Showing posts with label European Central Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Central Bank. Show all posts

Monday, 11 April 2016

Isn't it amazing what people choose to forget?


It's amazing how public perceptions can be manipulated by the mainstream media to accept completely ahistorical narratives about fundamentally important issues.

Take the EU referendum debate as an example. Anyone who mindlessly absorbs their political opinions fro the corporate mainstream media would probably end up believing that the EU debate is between anti-EU "common sense" right-wingers vs pro-EU "do-gooder" lefties.

The strange thing is that last time there was a referendum on membership of the European community, by far the most vocal opponents of EU membership were left-wingers like Tony Benn, while the right-wing fringe of the Tory party were the most vocal champions of the European project. This right-wing pro-European stance was exemplified by Margaret Thatcher's pro-European jumper (see picture above). This was at a time when Thatcher represented the extreme-right fringe of the Tory party, while most Tories were still of the "one nation Conservative" ilk; content with the prosperous post-war consensus that there should be a mix between state socialism and regulated capitalism. Meanwhile the left-wing of the Labour party provided by far the strongest opposition the the European project.

Nowadays the polarity of the EU debate has been completely switched. The figureheads of the anti-EU movement are people like Nigel Farage (who gets the votes of millions of working class people despite describing himself as "keeping the flame of Thatcherism alive"!) and Michael Gove (the arch-Thatcherite who oversaw the privatisation of thousands of English schools into the hands of unaccountable private pseudo-charities), while the more left-wing elements of the British political spectrum (Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru) are taking a more pro-European stance.

It's interesting to consider how this complete reversal of British political polarity has come about.

Back in the 1970s the right-wing fringe saw the European project as an excellent opportunity to push their extremist right-wing economic dogma onto the whole of Western Europe, and in many ways they were successful. Take the EU competition rules that prevent member states from renationalising public infrastructure (no matter how abysmally it is run by the private sector), the anti-democratic European Central Bank, the free movement of labour within Europe or the brutal socially and economically destructive austerity ideology forced on Greece. In many ways the EU has been an absolute triumph for right-wing economic fanaticism.

The problem for militant right-wing fanatics is that the EU is a collaborative project, so for every bit of fanatically right-wing economic dogma they've managed to force onto the entire European community, there's always some pesky left-wing and liberal rules too, like the Working Time Directive, environmental regulations, animal welfare laws, curbs on bankers' bonuses or assertions of the human rights of EU citizens.

The extreme-right fringe of the Tory party (and I include UKIP in that definition) have given up on the European project not because they haven't managed to force right-wing economic dogma onto the rest of Europe (because they undeniably have), but because the structure of the EU means that they're constrained from pushing the even more militant right-wing agenda they want in the UK.


If the Tories get to quit the EU and become the first country ever to tear up the European Convention on Human Rights, they'll be liberated to create the most extreme-right authoritarian government in Europe since the fall of fascism, and they'll do this without the slightest regard for the fact that their ideological figurehead (Margaret Thatcher) was one of the most vocal supporters of the European project back in the 1970s.

The situation for the left is perhaps even more bamboozling. The EU is clearly completely riddled with toxic right-wing economic dogma (look at the deliberate annihilation of the Greek economy to serve the interests of German and French banks and the circling pack of multinational vulture funds), yet it's absolutely clear to the left-wing parties that continued membership of the EU is far less bad than jumping out of the frying pan of the EU technocracy and into searing fire of unconstrained Tory economic insanity.

The best the left seem to be able to come up with is the idea that the EU is deeply flawed, but that the solution is to fix it from within, rather than to fire the ejector seat and land in a putrefying ocean of unconstrained Tory fanaticism.

There are signs of hope that the EU can be reformed from within (the rise of left-wing parties in Greece, Portugal and Spain), however the EU technocrats have demonstrated their abject fear of democratic socialism through their treatment of Greece and their insistence on continuation of their negotiations towards the TTIP corporate power grab, despite the fact that pretty much everyone in Europe who has actually heard of it thinks that it's an unspeakably awful idea to allow corporations to completely over-write sovereign democratic and judicial institutions with secretive unaccountable transnational corporate tribunals.

As far as I'm concerned, the EU stinks. However unconstrained Tory fanaticism stinks an awful lot more. I guess the debate boils down to whether you have more faith that the EU institutions can be shifted away from the promotion of fanatically right-wing economic dogma, or whether you think there is some way of stopping the even more fanatically right-wing Tories should they be handed absolute power through a vote for Brexit.

I think I've made it pretty clear in this article that I don't want to tell you how to vote. As far as I'm concerned it's a choice between a rock and a hard place. I just hope that my explanation of the complete polarity shift in the EU referendum debate since the last referendum gives you some idea that the majority of contemporary opinion on the subject is politically partisan rubbish (which is nothing less that you'd expect from the billionaire sociopaths who own most of the UK media).



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR


Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Yanis Varoufakis: The man who could do nothing right (according to the UK mainstream media)


In July 2015 a number of stories appeared in the UK mainstream press (from the supposedly left-leaning Guardian to the hard-right Daily Telegraph) slamming the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis for his admission that he had set about making arrangements for a parallel payments system in an effort to prevent the Greek economy from descending into absolute chaos should the EC-ECB-IMF Troika have decided to eject Greece form the Eurozone.

As it turned out the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras caved in to the hardball tactics from the Troika and agreed to push on with imposing even more of the asset stripping and harsh austerity measures that have kept the Greek economy in a perpetual state of crisis for so many years, meaning that Varoufakis' parallel payments "Plan B" wasn't necessary.

The tone of the articles were severely critical, even suggesting that Varoufakis should be arrested and tried for treason for daring to make preparations in case Greece ended up being driven out of the Eurozone. Many would argue that his decision to prepare for such an eventuality was the only sane course of action, especially given the way the ECB took the incredible decision to starve the Greek economy of liquidity during the referendum process in a desperate attempt to intimidate the Greek people into voting the way the Troika wanted them to.

However pragmatic such a "Plan B" might seem, especially given the behaviour of the Troika, the UK mainstream media have tried to create the narrative that Varoufakis was behaving like some kind of treasonous rogue element who now deserves severe punishment for his actions.


One of the main thrusts of the case against Varoufakis is the fact that he made these preparations in secrecy, but only a simpleton would think that such a process should have been conducted openly. What on earth would the Greek population and the global stock markets have made of an announcement that Greece was making official preparations for going back to the Drachma? The idea that there should have been full public knowledge of such a contingency plan is ludicrous.

Aside from the widespread panic that such an announcement would have triggered, there's also the claim that the Troika had control of the Greek tax system at the time, meaning that any request for access to their own citizens' tax records by the democratically elected Greek government would have alerted the Troika to the their contingency plans.

As far as I'm concerned, the only legitimate criticism of Varoufakis' "Plan B" is that it was so small-scale that it surely never would have worked effectively. The idea that a team of five people could come up with a system to keep an entire economy of 10.8 million people afloat if their currency was suddenly discontinued was over-optimistic to say the least. Such a scheme might have mitigated some of the worst economic chaos of a forced Eurozone exit, but the idea that such a limited programme could have ensured a relatively smooth transition is complete fantasy.


Returning to the coverage in the UK mainstream media, it's easy to imagine the utterly outraged reaction if Greece had been ejected from the Eurozone and Varoufakis hadn't made any plans whatever for a parallel payments system to keep the economy alive. He would have been slammed as reckless and incompetent. It seems that whatever Varoufakis might have done, the reaction from the UK press would always have been extremely critical. The overarching narrative was always going to be that Varoufakis is a bad/dangerous/criminal man who deserves to be severely punished.

The reason for this overarching narrative is pretty obvious. Varoufakis is one of the very few politicians who has dared to criticise ideological austerity and the asset stripping schemes that are being forced onto the people of Europe in the strong terms that they warrant. It's admirable that some UK political groups (the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Corbyn faction of the Labour Party) have criticised ideological austerity as the economically incoherent gibberish that it is, but Varoufakis has gone much further, accusing the Troika of economic terrorism against the people of Greece.

The established paradigm in the vast majority of the UK press is that there there is no alternative to ideological austerity, and that the bizarre assumptions, historical revisionism, misleading propaganda and outright lies that underpin the ideological austerity narrative must not subjected to critical scrutiny. The fact that Varoufakis has stepped well outside of the accepted spectrum of debate makes him an obvious target for condemnation. 

 In taking such a strong stance against ideological austerity and the asset stripping of whole nation states Varoufakis has made himself very popular, which means that the pro-austerity mainstream media see it as their job to take him down, hence all of the headlines and articles accusing him of "treason".

It's pretty easy to see why the Daily Telegraph and other elements of the right-wing press are so keen to turn Varoufakis into a totemic hate figure (he dares to question their beloved ideological austerity agenda), but the reason for the supposedly centre-left Guardian to take a similar stance is a little harder to fathom. It's either that the Guardian has moved so far to the right over the years that they now actively support the continued devastation of Greece by a bunch of ideologically driven unelected right-wing ideologues, or they're so chronically understaffed these days that their so-called journalists are just doing "churnalism" by reworking articles they've read in the Daily Telegraph or wherever, without subjecting any of the underlying assumptions to the slightest amount of critical scrutiny.


As far as I'm concerned Varoufakis is far from perfect. He's an interesting and intelligent guy who is prepared to speak his mind, but like all of us, he's not without his flaws. One thing I am sure of though is that if he's so hated by the unelected technocrats of the IMF and the unelected bankers at the ECB that they refused to negotiate with him, and the right-wing dominated media in the UK are so obviously determined to turn him into some kind of frightening totemic hate figure, then he can't be all that bad can he?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.






MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
                 
Austerity is a con
                                       
Greece as Sissyphus: The use of figurative language in political analysis
                
The annihilation of PASOK in Greece
                         
George Osborne has created more debt than every Labour government in history combined
                        
How Ed Balls' austerity-lite agenda ruined Labour's election chances
           
The Tory ideological mission
                     
Anti-austerity = Epic Win / Austerity-lite = Massive Fail
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  



Friday, 10 July 2015

Greece as Sisyphus?


I don't often do reaction pieces to other people's articles, but I believe that this article about Greece from the Guardian's Larry Elliot is quite well written, but raises some important issues too.

I'll begin with a quote from the article:

"Greece is like Sisyphus, the king of Corinth who according to legend angered the gods and was condemned to push an enormous rock to the top of a hill. When Sisyphus neared the summit, the boulder would slip from his grasp and tumble back down to the bottom of the slope, forcing him to start again. 
Alexis Tsipras, too, has angered the gods, in this case the European commission, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and most of the 18 other countries that are members of the single currency. His punishment for his five-month show of defiance will be to have Greece’s boulder replaced by an even bigger one."
Whether you like Larry Elliot's political analyses or not (I don't particularly) this is undeniably a good piece of political writing. It creates a strong narrative that illustrates a highly complex situation in an easily graspable manner. It skilfully explains the magnitude of Greece's debt burden and the sheer impossibility of paying it off.

Where Larry Elliot goes wrong is the way in which he then goes on to paint the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras as "foolhardy" for having dared to stand up to the impossible power of the ECB, IMF and European Commission troika, only to later admit defeat and cave in to their terms. Elliot goes as far as accusing him of "hoisting the white flag over the Parthenon" deriding him as "a much-diminished figure as a result of the events of the last two weeks" and claiming that he ought to "pay a heavy political price" for it.

The first thing that makes this portrayal of events look so ridiculous is the fact (pointed out by someone in the below the line comments) that just ten days previously the very same Larry Elliot was lauding Alexis Tsipras as a hero who was outwitting and outmaneuvering the troika. Here's a direct quote.

"What Tsipras has done is seize the initiative, something he has proved adept at doing in the five months since he won the Greek general election in January. He has run rings round the troika and continues to do so." [source]
The fact that Larry Elliot has described Tsipras in terms of being a bravely defiant hero one week, and then a hopelessly defeated charlatan the next shows us that he is far more adept at constructing appealing little stories than he is at actually describing the events in a detailed and non-contradictory manner.

The second thing that weakens this portrayal of events is the simplicity of it. Elliot cannot help himself from fitting such a complex situation into a simple story of victory and defeat. The highly emotive imagery of the white flag being raised conjures a scene of total and catastrophic defeat, when in reality Tsipras remains the Prime Minister of Greece. What is more is that he has done something no Greek government has done before him. He has aligned himself with his people. When previous government acted as collaborators with the Troika against their own people, Tsipras has found unity with them. He didn't want to accept the impossibly harsh and ideologically driven terms of the next bailout package, and after the referendum it is proven that the overwhelming majority of Greeks agree with him. Thus it is abundantly clear to the Greek people that even though Tsipras is powerless to stop them from continuing their ideologically driven vandalism of their countries economy, Tsipras is on his people's side, not on the side of the Troika.

Tsipras and the Greek people are absolutely right to oppose the economic sanctions that are being imposed upon them by their creditors. Not only is ideological austerity a quack medicine that makes the symptoms of the economic disease worse, not better, the terms of the deal contradict what is what I consider to be one of the fundamental laws of economics: A debt that cannot be repaid, will not be repaid, which brings us back to the comparison with Sisyphus, which is a good piece of political storytelling.

As I said before, I don't fully dislike Larry Elliot's analysis, it's reasonably informative and well written, it's just that it commits the error of oversimplification in order to mould complex events into an easily intelligible narrative. This kind of narrative oversimplification of politics is rife in mainstream media coverage, and once aware of it the reader should always be on their guard to recognise it for what it is: A very convincing method of coercing people into believing simple stories about complicated political and economic events, because more complex and accurate analyses might raise awkward questions.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.






MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
                 
Austerity is a con
                                       
Can Labour avoid Pasokification?
                
Pablo Iglesias and the appeal of Podemos
                         
George Osborne has created more debt than every Labour government in history combined
                        
How Labour completely lost the plot in Scotland
           
The Tory ideological mission
                     
The post-IMF economic recovery in Argentina
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  



Monday, 26 January 2015

What now for Greece? What now for Europe?


On January 25th 2015 Alexis Tsipras led the left-wing party Syriza to power in Greece. It is hardly surprising that the radical left were empowered to electoral victory on an anti-austerity platform in the European country that has suffered the most severe effects of ideological austerity. 


Greek defiance

After five long years of the troika of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Commission forcing Greece to borrow vast sums in order to bail out their creditors (mainly the French and German banks that recklessly lent them money in the first place), and enforcing a savage programme of cuts and privatisations, the people of Greece have had enough.
The IMF, the EC and the ECB are not the only organisations with strong incentives to make an example of Greece by further destabalising their economy and obstructing their new democratically elected government as much as possible. Other parties with interests in seeing Greece suffer in order to deter similar acts of defiance and ensure the continuation of ideological austerity include the governments of the UK and the US and multinational finance which has benefited enormously from the bailouts, and from the asset stripping of whole national economies under the guise of "there is no alternative" austerity.

The reason the Greeks are so brave is that they know that the EU and the economic right-wing simply cannot allow a left-wing government to be perceived to win the fightback against ideological austerity. 
The Greek people knew that their act of defiance in electing an anti-austerity government is likely to provoke severe retribution from the troika and other powerful pro-austerity forces, but they have chosen defiance instead of subservience anyway. The political landscape of Europe has been changed because enough Greeks have decided that it's better to risk dying on their feet than to continue living on their knees. 

European politics

Spain and Ireland have also suffered the appalling effects of ideological austerity more than most of their EU neighbours, and there too the parties with the biggest increases in popularity are anti-austerity left-wingers too (Podemos and Sinn Féin). The victory of an anti-austerity party in Greece is bound to act as an inspiration to Podemos and Sinn Féin, as well as many other smaller anti-austerity parties such as the various Green parties across Europe and the German radical left party Die Linke.


Even though the independence referendum was lost, Scotland is another country with a popular anti-austerity movement. The anti-austerity SNP hold majority control of the Scottish parliament, they're riding high in the polls and they look set to inflict an unprecedented electoral bloodbath on the Labour Party in the May 2015 general election.

While many people have reservations about the SNP, it is impossible to deny that they have formed an anti-austerity alliance with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party of England and Wales. It's also impossible to deny that they are part of the anti-austerity Green-European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament.

The SNP are nowhere near as radically left-wing as Syriza, but they are smart enough to see austerity as the dangerous and socially destructive economic ideology that it is, and to publicly oppose it.

The election of a left-wing anti-austerity government within the EU should act as a short-term inspiration to opponents of ideological austerity all over Europe because it's proof that countries can get rid of pro-austerity governments. Whether it acts as a long-term inspiration will depend heavily on how successful Syriza are percieved to be, and how far the powerful pro-austerity forces are prepared to go in punishing Greece in order to deter more acts of civic defiance elsewhere in Europe.



Problems for the pro-austerity forces

The defiance of the Greeks presents two significant problems to the right-wing pro-austerity forces that dominate in Europe.

Firstly the ideological austerity they have already imposed on Greece has caused years of appalling socio-economic chaos (ludicrously high unemployment figures, 
the degradation and destruction of public services, widespread poverty and vast flows of labour and capital out of the country). The terrible economic policies of the troika have already inflicted so much poverty and destruction in Greece that they would now have to push the levels of suffering beyond the extreme in order to make life under a left-wing government seem distinctively worse than life under troika imposed austerity. Causing even more suffering to an already beleaguered nation could tip Greece from rolling socio-economic chaos into a full scale humanitarian disaster.

The second major problem for the powerful pro-austerity forces is that there is a significant risk that by working to further destabilise Greece, they could force the nation to default on their debts and exit the single European currency experiment, potentially triggering a domino effect of other Eurozone states defaulting on their unpayable debts and quitting the single currency.

The pro-austerity forces may hold most of the levers of power in Europe, but the chaos they have already caused in Greece with their ideological austerity agenda has put them in a complicated bind, where they really need to punish Greece to make anti-austerity defiance look a really bad idea so as to deter more of it, but not so much that they end up bringing down their inherently unstable single currency experiment altogether.

    
The single currency

The fact that Greece is tied into the European single currency has exacerbated the ongoing economic crisis that has driven the rise of Syriza in just a few years from a minor coalition of tiny green and radical-left parties to a single unified party that controls the Greek parliament.

Membership of the single currency has prevented the Greek state from using monetary policies or capital controls to alleviate the suffering, and has facilitated the enormous scale of capital flight out of the Greek economy.

An economic system uniting such radically different economies as Greece and Germany, and which allows enormous flows of capital to move unhindered from the weaker economy to the stronger one is inherently unstable. The more developed European nations cannot continue to suck such enormous flows of wealth out of the poorer nations on an indefinite basis without causing severe instability. A more stable and balanced European economy would need capital to flow from the wealthier, more productive economies to the poorer less productive ones, not the other way around.

Either the European Union needs to be radically reformed so that the wealth of the more productive nations is used to improve productivity in the struggling nations via a structural feedback mechanism, or the system is going to become so unequal and inherently unstable that whole countries are left with no choice but to quit the single currency in order to rid themselves of the European economic straight jacket.

There is a third option, which is the development of an orderly exit strategy so that there is a procedure for countries to make orderly withdrawals from the single currency so that the risk of a catastrophic domino effect of disorderly and highly unpredictably exits is reduced.

This third option is very unlikely to be taken because although it would strongly reduce the probability of a chaotic sequence of disorderly exits, it would strongly increase the possibility that numerous countries would choose to abandon the Euro. It seems unlikely that the right-wing dominated institutions that devised the single currency experiment in the first place are suddenly going to decide to build in a legislative escape route so that nations can extricate themselves as painlessly as possible from their failing ideological experiment.

   
Conclusion

It could be easy to get carried away celebrating the electoral success of a left-wing anti-austerity party, but in order to do so it would be necessary to ignore the fact that much more powerful governments and institutions (IMF, EC, ECB, Germany, UK, US, numerous European banks) have vested interests in making sure that Syriza are perceived to fail.

Awareness of the wider perspective allows us to understand that the electoral success of Syriza is a small victory for the underdogs in the ongoing battle between powerful pro-austerity forces, and those who recognise austerity as the socially and economically destructive right-wing economic ideology that it is.

The success of Syriza has catapulted Greece back onto the centre-stage of European politics, and it will be very interesting to see how far their much more powerful pro-austerity opponents will go to punish the Greeks for their defiance, and whether this punishment has the effect of pushing Greece over the tipping point causing a full-scale Eurozone crisis.


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.


Flattr this





MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
How the ECB are profiting from Greek misery
           
What is the point of the Labour Party?
                     
The remarkable rise of Podemos in Spain
       

The pre-election contract the Tories want you to forget all about
                             
The post-IMF recovery in Argentina
                                         
What is ... capital flight?
                          
How Labour completely lost the plot in Scotland
                
Why do so many people trust Osborne with the UK economy?

Will Labour learn anything from the annihilation of PASOK in Greece?
                                
The rise of the non-traditional parties in UK politics
  




Sunday, 23 March 2014

Why 73% of UKIP supporters should actually vote Green


In the environment of UK politics, the cry of the common UKIP supporter is a familiar one. When confronted with the irrefutable facts that UKIP is an extreme-right party, stuffed full of people too right-wing even for the Tory party, and bankrolled by former Tory party donors, the response of the common UKIP supporter is to squawk "but I'm not right-wing" and "I only support UKIP to get us out of Europe".

Why do so many left-wing people vote for UKIP?

It seems hard to believe that so many people with left-wing or centre ground political beliefs would openly support a party on the extreme-right fringe, but the evidence shows that this is actually the case. In November 2013 a YouGov poll on renationalisation clearly demonstrated that the majority of UKIP supporters favour very explicitly socialist ideas. 78% of UKIP supporters responded that they supported outright renationalisation of the UK energy market, and 73% of them supported renationalisation of the rail network.

The idea that UKIP (a political structure composed of, headed by, and bankrolled by the extreme-right fringe of the Tory party) would ever renationalise anything is absolutely laughable, so it seems that the large majority of UKIP supporters are so desperate to get out of Europe that they will vote for a party that adheres to an opposite economic ideology to their own (the neoliberal orthodoxy).

The "I only support UKIP to get us out of Europe" is a particularly ludicrous stance because people that want to make clear their desire for a referendum on Europe have another option, which is to vote for the Green Party instead of voting for the Tory party on steroids.

Not only have the Green Party made commitment to holding a referendum on Europe, they also have manifesto commitments to the kind of left-wing/social democratic politics (such as rail renationalisation) that the majority of UKIP supporters actually favour. Meanwhile UKIP don't even have an official manifesto after Nigel Farage publicly disowned the contents of the 2010 UKIP manifesto, deriding it as "drivel".

Why would anyone that supports the left-wing idea of renationalisation vote for an extreme-right party on the grounds that they want out of Europe, when there is a left-wing party that offers a referendum on membership of the EU, without all the bonkers right-wing extremism, and a commitment to renationalise the railways into the bargain?

The Green Party stance on Europe

I realise that most people won't be aware of the Green party policy on Europe, because of the appalling paucity of mainstream media coverage on the Green's policy based approach to politics, in favour of covering the circus freak show that is UKIP*, so I'll outline the Green Party stance on the EU.

Firstly I'll give a basic interpretation of their stance, then I'll provide numerous quotes from the Green Party to substantiate what I've said.
The Green Party favours a referendum on the EU because they are opposed to the extremely undemocratic way the EU is currently structured, as well as the unsustainable neoclassical economic ideology that the EU actively promotes. The Green party would prefer to see the EU reformed from within to make it more democratic and more accountable. They would also like to ditch the ideological obsession with the neoclassical economic orthodoxy and the ridiculous single currency experiment.

The Green party is committed to a referendum of the EU, but they have not decided which side of the debate they would side with. They want the referendum because they believe that the debate would trigger reform of the EU, however if major reforms are not forthcoming, it seems highly likely that the Greens would campaign for an EU exit, since the structures and objectives of the EU as currently constituted are fundamentally incompatible with the core Green values of democracy and sustainability.
Here is a quote from the Green MP Caroline Lucas:

"I support a referendum on our membership of the EU because I am pro-democracy."
Here are some quotes from the Green party policy document on the EU which confirm that they have correctly identified the major problems with the way the EU is structured.

The current structure of the EU:
"The Green Party is opposed to the objectives, structure and policies of the EU as currently constituted."
The anti-democratic European Commission:
" The Green Party believes that the excessive influence of the Commission and its associated bodies compared to the Council and Parliament is both undemocratic and unaccountable."
The anti-democratic European Central Bank:
"[The Eurozone] is run by the European Central Bank (ECB), a collection of bankers appointed by Council subject to no effective democratic control, but able to override the democratic decisions made by member countries."
The lack of democracy and citizen participation:
"A major weakness of the present European Union is the lack of mechanisms to ensure that the powers and structures of the EU have the consent of the citizens of member countries."
The economically illiterate single currency experiment:
"The Green Party is opposed to EMU and the single currency. We believe it undermines local and regional economies."
"The Green Party is opposed to the UK joining the Eurozone. We are committed to a referendum on any such decision and will join the campaign for a 'No' vote in any such referendum."
Just like UKIP, they participate in EU elections and try to change the EU from within:
"Whilst the Green Party is opposed to the objectives, structure and policies of the EU as currently constituted, as long as the U.K. remains a member of the EU the Green Party will stand in elections to the European Parliament and elected Green MEPs will work for fundamental reform of the EU from within."
The election in May 2014


The next set of European elections occur in May 2014. These elections are an excellent opportunity for people to express dissent with the political system because they are conducted on a proportional basis, meaning there are no such things as "safe seats" nor "wasted votes", as with the archaic and unrepresentative Westminster voting system used in General Elections.

Recent opinion polls show that the fight to become biggest UK party in the European Parliament will in all probability be between Labour and UKIP. Meanwhile there is a very interesting battle for fourth place between the Liberal Democrats (currently projected 8%) and the Green Party (currently projected 6%).

In my view the election in May is an ideal opportunity for left-wing people to express their discontent with the political system by making sure that the Green Party leapfrog the Liberal Democrats into fourth place.

This isn't particularly unrealistic given the appallingly low turnouts at European elections (just 34% at the last election). If just a few hundred thousand people vote Green instead of voting UKIP, voting Labour or simply staying at home, the Lib Dems could easily be relegated to 5th place.


Conclusion

Unlike UKIP, the Green Party is an actual alternative to the neoliberal orthodoxy of privatisation, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich & austerity for the poor. Voting Green would would show support for an EU referendum, without endorsing the kind of right-wing economic fanaticism that is absolutely rife within UKIP.

If just few hundred thousand more people vote for the Green Party in May, we could all enjoy seeing the Lib-Dems relegated to 5th placed also-rans. If on the other hand, those extra few hundred thousand vote for UKIP, we'll just get one or two more UKIP MEPs, who may well end up either defecting to the Tories (
Marta Andreasen) or getting thrown out of the party for spewing sexist bile (Godfrey Bloom).



 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.





Flattr this

* This bias is understandable given that stuff like UKIP councilors spouting anti-gay diatribes and Nigel Farage swilling pints is online "clickbait", whilst serious political analysis seems to be considered increasingly oldfashioned and unpopular.
         

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
       
UKIP is not an alternative
        
The Great Neoliberal Lie
                  
Mixed Economy vs Neoliberalism

         
The "unpatriotic left" fallacy     
                    
The mainstream media oligopoly
      
What is ... Wage Repression?