The challenges exist only to the extent there also exists a discernable “public interest” or “common good”. I follow in the tradition of Olson and Arrow in questioning the applicability of those concepts. At the same time, I imagine the challenge facing the herd, characterised as they are by status-anxiety, is the maintenance of the prevailing order of their lives, stability, the continued reinforcement of their beliefs and values. In 1973, the referendum played on the fear of loss of food, money and jobs. Within prevailing institutions, whether we’re in-or-out is an each way gamble.
Now, what does social policy mean? It’s really a matter of law and, if you choose to regard it apart from the law, investment priorities. If pressed to advocate a position, I’d punt for neighbourhood assemblies as the sole institutions of law, ordering up fiat capital from a monopoly investment bank to fund self managed enterprises. That obviously runs counter to the European project with its essentially monetarist central bank and absurd prohibitions that only exist to absolve national governments from blame for their daft regulations. However, if you’re the sort of person who admires the European take on this-or-that, say the working time directive or what not, then I can see how you could adopt an opportunistic Europhilia.
Bringing in cheap labour, also not Lisbon that's existing treaties, but that shouldn't matter anyway, coz if they have planning like we have planning, no heavy industry will ever get built in future. Lavel and Viking cases give NIMBY's the added string to their bow of "it is unlawful to guarantee that any jobs created go to members of the local community".
