The conditions imposed on the Syriza-led government of Alexis Tsipras have led many on the left to wonder if Britain should leave the EU. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

It's not yet time for the British Left to contemplate Brexit

Recent events in Greece have shaken the British Left's pro-Europeanism. But the Left case for Brexit is still unmade, argues Michael Chessum.

Amid the calls for solidarity with Greece, and the celebrations over the result of the Greek referendum, there is an old drum whose banging has been audible over the past week on the British left – Euroscepticism. There has been a flurry of pronouncements using the Eurozone’s handling of the Greek crisis to pose a conclusion: that the European Union is a ‘bosses’ club’, and that we should all campaign for a British exit in our own referendum in 2016. All of this might well matter: with the right increasingly split, and with a political mainstream unable to connect to the bulk of the population, the outcome of the referendum may yet hinge the British left – in social movements, and in its Green and Labour peripheries.

There are of course some on the Greek left that have always advocated unilaterally leaving the EU. But ask most Greek activists whether the British left should, in the context of what is happening to Greece, support a British exit, and you will often be greeted with puzzlement.  That the EU is an undemocratic technocracy whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of business is a fact which, if you’re on the Greek left, is extremely obvious. But Syriza has pointedly drawn the battle lines around class and austerity, and not around membership of the Euro and EU – so much so that an entire referendum campaign has just been fought on basis of strengthening the Greek government’s position in negotiations to keep the country in the Eurozone. 

The whole idea that the British left might fight hard for withdrawal as a protest at Greece’s treatment is back-to-front: as one activist in DEA, a Trotskyist organisation in Syriza, tells me: “it’s a big problem that we are strong in the peripheries. What we need is a movement in rich countries and in the heart of Europe.” Since the beginning of the crisis, the response to questions about what the British left should do to help Greece has been almost uniformly: apply pressure on your own state as much as you can, but really what we need from you is your own political success. And from this perspective, it is difficult to imagine a less effective gesture of solidarity than fighting for Britain to leave the EU.

Cameron’s EU referendum will not be about austerity, or the Greek memorandum, or a fight to set up a new, more democratic union of Europe. The terrain for the debate will be firmly anchored in right wing rhetoric about immigration, and a renewed British and English nationalism. Nigel Farage’s problem with the EU is not that it might implement the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – it is Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. A victory for the ‘out’ campaign would bolster a deeply reactionary array of political forces to the right of the Conservative Party leadership, and the legislative mandate that such a vote would give would be equally reactionary: further attacks on migrants’ rights, and withdrawal from European conventions on workers’ rights and human rights.

The idea of a ‘left wing Brexit’ is simply not possible under these circumstances. As any decent Marxist will tell you, capitalism and capitalist institutions are contradictory, and in the process of advancing their own interests they tolerate by-products – like the welfare state, or freedom of movement – which materially benefit ordinary people. By and large, the British referendum will be about the by-products, not the substantive question of ‘who rules’.

It would be madness for the left to join either official campaign, where its message would be drowned out and co-opted by right wing and centrist politicians competing over who can be toughest on immigration and best for business, but the logic of even an independent campaign for an exit from the EU would lend itself to a growing nationalism. During one of the defining moments in recent political history, a leftwing ‘out’ campaign would end up defining the problem in terms of a surrender of national sovereignty, and the behaviour the bureaucrats and servants of capital in Brussels. What we need is a campaign against exploitation and neo-liberalism everywhere, and if the EU is a ‘bosses’ club’, then the British state – where just 4 post-war Prime Ministers have not attended Oxford – must be too.  

For some British groups and political tendencies, the argument goes no further than saying: “the EU is run by bosses – so we should leave it”. Syriza’s approach could not be more different in terms of its propensity to grapple with the complexities of the European project. Its election slogan in January – neither yes nor no to EU membership, but ‘no sacrifice for the Euro’ –expresses its willingness to exploit the contradictions of the EU from government, while at least in theory refusing to retreat from its programme.

With an overwhelming majority of the Greek population now mobilised in opposition to a sell-out, and Syriza’s grassroots looking over his shoulder, Tsipras may well be forced to instigate a moment of final rupture with the Eurozone if, as appears likely, the German government remains intransigent. But Syriza will have reached this point of departure by exploring the genuine limits of EU membership. When the left is in power, these limits are real: in line with the political consensus across its member states, the EU imposes all manner of neo-liberal directives on ‘liberalisation’ and ‘competitiveness’.

In order to meaningfully challenge the power of neo-liberalism in Europe we need to build a movement in Britain that is capable of convincing people, as Syriza has done, of an explicitly radical alternative. Building that movement requires hard work, but it also requires intellectual consistency and attention to nuance – and not being drawn like moths to the flame of the next opportunity to cause some great upset.  

Getty
Show Hide image

Air pollution: 5 steps to vanquishing an invisible killer

A new report looks at the economics of air pollution. 

110, 150, 520... These chilling statistics are the number of deaths attributable to particulate air pollution for the cities of Southampton, Nottingham and Birmingham in 2010 respectively. Or how about 40,000 - that is the total number of UK deaths per year that are attributable the combined effects of particulate matter (PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx).

This situation sucks, to say the very least. But while there are no dramatic images to stir up action, these deaths are preventable and we know their cause. Road traffic is the worst culprit. Traffic is responsible for 80 per cent of NOx on high pollution roads, with diesel engines contributing the bulk of the problem.

Now a new report by ResPublica has compiled a list of ways that city councils around the UK can help. The report argues that: “The onus is on cities to create plans that can meet the health and economic challenge within a short time-frame, and identify what they need from national government to do so.”

This is a diplomatic way of saying that current government action on the subject does not go far enough – and that cities must help prod them into gear. That includes poking holes in the government’s proposed plans for new “Clean Air Zones”.

Here are just five of the ways the report suggests letting the light in and the pollution out:

1. Clean up the draft Clean Air Zones framework

Last October, the government set out its draft plans for new Clean Air Zones in the UK’s five most polluted cities, Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton (excluding London - where other plans are afoot). These zones will charge “polluting” vehicles to enter and can be implemented with varying levels of intensity, with three options that include cars and one that does not.

But the report argues that there is still too much potential for polluters to play dirty with the rules. Car-charging zones must be mandatory for all cities that breach the current EU standards, the report argues (not just the suggested five). Otherwise national operators who own fleets of vehicles could simply relocate outdated buses or taxis to places where they don’t have to pay.  

Different vehicles should fall under the same rules, the report added. Otherwise, taking your car rather than the bus could suddenly seem like the cost-saving option.

2. Vouchers to vouch-safe the project’s success

The government is exploring a scrappage scheme for diesel cars, to help get the worst and oldest polluting vehicles off the road. But as the report points out, blanket scrappage could simply put a whole load of new fossil-fuel cars on the road.

Instead, ResPublica suggests using the revenue from the Clean Air Zone charges, plus hiked vehicle registration fees, to create “Pollution Reduction Vouchers”.

Low-income households with older cars, that would be liable to charging, could then use the vouchers to help secure alternative transport, buy a new and compliant car, or retrofit their existing vehicle with new technology.

3. Extend Vehicle Excise Duty

Vehicle Excise Duty is currently only tiered by how much CO2 pollution a car creates for the first year. After that it becomes a flat rate for all cars under £40,000. The report suggests changing this so that the most polluting vehicles for CO2, NOx and PM2.5 continue to pay higher rates throughout their life span.

For ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, changes to vehicle excise duty are key to moving people onto cleaner modes of transport: “We need a network of clean air zones to keep the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of our towns and cities and incentives such as a targeted scrappage scheme and changes to vehicle excise duty to move people onto cleaner modes of transport.”

4. Repurposed car parks

You would think city bosses would want less cars in the centre of town. But while less cars is good news for oxygen-breathers, it is bad news for city budgets reliant on parking charges. But using car parks to tap into new revenue from property development and joint ventures could help cities reverse this thinking.

5. Prioritise public awareness

Charge zones can be understandably unpopular. In 2008, a referendum in Manchester defeated the idea of congestion charging. So a big effort is needed to raise public awareness of the health crisis our roads have caused. Metro mayors should outline pollution plans in their manifestos, the report suggests. And cities can take advantage of their existing assets. For example in London there are plans to use electronics in the Underground to update travellers on the air pollution levels.

***

Change is already in the air. Southampton has used money from the Local Sustainable Travel Fund to run a successful messaging campaign. And in 2011 Nottingham City Council became the first city to implement a Workplace Parking levy – a scheme which has raised £35.3m to help extend its tram system, upgrade the station and purchase electric buses.

But many more “air necessities” are needed before we can forget about pollution’s worry and its strife.  

 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.