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.

Efforts to extinguish the light of human progress sometimes cause the candlelight to flicker, but it always burns the brighter after

Peace for Paris. Photograph: From Subjectif Art, design by Jean Jullien (License)

The world is moving inexorably forwards. More freedoms, more rights, more equality. That progress has been tempered time and again by horrifying bouts of violence and war, psychotic acts of terror and ruthless acts of sectarian cleansing. Yet humanity has continued to stumble its way out of the darkness.

Acts of violence, counter-revolutionary reaction and suppression by those would keep the world trapped in the darkness, rear up with each step forward. They attempt use fear to control and dissuade, to put out the light. Yet each act of violence has changed humanity. It forges an ever growing, ever spreading, solidarity against violence, ignorance and selfishness. It simply makes the case, and support, for peace, liberty and tolerance stronger.

Vaclav Havel was a writer and playwright who became a political dissident against totalitarian communist rule and went on to became the first President of the Czech Republic. At the height of the constant, suppressive, threat of arrest and imprisonment, Havel wrote The Power of the Powerless. In it, Havel described how under the rule of even the most desperate and tyrannical of police states, the light of dissent and liberty can flicker into life through simple acts of disobedience and the refusal to comply with the wielders of power and fear. That in these simple acts, an individual:

"...rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth."

For many, the events in Paris, or in Beirut, have extinguished their ability to see that light - or so dimmed their sensitivity to it beneath a howling storm of pain and loss that they may never see it again. For those people, there is perhaps little comfort in knowing that despite, and maybe in spite of, atrocities, the statistics say that there are only positive trends when it comes to human health and prosperity.

To those people, it may well be cold comfort that the light continues to flicker, let alone that it will grow stronger. Even so, we cannot give up on, or ignore, that flame. By its light, people have changed the world for the better with even the smallest acts of freedom.

Whether it's the struggle for human rights, civil rights and liberties, and democracy around the world, or their particular manifestations in the rising visibility of struggles for Women's rights, LGBT rights or for recognition that Black Lives Matter, the movement towards equality and respect is irresistible.

Corbyn and the Labour Party pass their first big challenge - showing solidarity against the government's trade union bill

Trade Unions led this summer's London Tube Strike over the safety concerns tied up in the extension of services to running 24 hours. Photograph: Tube Strike by Barney Moss (License) (Cropped)

Today saw the second reading of the Conservative government's trade union bill. This was the first debate on the controversial measures, aimed by the government at stopping what they have called 'endless' strike threats. Following a morning on which Jeremy Corbyn's new shadow cabinet had been announced (May, 2015), Labour was in need of an issue on which they could present a united front.

If an opposition, particularly a progressive opposition, has any role at all it is to challenge power and the way it is used. The trade union bill presented the first, very early, opportunity for the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn to do just that. The measures to be debated included an extension - up to two weeks - of the notice required before strikes can be held, allowing employers the use of agency workers to cover striker shifts, and mandatory identification to be worn by picketers with their details to be provided to police (BBC, 2015).

The reading of the bill by minister Sajid Javid met a hostile reception from the beginning, with Caroline Lucas and Dennis Skinner setting the tone. The Conservative position was that their proposed regulations were aimed at stopping a malign minority of trade unionists forcing strike action - damaging to the livelihoods of other workers -  upon the broader general public (BBC, 2015{2}).

Elements of the bill were criticised by influential Conservative backbencher David Davis (Mason, 2015; Casalicchio, 2015). Davis described measures requiring strikers to identity themselves and provide details to police as more suited to Franco's Spain than "Queen Elizabeth II's Britain". Yet during the debate itself, Davis argued that the bill, stripped of its illiberal elements, would tackle one of the side effects of public sector monopoly, that withdrawal of public sector labour means withdrawal of the service - deeply inconveniencing the lives of the wider public.

However, human rights groups have described the bill as a dangerous restriction upon the human and democratic rights of workers that, in particular, makes it 'easier for the Government to be a bad employer' (Ogilvie, 2015). The bill has also been described as a vindictive attack on civil liberties, by Liberal Democrat former business secretary Vince Cable and the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress Frances O'Grady (Taylor, 2015; Cable & O'Grady, 2015).

Through first the Liberal Party and later the Labour Party, trade unions in the UK have sought better rights and protections for people in the workplace. In the early years that meant a mix of support of parliamentary candidates and organisation of large strikes. Yet over the years - though with some periods of resurgence - time lost to industrial action has dwindled to give way to negotiation and under the restraints of increases in trade union legislation (Bienkov, 2015).

The ability of public sector workers to strike, with an impact on the wider public, is part of the right to strike. As private sector strikes challenge the interests of their employers, in the form of their accumulation of profits from labour, public sector strikes challenge the interests of their employer, the government, in the form of their votes dependent upon public satisfaction. With employers holding an unequal power in being able to withhold employment upon which the lives of workers depend, it is not unfair that workers to also be able to withhold benefits from their employer - in fact it is recognised as a human right (Ewing, 2015).

Whatever the differences between the factions within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn has been elected to lead, opposition to anti-union tactics likened to those of dictators - a poignant example of a disturbing conservative trend of attacking human rights, suspending liberties supported by legal aid or social security, and even naming opposition parties as a risk to national security (Dearden, 2015) - provides an easy point of agreement.

If the role of opposition - and the roots of what it means to be on the Left - is to challenge power, attempts to restrict liberty of peaceful protest and civic dissent should be able to unite the Labour Party. Especially since opposition to the bill has been supported across progressive parties, by Labour, Green and also Liberal Democrat MPs - whose leader Tim Farron said that the bill attacked trade unions who stood up "for workers' rights" and protected "against workplace abuse and bullying" (Farron, 2015).

There is no rule against being constructive in opposition. But a majority government has little need of aid in pursuing its agenda. Corbyn's first day has seen Labour taking a stand, showing some solidarity with the trade union movement - which alone is admittedly a small victory. And yet, it is the small victories and acts of solidarity out of which a larger labour movement is built.

The DWP's fake case studies are just the latest blunder in the Conservative effort to restructure welfare to be more coercive.

Ian Duncan Smith and the DWP are once more under fire as they attempt to make fundamental changes to how benefits work. Photograph: Job Centre Plus by Andrew Writer (License) (Cropped)

The discovery yesterday that the DWP, Department of Work and Pensions, had been faking case studies is just the latest blunder in the Conservative attempt to make a coercive shift in welfare policy (Rawlinson & Perraudin, 2015). It is the latest product of the destructive Conservative obsession with stamping out what they see as dependence generating collectivism, only to allow coercion to flourish.

The Conservatives have pressed along this course, even in the face of legal challenges (Neville, 2013), in pursuit of ideological aims. In the 1970s, the party began to adopt long abandoned elements of classical liberalism.

They absorbed these ideas - the free market, anti-state attitudes - to construct a modern conservatism. They have used low taxes, deregulation and the trimming back of the public sector to protect the interests of the modern establishment, which primarily consists of the finance sector and big business.

The general Conservative motivation is stated to be the discouragement of dependence and the encouragement of self-interest, all in order to spur innovation and individual excellence - in opposition to collectivism - that, in competition, they believe will lead to growth and advancement within the structure of, and beneficial to, the establishment (George & Wilding, 1994).

Within that structure comes the dismantling of the welfare system, even the privatising of it (Mason, 2015), all in the name of ending dependence - in this case by the introduction of greater coercion.

In these applications come the conservative twist on old liberal policies. They are made to serve a vast corporate structure, the UK as a PLC (Treanor & Elliott, 2015), an umbrella for other financial and business giants. In the process the liberist, laissez faire, economics lose whatever capacity they had to liberate and welfare loses its ability to act as a compassionate social security safety net.

Welfare, in particular, has a purpose, a social point, that is the reason it is provided by the public sector. It is supposed to be a common safety net, to which everyone contributes and from which everyone benefits. A kind of social bond, part of the thread that holds the patchwork of society together.

But as the Conservatives pursue their direction, shredding that social fabric, they replace the compassion and co-operation of welfare, with the a meagre and coercive social insurance (Mason, 2015) - based on individual contributions from individual work, highly personalised and so lacking the security offered by a social safety.

The Labour Party's unwillingness to oppose these directions hides the possibility of moving in a more progressive direction (Wintour, 2015). Society could do more to help, it could liberate the individual and end poverty. The means of achieving it is the Citizen's Income. However, only one party - the Greens - have taken it seriously, and even they had doubts about putting it front and centre of their election manifesto (Riley-Smith, 2015).

And yet, it is an idea that, at the very least, shows that a progressive alternative is possible. Citizen's Income shows that it is possible to reform welfare for the present and to do so without losing its social purpose: serving the common good.

The crisis in Greece makes for a painful reminder of why solidarity and co-operation are so important to democracy

Greece has not been shown much solidarity in its time of crisis. Photograph: Greek flag via photopin (license) (cropped & flipped)

As Greece and their European creditors have scrambled to work out a deal to prevent their exit from the Eurozone (Traynor, 2015), there has been a stark absence of solidarity. The apparent lack of a political will to negotiate, compromise and co-operate for mutual benefit, seems very much at odds with the values upon which Europe was founded.

Against the dominant values of the twentieth century - a world divided between collectivism and competition, communism and capitalism, East and West - Europe stood apart. Social democracy dominated the political arena, with negotiated settlements between capital and labour, free enterprise taxed to provide welfare, and co-operation and co-ordination trusted to produce superior results (Feffer, 2015).

As the present economic crisis has rumbled on, the urge of European conservatives to impose their rigorous austerian economics onto the economies of other European nations - in pursuit of some capitalist revival grounded in 'competitiveness', or the power to produce cheaply and therefore profitably - has called into question the commitment of the member states to the core ideals of the great European project (Krugman, 2015).

No where has that been more apparent than in the alarming way that a debate centred on the state's fiscal responsibility, to citizens, to businesses and to creditors, has seen the creeping introduction of the politics of identity. Some have tried to stress cultural roots to the ongoing global economic crisis as if it were the result of certain failings of a collective national character (Harvey, 2010). Those sentiments have spiralled outwards to feed into the Far-Right response to the crisis, with the likes of UKIP, Front National, Golden Dawn - regressively more extremist, respectively - dredging up early twentieth century notions of national sovereignty, identity and intolerance to immigration.

For an internationalist, the European project was supposed to be the beginning of the end, not to diversity or distinctiveness through gentrification, but to the chains of dogma - built out of ethnicities, cultures, religions, nations and even class - that have been used to shackle, divide and keep control over people. It was hoped that peace and co-operation could instead bring about greater tolerance and acceptance of diversity, which might be celebrated, and through freedom lead to more diversity still (Riotta, 2012). It was and remains a very progressive liberal dream.

What the crisis in Greece has told us, is that the old shackles are hard to shake and that the progressive dreams cannot be achieved without a strong, reciprocated will to co-operate.

Saturday's massive anti-austerity, protests across the UK and particularly in London, brought together a mix of Greens, Labour, trade unionists, environmentalists, socialists and campaigners on a range of progressive issues (Khomami, 2015; BBC, 2015). But to succeed in their aims, there are more who need to get on board.

There is hope for that outcome in the form of ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats Paddy Ashdown's suggestion of a progressive convention (Wintour & Watt, 2015), following up on Caroline Lucas' rallying call for a progressive alliance (Lucas, 2015) Ashdown has suggested holding a convention where progressive groups might put aside their tribalism and co-operate on formulating a joint progressive agenda. His suggestion did however fall short of the electoral pacts proposed by Lucas.

The old Left had some key values to which it aspired. For the democrats and socialists they were justice and community. For the liberals is was freedom and individualism. For the environmentalists it has been sustainability. But their visions have been dimmed by a lack of solidarity between these movements, which have often taken to fighting against each other to establish their own grand narratives, determined to pull everyone into their big tent - and thus usually diluting their own message while suppressing that of others.

The progressivism of the future must be defined instead by co-operation - the likes of which, if it had been embraced across Europe from the start, might have been able to stave off the present Greek tragedy before it ever began (Pianta, 2015).

As the Labour leadership candidates had their second debate on Saturday (BBC, 2015{2}), they would have had the anti-austerity protests and the down-to-the-wire struggle between Greece and the Eurozone hanging over their heads. And those events bring with them a big question: does Labour embrace these new proposals or does it continue to try and wrestle with the Conservatives over control of the establishment?

It is well worth considering that a progressive alliance, based on the spirit of co-operation, may well consign the concerns of the old system to obsolescence - thus freeing Labour from its endless and disaffecting chase after majority power. A progressive alliance could put from and centre electoral reform, to create a system that is representative, with a multi-party system that reflects ideals and values, and where co-operation brings those smaller parties together on common ground rather than herds them all into a faceless, ideology-less big tent.

Greece has shown us what happens without co-operation, without solidarity. A detached and emote system that ignores the social aspect of economics and shows more concern for creditors receiving their payments than for ensuring that Greek people have enough food. We are long overdue embracing a better way of doing politics.