Cameron’s EU deal
- This topic has 265 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The fact is that there is no general UK capitalist interest in Leaving.Companies like Tate & Lyle producing cane sugar rather than sugar beet would gain. So would a few hedge funds and other vukture capitalists. But the host of small businesses producing for the home market that are following them are deluding themselves if they think production for the home market is what drives a capitalist economy. They might be relieved of some regulations (perhaps) but if exports are affected and an economic downturn results (as is likely in the case of withdrawal) the home market will shrink too. From a general UK capitalist point of view Remaing In is a no-brainer.I've noticed on the BBC that, when a Remainer makes a valid point (from a capitalist point of view) like this, in the interests of equal time they interview a Leaver who can only say that it's not true. But it still is.
Well, vote leave are trying to make a case:http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade
Quote:After we Vote Leave, British businesses will trade freely with the EU. Many countries around the world trade with the EU without accepting the supremacy of EU law.This is flat out wrong, no trade deal comes without an arbitration mechanism which will mean whatever trade deal will take priority over Parliamentary legislation (Dominic Grive, former Tory Attorney General has found:
Quote:If you were to assume the modern era began in 1834, where regular recording began in what later became the Foreign Office, these treaty experts have told me that there are some 13,200 records of treaties and agreements which the United Kingdom signed and ratified. Many thousands of these agreements are still applicable, and they range in importance from the United Nations Charter, to local treaties over fishing rights or maritime access.and
Quote:Of these, perhaps around 700 treaties contain reference to the possibility of binding dispute settlement. Today, all treaties must be laid before Parliament, where they may be debated, and if they involve the need to change UK law Parliament must scrutinise and enact any necessary legislation before the UK consents to be bound. In this age of globalisation, activities previously considered of domestic scope often have an international component – whether on coordinated economic action, climate change or on the regulation of pesticides on bee populations. Without the UK’s reputation for upholding its word and ability to act internationally to address regional or global problems, any Government action to confront these challenges would remain partial or ineffective.http://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/news/britain-and-international-rule-law
Nobody remembers the cod wars, on the route ot a treaty.https://guidetoiceland.is/history-culture/the-cod-wars
Attended a fascinating discussion at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting last night, a former government intelligence adviser ('Horizon scanner') talking about the EU referendum. She made two interesting points: no-one has an interest in producing a clear costed account of the pro's and con's of leaving the EU. The Government want to stay, and have thus deliberately not costed the effects of leaving (in order to create FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The out campaign are prefering to concentrate on nebulous concepts like sovereignty, and FUD over immigrants.She also noted how Cameron's stance, that an out vote is a starting pistol to a two year process of leaving the EU is a deliberate wrecking tactic, since the reality is it would take upwards of five years to leave,a nd this could be finessed.The dots she didn't draw, though, is that this level of obfuscation can only be because the vast majority of people do not have a direct dog in this fight: ther are no killer and obvious facts to draw us to support one side or another. This is a pure blue-on-blue debate.
Quote:"a former government intelligence adviser ('Horizon scanner') "A job i would like…just what are the qualifications? Do they provide the crystal balls or do i bring my own for the predictions?…i'm always looking at the horizon, way off in the distance…Usually that's why i trip over something right at my own feet sometimes. Out of interest what career did she take when she left the government employment? Futurologist with some think-tank?
Some people are lucky that they get the most intriquing and interest of jobs. Even in socialism her skills will be required in making assessments of various projects and policies…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:"a former government intelligence adviser ('Horizon scanner') "Out of interest what career did she take when she left the government employment? Futurologist with some think-tank?
She was sacked due to unforseen circumstances.
Here's the Socialist Party statement on the EU referendum adopted by the EC at its meeting on Saturday:
Quote:The problem is not the EU … it’s capitalismOn 23 June you will asked to make a decision on behalf of the minority who own and control the means of production in Britain: should they stay or should they leave the EU? Perhaps you ought to feel flattered that, for once, they have entrusted you with making a decision of vital importance to them. But our answer, as socialists, is “we are not interested. Settle the matter yourselves”.This is because the problems we and you face as wage and salary workers or their dependents are caused by the capitalist system of ownership by the few and production for profit. This system, which requires that making profits comes before meeting needs, will continue whether Britain is in or out of the EU. Whichever it is to be, the problems will continue. They will continue for as long as capitalism does. The only way out is if you, together with wage and salary workers in the rest of the world, organise democratically to replace global capitalism by a worldwide classless socialist society of common ownership and democratic control, with production to satisfy people’s needs not for profit, and distribution on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” not by the amount of money you have – or don’t have.The devil you knowApart from a few idealists who want to see a Federal European State, the main group in favour of staying is Big Business. With good reason, from their point if view. The EU gives them tariff- free access to a vast single market with common standards. And the EU, negotiating as a single body with non-member States over trade and other economic matters and so with more bargaining power, gets them a better deal than if Britain had to do this on its own.Other supporters are the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists who want to protect the EU subsidies their parts of Britain get. More principled is the position of the Green Party which wants to defend the free movement of workers throughout the EU – out of as well as into Britain.Cameron claims to have negotiated some fundamental reform of the EU. Actually, he has done no more than freeze the position of Britain as a non-member of the Eurozone. He hasn’t undone anything. He hasn’t even stopped immigration which some mistakenly see as a problem, only held out a hope that it will be less attractive in a few years. No wonder the Eurosceptics are sceptical.Basically, the Stay campaign are campaigning for the status quo. As is the Labour Party. In other words, capitalism as we know it, with all the problems it causes, and so not worth supporting even if it is the devil we know.The devil you don’tI strongly believe that a case for World Socialism by democratic means is made more easily within a political system which already strives to overcome national boundaries, not merely in the interests of capitalists. Younger people already have a much stronger sense of being European or even of being citizens of the world (including my '60s generation). This issue is too important to waste on a merely symbolic write in vote. As a committed World Socialist, I will vote to remain in the EU, as I see the EU as a vehicle which in the long term can be utilised by the working class in the interests of World Socialism.
AHS, so does that mean you support the EU policy of Fortress Europe that excludes and deports non-EU citizens. Does it mean you approved of the EU political system's treatment of default nations such as Greece by the Troika Do you support the establishment of a EU military force to enforce EU foreign policy?Do you seek to foster a Pan-European nationalism as a stepping stone? I know you will disassociate yourself personally from condoning those EU policies but they are integral to the EU and you cannot separate them.Is there advantages to being in the EU for some workers, of course, there areEqually, is there disadvantages of being in the EU for other workers, yes, there areSo in my view i am very happy to sit on the fence, taking no sides, and observe the antics of politics in action.Isn't there a doctor's dictum…first do no harm? Giving succour to the Stay In camp may well lead to all manner of unintended consequences. Just as supporting the Leave camp will. Whatever happens we can guarantee that the capitalist class will find a suitable arrangement to protect and further their own interests such as a UK variant of CETA.
Alan, I hear what you are saying, but I no more approve/support/condone those aspects of the EU than the SPGB does when putting up candidates in the EU elections.I think SPGB will be better able to put its case with GB remaining inside the EU than outside it.
I see the bill for the Eu leaflet includes social media promotion. The leaflet is online, let the fisking begin… https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/why-the-government-believes-we-should-remain/eu-referendum-leaflet/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social+&utm_campaign=euref&utm_content=9_4_2016_browndoor_lpostAt first glance the 'facts' are tendentious:
Quote:we will not join the euro • we will keep our own border controls • the UK will not be part of further European political integration • there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system for new EU migrants • we have a commitment to reduce EU red tapeThese are the things that Cameron negotiated, which amount to minor fiddles on the relationship.
Got my booklet last night: Private Eye reporting today that the actual printing cost was £6 million (so the facebook campaign must account for some of the rest,a nd postage). That's about 2p a booklet. Wow…
It's all over. At least the argument is (from the point of view of the overall interest of the UK capitalism, that is). For them staying in is a no-brainer, reinforced by what Obama just said:
Quote:On trade, he took aim at one of the main "Out" arguments — that Britain could easily negotiate deals and get better terms on its own. The United States would regard a deal with the EU as a higher priority than a separate agreement with a much smaller market such as a stand-alone Britain, Obama said."It's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement but that's not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done," Obama said."And the UK is going to be in the back of the queue, not because we don't have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely efficient."UK capitalism is obviously in a better position to get a favourable deal in trade negotiations with other countries and blocs as part of a larger bloc than as a country on its own(on the old trade union principle that "unity is strength") . The only reply that the two buffoons who are leading the Out campaign can come up with is bluster about those who don't agree that Britain going it alone would get better trade deals of lacking confidence in "Great" Britain.It's only a passing show as far as we're concerned of course but we can still rate the two sides' (capitalist) arguments..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.