve the unity needed for the domination of Germany, central Europe and the continent.

The competing national interests of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries led to escalation and fear - and then war. Millions died in the Great War, but Europe hadn't learned its lessons and fell back into its divisions. The internationalism of Keynes and his dire warnings of the consequences of letting national interests dominate, with their vindictive agendas, were ignored.

Then Nationalism found its untrammelled voice in fascism, appealing with foreign scapegoats and unifying symbols to a beaten down public, that was impoverished, starved and looking for someone to blame. In desperation and anger, empathy was the first casualty. The result was one of the worst catastrophes in human history.

III: Sectarianism has found a way to creep back in...

At no time has it been more important for progressives to start working to bring back international cooperation. Marine Le Pen, leader of France's Far Right Front National, has announced that she sees, with no irony whatsoever, a new "springtime of the people" emerging along with a renewal of patriotism.

Jonathan Freedland wrote for The Guardian of the extremist poison that has been poured into the public veins, but the reality is that Nationalism is something we have been recreationally dosing ourselves with for decades. Britain has, since the war, managed not to - mostly - do more than just casually dabble in Nationalism, mostly getting out the flags and national pride only for big sporting events or big occasions.

But slowly, this has allowed Nationalism to become not a political position but rather a given - something that people simply are and are expected to participate in. Even after it, finally, very nearly destroyed us all in the 1940s, it seems we still couldn't put the intoxicating brew down, even when we knew it was lethal. Nationalism is Europe's addiction, its sickness, and it is getting close to falling off the wagon again. The spread of the Far Right through France, Austria, Hungary, Poland, even in Germany and Italy, seemingly egged on by Putin in Russia, is alarming to see for any progressive.

IV: ...but the real solutions remain international

The European Union has been an attempt to get Europe thinking differently. Britain came late to the EU, but was a prime mover in things like the European Convention on Human Rights, from the very start, and along with Italy demanded the Regional Development Fund be set up when it entered the EU - investing in the poorest parts of Europe, by region rather than nation, to improve and equalise the standard of life.

For Britain to be the first tumbling rock that begins the Nationalist landslide would a sad state of affairs, with its long history - though blotted with the meanness and selfishness of colonialism - of reaching out to the world internationally. It would also mean the country had turned a blind eye to its real problems.

The situation in Britain is fairly clear: chronic underinvestment, in key areas, by more than twenty years of Westminster government - an effect exacerbated under austerity - have led to a perceived pressure in the form of competition for work and competition for housing. Migrants are scapegoated, but the real solution is proper government investment, in training to end skills mismatches, in supporting newer and smaller businesses, in building homes - a pattern that is replicated right across Europe.

At the European level too can we see the need for an international perspective. The damage to the environment, that knows no borders, nor major corporations dodging tax while pitting workers against each other in a race to the bottom on wages and rights, again unbound by borders, will be tackled at the national level. Yet 'foreigners' and the European Union, itself an organisation that invests, are being made the scapegoats to hide Westminster's failings.

What do progressives want from politics?

The progressive solutions to Britain's problems are shared with the progressive solutions to Europe's problems - we have more in common than divides us. Establishments disconnected from reality and democracy, wealth hoarding corporations and a need to start reimagining how we think about work, wages and economics.

Justice and Liberty - Equality - Democracy - Progress on all of these fronts - these are the things that progressives ask for. All of these things take time, effort and a consensus to construct. A long struggle to build and reform. In just years, or even just days, these efforts can be torn down. But they take decades and even centuries to construct.

Progressives may have been left out of this referendum, as the sides pitched a presently Centre-Right status quo versus the Far Right's Nationalist dream. But the progressive stance is clear: don't walk away from everything we've worked together to build - stay and fight for it, and keep building.

This is Part 4 of  a  four part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union

One of the most controversial elements of the UK's membership of the European Union, at present, is the TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - trade deal. Between the United States and the European Union, it is intended to break down trade barriers limiting free trade.

The prospective deal has been controversial from the start - being assembled in negotiations deemed secret, under a cloud of fear that business is being given legal rights to seek recompense from governments for profit-hurting policy, reduce Europe's regulatory standards and open protected domestic institutions to aggressive corporate competition.

I: The EU is only what you make of it

The misconception here is that the EU is a distinct, abstract institution, pursuing its own agenda - thus imagining the deal to be the work of the EU alone, with exit a simple blocking measure. But the EU doesn't work like that. It is driven by a council of the governments of the member states, including the UK.

Right now, Britain's representative are David Cameron's government and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully in favour of TTIP. Leaving the EU is not going to stop the UK's Conservative government seeking the pass TTIP-type trade agreement.

The basic reality is that the opposition to TTIP is to be found in Europe, not out of it. In Germany, 250,000 people have marched against the treaty. In France, the government is opposing the treaty for the way it threatens its protection policy covering certain of its own domestic interests. The movements are right in step with the major concerns over the treaty in Britain.

II: Remember ACTA?

As ever, the problem persists of national governments hiding behind the EU - using it as an excuse or a way to pass policies where the public aren't watching, when it is simply a system whose strings they are pulling.

Consider the controversial ACTA treaty. ACTA, which was intended to ensure an international 'harmonisation' of copyright enforcement, was criticised as potentially allowing private companies to violate basic personal liberties like privacy and even threatening generic medicines to protect the financial interests big pharmaceutical companies.

While many national governments around the world and across Europe signed, including the UK, the treaty was ultimately blocked in a vote by the directly and proportionally elected EU Parliament, following massive public protests across the EU.

III: What is the point of free trade?

On TTIP, Prime Minister Cameron has tried to make out that there are stark lines over the deal. From his perspective, on his side - supporting TTIP - are all those who want free trade and the benefits it brings, and on the other are people who are 'against free trade and wanting to see an expansion of trade and investment and jobs' (Mason, 2016).

It is not unfair to suggest free trade is a worthy principle, but why can't we have it on ethical terms?

In its more idealistic form, the EU is all about constructing an ethical free trade area. In its origins, it was conceived of as a way to end war in Europe by stopping national governments getting into strife with each other over control of the natural resources with which to construct to materiel of war.

Going further back, into the 19th century, the campaign for free trade was about breaking open cartels. Under the system of trade formed by the competing systems of national protection, the basic necessities were made prohibitively expensive by the stranglehold over them of powerful and unaccountable landlords and bosses whose interests where served by national government protection.

The Anti-Corn Law League, the early radical liberal campaign in the UK for free trade, sought to break up these cartels to reduce the cost of basic food and goods, so that the poorest could afford a decent and healthy life. The campaign for free trade was in service to the public against the protected interests of the rich landowners.

IV: What does EU trade look like?

What the EU has attempted, but not completed, is to ensure that the free trade it promotes takes place on a fair and ethical playing field. Basic standards, enforced by regulation (the mythical beast the Right love to talk of slaying), protect workers' rights, prevent animal testing and in a host of other important areas ensure a basic minimum expected of business practice in Europe.

Internally, this comes hand-in-hand with policies like the Regional Development Fund. The fund is intended to invest in the poorest, sub-national, regions of the EU to raise the standard of living up, so no country can look to undercut another on basic standards or be cut out left unfairly behind.

Externally the protections, of standards and rights, require trading partners to meet certain conditions for access to Europe's common market - like those of Norway and Switzerland that have been much publicised as alternatives in for the UK during this EU referendum campaign.

All of these ideals depend, however, on who is in charge of policy and negotiation at the EU. Right now, it is the conservatives of many EU member states who are in the ascendency and control policy and decision making at the European level. As a result, the EU's actions have been tinged with conservatism.

Within that system, it has been the Right, and the far right, who have been the ones pushing most aggressively for the UK to do away with the EU's standards - though it has faced resistance. The solution for the Right has become doing away with the EU, but keeping the market intact, as they still want to trade with Europe, but want to be undercut everyone else and help big business pad its profits by doing away with concern for the environment or workers' rights.

What do progressives want from trade?

Exiting the EU will require new trade deals to be negotiated. The conservative Right is unlikely to make those standards and regulations any kind of priority in its negotiations. Maybe, of course, those who want a 'left exit', unrestricted by the European system, will get a government of the Left before too long, to set about forming a new progressive trade policy.

But what are progressives in Britain going to negotiate for, if not an ethical trade area? An ethical trade area underscored by democratic accountability and cooperation?

Even a progressive exit would mean the dismantling of systems of cooperation, decades in the making, that have supported advances in rights, in a move that could only make the Far Right happy - only to have to then try to rebuild it all over again.

Right now for progressives, fighting corporate power and ensuring trade is conducted ethically and with appropriate standards and rights protections, remaining in the EU - not idly, but campaigning for progressive, democratic reforms - is still the best option.

This is Part 2 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum: 4 basic things you should know about the background to Britain's EU referendum

Photograph: European Parliament at Espace Leopold from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

With the question of Britain's membership of the European Union being put to a referendum, it is important that people know what it is that they're voting for. Whether instinctually in or out, the core of progressive thinking is basing decisions on the facts. So, from a progressive view, here are four of the basics necessary to making an informed decision.

I: This isn't the first referendum

Back in the 1970s, Britain's Conservative government of the day, under Prime Minister Ted Heath, joined the then named European Community. It was not until later, under his successor, Labour's Harold Wilson, that the decision was put to the people in the form of a referendum.

As in 2016, 1975 saw Britain already committed to the EU and the question was whether to end that partnership. As now, the referendum followed a period of renegotiation of the terms of membership and the question divided the government.

The main difference is that in 1975 membership was a new step, at the beginning of a new phase for the project and today Britain has long been a member and has to consider the impact of its membership over a significant period of time.

In 1975, in answer to the question "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community?", Britain voted by 67% to remain.

II: How the EU has changed since 1975

The European Union has come a long way from where it began as the steel and coal trading agreement between the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, through the European Community of the 1970s referendum into today's political maze.

Today's European Union is the successor to a set of international organisations, including the European Coal and Steel Community, founded in 1952, and the European Economic Community (EEC), founded in 1958. These bodies worked for cooperation between nations in Europe following the war - founding thinker Robert Schuman said to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" between, particularly, France and Germany, through economic integration.

The organisations created a common market in Europe that would reduce direct competition between countries for control of natural resources, and secure for businesses in any member country access to the resources they needed, without endless red tape, treaties and national policies requiring domineering control over resources that in the past gave unequal preferential treatment for one domestic economy.

The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 formed these various bodies into the European Union was perhaps the biggest change there has been between 1975 and 2016. It was certainly controversial - leading to the founding of what would become UKIP.

Yet these efforts to promote integration are fully within the spirit of the European project - pursuing a step by step, democratic integration of Europe - as laid out in the Schuman declaration:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."

The most controversial change, however, has been less a change than an ongoing process: the continued expansion of the European Union, with the entry of new member states. As the borders of Europe have grown larger, the balance of economic strength between member states has also shifted. The economic weakness of some of these countries, and the relative, comparative, lack of wealth of their citizens, has stoked fears about mass migration into richer member states.

III: What the EU looks like today

The four main components of the European Union today are the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

The first two are the Council and the Parliament. The Council gathers the representatives of the elected governments of each member state, with equal representation - like to the United States Senate or the German Federal Bundesrat. The Parliament meanwhile houses MEPs, elected by proportional representation from regional constituencies all across the European Union.

Because the Council sets the policy direction, and the Council and Parliament must vote to pass legislation, fluctuations in which parties are enjoying popular support across Europe affects directly and indirectly the priorities and approach of the Union. With an particularly inward looking conservatives currently dominant in domestic politics in most European countries, conservatism controls politics at the European level as well.

The Commission is the Presidential executive branch that, based on the policy priorities set by the council, proposes legislation and takes responsibility for seeing it implemented across the EU. The Commission is headed by a President who is nominated by the European Parliament and the Council jointly and heads up a body of 27 Commissioners, one from each member country covering different policy areas, and an estimated 50,000 civil servants (compared to around 19,000 working fro Manchester City Council).

The Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court of European Law, responsible for interpreting the laws. It is to this organisation that member state courts refer questions of application of European Law.

Between these separate bodies have been created various agencies, carrying out various responsibilities including the European Regional Development fund - whose creation was pushed for originally by Britain and Italy. It invests EU common funds in poorer and less developed parts of Europe, on a regional rather than national basis, to encourage modernisation, create sustainable jobs and stimulating growth - including investing in transport links and telecommunications like broadband.

Yet these funds remain a source of tension, with exit campaigners complaining that too much leaves one national entity, particularly a rich one like the UK, to be spent in another. The reality is that the spending is redistributive, not from one country to another but from richer regions to poorer, with the aim of building up the poorer so that it can stand with less redistribution needed in the future.

IV: Progressive Europe after #ThisIsACoup

The referendum on whether Britain should continue to be a part of these institutions has pricked a sore progressive nerve. After the way senior and influential European figures were seen to have treated Greece, and its Radical Democrat governing party Syriza, during bailout negotiations, and the way the will expressed in Greece's elections and referendums was ignored - decried as an attempted coup against the government of Greece - influential figures on the left have begun to really consider an uncoupling, for fear of being unable to implement progressive change within the European system.

The trouble for progressives lies in the fact that, though stark lines have been drawn by the referendum question, they do not have a clear side to take. Conservatives are supporting the European status quo, that they currently dominate, and the far right are supporting exit - with no third position available.

While there is cynicism with regards to the EU's policy achievements, its process of compromise and alliance-building has seen policy developed and implemented on a much wider scale than might have otherwise been possible - ensuring that issues common to all the people's of Europe can be sorted out by them, mutually, on that same scale.

The value of that approach is seen in the efforts of others on the Left to build an alternative to the two options presented in Britain's upcoming referendum. At the least, it shows how it remains preferable to the possibility of a 'Brexit'.

Over the last few years, Yanis Varoufakis, an economics professor and former finance minister of Greece under Syriza, has consistently argued that there is danger for the Left in letting the mainstream establishment collapse. Rather than cheering the neoliberal implosion, he has sombrely called for progressives to help prevent it so as to avoid the catastrophic affect upon those most vulnerable and to buy time to build an alternative.

From Varoufakis viewpoint, only the Far Right has ever benefited from social and political breakdown, or economic crisis, while the Left has succeeded most from pushing for reform of the system - requiring most often to build up structures and ideas over time to acts as foundations and infrastructure on which to stand its achievements.

It makes sense then that Varoufakis has led the formation of Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), as a cross party platform, to push the progressive case. That organisation has others like Another Europe alongside it, pursuing a different and more progressive form of European government. What unites them is the belief in the need to form pan-European parties and movements to push for a broad democratisation of those Europe institutions that remain aloof or too little accountable.

What do progressives want today?

Fearful of conservative domination of Europe, it isn't surprising that the Left wants out of what could easily look like a rigged game. Yet there are Varoufakis' warnings to consider, which contain a wider implication within, for those on the Left whose instincts lean towards exit.

Out of Europe there awaits only nationalism, seen in the continued rise of the Far Right which so nearly won the Presidencies of France and Austria, given yet more license to drive more wedges between more people - arresting social progress to a narrowly sectarian view of the world.

Exit also stands it contrast to citizens movements, governing cities and provinces on the principles of municipalism, that offers the most hope for progressives right now. It would be easy to take the lessons of the municipal movement as license for the Left to withdraw and focus on the local.

Yet those pursuing the municipal cause have a more outward view, looking to build alliances between municipalities, between cities, across the entire continent to bring democracy closer to the people and to bring those citizens together in solidarity.

For progressives, the future, the path to their aims - for justice, liberty, equality, progress - still runs the international road. In Europe, that still means looking outward, looking at politics on a continental scale. To that end, the European Union remains the infrastructure that we have.

Exiting one continental system without another to join, when so much for the Left depends on international cooperation, is reckless and wasteful. Between voting to remain and voting to exit, voting to remain is the only option that chimes the broad vision. But it shouldn't be a vote cast lightly.

Remaining is not an "end all" solution, but a first step. The next step for progressives should be to get involved with the movements to reform Europe, to democratise Europe, to beat back austere conservatism and discredited neoliberalism, all in favour of a more compassionate alternative.

This is Part 1 of  a multi-part series, "The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum" - click here to go to the introductory hub

The Alternative Guide to the EU Referendum

Over the next month, The Alternative is going to delve into the key aspects of the EU referendum and take a look at what it holds in store for progressives. To that end, this article will serve as the hub, gathering each of the parts together for easy access.

Pt.1   4 basic things you should know about Britain's EU referendum

Pt.2   4 things you should know about TTIP, free trade and the European Union
Pt.3   4 things you should know about influence, peace and security in the EU
Pt.4   4 reasons Progressives should reject Nationalism and choose Remain

Introduction: The Referendum for Progressives

In short, this isn't one. What stands out most of all about the referendum is that there is no truly progressive option. The ballot will offer people a choice between a bureaucratic mainstream status quo and a Right-wing nationalist reaction that proposes returning to the past (or a heavily revised version of it, at least).

The question posed to progressives is how to respond to these imperfect choices. When deciding between them, there are some basic values that they need to consider: Internationalism - Cooperation - Equality - Justice - Liberty.

Internationalism is a broader vision of people, one that does not distinguish between the value and importance of people in one country from another and believes in the possibility of cooperation between them.

That spirit of cooperation is key to enabling those people to then work together for mutual benefit and, in so doing, pursue equality. As for justice and liberty, they are the structures and principles, the terms, on which those people organise.

The roots of progressive thinking are trying to bring together all of these ideas in one society, that embodies them all: the equality of the left over the hierarchy of the right, the justice of democrats and the liberty of liberals, bound together with a broad humanism and mutual endeavour.

Achieving this things means thinking about, and working towards, the future. It means making and encouraging progress, and encouraging others to think about the future as well - and that is a difficult task, because the future is undeniably terrifying.

The future is where we find change, uncertainty and a lack of guarantees - a spark for anxiety is there ever was one. All the while, the past is favoured as a place of guarantees, of certainty, of familiar structures and reassuring traditions.

"The past is comparatively safe, next to the present, because we know how at least one of them turns out."

The European Union represents an attempt to build towards the future and that makes it terrifying. But it has also been ensnared by the times, to become, in many ways, an organisation of the status quo. As a result that project is unfinished. There is progress still to be made.

The question that progressives must answer is which of two imperfect choice presents the best next step in the path to achieving its goals. This series will aim to offer the facts needed to decide between the options and take that next step towards the future.

Osborne's damaged reputation encourages doubt in Treasury Brexit forecast - yet findings match those of other studies saying Brexit will be a blow to UK economy

The biggest issues, like accountability, have become international matters that require a multi-national response. In Europe, this international approach has encouraged not only prosperity, but shared prosperity.

The Chancellor has taken the opportunity presented by a UK Treasury department report released today, an intervention by the government likely to once again anger those in the Vote Leave camp, to stress how an exit would negatively affect the economy (BBC, 2016).

The Treasury decided to put front and centre its middle of three case studies, based on a Canada-EU style agreement, that suggested that a 6% hit to the economy would the result from an exit (Ahmed, 2016). For its 'best case' study, which involves following Norway and joining the European Economic Area, the treasury's numbers where closer to forecasts by other bodies (Chu, 2016) - which suggested smaller losses of 2-4%.

Those in Vote Leave have been quick to dismiss the forecasts on the simple grounds that Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury have been so far from the mark, for so long on the economy (ITV, 2016) - a perfect demonstration of why reputation and the appearance of competence matter so much.

Even after years of missed targets, Osborne had managed to maintain the impression with the public that he, and his party, where the safest hands for the economy. Yet that image was massively weakened by the Budget 2016 debacle, when Iain Duncan Smith resigned and the Chancellor faced heavy criticism for high end tax cuts being laid out alongside cuts to disability welfare support (BBC, 2016{2}).

So with the Chancellor tarnished, where can we turn to verify the Treasury's findings?

Well, first of all, the Treasury's figures certainly concur with the other independent studies, despite variations, in saying that an exit from the European Union will be bad for the economy. That opinion is also shared by organisations ranging from the IMF, the overseers and facilitators of the global economy the International Monetary Fund, to the IFS, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (Allen & Asthana, 2016; BBC, 2016{3}).

Secondly, the idea of an EU exit having - at least in the short term - a negative impact on the economy has even been admitted by Boris Johnson, the most high profile supporter of the exit campaign (Stewart & Watt, 2016). At the core of why those in favour of exit say that this initial impact is worth experiencing, is to pursue a believed greater long term potential outside of the EU. Yet the exit campaign's own pretty extravagant claims must be treated with caution (Full Fact, 2016).

Even if post-exit economic prosperity - outmatching what might be expected in the EU - could be achieved, there are no guarantees that prosperity would be shared. The immediate benefit of any new investment would likely go straight into the hands of the rich and, as Ed Miliband stressed at the weekend, wealth in the hands of the rich doesn't trickle down but is instead stashed (Cadwalladr, 2016).

Reinforcing that point is the long standing aim of those on the 'pro-business' Right to 'repatriate powers' from EU regarding employment laws. The stated aim is to cut regulations pertaining to labour protections so as to make labour more flexible for businesses, cutting their costs. But that also means weakening the rights of workers (Farhat, 2014), and increasing the already precarious situation for people in work.

In contrast, the EU has built, gradually, an expanding market area, with free trade within and protection at the edge; with the free trade area being covered by rules and regulations that ensure protections for workers from unfairly low pay and poor treatment - on the basis of decisions made at the European level on the grounds that they affect everyone in Europe.

By building regulations into its system, the EU offers an alternative to the long standing debate between free trade and protection - lower prices and greater efficiency at the cost of precarity and low wages, versus the potential for higher wages and sheltered domestic production that comes with the risk of much higher prices and damage being done to international trade relationships through trade barriers.

In essence, the EU has built a pioneering model for the advancement, not just of free trade, but also of fair trade, where workers are protected and their contributions justly rewarded. Where the rights of workers, subject to multi-national corporations, are protected by corresponding multi-national agreements and cooperation (Stewart, 2016).

The world has gone global and multi-national. Corporations and wealthy individuals avoid tax across borders, globally and multi-nationally. If we want to work for the common good, if we want accountability, our horizons also have to broaden. The European Union undoubtedly needs reform to better live up to them. But achieving them is now a project that has to be completed internationally and the EU, warts and all, is the best medium we have in place at the moment.

The British Left seems finally to have settled on how its relationship with Europe should be defined - positive, engaged, reforming

With his announcement this morning, Jeremy Corbyn pretty much completed the alignment of Britain's progressive-wing behind the campaign to remain in the European Union (Stewart, 2016). The support of the Labour leader now sees Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the trade unions GMB (600k members), Unison (1.3m members) and Unite (1.4m members), all backing an In vote (Mason, 2016; Silveira, 2016; Unite, 2016).

But what it also represents is the British Left finally settling on a way to talk about its relationship with Europe. This was best seen in Corbyn's support for the EU coming with criticisms attached.

Corbyn argued that the EU had protected workers' rights, pushed for better environmental standards and introduced safeguards for consumers (BBC, 2016). Yet he also pointed to shortcomings, like the lack of sufficient of democratic accountability and an establishment commitment to deregulation and privatisation.

That view solidly aligns Labour with the stance adopted by Caroline Lucas, followed by the rest of the Greens, in backing Another Europe (Lucas, 2016) - a movement of activists and campaigners calling for "a Europe of democracy, human rights, and social justice" and moves towards a more hopeful, "social, citizen-led Europe".

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, has argued that Europe is right now in the hands of conservatism because conservatives won successive elections across Europe and formed national governments (Lucas, 2016{2}). As a result they hold many seats on the European Council, which allows them to shape Europe with the policies of conservatism.

Simply losing elections is not good grounds for secession, Lucas argues. Instead we should stay, working with progressives in all of Europe's countries, to build a progressive consensus for reform that protects Europe's social chapter, its workers protections, its environmental protections - made possible by its shape as a continental, cross-border, that brings Europe together to deal with transnational issues.

So far the EU referendum campaign has, with both sides making almost identical claims, revealed that life in or out of the EU is unlikely to be much different on the surface, with even immigration is unlikely to be altered by an exit (Stewart, 2016{2}).

The exception is that leaving is acknowledged to come with the risk of an initial shock to the economy, which everyone seems to accept will happen and will be a bad thing, but no one is sure just how bad (Stewart & Watt, 2016) - with no guarantee that any subsequent growth benefit will be shared, while growth in the EU has been said to come with boosted living standards (Full Fact, 2016).

In a narrow debate, filled with nationalism and misinformation (Allegretti, 2016), the progressive view is a refreshing alternative. Acknowledging past and achievements, and talking about how to build a positive future - one that is open, and commits to cooperation, with people working together to achieve more for the common good.

It is about time that the British Left figured out and stated its position on Europe. The wavering, particularly of Labour's, commitment to the international ideal of Europe has helped to severely undermine public confidence in a bigger, more open world. Corbyn's speech has hopefully put that to rest.