Cameron’s EU deal

[moderator1]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

They've got an interesting Statement of Aims and Principles.

Apart from the first part of clause eight there is very little to quibble about.

To be found here:  http://www.socialistproject.org/statement-of-aims-and-principles/

[ALB]

After Obama, now a former Director General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy (from France), re-inforces the view that it is in the overall interest of the British capitalist class to stay in the EU:

Quote:

Trade negotiations are a world of hard-bitten talks, where even close allies set aside diplomatic courtesies for national advantage. (…)Brexiteers argue that EU countries will want to strike a deal because Britain has a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU. That is simply not true. The UK is more reliant on trade with the EU than vice versa.EU leaders will fear that anti-Europe parties in their own backyard will get momentum from Brexit, so will want to drive a hard bargain to avoid contagion. In a competitive global marketplace, they will seek any advantage they can get. My own country will probably be among the hardest to negotiate with. Imagine how eager French farmers will be not to have your beef or lamb on our supermarket shelves. And no one will show any love for the City of London.If it fails to get a deal, there is a real risk that the UK would have to fall back on WTO rules. Some in the Leave campaign have said this would not be a bad option. As the former head of the WTO, let me be dear: this would be a terrible replacement for access to the EU single market .Though tariffs have fallen, they are still high enough to hurt businesses and therefore jobs: 10 per cent for cars, 12 per cent on clothes, 70 per cent on some beef products.Some claim the UK could strike better trade deals on its own. Let's be honest, there has not been a major WTO deal in 23 years and the most significant agreements are being negotiated between regional blocs.(Times, 3 May)

In other words, the politicians arguing to leave are talking nonsense when they claim (as in a leaflet "6 positive reasons to Vote Leave and take back control" that's been dropping through people's letter boxes):

Quote:

If we Vote Leave, we can have a friendlier relationship with the EU based on trade, as well as regain our seat on global bodies like the World Trade Organisation.

One of the British capitalist class's political representatives has taken the risk of submitting the matter for a decision by the working class, who won't necessarily follow the interest of the capitalist class.If they don't, and vote to leave, in view of what Lamy and the others are saying, the change will not be that dramatic. The capitalist class will be able to cope. In all probability, Britain will stay a member of the Single Market but not have the same say as now in its rules and regulations, i.e be in a similar position to Norway.The real hard bargaining would be over the free movement of labour in and out of Britain. Or maybe not. If capitalist production grows again British capitalism will need more labour and where's the obvious place for it to come from? Those who voted to leave to "keep foreigners out" (which is what would be the deciding factor in such a vote) will find themselves disappointed. Serve them right.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

The real hard bargaining would be over the free movement of labour in and out of Britain. Or maybe not. If capitalist production grows again British capitalism will need more labour and where's the obvious place for it to come from? Those who voted to leave to "keep foreigners out" (which is what would be the deciding factor in such a vote) will find themselves disappointed.

By coincidence  the Times of the day before (2 May) had an article on growing the famous Jersey Royal potatoes on the island of Jersey. Jersey is not a member of the EU and has control over its borders, but:

Quote:

Potatoes planted on the slopes are hand-lifted using seasonal labour, mainly from eastern Europe …

Anyone for Jerxit?

[Anonymous]

In see Alan has picked this up.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/in-or-out-shake-all-about.html

[ALB]

Here's one, rare, point for the Leave side (from a capitalist point of view of course). In one of its leaflets the "Britain Stronger in Europe" group claims that British capitalism being in the EU is:

Quote:

GREAT FOR FAMILIES with lower prices in our shops thanks to free trade.

This is not true as there is ‘free trade’ only within the EU. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the EU is a customs union which imposes tariffs on goods from outside it, in particular agricultural products. This means higher food prices; which was one reason why some were opposed to British capitalism joining the EEC (as the EU was then called, more accurately) in the first place in 1973.This is still the case, as Gerard Lyons, of Economists for Brexit, pointed out in an article in the Times (6 May):

Quote:

There is a tariff wall around the EU that protects agriculture, largely for the benefit of France, and parts of manufacturing, because of Germany. In these protected areas, people pay higher prices than in world markets. Caribbean sugar producers, for instance, or African agricultural exporters have frequently complained about the difficulty of selling their cheaper produce into the EU market.

So, if British capitalism left (and if it is decided not to protect UK farmers – a big If) there would be lower food prices. But this would not benefit workers. Lower food prices by reducing the cost of living would lead to lower wages, leaving workers in the same position as before. So, while this might earn them a point against the Remain camp, it cuts no ice from the working class point of view.

[AHS]

For information, this is my union’s official position:

“The GMB have taken a position of ‘angry yes’. We know the EU isn’t perfect, there are plenty of problems with it, but so many of the rights we’ve fought for over the years are guaranteed by Europe. So we’ll fight to make Europe a Europe that works for working people, not big businesses, but we can only do that from within, not by leaving. There’s too much at risk.”

[robbo203]

AHS wrote:

For information, this is my union's official position: "The GMB have taken a position of ‘angry yes’. We know the EU isn't perfect, there are plenty of problems with it, but so many of the rights we've fought for over the years are guaranteed by Europe. So we'll fight to make Europe a Europe that works for working people, not big businesses, but we can only do that from within, not by leaving. There's too much at risk."

 AHS,  I think your Union's official position is  rather naive and misleading.  There is no way Europe can be made to work "for  working people, not big businesses".  That's akin to saying  that capitalism can be run in the interests of the working class,  It cant given the very nature of capitalism itself. So the statement could have been better phrased in a way that would acknowledge this  point – that no political arrangement can be cobbled together that would work in the interest of working people.  All working people can do is strive to get the most out of a bad situation which is intrinsically biased against them and fundamentally inimical to their interests. Having said that, I agree with your basic argument that staying  in the EU is (marginally) better than leaving.  So I will probably be voting for the Stay campaign albeit not out of any enthusiasm and more for negative reasons .  Such as that Im fed up to the back teeth with Little Englander nationalist crap that seems to emanate primarily (though not exclusively!) from the Leave campaign. I suppose being in resident in Spain is also a factor and it is no surprise that almost all expats here will be voting to Stay

[ALB]

Fair enough but how come you still have the vote? Don't expats get cut off after a number of years?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Fair enough but how come you still have the vote? Don't expats get cut off after a number of years?

 I think its only after 15 years or maybe 20, Can't remember but Im within limit whatever its is,  The  govt seems to be making quite a concerted effort to rope in the expat vote and in Spain there are about 400.000 Brits living here I believe

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0513/788145-brexit-ireland/The Irish certainly have a dog in this fight, and they can add clout (and spend) to the remain campaign, and of course, Irish citizens can vote.  At least one has been taking part in this thread.

Quote:

Mr Kenny, who was speaking at a debate in Dublin organised by Bloomberg, warned that if the UK left the EU it would result in extra "bureaucracy and extra red tape". He also said that if the UK left the EU it would damage Ireland economically.Meanwhile, British expats living in Ireland have until this Monday, 16 May, to register online for a postal vote in the referendum.British citizens in Ireland are entitled to vote if they have been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years

[ALB]

Spiked, a publication of former members of the now defunct RCP, places itself in the Leave camp on the specious ground that this would enhance "popular sovereignity"  and "democracy in one country":http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/love-democracy-then-leave-the-eu#comment-2590440065The referendum debate, if nothing else, is bringing all sorts of things out of the woodwork.Even if it was the case, what difference would a slightly enhanced political democracy in Britain make? The traditional leftwing/Social Democrat policy of "reformism in one country" has always failed, one reason being, precisely, the international nature of capitalism. Which would remain the case and in the end force any breakaway UK government to put profits before people to maintain or enhance British capitalism PLC's competitiveness on world markets, which has been the fate and experience of all Labour governments here.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

Meanwhile, lower short term interest rates will hurt bank profits. The only way banks can recover these profits is by lending at higher rates, while offering lower rates to savers. The sad irony is therefore that neither savers nor borrowers would gain from Brexit.A world of higher short term borrowing costs, higher long term borrowing costs and lower savings returns looks an all too plausible outcome. At the same time, investment in jobs is choked off, economic growth declines, and inflation starts to raise its head again. All combined with a worsening balance of payments position and a sterling crisis.

https://theconversation.com/why-mortgage-rates-will-rise-with-brexit-59179It would take a certain sort of genius to achieve that outcome, highr mortgage rates, lower savings rates, oh, lordy…

[ALB]

The penny has just dropped as to why the SWP is for Leave even though this will make conditions for migrant workers worse. It's that there are two types of migrant worker: those from the EU and those from outside the EU. Their target group is those from outside the EU (mainly Muslims from the Indian subcontinent) which the EU discriminates against but which an "independent" Britain could accommodate (UKIP makes the same point, at least on paper, but I don't suppose they really want non-EU immigrants either). Migrants from East Europe no doubt give the SWP, with its defence of the Bolshevik coup, short shrift. So there is some cynical logic to their position.

[Young Master Smeet]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/nov/02/is-uk-winner-or-loser-european-councilThis is an interestign one dug up, the UK is on the winnign side of European COuncil votes 87% of the time, now, obviously, there may be some contrained voting to keep partners happy, but it does kind of putthe lie to the uidea that we aredominated by Europe…

[ALB]

Came across an old pamphlet from the time of the last Common Market referendum in 1975. At that time the TUC and half the Labour Party were for coming out though the Wilson Labour government was in favour of staying in (as was the Tory party).Here's Roy Hattersley, a junior minister,  for the REMAIN side dealing with the "loss of sovereignty" issue:

Quote:

Mr. Hattersley accepted that sovereignty would become a major issue once the new terms were known.  He questioned, however, whether the British Parliament really did have the power any longer to influence world events that vitally affected the British economy.  'No matter how many resolutions we pass or laws we enact, Britain's domestic interest rate (which affects every aspect of our life from the control of inflation to the cost of school building) will be more affected by decisions taken in Zurich, Bonn and New York – and now in Teheran, Jeddah and Caracas as well – than by anything done by the House of Commons'….'In or out of the EEC, our economy will be influenced , judgments made beyond these shores'.  The best protection was the economic power to withstand foreign pressures.  Close alignments, like membership of the EEC, clearly involved some pooling of sovereignty, Mr. Hattersley went on.  But if the Community gave each member State increased economic strength in return 'we become more free not less so'".  (Financial Times, 7-1-1975)

And Peter Shore, a Cabinet Minister allowed to put the case for LEAVE, dreaming of having his cake and eating it:

Quote:

Peter Shore recognises the need for Britain to continue trading on a large scale with the EEC, but argues that this could be done by concluding a trade agreement with the EEC such as Sweden is trying for. The trade agreement would offer access to the EEC and nothing more.

I don't whether the current debate is plus ça change or history repeating itself a second time as farce. 

[Author]

Posts