Cameron’s EU deal
- This topic has 265 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We've been here before:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/should-socialists-support-federal-union
Hardy wrote:The true position is that, if Governments or other organisations have mutual interests and a common outlook, there can be unity without sovereignty and, conversely, even if there is a Federal Union and a central Government with power over all the area within it, if there are conflicts of interest and outlook the mere existence of an international machine, even with a strong armed force, will not prevent parts of the area from quarrelling with each other and going to war. You may say, as Federal Union does, that they would not have the armed forces to enable them to do that, but they will find them.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1996/no-1107-november-1996/free-trade-profits-and-environmentThis article from 1996 is also useful.
I see from the free copy of the Morning Star I picked up at the anti-Trident march yesterday that the Trotskyoid "Scottish Socialist Party" will be campaigning to stay in. There's an article by their co-spokesperson, Colin Fox, introduced as;
Quote:Vote for an EU free from neoliberal manipulation. Colin Fox argues that we have to vote to remain in the EU in order to change it from top to bottom, working with like-minded people throughout Europe to do so.A change from the usual line these people take, though the page opposite has a counter article by the paper's political editor, John Haylett, headed "No time to entrust Britain's future to a bureaucratic finance-capital cabal". Which might explain why some lefties have no problem campaigning alongside UKIP and even anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Right and Left unite against international finance capital.Meanwhile SPEW is promoting a Leave vote on the grounds that this will provoke a political and economic crisis from which they hope to benefit to build their vanguard party. But I still don't understand the position of the SWP which has made a speciality of seeking support amongst immigrant workers by campaigning to improve their situation, whereas the vote to Leave they are campaigning for will make the immigrants' position even worse than Cameron has negotiated. Maybe they, too, think that worse is better, the more discontent, the more material there is for them to work on. These Trotskyists or at least their leaders really are unprincipled and cynical manipulators.
Found an interesting quote that might shed some interesting light on the issue.
Quote:I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”Head Office has been sent this statement asking us to endorse it and circulate it to our members and readers, presumably under the misapprehension that we too are Left British Nationalists.http://votetoleaveeuropeanunion.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/it-is-time-for-voices-to-be-raised-in.htmlWe can't and won't endorse it of course but we can gladly circulate the names of those who have endorsed it . Scroll down to see this roll of dishonour, the usual suspects including the CPB, SWP, SPEW, TUSC, Tariq Ali, John Rees, and a handful of left Labour MPs,
ALB wrote:Head Office has been sent this statement asking us to endorse it and circulate it to our members and readers, presumably under the misapprehension that we too are Left British Nationalists.Could well be that some see, at first glance, the Great Britain tag in the name as a suggestion we are a nationalist organisation. Who knows?
Could also have been the word "socialist" of course since the "Left" is assumed to be anti-Common Market as a capitalists' club, etc.
What a miserable website they have.I'd have thought with all their expertise and resources they could come up with something a little better.
Quote:We stand for a positive vision of a future Europe based on democracy, social justice and ecological sustainability, not the profit-making interests of a tiny elite. For these reasons we are committed to pressing for a vote to leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum on UK membership.http://votetoleaveeuropeanunion.blogspot.fr/2016/02/eu-is-now-profoundly-anti-democratic.htmlletter to the GuardianExactly what sort of vision is totally lacking and nothing at all about how all the disparate politics of the signees can agree on a united vision …
Quote:“Fortress Europe” ensures that those outside the EU cartel of nations are subject to vicious discrimination if they are lucky, and drowning in the Mediterranean if they are not.Our blog has highlighted this issue judging it to be another form of European nationalism to the Little Englander type but seriously are they suggesting that exiting the EU will reverse Cameron's anti-refugee policies or encourage Labour to welcome refugees.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our blog has highlighted this issue judging it to be another form of European nationalism to the Little Englander type but seriously are they suggesting that exiting the EU will reverse Cameron's anti-refugee policies or encourage Labour to welcome refugees.That's the fatal weakness in the argument for leaving from groups like the SWP which claim to have the immediate day-to-day interest of migrant workers at heart. Clearly Britain leaving the EU will make their position worse than it even will be under the "reform" Cameron negotiated.One conclusion would be that they don't have the immediate interest of these workers at heart, even that they want their conditions to worsen so that they'll be more discontented and more likely to follow their vanguard.To tell the truth, I can't really believe that they are that cynical. It's more that they haven't thought their position through. If they had, and that the lot of these workers was their main concern, they should be campaigning to stay in. But maybe having the sovereign ability to introduce state capitalism in one country is a higher priority for them.
Republican Socialist Alliance“The RSA agrees to adopt and promote the following slogans during the EU referendum.Recognising that both the EU and UK are undemocratic we will stand for a “European democratic revolution”, consistent with the idea of democratic revolution within the UK.Promote the idea of a new democratic constitution for Europe as a secular, democratic and federal social republic including the constitutional right of self determination for all nations including England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Catalunya.Recognising that RSA members are not united on the call for Remain, Leave, Abstain or Boycott, the RSA will take no official position on how to vote. Individual members and supporting organisations will be free to recommend any of these options…."http://republicancommunist.org/blog/2016/03/18/report-of-republican-socialist-alliance-meeting-stockport-12th-march/
alanjjohnstone wrote:Recognising that RSA members are not united on the call for Remain, Leave, Abstain or Boycott, the RSA will take no official position on how to vote.There's something odd about this. If a group of three people is confronted with 4 options surely they must be able to agree to eliminate one? Or maybe YMS knows a voting system that can avoid this.Still, it's good to see that Leave is no longer the kneejerk position among the Left, as can also be seen in the letter column of the Weekly Worker (which is calling for Boycott, I think).
I see from today's Weekly Worker that the RSA, i.e Steve Freeman, has thought up a new possible compromise position on the referendum (scroll down here to "compelling case")
Quote:the Scottish working class should vote to remain in the European Union, whilst the English working class should abstain.Completely bonkers !
https://theconversation.com/what-leaving-the-eu-would-really-mean-for-british-trade-deals-56756
Quote:Could the UK opt-out and go it alone? In theory, yes, but in practice, the picture would be rather different. There are three major obstacles in concluding post-Brexit deals.The first is that much would depend on what the UK’s relationship with the EU would look like after Brexit. That would take time to resolve but would probably take priority given the UK’s current reliance on the single market. If the UK concludes an agreement to retain access to the single market, like Norway and Switzerland, it would be difficult for it to have separate deals with non-EU member states, as they may conflict. And while the UK might be able to continue to take advantage of existing EU agreements with other countries, it would not have a say in any changes or negotiations over new agreements – for example, with China.The second is the process, both in terms of the content and the time needed. Trade agreements are complex and take time.[…]To take an example, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement took 14 rounds of negotiation over nine years to conclude. And as one Eurosceptic MP – who is nevertheless going to vote to remain in – recognises, markets are more global and sophisticated than they ever were, adding to this complexity.Oh, go on, even football will be effected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35919247
Quote:British football could be radically changed if the UK votes to leave the European Union, according to experts and leading voices in the game.Some fear so-called Brexit could lead to more than 400 players losing the right to play in the UK, while others say it may give home talent a chance.It's clear that from a free market point of view leaving will mean missing out on a lot of top talent, and will shrink the labour market for footballers (lets not forget, a lot of those EU passport holders are French Africans).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.