Labour Leave is an incoherent, reactionary rable
Last night, someone called Nigel Griffiths appeared on Scotland Tonight as the Labour Leave representative. Despite being active in the Labour Party since 2011, I’ve never actually heard of Nigel Griffiths. Seems I’ve dodged a bullet in that respect.
Nigel Griffiths is the director of the Labour Leave campaign. He also, infamously, had a extra marital liaison in the House of Commons in 2009. Not much can be ascertained about his politics from what has appeared online about him, but given he voted “consistently for university tuition fees” we can certainly assume that they are not very good.
Griffiths main line of argument on the EU is certainly curious:
One of the better things about the EU (as of yet, I haven’t made up my mind entirely, but will most likely vote to stay in) is the ability for countries to pool and share resources. The UK has the second largest economy in the European Union, after Germany, and so, it seems reasonable that the UK puts a little more money into the pot than countries such as Bulgaria and Romania for example. Poorer areas of the EU benefit from the European Social Fund — parts of the UK including Scotland also benefit from this. The European Social Fund is described as: -
“ The ESF is one of the EU Structural Funds, which are dedicated to improving social cohesion and economic well-being across the regions of the Union. The Structural Funds are re-distributive financial instruments that support cohesion within Europe by concentrating spending on the less-developed regions.”
I’ve put “re-distributive” in bold, because that is the key point I’m attempting to make. Whilst for many socialists, the EU is corrupt and does nothing for worker’s rights — for many of us who are voting to stay in, structural funding is an important function of the EU. The money that the UK puts into the EU is redistributed through structural funds to different, poorer areas of Europe and improves the lives of those who live there. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. It was disappointing to see someone who is allegedly a Labour Party member use the reactionary, populist rhetoric similar to that of UKIP to argue against membership of the European Union.
Scrolling through the Labour Leave twitter feed, it is clear to see that the message of Labour Leave is incoherent and unclear. Rather than looking like a serious political campaign, it looks like someone’s uncle has gone on twitter after one too many pints on a Friday evening at the pub. The header image on their twitter profile is that of the County Hotel in Durham during the famous Durham Miner’s Gala — an important part of working class history. The twitter feed then goes on to retweet the famous radical left winger, Dan Hodges.
There is a strong socialist case for leaving the EU. When we look to the treatment of countries like Greece at the hands of the EU, then it is easy to see a case for leaving the EU. There is also the creeping reality of TTIP to contend with, that looks set to increase private involvement in public services and the erosion of open borders — largely seen as one of the most important tenets of the European Union. It is clear to see why many socialists are voting to leave in June.
The Labour Leave campaign says that is making the “Labour case” for leaving the EU, which should theoretically echo the socialist case. But the official Labour Leave campaign simply does not do that. It is an incoherent mash up of reactionary, populist rhetoric about how much of “our money” goes to the EU and tweets attacking Jeremy Corbyn for advocating a vote to stay in the European Union. Labour Leave says that we need a coherent, strong campaign to advocate leaving the EU to win our core vote back — too bad that Labour Leave isn’t that campaign.
