UKIP and Europe: a better diagnosis for a better cure

What is UKIP? At last UK politics, long preserved by an outdated electoral system, is starting to resemble its continental neighbours. Since the 1980s, populist anti-migrant parties have been gaining ground in Europe alongside the crumbling hegemony of the traditional centre-left and centre-right parties (apparently, voters have had trouble telling them apart). And yet, Nigel Farage, by trying to keep his party on-message about the economic and social effects of immigration, is much less reactionary than other populist parties in Europe, and indeed many Conservative back-benchers.

As such, the popular left-wing response to the rise of UKIP has been revealing. The party has been treated as a far-right threat to British democracy with comparisons to fascism and slogans from the Spanish Civil War abounding. The famous “man in the back” on an episode of Question Time comparing Farage to other bombastic individuals who have “driven Europe to war in the past” is a case in point, as are student collectives which uphold the same policy of denying UKIP a platform in universities that they apply to the BNP. Two problems confront such a strategy. Firstly, it is unlikely to stop UKIP dead in their tracks. Many voters in deindustrialised areas feel vulnerable in the face of economic change and abandoned by the political class, and will continue to vote for a party that attempts to relate clear policies to their lived experience. (Incidentally, the trend in Europe has been that rising populist parties eventually take more votes than the left than from the right). Secondly, if a real far-right threat rears its head, the popular left will find itself with neither the vocabulary nor the credibility with which to denounce it.

This is a far from distant possibility. UKIP pales in comparison to the extremism of the electorally significant far-right parties in France and Hungary, while in Greece and Ukraine overt neo-Nazis are active on the political scene. UKIP occupies the same political space in Britain as many of these parties, so there is every reason to believe that the party could move in the same direction once Farage is gone, so it is correct that the left mobilise against rising xenophobia. But excessive posturing has betrayed the left’s lack of a positive project regarding the European question.

This impotency has driven the popular left into a paradoxical position. On the one hand there is a noble campaign being fought against xenophobia targeting Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. But the context of this campaign is the integration of Romania and Bulgaria into a common European labour market. From the outset, the European project has been about market creation, with an intensification in recent decades as the EU increasingly operates in tandem with the IMF to impose an economic discipline on national states. The purpose of the free circulation of people in Europe – a cornerstone of the EU project – is to lower the costs of labour, reduce trade union power and to allow companies to operate above the labour laws set by national governments.

The solution is simple: a European minimum wage, much more favourable trade union laws and an EU policy in favour of job-creation. No one on the left is going to oppose this, but it needs to be made the focus of our political strategy instead of opposing xenophobia when the issue for many is an immigration policy designed to suppress wages. The real question is who will use immigration to what ends? Will immigration be a tool for capital to dominate labour? Or will it be a popular means of maintaining a young, creative population with cross-continental flows of expertise, information and culture?

This debate is especially important because many of Ed Miliband’s most radical policies likely to win support at the next election (restoring a state monopoly in health, energy price controls and deficit-financed growth) may turn out to contravene treaty obligations and pro-competition laws signed during Europe’s current phase of austerity-inspired economic integration. And yet, as candidate for the EU Commission presidency (to be chosen based on the election results) Labour is backing Martin Schulz. Schulz is leads the centre-left grouping in the European Parliament which he presides due to a deal with the larger centre-right grouping whereby they rotate the presidency within a single parliament, regardless of the previous election results. This adds to the impression that Europe has a democratic deficit. Moreover, Schulz’s party, the German SPD, is in a national coalition with the CDU of Angela Merkel, the main driver of austerity in Europe, despite a left-wing majority in the German parliament.

The European elections this Thursday risk being a missed opportunity for the Labour Party, which has seen its lead in the polls collapse, and possibly disappear. They are the first nation-wide elections since the coalition came to power and should have been a confrontation between two rival visions of Britain and Europe. Instead, Labour has largely kept quiet, hoping not to distract from the main event in 2015. This has no doubt been encouraged by advisors reminding Miliband that the party doesn’t poll well on immigration (a fact not diminished by shadow ministers parroting the line “Labour got it wrong on immigration”). Labour’s newly elected MEPs should seize the initiative in the party by taking two clear steps in favour of a democratic, social and environmental Europe:

  1. They can support the candidacy of Alexis Tsipras (below) for the European presidency. Tsipras has been backed by several left-wing parties as a progressive challenger to Schulz and the centre-right candidate. His aim is to restore Europe as a popular project by ending punitive austerity measures hitting the continent’s poorest. A recently created Labour group supporting Tsipras’s candidacy can be found here:
  2. They can vote against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This treaty, supported by Schulz, seeks to demolish European legislation protecting workers, consumers and the environment in favour of an unregulated common market with the United States. It is being negotiated in secret by the US by the European Commission, but the final text will be voted on by the European parliament. A page in opposition to the TTIP can be found here:

The opportunity should not be missed. Failing to provide an alternative to a Europe synonymous with austerity is what will ultimately cause the European project to lose popular support, to be replaced only by short-sighted nationalism and xenophobia.


Islamification by Pizza Topping?

Yesterday afternoon I switched on the radio to find that the top news story in our nation of food banks, rising child poverty and mass unemployment was halal meat. It’s remarkable that Pizza Express serving up halal chicken is such a big story given that virtually meat-eater in the country has had an Indian takeaway or a kebab at some point in their lives. So I think it’s fair to say that non-Muslims enjoying a bit of halal meat in Britain is nothing new.

From what I’ve seen on social media there are several lines of objection. One is a fairly well-meaning argument is that animal rights should be paramount over religious traditions. Firstly, it’s worth remembering that if stunning an animal is the benchmark for a ‘humane’ and ‘civilised’ act of slaughter then the vast majority of halal meat is pre-stunned: 97% of cattle, 96% of poultry and 90% of sheep, according to the Food Standards Agency. And in the case of Pizza Express, 100% of its halal chicken is pre-stunned. Secondly, the eminent physiologist Harold Hillman has argued that stunning paralyses rather than anaesthetises. In other words, the animal still feels the pain, you just can’t see it. So to claim that ‘our’ way is ‘civilised’ while ‘their’ way is ‘barbaric’ is both disingenuous, alarmist and dangerous. If the Sun, the Mail and the Express have front page stories next week about battery farming or foie gras then I’ll graciously accept that this controversy has been about animal welfare all along, but somehow I doubt it.

Another concern is that halal meat should be labelled so that people know what they’re eating and I’m in full agreement with this. In the case of Pizza Express, it’s clearly stated for all to see on their website and has been for some time now. They’ve even Tweeted about it a few times over the past two years. So all in all, it’s a bit of a non-story.

But the much more sinister argument is the idea that this story is yet more ‘evidence’ to support the narrative that ‘they’ have come over here and are telling ‘us’ how to live. This also relates to the recent press reports that some Subway stores now only sell halal meat. Yet this policy has been in place since 2007 and far from being a Muslim plot to ban all pork products in our green and pleasant land; it’s simply an example of a company trying to sell more sandwiches by catering to its customers in certain areas of the UK. It’s standard practice elsewhere too. For example, there are a number Subway stores in the US which only serve kosher meat.

Often this line of thought is accompanied with the add-on that there’s a double standard at work because, so the argument goes ‘if we went over there we’d have to live by their rules’. Personally, I’ve never understood the logic of: ‘we’re better than them because we’re tolerant and they’re not, but because they’re not tolerant we shouldn’t be tolerant either.’ But in this case (as with the ‘you couldn’t build a church in a Muslim country’ line) it’s just factually wrong. If for example, you found yourself a bit peckish in the capital city of Bangladesh, a county where more than 90% of the population are Muslim, you could get all the pork products you’d ever want from the German Butcher shop.

What’s important about this last argument however is that it illustrates perfectly how Islamophobia in Britain works as a form of racism. For the person making this argument, all Muslims are foreigners determined to impose their alien and backward customs upon us, the civilised, enlightened British. There’s no recognition that most Muslims in the UK are actually born here and thus are as British as anyone else.

The real agenda in all this is to mark out Muslims and other minority groups as a threat to ‘our way of life’, despite the fact that the very worst they could be accused of is robbing every free-born English man and woman of their sacred right to have bland ham rather than bland turkey ham at every single UK chain of an American sandwich shop.