Where is the grand vision? EU referendum debate is mired in a contest over who really represents the 'national interest'

The European humanitarian vision of peace, rights and prosperity for all individuals, regardless of nationality, religion or borders, is not just under attack but being largely ignored by two sides arguing over who represents the 'national interest'.

One of the saddest parts of the European Union referendum debate is that it seems to consist only of two patriotic factions, each arguing that their way represents the 'national interest'. For anyone with progressive, humanist and internationalist leanings, that clearly reflects the same narrowing of political debate that has hit the UK over the last decade.

The scope of the political imagination is being hemmed in. Europe, finding itself once again in the grip of 'national interests', has seen the grand vision that once underwrote the European project hollowed out (Spinelli, 2016).

Europe has faced at least two major crises that have hit the continent over the past decade, one financial and one refugee. If well administered and democratically accountable, European Governance could in itself have been part of the solution. And yet the idea, the entire political direction, has been largely suppressed as taboo in the 'national interest'.

David Cameron's renegotiation was entirely framed by the 'national interest'. Its primary purpose seemed to the search for opt-outs from a European system (Sparrow, 2016) - the ability to restrict or withdraw social security for non-nationals, exemptions from measures that might impact on the finance sector based in the City of London, reductions in regulations affecting business, and a two speed EU that removes an UK obligation to ever closer union.

The proposed Conservative bill of rights is a salient example. It proposes to console lovers of European Human Rights with a national counterpart, but it offers only certain rights - and those it gives to some people with less rights for others, with different categories of rights, creating different strata of people (Chakrabarti, 2015).

The In campaign has approached the referendum on much the same terms. The Labour Party's website for its 'Labour In For Britain' group makes its pitch all about Britain - national security, national economy and national influence, always framed as 'Britain' in the collective. This dynamic is an effect of the narrowing of vision, a seeming fear of anyone questioning patriotism, the kind of fears that lead to the advent of an left-wing party promoting itself with an anti-immigration mug.

As a result there has been little defence of the EU's work on its own terms. Its work across borders, for peace and prosperity and for individuals regardless of identity - protecting the environment, fighting globalised corporate corruption, supporting and promoting rights of the individual, often against infringements by their 'national' governments and nation-state authorities.

Under the aegis of the European Council, National Governments - including that of the UK, and with all of their attendant political bias - have in recent years taken control of the European agenda and turned it away from the grand vision according to their own 'national interests'. In doing their faces have turned inward, their vision narrowed and their eyes closed.

These governments have let fear be stoked, fears based on perceived threats to identity and vital safety nets (Zatat, 2016). This has pushed an EU exit onto the table, that would drop the pursuit of an international politics in favour of an uncertain future of globalised capitalism, doing business with countries who have little or no safeguards to protect their workers - that would in turn, in globalised competition, only undermine the safeguards protecting individuals in the UK.

The grand vision needs to be recovered. There are movements, such as Another Europe and Democracy in Europe Movement 25, and individuals, like Caroline Lucas and Yanis Varoufakis, that believe in staying and taking back Europe for its citizens. They want to improve democratic accountability, to recover the ideals of humanitarianism.

To leave Europe is no genuine alternative. It casts us, culturally, back into a small, narrow, inward-gazing isolation, while throwing us out onto the global markets without the kinds of guarantees that the EU has, at least tried, to offer. To leave is to pursue a revisionist false past, to satisfy some lingering notion of glorious empire. To stay, with a positive approach and a critical eye, presents the possibility of building the future.

References

Barbara Spinelli's 'From London to Athens, Europe is an empty shell: Optimists affirm that the EU-UK agreement has a positive side: London cannot veto the will of other member states pursuing an “ever closer Union". This is true, but only formally'; on Open Democracy; 4 March 2016.

Andrew Sparrow's 'EU deal key points: what Cameron wanted and what he got - British PM says framework ‘shows real progress’ in four main areas where he is seeking reform. Is that really the case?'; in The Guardian; 2 February 2016.

Shami Chakrabarti's 'We can’t allow Human Rights Day to slip by as just another Thursday'; from the British Academy; 10 December 2015.

Narjas T Zatat's 'The posters that show how hypocritical the Leave campaign is'; on Indy100; from The Independent; 4 March 2016.