Do mention the War...

Should have written this yesterday after the Graun's headline story (sic!) that the outgoing German ambassador has moved on and given  a speech about the Brits still worrying about German doimination of Europe: 'Ammon said Britain was rightly proud of its history, but some Brexiters were motivated by a sense of national identity built around Britain standing alone in the second world war.' He then went on to trot out the usual dire warnings of the impossibility of ever getting a good deal ,which only made us wonder how much of the earlier part of this speech was really him, as opposed to some EU script.

I don't suppose they will ever get it. A bit like Nougayrede last time, Brexiteers can only be understood as under the spell of an ancient religion, nationalism in this case.They need a new religion, still something sacred they can believe in (global capitalism). Of course, they evidently cannot choose this religion for themselves but have to be led by elite spokespersons.

Guardian letter writers debated the issues rather better today. Naturally, I quite liked this one:

Will continental politicians and diplomats ever realise that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but leaving the EU (German ambassador tells Brexiters: stop fixating on second world war, 30 January)? If the German ambassador wants to understand the “finest hour” legend, he should look for the truth beneath the mythology. In standing alone the British people put the interests of Europe first, resolving to die fighting rather than allow the Nazis to dominate the continent. [bit flowery, that last sentence]

EU -- the sentimental case

Not much has been happening on the ideological front lately. More same old same old really, with hopes rising then falling for a new referendum, mostly because that great statesman, much admired by Remainers, not at all a figure of fun and derision, one Nigel Farage formerly of UKIP,  said he might be thinking of advocating one. He was even lined up with other great statesmen like Sir (sic) Nick Clegg. The flaw seems to be that it would not be at all popular withthe elctorate. The background has been the same old threats of punishment from EU bureaucrats in the next round of talks,so tiresome that even P Hammond has said he wearies of them not getting over it.

Thank God the new tabloid Graundina is there to provide me with copy in the shape of an opinion piece by one N.Nougayrède. The gist seems to be arevival of a very old case for the EU as a defender of liberal social policy, once potent during Thatcherism in the 1970s, as she admits. Even I supported the EEC as it was on those grounds, hoping the organized left, in the shape of the powerful Communist and Socialist parties especially in France and Italy, would be our champions, while the Eastern Bloc was a bulwark at least against global capitalism.

Those days have gone long ago, so what remains of the case for the EU as a progressive social force?. Nougayrède finds a few straws drifting past. First, she is sure that Brexit will throw usbackto Thatcherism:

It will not deliver anything worthwhile to those who feel left behind. “Independence day” will be a blow to workers’ rights, to the struggle against inequality, to the fight for the environment. It certainly won’t bring protection.

Meanwhile ,the EU will help that struggle:

Last November in Gothenburg, the EU held a summit on the “European pillar of social rights”. Macron attended. The “social pillar” is a plan designed to promote fair wages, a minimum income, healthcare, gender equality, a better work-life balance, data protection, unemployment benefits, access to transport, and rights for disabled people. While it may be no more than a list of intentions, the social pillar is a good roadmap all the same.

Labour has failed to make that case for hope. 

But as Delors [earlier described as a 'French socialist', albeit 30 years ago] once said, “no one falls in love with a market” (or a customs union, for that matter). What people can relate to emotionally is a collective struggle for values, decency, social fairness – and they can be made to feel proud to be part of something larger than their own country, if that something is made to work for the common good. In this globalised world, the EU is our common shield against the negative impact of unregulated capitalism, and the manipulations and illiberal practices of big corporations and large hostile powers.

At least we see why the emotional tone has been so important to Remainerdom -- 'people' can't relate to arguments about markets but only to romantic 'collective struggles' and pride in belonging to some big imagined community. 

It's surely far too late for any hope in resistance to globalism and corporate dominance.

It is not clear whether the last sentence is  something 'emotional', perhaps designed for those plebs who need it, or whether Nougayrède really means it. She does note that 'To be sure, in recent years we’ve seen an avalanche of leftwing criticism of the EU', but she assures us that Greece and Catalonia want to stay in. 

Curiously, the piece ends with a suggestion that Labour reaches out to progressives in the EU to help it stop Brexit: 'has Labour even thought about sitting down with representatives of Spain’s Podemos or with Nordic or German social democrats to discuss how to do it?'

Overall, the struggle between progressives and conservatives is all in terms of options in the EU  -- we can have a progressive EU if only we will stop this pesky Brexit. Then all we will have to do is wait for the discussion on the social pillar to end, wait while the EU decides how to implement it, wait until the local states decide to interpret it, wait...