Cameron’s EU deal
- This topic has 265 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:"If I was a prisoner and there was a vote as to if I want a bigger cell or not I would vote for the bigger cell, even though really I do not want to be in prison at all."
A variant of the lesser evilism…leads to all sorts of dilemmas, don't you think?…All manner of political accommodation…Sanders or Clinton? Trump or Sanders? Trump or Clinton? Where does it end?…
This isn't a vote about which party gets to runs capitalism. So, perhaps it ends in a slippery slope fallacy.
SocialistPunk wrote:DJP,I get your point, but if you suggest we participate in a capitalist issue, just for the sake of a "bigger cell" then I see no difference in socialists advocating and fighting to save the likes of the NHS. There's more at stake than just a "bigger cell", as without the NHS it is likely that many of us wouldn't be here today. Having Cystic Fibrosis, I know I would have been dead before I reached double figures.My inclination is to spoil my ballot should an EU referendum actually take place.Suppose there was a referendum on whether to scrap the NHS or not. Where would we stand on that? Some reforms are reforms worth wanting..Though of course socialist do support the struggles of NHS workers, as part of sound trade union activity.
alanjjohnstone wrote:maybe you prefer solitary to sharing your cell…Actually Alan part of my thinking about this has come from my personal life. Like yourself I have had / do have friends, lovers and family from outside the UK and knowing how Draconian immigration laws can be anything that makes movement that little bit freer is welcome.
I wasn't suggesting that we do nothing during the campaign period but, that if we opted for abstention or a boycott (I'm not pushing that we should, especially as we've already gone on record as saying we're going to cast a write-in vote for world socialism), we should say this in our leaflets and meetings and why. And, as I also suggested, I think we should concentrate on hammering those claiming to be socialist campaigning for an OUT vote. We should do this anyway..
ALB wrote:If we take part in the campaign I think we should concentrate on attacking those calling themselves socialists who are on the Leave side, for encouraging nationalism.I think this is the only sound approach to take, plus pointing out (again) that our social problems are caused by capitalism not the EU. There's no need to tell people to vote or not..
Wasn't an item at one recent ADM or conference about our attitude to referenda? Don't know how the discussion went..
I see this as really just an extension of the "EC of Upton Park" dispute back in 1910. The question as to what Socialists in Parliament would do if asked to vote on a reform, was answered in The Standard with " each issue would have to be looked at on its merits and the course to be pursued decided democratically". In a referendum the electorate replace he parliamentarians, so to me the answer would be exactly the same. With regards to this issue (The EU) I think the merits of either side are negligible and I don't think really that the working class have an interest on either side. I would argue therefore that in the same way as Socialist Delegates to Parliament might support neither side, so should the Party as a whole and that the appropriate thing to do is to abstain and pour scorn on those who take either side, especially those who claim to be Socialist. It follows from the above that there may arise situations where a reform referendum was held where the Party may advise voting for or against particular reforms, in the same was as outlined in the Upton Park Question. I could also envisage a situation where we could have an effective free vote, for instance if a local authority held a ballot on the colour they were going to paint the bins, I can't see the problem with individual Socialists voting for their own preference.
"This isn't a vote about which party gets to runs capitalism…"This is still a vote on how capitalism is run, or am i mistaken that it is a decision on the the scope and extent of the state machine?"how Draconian immigration laws can be anything that makes movement that little bit freer is welcome."…Try saying that to those non-EU migrants now being trapped in limbo because EU countries have decided to put their national sovereignty ahead of Schengen Agreement, ignoring the legality or whatever. Borders were re-instituted and razor fences built to stop the most vulnerable from having the benefits of EU protection. Long before the current refugee crisis countries in the EU began individually to implement anti-non EU policies such as language and skill requirements. Can we argue that the IN case is unchallengable that it shouldn't be referred to as being suggested by the idea we make our analysis bias against the OUT?It is not merely a trade pact but a political/military alliance. Can we argue that EU has not had a detrimental effect on the world stage such as from the break up to Yugoslavia to the present Ukrainian civil war? And with its trade barriers it too has a deleterous effect upon fellow workers in the developing world …the EU is not about Free Trade but selective tariffs. "we should concentrate on attacking those calling themselves socialists who are on the Leave side, for encouraging nationalism."…the only sound approach to take, plus pointing out (again) that our social problems are caused by capitalism not the EU."That does also mean explaining that the EU cannot solve our problems and can, in fact, exacerbate the problems of the world-wide working class. What about those who call themselves socialists who express support for the EU? We are not for European Socialism but World Socialism, for global revolution. and we stand by the worldwide working class of every country. We need to show we go beyond the EU.Or are we going to argue that it is a model to follow for future administration…transnational and appointed commissioners making the decisions…of course not…we have to expose the EU pretence of democracy. I really think we should use the up-coming but very timely conference to discuss this and and agree and design a fit and proper party attitude rather than an ad-hoc improvised response to the referendum where an attitude and approach is decided without full consultation with the whole membership. Of course there exists the Little Englander nationalism but lets not pretend there is not equally at work European nationalism…Or did i mishear those prime ministers and presidents who pledged to defend (white christian) European culture and heritage from outsiders.The referendum and the party's position and the attitude our literature and speakers take must be debated specifically at conference.
Given that we hold that world socialism can be achieved by democratic means using the parliamentary process, then would we not want to be able to pursue that goal within a larger parliamentary entity, in this case, the EU, than within a smaller one, such as the UK? And do we think so little of the good the EU has done for human rights? And while the free movement of people/workers does serve some sections of the capitalist class (the pro-EU one), is the free movement of people not generally a benefit? I, for one, would hate to find myself outside the wider union of peoples that is the EU. A vote to stay in Europe is hardly a vote for capitalism.
So can i clarify AHS, your position is that we climb down from the fence and positively advocate to stay in the EU as it benefits the working class?
Alan, not necessarily, but I think we need to debate at length whether we can pursue our party's aims better inside or outside the EU. Would we like to see a SPGB MEP make the case at a European level? I do not see the benefit of simply saying that this is merely a struggle between two or more capitalist factions in which we will have no part. It's not the Great War.
The European Parliament is a Parliament in name only, it has little actual power which is in hands of the commissioners.
Quote:I think we need to debate at length whether we can pursue our party's aims better inside or outside the EUI agree full-heartedly…we need to debate the questions the referendum and the EU in or out has raised and decide upon an agreed campaign to put forward the case for socialism during the heightened political atmosphere of the referendum. It has to be at conference and if we cannot somehow include it late on the agenda, it doesn't say much for our flexibility as an organisation.
If it is of no interest to socialists and the working class why did we put up candidates at the EU elections?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.