On June 23, the public will be asked a rather important question through a referendum: Should Britain remain in, or leave, the European Union?

U.K. progressives are divided in the E.U. debate on whether to abandon or transform the union – a body many see as increasingly authoritarian. However, this kind of division may further fuel a shift to the right, with rising racism and fascism, as Occupy.com explored in a broader European context last week.

With the British referendum, the response is further complicated by Britain’s side-line position within the E.U. – and the fact that there are xenophobic, pro-austerity, neoliberal voices pushing both referendum options. To gain clarity on this muddy situation, it is worth exploring the reasons for the referendum in the first place.

Two Neoliberal Factions

The loudest voices calling for a Brexit come from Eurosceptic Conservatives, a significant group within the Tories, not including the Prime Minister. With the referendum nearing, the Conservative Party has already started tearing itself apart, with last week's high level resignation of Department for Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, and more predicted to follow.

The Brexit is also supported by a significant portion of the billionaire-controlled media, not to mention the xenophobic U.K. Independence Party party, which receives far more mainstream media attention than its electoral success warrants. UKIP has made leaving Europe, and a broader politics of hate, its core platform.

Prime Minister David Cameron may want the country to remain in the E.U., but his positions are as economically neoliberal as they come. He continues to preside over savage austerity cuts to British public services and welfare while giving handouts to corporations and the rich. His recent comments about refugees arriving in "swarms" showed Cameron's capacity to dehumanize.

Herein lies the contradiction: the prime minister is said to be holding the referendum in order to end long-lasting fractious arguments within the Conservative Party. But looking closely, it's tricky to see where UKIP starts and where the Conservative Eurosceptic wing stops. UKIP is bankrolled by many former and even current Conservative donors – from hedge fund managers to investment brokers. Its leader, Nigel Farage, is himself a former stock broker.

The Eurosceptic campaign has also received funding from billionaire hedge-fund managers, including Crispin Odey, who made a fortune during the financial crisis that cost the U.K. billions, if not trillions.

To complicate matters further, the campaign to Remain in the E.U. is being funded by a consortium of international bankers, including Goldman Sachs, which helped create and then profited from the 2007-8 financial crash, particularly reaping benefitsfrom the Greek and Eurozone debt crisis. Former Goldman Sachs men (and yes, they are all men) also hold many high-ranking unelected positions in both Europe and the U.K.

This conflict – between the interests of hedge funds, like Mayfair, versus Goldman Sachs – cuts to the heart of the Brexit dilemma. Put simply, the argument is between those who want economic hegemony to rest with the City of London, and those who want it more broadly shared between Brussels, Frankfurt and London.

Whether the bankers back Remain or Brexit, they are all benefiting from an austerity narrative that has enabled welfare for corporations and cuts for the masses. All of this deflects from the massive handouts, tax breaks and profit opportunities given to the elites by the British government, with or without Europe's say.

A Rock and a Hard Place

The European Union is clearly in a socially regressive moment. On the national level, it has enforced illegal debts and austerity that is suffocating Greek society. On a supranational level, the E.U. has [built fortress Europe](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/06/fortress-europe-greece-migr... a ring of walls, barbed wire and gunboats that defies the human rights of refugees.

At the same time, the E.U. is also curbing and calming down some of Britain’s most excessive anti-humanitarian and anti-environmental projects. For instance, the E.U. has encouraged the growth of British renewable energy. It has also given British people their most extensive universal rights, alongside those of workers, through the European Court of Human Rights. The U.K.’s support for austerity policies is not any less aggressive than the E.U.’s.

Looking the opposite direction, a European Union without the U.K. could be more socially progressive. Britain is driving the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agenda in the E.U. It has lobbied for Europe to sell Canadian tar sands oil; meanwhile it has lobbied against a Robin Hood tax and against laws to cap bankers' bonuses.

The E.U. referendum, in short, is a conundrum for British progressives. Some will campaign to Remain, saying Britain must transform the Union into a socially progressive project. Others want to push for a "progressive out," reframing the debate in order to overcome the more racist "out" narrative being drive by the corporate media.

Each pathway caries large risks. On the one hand, E.U. transformation seems impossible. But a "progressive out" vote could do just enough to change the referendum’s outcome, while overshadowed by a surge of British xenophobia and racism.

Reframing the Question

Since rising to the Labour leadership last summer, Jeremy Corbyn has pushed for a "progressive in" argument. He says Britain must take the debate away from "xenophobia and money men," and instead show both the E.U.’s flaws but also its positive elements, such as its ability to improve worker’s rights.

Similarly, the Scottish National Party is running its own stay campaign to stay in the union, emphasizing the positive aspects of the E.U. on life in the U.K. With only one MP, the Conservatives are a minority force in Scotland, and UKIP has not gained momentum there in the same way that it has succeeded south of the border. Remaining in the E.U. is polling far higher in Scotland than in the rest of the U.K. There are even strong calls asserting that should the rest of the U.K. vote out, Scotland's vote to stay in the E.U. could trigger another independence referendum.

Thinking back to Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum provides an interesting perspective on the E.U. referendum: the economic and political establishment used fear to sway the outcome then, and it could do the same this time. But the Scottish independence campaign also showed how a referendum can invigorate political engagement and social movements organizing for a progressive future. Despite the E.U. referendum feeling like a right-wing minefield, it is also opening up much-needed debate.