Chapo Trap House - Bonus: This Is Where I Leave EU

Episode Date: March 15, 2019

Amber interviews economist and author Costas Lapavitsas about the European Union, how it works, its problems, how it relates to Brexit, and how we might think of it from a leftist perspective.

Howdy kids, it's Amber here with a very special hearty helping of political education vegetables today We're going to learn about the European Union But why you may ask well American leftists are very much in the dark about the EU and My interest in European politics is somewhat self-serving as an American socialist Yes, I believe in building solidarity between American leftists and the European workers who democracies are being undermined by an Extra-national machine of capital But more directly EU politics generally in brexit more specifically are essential case studies that American leftists should learn from

Our nation little American left has not been pulled from traditional working-class institutions and With the US labor movement on its back for years now our little ranks have a massive Generational gap starting around the end of history So you may have noticed if you're in DSA that every American leftist is either under 30 or over 80 and If they are under 30, they're usually downwardly mobile middle-class college graduates Working-class burning crats aside the majority of self-described American leftists have only very recently migrated over from the progressive wing of neoliberalism

and as such the positions on things like trade or domestic manufacturing and energy tariffs borders movement and Who controls the supply of labor still reflect liberal hegemony? I have trouble for example explaining the anti globalization protest of the 90s to recent recruits of a democratic Socialist of America I'm a little too young to actually remember them, but they didn't happen that long ago and they do represent a last stand against free trade When the anti-globalization movement is remembered at all, it's interpreted as xenophobic backward or in some way reactionary Seemingly counter-intuitively the discussions of fair and humane immigration policy are Largely outnumbered by kind of anarchist and libertarian platitudes who often end up espousing policies that result in hyper exploitation at home and abroad

So all of this is just to say that I'm not a urophile or a specialist in European politics I'm just very committed to building socialism in America and I see EU and the Brexit debates as a good segue to get our listenership to be a little more skeptical about Let's call it liberal internationalism And think more critically about the role of global capital in shaping that ideology. So with that I am joined by Kostas Lepavitzas professor of economics at SOAS University in London Briefly a Sarisa MP an author of the left case against the EU out from polity books. Kostas. Thank you so much for joining me Thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be with you and to be

Discussing these very important issues with you. Thanks So just starting from the beginning because this is an American audience largely What is the European Union and who runs it? The European Union has been in existence for You know well over 50 years now. So 60 years now. So it's It's something that has changed over the course of time it began as basically a trade and industry support

Framework and then gradually he has begun to look like a transnational organization that has the attributes of a state So It has changed a lot in the course of its history. I would say that right now. It's a neoliberal Citadel it is a vast array of institutions that protect the interests of big business and big banks it is thoroughly undemocratic and anti-democratic and it is run by

Cabal of unelected people or people elected in their own countries very powerful people who make huge decisions decisions of profound importance behind the backs of workers the poor the broad layers of the population in Europe Who know that something is not right and oppose it basically, right? So how did it come to be like who were the architects of the EU? I know it's very old sure

The EU was set up in the late 50s the time of the Cold War The United States was behind it. They understood it as a bulwark against the soviet union And it was basically french capitalists german capitalists Allying themselves To each other to protect the cold industry and to protect agriculture coal and steel industry to protect agriculture

That's how it began in those days These were the days of the long post war boom The days of Keynesianism the european union was understood as an interstate alliance that could intervene in markets that could Affect the economy in important ways that we could have a social democratic dimension like the the world for social democratic Then even in the united states you had you had your mechanisms of intervention of controlling markets but since the 19 In the early 1990s late 1980s all that

Has died basically Finished and this is now a thoroughly neoliberal outfit Since the Maastricht treaty in 1992. It's a thoroughly neoliberal outfit the european union which basically Protects free markets promotes free markets and protects A big business and big banks within it decisions are made by the european council The european parliament is not a real parliament the european central bank Is an enormously powerful institutions and the european commission

Is a set of bureaucrats and administrators who again are not democratically accountable to union It's a bizarre outfit. It's it's the most It's the strangest collection of institutions that has a huge democratic deficit right at its core at the present moment Right, so it's developed and changed over time through sort of expansion and growth You know, how has it grown and what is what is this europeanism this economic project of europeanism as it Means now in our in our present moment

Yes, yes, that's a very good question and that's exactly what we've got to explain as far as the left is concerned You see in the 1980s The decade in which neoliberalism emerged Things began to change politically and socially across the world, of course, and they have they changed in europe That's when the big change occurred in in in europe in the european union and then it took It took official form in the in the in the in the treaty of maastricht in 1992 What happened in the 1980s?

Is that Basically two things the workers movement was defeated in key key parts of the continent an organized labor became less and less confident in itself and capable of taking on capital That's the first thing that happened the second thing that happened in 1980s was of course late 1980s Was of course the collapse of the eastern bloc the collapse of the eastern bloc removed?

Removed any notion That there was an alternative way of doing things. I've never supported what was there. I should make that clear but nonetheless a lot of people thought that this was another way of doing things and And and and the left could learn something from it. So the combination of worker weakness And the collapse of the eastern bloc delivered a huge blow to the european left the european left lost confidence in itself He stopped believing They could change the world that he could tackle Capitalism they could make things work in a different way

in that context europe an imaginary europe in the european union Started to look like the promised land that was the alternative you see for a lot of people If you can't change the world where you are if you can't take capital on where you are if you can't if you can't make things better Shift the balance if ever workers and the poor where you are and begin to put in place

mechanisms of solidarity that are based on working people And so on across europe then maybe the european union is your answer Maybe that's where you will find the paradise and a lot of the left in in europe Has come to believe in it. The european union has emerged for much of the left in europe as the promised land It's an incredible incredible development and an incredible historical fargo because of course Traditionally the european left was very critical of the european union very critical for for the right reasons But its historical defeats of the left has seen its

Transformed the european union in its own head into uh, uh into into a very nice project a very good project the left wing project It's it's i mean, it's unconscionable, but that's what's happened in europe right despite the fact that it's completely anti-democratic and outside any kind of democratic control within the patient state If anyone sees goes near the beast and sees how it works um, they can be in no doubt as to what it is brussels is is one of the the largest

Centers in the world for for business lobbying after washington is number two um The and that's not accidental right because big business knows which way its bread is is buttons um The the operations of the mechanisms in brussels and so on the administration and the various bureaucratic mechanisms in brussels are Completely opaque and undemocratic and anti-democratic if you go anywhere near it You know that this is not the left-wing project project and it can never become a left-wing project Only if you're far away from it

You imagine it to be something that it never is it never was it never can be Uh, that's how it works basically right so, um, we talked a little bit about the escalation in e.u. Influenced in power in the 80s um So I think a lot of people are a little confused about What the single market is and what a single currency means? So could you explain what those concepts mean to capital? To european nation states and to european workers respectively. I know that's a lot of questions, but sure sure sure The shift in europe in ideology and policy in policies as i mentioned it was neoliberal clearly

Now neoliberalism in europe has evolved around two pillars One is the single market the other is the single currency For most of the european union not all of it, but for most of it they go together the single market is basically um a kind of institutional framework that homogenizes Uh, the way markets work and the way and the way trade is undertaken across europe It's actually what big business wants. It's it's designed to serve the purposes of big business

Engaging in uh in in capitalist activity across borders With minimum interruption and minimum, uh costs and so on The single market is designed to serve all the needs of large european uh industrial and commercial conglomerates big business single currency Was a very ambitious uh and in my judgment ultimately foolish

uh bid to establish another leg to that to comp to to complement it right have a single currency that would actually Unify and homogenize the monetary sphere. So not only can you do business In markets that are homogenized across europe, but you also use the same money You got one central bank to make life easier. You got one common market In in in learnable capital for banks. Um, so you unify the situation From the side of production and from the side of finance

And you create an integrated New liberal realm. That's the that's the basic idea. Um, so Uh, the most powerful institution in that is of course the european central bank to do that. You need the bank that will Coordinate this activity in this effort and that's the european central bank. It's the most undemocratic institution in europe It's a bizarre central bank Um, it sort of sits above europe with enormous fire power and enormous social and economic power. No one controls it It's not accountable to any um, and it sets the terms

of reference for both the Single currency and to a certain extent the single market in addition to that What europe has created is the european court of justice Which is another bizarre and undemocratic institution. It's like a high court or a supreme court Uh, that is not accountable to anyon um And which creates law and interprets law Um, that then applies across borders and it's law over with it is law over which

The population of europe the work is and others of europe have got very little say It is the definition of being undemocratic. So the the combination of european The european central bank in the european court of justice um Is enough to show you uh, what i mean by absence of democracy and any Integral lack of democracy in this single market um

single currency space that is neoliberalism In its essence in europe that's basically what that's basically what we have right so we know that um, you know Say the homogenization of Of currency and markets Benefits capital because then things can grease the wheels things can move more quickly. What does that mean to? Uh member states, let's say like Let's say, what does it mean to germany versus? What does it mean to let's say grease and right? Now we come to difficult things because of course, we're gonna talk about the states and

Then we have to talk about work is what it does to work is and the two things are connected one thing that people must realize that people must realize when they talk about the european union is much of this stuff about the transnational aspect of the union in other words um this entity that Goes across borders and so on and makes all these powerful decisions One key thing about it is that he hasn't actually abolished the nation states. It's incorrect to think that the european union Diminishes the nation state or eliminates the nation state or makes it irrelevant, which is

What a lot of european socialists often imagine Far from it the nation state is very much there Europe is still very much a collection of your of states and the european union is an alliance of states Actually, you you have very powerful ruling classes represented by their states in the european union which defend their sectional interests and their particular interests And what happens is they use the mechanisms of the european union the transnational mechanisms of the european union to do things which they would have been unable to do otherwise to

To promote interests particular interests In ways that they would have been unable to do otherwise In this context what has emerged in europe is once again a tremendous hierarchy of nation What has happened is is far from the convergence of the partners On the basis of solidarity and all these other very nice things that people imagine about the european union

What has emerged is actually divergence Precisely because the nation states are there. They're defending their interests and they're promoting their interests. We've got a core in the european union a very powerful core germany sits at the top of it German big business in particular sits at the top of it France, France is part of the core, but france cannot compete with germany. France has become decisively

weaker part of the core Then there are a number of peripheries in europe Peripheries have emerged left right and center in europe as a result of the union. Let me stress as a result of the european union There is the southern european periphery There is the central european periphery There is the Baltic periphery There is an eastern european periphery some of which is in europe in the european union some of which is outside there is a remarkable peripheralization of europe there is no convergence

and Different states in those peripheries have got different power and there is a different Ranking among them. That's the reality of europe. In other words, what we've got is the recreation of imperialism in a different guise financial and productive industrial imperialism. Greece is in a very different position To germany in this they are not partners, right? They're not and they never will be at the core of this system lies german industrial capital not financial capital

But industrial capital At the core of it lies in that german industrial capital. That is really the dominant economic power in the system There is a vast industrial complex in germany cars chemicals pharmaceuticals machine tools the core of german industrial organization Big business runs that a huge corporations that run that and to them the arrangements as they exist in europe right now

Are very very favorable They've emerged as the dominant force in europe Economic force in europe and around them. They have built a network of relations That dictate the shape of economic life in europe a much of central europe for instance and much of eastern europe is directly connected to this industrial base In germany countries in the south of europe now the southern periphery are Weekly related to this for them. It's industrial. It's financial capital that sets the terms of reference So it's a it's a complex array of relations building on

The predominance of germany building on industrial capital at the heart Of of the european union german capital in particular Our last thing about this just to get the picture clear The main aim of this big business this german industrial capital Is exports it's an export machine Those those german big businesses do not want to create a large domestic market for themselves That's not really their policy their policies experts And in that context they have come to dominate the european market

Which was initially an export market for them, but he has gradually become a domestic market They've incorporated it and then the world On this basis the world so germany is the biggest exporter in the world proportionately, right? I think this is what uh, wolfgang streake meant when he referred to the eu as german european hegemony posing as the european ideal That's exactly it. It it is exactly it is actually Conditional hegemony. That's how I call it in my book. It's conditional hegemony And the point is important After the second world war the united states

Emerged as hegemonic power across the world because of its economic and military preponderance. We all know in 1945 the united states Was a giant right economically militarily financially That hegemonic power at that time proceeded to create an array of institutions Through which it projected imperial power united nations The international monetary fund the world bank A whole array of institutions the united states and its ruling elite its ruling class Consciously set out to create these institutions through which they projected their power and through which american imperialism

Became the dominant force in the world Uh, that's not what's happening in europe. That's not how german hegemony works. It's very important to understand that german capital doesn't have Similar power. It's not big enough. Uh, and that's not how it dominates europe It is conditional hegemony conditional on the existence of the european union and its institutions Which were not created by germany. You understand germany inherited or found these institutions there. They were jointly created The french capital also played a role in that what germany has done though is to play The game very carefully

And to benefit from the institutions and to bend the institutions To the interests of its Big business and big capital has been very successful german german big capital has been very successful in that in that way german Hegemony is conditional historically. I suppose it could not have been otherwise It's hard to think of another way in which german capital after the destruction of the second world war after the chaos That german armies had caused across the world Would have emerged

As a hegemonic power in europe. It's hard to think of any other way It's in a way. It's an indirect method Through which it's happened So one of the biggest arguments i've heard against the eu from british socialist and left trade unions Is that it essentially Makes socialism illegal like they use that phrase So what restrictions does the european union put on member countries? Let me start by saying one important thing about the german working class first

Just to dispel any Misunderstandings and then i will tell you what i think are the the structural impediments for work is We can talk about germany as the hegemonic power and i did conditional hegemony But one thing that we've got to be clear is that this Hegemony has emerged on the back of german workers german workers are not the beneficiaries of this

In any serious way this Ascendancy of german capital Because of course the reason why germany has succeeded economically within the european union is by suppressing workers wages is through Through a series of neoliberal reforms of the labor market That that basically devastated the conditions of life Of german workers their ability to organize their ability to find secure jobs The german labor market has been split into

A section with fairly stable jobs in a much larger section with the insecure precarious and so on employment and and it is this Destruction of the conditions of labor in germany that have allowed german big business Um has allowed german big business to to emerge dominant now. That's not accidental You see germany has been more successful at doing what the rest of the european union has also done Or at least the rest of the european union wishes to do other countries have adopted similar policies Other countries have been systematically attacking the labor force

Deregulating liberalizing Trying to drive wages down and so on it is Embedded in the european union and in its labor policies And i say that because a lot of people got wrong impressions about it They think that the european union protects labor. It doesn't Shifts the pressure. It shifts the pressure on to labor of economic adjustment Now what does this mean or what would it mean for a radical government? Let's suppose you have a radical government that gets elected that believes in

Alternative policies that wants to um undo austerity and he wants to start implementing Um say nationalization projects major changes nationalization Boost demand support people's incomes create good jobs Definancialize the economy economies of europe start doing basic things that people want right start providing better public utilities have public property of um Key resources public property of the banks the basic things that all of us that agree that necessary if the world is to find some economic Rationality right what would happen?

well It could expect a government like that could expect first of all the absolute austerity Of the existing Structures of the european union. This is no speculation. We know that this was going to happen We know from from from from historical experience from the series a government elected in 2015 which Did propose some radical measures and it met it was met with unrelenting hostility and

The hostility never subsided until series are hit surrendered The reason is of course neoliberalism is an embedded ideology in the european union, but of course, it's not just ideology. It's also institutional practice now a government of the left can expect institutional hostility much of it will pivot on industrial policy and what is and what is not allowed much of it will pivot on regulations about finance and how finance is

Is monitored and what banks are supposed to do and all that will be implemented through The commission the european commission and its various bodies I've got huge power of economies and of course the european court of Of justice Which is the final arbiter. So if there are any disputes, for example About state aid Which you can expect to come across

So you have a left-wing government wishes to pursue an industrial policy that supports key industries that the government in conjunction with work is is determined um, you can expect Legal cases will be brought against the the government in the european court of justice And you can expect that the european court of justice will find against such a government because european law does not allow For decisive intervention. That's just one example One final point of this

there's a big difference between being in the monetary union and being outside the monetary union as far as the as far as the left government is concerned If a left government was elected in a country that is in the monetary union It can also expect hostility from the european central bank Absolute hostility from the european central bank And the european central bank has got means of squeezing Uh, the life out of the left-wing government by of course controlling liquidity

Controlling the provision of liquidity to the banking system of a country and making sure that um, the country is left gasping for Inability to create money and ability to provide the basic liquidity needs of the economy on a daily basis Uh, that's what happened with with the city's a government in 2015. So, um Radicalism and the european union do not go together socialism and the european union do not go together anyone who attempts to, um Uh implement radical socialist policies in the european union will quickly realize The forces that's what what the forces are are that are right against them Hmm. Um, so one of the more interesting arguments I've heard

Um for say, uh, among the british who want to remain Is they refer to the migrant crisis? I remember one woman in particular Um bringing up, uh, syrian refugees and I know I'm american and we're all very bad geography But I wasn't aware that syria was in europe. Um So So it was kind of a strange red herring to see thrown in there. Um How does the eu relate to the migrant crisis and why is it being invoked? I think the migrant issue Is one of the most

bizarre issues here Um in the context of defending the european union In some ways, it's the biggest inversion of reality Um, there are two things I want to say on that. If you look at the broader picture the european union in the world, which is how you should do in order to In order to assess the question of the syrian refugees and And people who are coming from africa and so on in other words people who are trying to come

Into the european union from the outside Which basically means africa and the middle east. If you do that If you take the broader picture Into consideration the european union looks like one of the most hostile racist and Dispeakable in a way bodies In the world, basically the way it treats people coming in from the outside in some ways. It's worse than the united states I know that a lot of people will not believe that because

What trump has been doing? You know the the border with mexico, but believe me the european union is not any better. It's actually worse Effectively right now As far as the outside world is concerned the european union. He has established a series of concentration camps Some of them are within its own borders saying Greece or in Italy

And some of them far bigger are outside these borders In turkey in the lebanon and so on These concentration camps

are Consciously supported by the european union and financed by the european union In order to keep people trapped there to stop them from coming into europe That is really the policy of the european union um And consciously so to To look at that and to

Consider the european union as a defender of free movement is not just absurd. It's an affront It's an affront to anything and everything that socialist Should believe or could believe about The rights of workers and the rights of human beings more generally And just to drive the point home When the syrian crisis Was it its worst in 2015-16

The numbers that try to break into europe try to break through this this Iron border and get into europe were not that big to be honest We're talking about a million two million people. I mean that's In a vast continent with hundreds of millions of people The inhabitants there already we're not talking big numbers The big european powers germany accepted and that should be said because It's very important The big european powers france

britain germ Spain and so on Disgrace themselves completely disgrace themselves they They use the concentration camps that I mentioned and refuse to take refugees and refused even to deliver the basic humanity Humanitarian Obligations that all human beings should have towards others who find themselves in a terrible predicament because of war and everything else So that's the reality of the european union

Towards others outside its borders Now if you look at what happens inside its borders, which is what people typically do There you get many people on the left Rhapsodizing about freedom of movement and they think that oh, yeah, that's it. That's socialism somehow So basically you have a you have a you have a ring of concentration camps around fortness europe But within europe you've got socialist policy of freedom of movement as if as if this could ever happen When you look more closely, however, at this so-called freedom of movement, you realize what it is It is actually the freedom of capital to shift workers about that's basically what it is

It is the freedom of capital to to to allow Check work is or whatever they are polish work is It's not so much check work is because it was like in the Czech Republic we is full employment but polish work is to come to To Britain say and work under with Polish wages and Polish conditions Posted work is that's what that in other words freedom of movement, okay But not freedom to have the same rights as the people in the country in which you moved So it is the right of people to move and live in very poor conditions With very low wages in Lincolnshire and in Norfolk agricultural parts of Britain collecting the the produce

For a fraction of the wages that British workers would have would have asked for That's the kind of freedom we're talking about. That's what the freedom of movement means down to the ground, right Socialists should not be in favor of this kind of freedom of movement We're not if we're not in favor of the freedom of capital to move workers about Yes, we're in frame if we're in favor of workers moving across borders seeing seeking a better life Of course they've got the right to do that and we should be open to workers who've got a commonality of interest and a commonality of purposes And the basic solidarity in union of outlook But the people who come in must have the same rights must have access to housing must have access to health

There must be there must allow the incumbent workers to continue to exist the way they did before There must be provision conditions and terms under which this happens. Yeah, that's that's the kind of freedom of movement we want And that's the kind of policies we want to put in place in a socialist regime in a socialist economy, I would say Yeah, it's actually like a very disturbingly impressive innovation to be able to exploit workers from poorer countries within the borders of your own country And that way it's really shocking and I think most people don't know that people are working under the standards of their home country Despite being they have the freedom to be essentially displaced and shuffled around at the whims of capital And that's it and that is presented as somehow a major advance for humanity Now having said this, of course, there are many types of labor in any economies, you know, there are many professional jobs

There are many opportunities for people to move and get better jobs across borders, there is that too That's a very important part and there are many types of professions and so on which that's how people work and live So it's a very different condition for them, however, for large numbers of manual workers, especially for the poorest and the weakest That's not the reality at all, right? That's not the it's all of freedom of movement Yeah, you have Polish workers picking strawberries for Polish wages in Britain And in Romanians and you name it, even worse, Bulgarians, you know, being exploited left, right and centre, living in terrible conditions Picking strawberries, as you say, in other agricultural produce or doing very menial jobs in the big cities Living in hovels and in small little rooms and being paid pittance

I mean, that socialists are not in favour of that, they should never be in favour of that That's not socialism, right? That's not an advance for humanity Right, so, I mean, this is the reality, the EU is not some, you know, bastion of left internationalism or international humanitarianism It's, you know, bourgeois cosmopolitanism at best How have they managed to convince such a large number of people? Do people just really like their holidays in Mallorca that much? How has it developed its reputation? You know, the most striking case of that is Britain I've lived in this country for a long time, very long time

And I remember well when I first came here many decades ago The British left, which was never the most radical of the leftists in Europe, of course, right? It was always fairly modest in its outlook and its demands and so on But at that time, and I'm talking about the 70s and 80s, the British left, the Labour left, had within it A very strong body of Eurosceptic opinion, which was basically right Tony Ben, Michael Foote, Barbara Castle, a number of socialist figures from those days Who actually explained chapter and verse what the European Union was and what it was likely to do And they were right, they guessed right

That's gone, that's very, very weak now, that tradition is very weak, why? That's the question you're asking me in some ways, at that level, why? And I think it is the weakness of the left that I mentioned to you when we started this discussion The inability to believe in yourself, that you can actually take on the beast where you live That you can change the terms of life and the conditions of existence and the way the economy works And who makes decisions and so on, where you live The left has stopped believing in that And fundamentally, much of the left in Europe has stopped believing that you can challenge capitalism

That's basically what's at heart The left in the last two, three decades has come to believe that the best we can hope for is to manage capitalism To tweak it a bit, you know, improve it a bit Make sure that it's worse than most unhuman aspects are sort of ameliorated Well, if you believe that, yes, then you'd accept the European Union Because you're not going to challenge the institutions of capitalism You're not going to challenge the main structures of capitalism in Europe You think that this is madness, that it is radicalism gone crazy and so on

So that has happened to large parts of the left Lack of belief in themselves and lack of belief in running society differently Challenging capitalism, overthrowing capitalism, moving in a socialist direction In some ways, the US left is healthier than the European left in this regard Well, let's not go crazy Well, there's more of a belief in itself and a belief in socialism and the desirability of socialism and delivering socialism The European left has lost much of that traditional historical confidence in itself And the Eurofilism is the result of that

If you're weak, if you don't believe in yourself, then yeah, Europe is your savior You go there and hope for the best and let's improve this bit a little and do something somewhere else And that's the best we can do Much of the European left thinks that way, you know But on that subject, so you're in the UK and have been for a while When the Brexit referendum results came in, I was, I think like most people, very shocked And I was alarmed, I was like, oh my gosh, it's going to be a ruthless Tory Brexit And UKIP is going to surge and then none of that happened

UKIP collapsed and the Tories are in a tailspin and Labour is ascendant So despite all the media spectacle, what do you make of this sort of alarmism and these, you know, so-called Ramona calls for a second referendum arguing that it's reformable I think I've said enough to make it clear that in my own view is that this is not something that can be reformed People think that people who think that you can reform this beast either don't know it or they're being disingenuous They're not being honest The European Union has to be challenged head on The institutions that make it run have to be tackled, broken, new things have to emerge in Europe If that means exiting then so be it as far as I'm concerned

Let me come to Brexit now. Brexit is of crucial importance It is, there have been two major events, political events in Europe the last 10 years, since the great crisis of 2007-2009 Two great political events which matter very much for the left The first was Syriza in Greece and essentially the betrayal of the hopes of the left And the demonstration in practice that you cannot reform the European Union You can have a completely hostile force against you The second is Brexit. Now Brexit was not created by the left No, the left in a sense inherited Brexit

Brexit was created by a division within the British ruling class and its political representatives A stressed political representatives because the division within the British ruling class is actually more a political division, not an economic division And it's not an economic division manifestly So it's easy to show it. Big British business, big British industry, commercial capital And of course the city of London which is hugely important in this country are against Brexit They hate Brexit. They don't want it. So they won't remain. It's clear The centers of power, economic power and social power in this country are against Brexit Clearly. I mean they openly say it. You don't have to surmise it. All you have to do is read the main newspapers

However, there's a political split in the British ruling class And the political split is very important to understand what's happening in this country The political split has to do with sovereignty and the way that Britain has positioned itself in the European Union politically as a political power Britain has taken a defensive position in the European Union during the four decades of its membership, four and a bit Its basic position was you make the treaties, we signed them, but we demand opt-outs We demand exceptions. We keep our political interests separate and sub to some extent our economic interests separate And that's how Britain has sustained itself in the European Union for decades What's happened in the last decade since the great crisis is that this has become untenable

It's just not possible to operate like that because of the single market and the single currency And because the single market and the single currency that I discussed previously mean that the European Union has become less and less democratic And more and more run by emergency regulations and emergency decisions There have been no treaties in Europe for ten years and there's nothing from which Britain can demand an exception from Increasingly, the European Union is run by experts, cabals of administrators It's that kind of reality. Britain has found it very difficult to maintain itself politically in that Sovereignty began to move away, to drain away and that caused political divisions within the British ruling class That political division allowed the social split in Britain between the poor and the small minority at the top to come to the fore

And that's the social importance of Brexit, you see. That division of the ruling class, political division has allowed the poor, the working class The disenchanted, the disenfranchised, all the marginal layers which are huge in this country to come to the fore They found an opening, they found a break, they found a way through which they could come set the stage and they did For us to give their opinion on membership of the European Union, they saw that the privileged elite Almost to the last person said, we stay in and the workers and the others said, well if you say stay in then there must be something wrong with that And let's get out. And that hasn't changed, you know. That is still there. That is immovable. The British workers, the poor and so on They have not changed their mind at all in this. Now, who gave leadership to it, to this attitude of British workers? Unfortunately it wasn't the left. It wasn't the left because the left was lost in Eurofile fantasies. That was the tragedy of it

If the left was there and if it provided radical answers to what the British people wanted in terms of command over their country, making decisions about economic policy Having a policy with regard to the labour market and so on. If the left was there, a lot of things could have been different, but the left was not there So the right was there. The right was there and it gave a thoroughly problematic racist tinge to it Started talking about immigrants, started talking about foreigners, started talking about the imaginary past of Britain and so on And it created that very very unpleasant dimension. But then you have to ask yourself, was Brexit a racist thing at bottom? No, it wasn't. It's a mistake to think that Brexit was that. And the proof of the pudding is in eating. Like you said, if you look at what happened the last two years We haven't had an explosion of racism in this country. We haven't had a shift to the extreme right. None of this has happened. It's not true. I mean, obviously the right has been doing its level best. Of course, the extreme right has been doing its level best and as it always will in these situations

But Brexit has not so far worked to strengthen the fascist right. It has not caused the racist outburst across the nation and so on. That's not what's happened What has happened instead is that the poor of the country, the work is in son, are refusing to move away from centre stage. That's what's happening All that talk about the British people have changed our minds. They now wish to go back and have a second referendum and they wish to return to Europe. It's just talk by mad Europhilists, you know, or Europhiles. None of this is true. The country has moved to the left. He has supported the Labour Party openly in the last general election, year after the referendum. It desperate to have a serious left wing programme put in front of it And Brexit would give it the opportunity to do so, you know, it's up to the left to grasp the opportunity Right, so just moving forward to sort of the political conditions of Brexit at the moment, there's a lot of talk of no deal or no deal. There's recently an article in Jacobin by Alex Gerovich that said just called leave the EU already The sub-hedge was just the European Union is one of the chief enemies of democracy in the world today. Britain should leave it with or without a Brexit deal. What is a no deal Brexit and what does that mean?

Now we're moving into what is true. I know, and this might not make it, but I just want to make sure I have it. I will put it as plainly and as clearly as I possibly can. The European Union is an alliance, right? An alliance of sovereign states. They have not gone away as I've already indicated. So treaties and sort of formal treaties dictate how nations and countries relate to each other. And that's what the issue is right now. How would Britain manage its relations with the European Union after it leaves? Now, no deal, technically speaking, doesn't exist. No matter what happens, there will be some form of deal, some kind of arrangement, some kind of treaty, right? No deal, properly speaking, is a bogeyman. It's something created by the remain side to scare the population, to scare the population, to scare workers and others, and benefit from that in terms of remaining or challenging Brexit and so on. That's the first thing that has to be said. We have to be very suspicious of anyone who bangs the drum about the danger, so-called, of no deal.

The key thing here is this. Trade has become a very important issue in the treaty that Britain will have with the European Union. Trade has become a very important issue. And my judgment has become more important than it should be. And that's because the people who run the negotiations in Zonal, the part of Britain, are to set an extent neoliberals themselves. So they've made trade into more important than it is. Nonetheless, here it is. They've made trade a key thing. The question is, what kind of trade arrangement between Britain and the European Union? No deal essentially means that Britain would leave and it would revert to the conditions of the WDFTO, the World Trade Organization, as far as trading with the European Union is concerned. That means imposing tariffs, accepting tariffs on its own exports, and so on. Clearly that would have implications for its trade, and obviously that would have implications for exports from Britain and imports to Britain. He would hit British exporters significantly. He would also hit German and Dutch exporters very significantly, and he would hit Irish capitalists significantly because the Irish trade with Britain extensively. So no deal basically means imposition of tariffs and the disturbance of trade as a result of that. Now what's the position of socialists, or what should be the position of socialists?

Obviously socialists, it seems to me, should say we want a deal. We want an amicable arrangement with the European Union. We want to continue trading. We're not in favour of all tarkey. Socialism is not about isolating Britain from the rest of the world. We're not talking about that. No one has ever spoken about this. We definitely want a deal. Yes, fine. But we want a deal that is balanced and that allows us to pursue policies the way we want to follow them to transform Britain, and we will not be blackmailed when it comes to that. And if you're going to use no trade, no deal as a blackmailing instrument, we're not going to accept it. We're not going to fall for it because we can manage a no deal situation too if you're going to blackmail us with it. And make no mistake, the European Union has been blackmailing Britain. It's been a policy of blackmailing the country. And to this policy, the section of the British ruling class that is against Brexit has been complicit. Essentially it's been an alliance of the European Union with significant sections of British capital, industrial and financial capital, to subvert Brexit, to make no deal into a huge threat, presumably, and to subvert Brexit indirectly. That's what's been happening. Socialists should not be frightened of no deal. If it comes to it, Britain should not accept blackmail. The working class of this country did not vote for Brexit on the basis of free trade.

That's not really what it's about. It voted for Brexit because it wants to be able to make policies independently and in a sovereign way. If the European Union insists on it, if it wants to blackmail the country, then yes, so be it. No deal, so be it. That's not what we want. That's not what we're after, but we're not going to be blackmailed by it. Okay. I actually think that that's a good place for us to stop. Thank you so much. You take care. You too. Bye.