There are strong left-wing reasons to leave the EU. But there’ll be no ‘Lexit’ under this Tory government.

Support us and go ad-free

This article is part of a series of opinion pieces on Brexit. You can also see Frea Lockley’s piece on how racism has been the biggest winner from Brexit, Tracy Keeling’s piece on why Labour mustn’t support a second Brexit referendum, and Josh Funnell’s argument for Labour to campaign fully to Remain.


Brexit is often presented in binary terms: progressives support Remain while reactionaries support Leave. But things are far from that simple. As the idea of ‘Lexit’ (‘left-wing Brexit’) shows, support for Leave cuts across black and white ideological divisions. Is Lexit really viable in the current political climate, though?

Neither a right-wing Brexit nor a neoliberal EU

Some left-wingers have presented Lexit as a rejection of political elites on both sides of the debate. As the leader of the Irish People Before Profit party, Eamonn McCann, put it, Lexit provides a choice “between the racist, neo-liberal elite of the European Union on the one hand and a raggle-taggle collection of right wing loonies”.

Like McCann, other figures on the anti-imperialist left like Tariq Ali and George Galloway also came out in favour of Brexit. And though Britain’s two major trade unions, Unite the union and UNISON, supported Remain, representatives from a number of smaller unions such as the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) argued in favour of Leave at the ‘London says #Lexit’ conference in June 2016. A number of smaller left-wing groups also remain staunchly anti-EU; the British Communist Party, for instance, encouraged its members to vote Leave, as did a number of Trotskyist groups.

History isn’t a simple story either

Historical analysis tends to refute the simplistic binary presentation of Brexit too. During the 1970s and 1980s, for example, Labour was the more Eurosceptic of the two major parties, and the Conservatives the more Europhile. The 1983 Labour Party manifesto even pledged to leave the European Economic Community (the precursor to today’s EU) – without a referendum. Many Conservative Party members, meanwhile, were initially enthusiastic about European integration because of its potential to unleash what they call “free trade”. There were divisions on Europe within both parties, however, since at least World War II.

But then, in the 1990s, the two major parties largely switched places on the issue. Labour increasingly saw the prospect of a union of nations offering worker protections as beneficial. Some within the party also saw it as a potential social democratic-leaning bloc that might provide an international counterbalance to the neoliberal-leaning US. Right-wing Conservatives, on the other hand, increasingly saw EU regulations as harmful ‘red tape’. And they disliked the idea of being a counterbalance to the US, as this might threaten the “Atlanticist” alliance with US neoconservativism. Hardline nationalists (both within and outside the Tory party), meanwhile, began to see the EU as usurping ‘national sovereignty’, and its free movement policy as an invitation to ‘mass immigration’.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

In short, both Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair entered parliament in 1983 standing on a Eurosceptic manifesto. But while Blair and his backers became staunchly Europhile, Euroscepticism lingered among Labour left-wingers. Lifelong Eurosceptic Tony Benn, for example, saw the institution as a threat to democracy; and he served as a mentor to Corbyn and current shadow chancellor John McDonnell. Corbyn’s position on the EU today, however, is much more nuanced than it once was.

Legitimate Lexit arguments

According to Lexit proponents, the EU is inherently neoliberal in nature. ‘Lexiteers’ point to the behaviour of the European Central Bank and the treatment of southern European countries like Greece in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 capitalist crash. They claim that Brexit is the only way to get Britain out of global free trade agreements such as TTIP. And some have suggested that Jeremy Corbyn’s proposals like nationalising railways would be impossible within the EU due to pro-competition laws passed by the European parliament.

Another Lexit argument is that it would open the possibility of readjusting Britain’s severely imbalanced economy. As Nicholas Shaxson described in his latest book, The Finance Curse, Britain has reached a point where the finance sector is beyond its optimal size and is now actually harming the rest of the economy.

… but that’s not the Brexit on offer

These are all thoughtful and legitimate considerations, of course. But there’s one major problem: this is not the Brexit on offer. Leading Brexit figures like Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, and Jacob Rees-Mogg care very little about the issues above. Instead, they want the exact opposite; for Brexit to turn Britain into a low-tax, low-regulation offshore jurisdiction. They’ve made no great secret of this. After all, they overwhelmingly support and benefit from this process of financialisation of capitalism. Both Farage and Rees-Mogg have backgrounds in this kind of work; and Johnson was a propagandist for it as a disgracedjournalist‘.

Lexiteers might insist that this nightmarish Brexit will only happen if a Tory government is in power. A Corbyn-led government, for example, would certainly not turn Britain into a tax haven; and he’d enact protective measures to reabsorb finance workers into other sectors of the economy. But that argument has two major problems. First, it’s not a safe bet that there’ll be a general election (and a Labour government) before Brexit takes place. Second, it ignores the current context of British politics – and the context of the Brexit vote. Some dodgy claims about the NHS aside, the dominant argument of the Leave side of the EU referendum very much focused on xenophobia and opposition to regulations. So major figures in the Leave campaign would claim voters opted for this kind of Brexit, not the kind that Lexiteers have in mind.

In short, pushing for Brexit if a Tory government is likely to be in power at the time is one hell of a risk.

How to get to Lexit

Is there a way to deliver Lexit, though?

In Britain’s current political system, a referendum may not do the job. Because the EU referendum enabled showmen like Farage to whip up negative sentiments for their own interests. It also allowed a well-funded Leave campaign to mislead people through an allegedly criminally dishonest set of slogans and false promises.

A genuine Lexit would instead need to come from a genuinely progressive Labour government, after a thorough internal party process of debate and democratic deliberation that has come to characterise the Corbyn era. This would then provide a mandate for leaving the EU based on greater popular ownership of the economy and resisting ‘free trade’ and ‘free market’ capitalism.

The Lexit arguments aren’t necessarily wrong. But expecting Lexit to come about through the Brexit process currently on offer is dangerously naïve. Given the current economic and political realities that Britain faces, ‘Remain and Reform’ is the most sensible strategy for promoting quality of life and political stability in the here and now. Lexit is a question for another day; and it must entail an entirely new project divorced from the cynical ploy of Farage and co to enrich themselves while screwing everyone else over.

Featured image via Vimeo – Labour Leave

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I thank the author for being more informative and sympathetic about/towards us, the supporters of Brexit, than shown in the mainstream press, especially by guardian gits.

      Normally there’s nothing wrong with ‘remain and reform’ path. This is the preferred route by some admirable progressive voices, Varoufakis came to my mind immediately. But and it’s a big but. Ask yourself by what mechanism can EU be reformed?

      History has shown us that conservatives (here I’d like to apply the term very broadly by including everyone who wants to maintain the status quo. So present day liberals I call conservatives) will never ever reform the status quo unless and until something come along and throw them out. French revolution, Bolshevik revolutions in Europe or less famous ones elsewhere. There were sensible voices among Catholic order during the middle ages. But were Catholic church really capable of change? The comparison of present day EU (even if one agrees with the original purpose and principles of the orgainsation itself, to bunch France and Germany together to avoid future wars etc, considering what its has become) with the Catholic order isn’t as far-fetched as some might suppose.

      So I’d like to challenge the author to explain how EU could be reformed, what needs to be reformed. I think it is one of the most conservatives institutions and will not allow any change. It seems many ‘progressives’ have forgotten how it trampled Greek democracy (rejection of austerity in the referendum in 2015) to keep the status quo. Don’t forget Europe is inhabited by multitude of peoples not just French and German. I’m not surprised why Orban is doing really well in Hungary. The traditional left has failed in its primary duty to look after the left behind and now votes are being lost to cynical far-right. Blame should be equally apportioned.

      1. I agree. As a lukewarm supporter of the Green party, I was somewhat repelled by their Remain position and their naive calls to use the European Central Bank to fund action against climate change. The ECB wrecked Greece. It won’t be reformed to become a People’s Bank.

        Too often in Europe and the USA, wealthy people on the Left show contempt for poorer people who support Brexit or Trump out of desperation for change away from the neoliberal status quo that makes their lives consistently worse. The poor are not more stupid than middle-class lefties and Greens.

    2. Hi
      Your article like all neverender arguments offers nothing to the 52% or deals with the abject failure of remain and reform, we have to progress, Lexit is the answer,
      How we get there is not that complicated, wait for imminent Tory implosion, they have no where to go, its no brexit or exit,
      What has precisely zero chance is no deal or 2nd referendum
      Thems the facts, your part of the problem if you think otherwise

      1. Well, maybe. To “wait for imminent Tory implosion” seems rather like Marxists awaiting capitalism’s supposedly-inevitable collapse. The Tories are a lot more cunning and resilient than you might be assuming. The rich will never give up their power and wealth without being forced to do so.

    3. Brexit, Lexit, seems to me, to be a diversion from the world problem of climate change.
      ‘The scenario warns that our current trajectory will likely lock in at least 3 degrees Celsius (C) of global heating, which in turn could trigger further amplifying feedbacks unleashing further warming. This would drive the accelerating collapse of key ecosystems “including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic.” ‘

    4. Labour will not win a general election unless they promise a second referendum, too many people will vote for alternatives (Lib dem, SNP, Greens etc) that do promise a second referendum. The most Labour can hope for will be a coalition with a party that demands a second vote as a price for coalition. It would weaken Corbyn’s position as leader, which wuld be a great tragedy.
      Also, the Lexit argument belongs in a museum, and it was as flawed in the 70s as it is now. A socialist Britain cannot survive for long outside the EU as it would be vulnerable to US sanctions.
      The 52% are no longer the 52%. Many people have changed their minds, also many Brexiters have died of old age while many remainers have turned 18 and now have the right to vote.
      The EU elections showed that more people voted for remain parties than Brexit parties, remain is now the “will of the people” and it would therefore be grossly undemocratic for any Government to forge ahead with Brexit without a second referendum.

    5. Also, many matters such as the environment, world poverty, war and tax avoidance require international solutions. Part of the reason many Tories want a hard Brexit is to keep their tax havens.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.