Thread by @AaronBastani

The most pro-EU politician in British history? Tony Blair. Look at how he's viewed by most of the public and you'll grasp why the British public will never vote to reform the European Union. What do I mean? (1/16)

His politics represent a contradiction, as did New Labour's: between the outward presentation of cosmopolitan progress maintained by undemocratic 'governance' and a shift towards the 'state of exception' (2/16)

This being while he attached himself to a mode of politics which became, ultimately, nothing more than serving finance. He, like EU apparatus today, embodied, as Lenin put it, the state as 'but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie' (3/16)

This is the contradiction that good progressives like @paulmasonnews find themselves in. Arguing possibility of reforming a political institution which embodies the state of exception more than any other while claiming authoritarian personality politics drives Brexit (4/16)

The evidence re former? Five letter word: TROIKA. What is the Eurogroup? Who is it accountable to? What Demos? And Europe's leaders? One is Jean-Claude Juncker, the incarnation of the tax-dodging financial interest (he's the former Luxembourg PM) (5/16)

And its great orator? Guy Verhofstadt, who is at least open about his Euro-federalism (one answer to democratic shortfall is an EU state). In same breath he says we need a federal EU to be an 'empire' like US, China and India (6/16)

Juncker is a living archetype of everything that is wrong with modern capitalism, I would argue just as much as Trump. Verhofstadt's politics is why European publics are losing faith in democracy. So why would leftists seek to defend such an institution and such people? (7/16)

Partly it is out of convenience, but partly from the belief that the politics of authoritarian personality must be defied, that Brexit is like Trump, and therefore the left must stop it at all costs - if necessary by working with the neoliberal centre (8/16)

But this is to ignore what is happening. Trump did not prevail in US because of rising fascism, but because centre took a dent and Clinton didn't win votes her predecessors would have. Similarly in Italy - Trump happened a generation ago in Italy. Why? A collapse of the (9/16)

old party establishment. Berlusconi was the protean Trump. And yet, while democracy eroded, the far-right didn't *decisively gain* from his stumbles. Not like it did after Renzi (and will after the 5SM) (10/16)

Italy is a case study in how a polity can remain rudderless (and an economy inert) for 20 years. The EU changed its government by force in 2011 and rejected the first choice Prime Minister in 2018. It was these events which (11/16)

make fascism more likely - the collapse of the centre and the EU insisting on neoliberal technocracy above *all* else. These virtually guarantee a violent response, far more than the demise of the 'neoliberal character'. (12/16)

The major issue is this: every 'anti-establishment' party in the world today openly criticises the model of free market globalisation we presently have. So should Labour. This is rhetorically and politically useful, but it also touches on an economic reality. (13/16)

There is (a) virtually no chance of 'reforming' the EU (b) maintaining a socialist politics while doing so. The best arguments to remain in the EU are two-fold: firstly, convenience; secondly - that the shoots of post-democracy we are seeing within its parameters (14/16)

will become neo-fascism outside it. This is the best argument to 'defend' it. The only problem is, if you want to do that, then you aren't just having to face down Europe's far right but likes of Schauble, Verhofstadt, Juncker. These people are making fascism in Europe (15/16)

more, not less likely - as Thursday's elections will remind us. The rest is fantasy. Is that an argument to leave the EU? No. Is it an argument to remain while empowering *precisely* the same elements here in the UK? The opposite - clearly. A 2nd ref would be catastrophic (16/16)

Fascism has two features, among many. It's politics internalise the 'state of exception' - arrogating complete power to the sovereign. While it's adherents express what is called the 'authoritarian personality' (this legitimising the former and giving it the veneer of popular >

representation).

The EU has the first (the Troika changing governments in Greece and Italy in 2011, stopping Italy from having its first choice FM in 2018). Brexit has the second.

Neither option is 'anti-fascist'.