CWU reaffirm opposition to second referendum

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 12 Jul 2019, 23:18

Do they now clarity is as cloudy as the sky in Manchester on a wet spring day but since we have the membership of the the 9th biggest Union in the land back Jeremy Corbyn new deal it would suggest he has made concessions of returning the Royal Mail back into public ownership or for that matter any public body but this is at the the behest of certain groups in the party and members of the CWU possibly. One can say only one thing about this outcome that the threat of a conservative government that will railroad things through parliament by proroguing parliament and thus democracy in its head long do or f**k it attitude to it's Idealism of it's new leader and thus the priminister of our nation is a step we must unite against otherwise the Germany of 1933 will capture our mind souls and bodies!

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 13 Jul 2019, 17:49

A Dream of Armageddon (1901) by H.G. Wells:

"He was one of those incredibly stupid energetic people who seem sent by Heaven to create disasters. His energy to the first glance seemed so wonderfully like capacity! But he had no imagination, no invention, only a stupid, vast, driving force of will, and a mad faith in his stupid idiot 'luck' to pull him through."

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 14 Jul 2019, 06:13

NATIONALISATION & THE EU by D.Nicol

Since Thatcher, privatisation has been the relentless policy of British governments. Regardless of whether Conservatives, New Labour or Lib Dems have been in office, they have pursued the expansion of the private sector and the diminution of the public sector with messianic zeal.[1] The result has been a sharp rise in inequality, the erosion of the welfare state in favour of a policy of “user pays”, the loss of public service ethos in favour of the pursuit of the profit motive, persistent corner-cutting, precariousness for the workforce, and the unjust enrichment of the tiny economic elite.

It might be argued that governmental decisions to pursue privatisation have nonetheless rested on a democratic foundation: the electorate voted in parties which were private-sector-friendly and Parliament deliberated on the privatisation legislation. But for privatisation to be a democratic product it must also be democratically reversible. In fact, it is not. And the reason it is not is EU law.

The 1990s witnessed a wave of EU liberalisation directives aimed at opening up key sectors of the Member States’ economies: gas, electricity, rail, postal services and telecommunications.[2] Significantly, these sectors are among those most likely to be in public ownership in many Member States. These EU directives give corporations a supranational right to operate in these sectors as part of a system of competition. This compulsory marketisation prohibits public monopoly. By this means, nationalisation of the sector is entirely ruled out. Any national legislation which purported to bring the sector into public ownership would simply be declared invalid by our own national courts.

Consequently, nationalisation of the kind implemented by the 1945-51 Labour government is completely unlawful within these sectors. The only sort of public ownership which is lawful is if a publicly-owned company behaves exactly like a privately-owned company and competes “fairly” (i.e. without receiving favourable treatment from government) within the market system which the directives have ordained. This explains why, as Remainers like to point out, state-owned companies remain in sectors like railways in many EU countries; but what they do not point out (or perhaps even realise) is that these companies are forced to compete on a “level playing field” with private companies. This results in a rising market share for the private sector, while the corporatised public sector is compelled to behave like any other capitalist enterprise. Thus, state-owned enterprises can be present, but the sector is by no means “nationalised” in the sense of being placed under democratic control and directed for public ends. The overriding goal of EU directives is to promote competition; no other objective is permitted.

Are these restrictions democratic? Hardly. True, the directives were enacted after deliberation by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: no-one forced those institutions to pass the legislation. Yet the Council and the Parliament do not operate in an ideologically impartial constitutional framework. The EU Treaties entrench the “four freedoms” of goods, services, capital and labour, steering decision-making towards liberalisation, not nationalisation.The fact that these bodies are elected does not mean that they are popularly accountable (. The Council has shifted economic policymaking from the open chambers of national parliaments to behind the closed doors of secretive interstate diplomacy. Moreover, they only debate 30 percent of the proposals reaching them from the Commission, rubber-stamping the rest. The Parliament is also drawn into these closed-doors discussions through the “trilogue” system, and usually rubber-stamps decisions, with only three percent being openly debated within the Parliament itself.[3]

If nationalisation is illegal within the EU, could a left-wing Labour government successfully change EU law to make it legal? Could it “Remain and Reform”? Not likely. The European Commission has a monopoly on initiating EU legislation, so Britain (or any other member-state) would have to depend on the Commission to propose this change to the Council and Parliament. It is unlikely that it would ever do so, given its steadfast commitment to neoliberalism. And since it is neither elected by nor accountable to the European publics, it cannot be compelled to change course.

Even if, by some miracle, the Commission did put a proposal to the Council and Parliament, the legislation would require a convincing “legal base” in the Treaties – a treaty article authorising the creation of such legislation. However, there is no specific article of the EU Treaties which provides a specific legal base for legislation authorising nationalisation. Accordingly, the Commission would have to invoke Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which serves as the Treaties’ residual legal base in situations where action is deemed necessary but “the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers”.[4] However, this article requires the Council to act unanimously. Accordingly, any Member State government could veto the legislation.

It would be fanciful to suppose that legislation permitting nationalisation would attract Council unanimity. There would need to be a complete absence of neoliberal governments throughout the EU, something which is simply not going to happen. Quite apart from that, some key markets that Labour might target for nationalisation, such as the energy market, involve the participation of companies largely owned by continental Member States, such as EDF. Even a leftist French government would have no wish to see its own nationalised company kicked out of a foreign market. For good measure, under Article 352 the European Parliament must also consent to the legislation, creating yet another veto point.

Even if legislation were somehow to emerge, it would be highly likely to be struck down by the EU’s Court of Justice for its incompatibility with the fundamental freedom to provide services in other Member States, as well as corporate freedom of establishment. If the legislation were invalidated, then only Treaty amendment, requiring the common accord of the Member States, could guarantee the constitutionality of such legislation. And, as Lee Jones has shown, the many veto points in the Treaty amendment process are bound to thwart a left government (see Analysis #23 - The Folly of “Remain and Reform”: Why the EU is Impervious to Change).

Tellingly, by contrast, EU legislation to liberalise economic sectors is subject to a far lower hurdle: the approval of a qualified majority in the Council under the EU’s “ordinary legislative procedure”.[5]

In sum, the issue of nationalisation underlines the fraudulence of claims that a left government could somehow remain in the EU whilst reforming it in a socialist direction. The chances of repealing the liberalisation directives are precisely nil. Staying in the EU means accepting marketisation – and therefore the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron level of privatisation – as permanent. We would be accepting a neoliberal constitution in place of democracy. That “left” supporters of Remain and Reform have not even bothered to try to concoct a strategy for repealing the liberalisation directives speaks volumes. Reform being impossible, it underlines that these individuals do not really seek reform at all: they really just want to remain.

Post by **baldrick** » 14 Jul 2019, 07:22

Farage has quoted that as an argument for Brexit.
You should perhaps have given a link to the original article, and the replies.
https://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu- ... alisation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Screenshot 2019-07-14 at 07.11.21.png

The Conservative Government has renationalised banks, rail companies and recently the probation service.

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 14 Jul 2019, 08:07

Staying in the EU means accepting marketisation

This is the biggest flaw in the whole piece you've quoted Dan, the idea that leaving the EU means that you can somehow reject "marketisation". The idea that we can somehow ignore globalisatiion, turn away those container ships from China, convince people that paying more for goods is somehow a good thing, nationalise and subsidise industry on a huge scale and obviously increase wages to a level where people can still afford a loaf of bread. You're playing the same game as Farage and Co, blaming the EU for what is a global shift in economic position driven by changes in technology and logistics.

Isolationism and trying to turn back time doesn't work whether it's a left wing ideology or a right wing wet dream. This is the 21st century and we have to deal with 21st century scenarios. Name one country that has completely rejected "marketisation" and survived?

postslippete · Post by **postslippete** » 14 Jul 2019, 11:50

Woody Guthrie wrote:
Yes, I'm sick and tired of hearing about Brexit as much as the next geezer, but I still think we are better off out the EU than in,
Convince me.
Without using stupid sound bites like "taking back sovereignty". That's just meaningless nonsense.
Without just slagging off the EU, that's just like moaning about an ex.
Without making promises you can't keep like £350 million for the NHS or £6 billion for farmers.

Genuine improvements for the working classes from leaving the EU.

The remainers best tactic is by wasting time by disagreeing with everything and putting up obstacles it seems.

The fact is we would have more sovereignty outside of the EU. We could contol our own laws and regulations without having counterintuitive policies being forcibly imposed. Apart from saving billions of pounds that we pay into having EU membership every year,our membership restricts us from fully capitalising on trade around the world with growing economies like Japan,China and India. Our international influence is greatly diminished by being in the EU with its bureaucracy which is like treacle for smaller companies trying to do business. The average person also loses hundreds of pounds every year due to EU VAT contributions and agricultural subsidies. I could go on but I'm sure you've got many of your own reasons that will just serve to stall and delay,so that we end up right back to where we started from.

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 14 Jul 2019, 13:32

baldrick wrote:Farage has quoted that as an argument for Brexit.
You should perhaps have given a link to the original article, and the replies.
https://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu- ... alisation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Screenshot 2019-07-14 at 07.11.21.png
The Conservative Government has renationalised banks, rail companies and recently the probation service.

1) Perhaps you should have noticed that the article you gave a link to is not the same article I quoted.They are separated by 5 years though written by the same professor of Law.This only highlights that Nicol dismisses the replies you quoted after 5 years of consideration.Nicol clearly states that nationalisation of sorts will be tolerated under certain conditions of private tendering etc etc

2) Which bank did the Conservative Government nationalise ? If memory serves me right it was a Labour Government who nationalised RBS & Llyods both to be re-privatised at a later date in an ill thought out bank bailout in the aftermath of the financial crash ?

Its also missing the point to say the East Coast Line was nationalised it was taken under government control on a temporary basis and if permanent would be subject to this http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/eu-seals-mass-ra ... atisation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lastly you forget to mention that the probation service was only privatised 5 years ago and has not been fully nationalised as you claim as 'the private sector will still have a significant role to play' (quoted from government statement)

3) The BMA wrote a report on the new public procurement rules introduced by the EU in 2017.The report tries to figure out how the NHS can operate within these rules.They found out that large areas of the legislation were not clear and would have to seek legal assurances which if disputed can only be resolved by the ECJ.

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 14 Jul 2019, 13:40

I've asked for genuine improvements for the working classes from leaving the EU and you've failed to mention one. You're just parroting stuff you've read on a pro-Brexit website without questioning what the real alternative to EU membership will mean to businesses, their staff and their customers.

You mention trade with Japan, China and India, three countries we already trade with. What you're asking me to believe is that we can get better trade deals with these countries on our own rather than as part of a giant trading block.

Please show your working...explain why.

Blind optimism is just stupidity in a posh frock pete, the guys who wanted out better come up with something more substantial soon, the clock is ticking.

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 14 Jul 2019, 16:27

Woody Guthrie wrote:
Staying in the EU means accepting marketisation
This is the biggest flaw in the whole piece you've quoted Dan, the idea that leaving the EU means that you can somehow reject "marketisation". The idea that we can somehow ignore globalisatiion, turn away those container ships from China, convince people that paying more for goods is somehow a good thing, nationalise and subsidise industry on a huge scale and obviously increase wages to a level where people can still afford a loaf of bread. You're playing the same game as Farage and Co, blaming the EU for what is a global shift in economic position driven by changes in technology and logistics.

Isolationism and trying to turn back time doesn't work whether it's a left wing ideology or a right wing wet dream. This is the 21st century and we have to deal with 21st century scenarios. Name one country that has completely rejected "marketisation" and survived?

No it's not a flaw it's because you don't seem to understand that the marketisation that Nicol is talking of is in regard to formerly or presently held state assets which are natural monopolies not to be f****d around with and was the position of most western governments left or right for 40 years after the war.
Changes to this economic philosophy were political and have nothing to do with advancement in technology and logistics.

As for life outside the EU - former EU commissioner Bruno Macaes who is no supporter of Brexit has criticised the EU on its relationship with Asia and beleives that this is something that a UK outside of the EU could exploit and benefit from.Not something I wholly agree with (reliance on financial services/London) but it does put a dampner on the hysteria around the break up of the EU from one of their own and blows your accusations of isolationism out of the water on your own terms.

Bruno Macaes article : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... peans-asia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **baldrick** » 14 Jul 2019, 18:25

Danelectro wrote:
baldrick wrote:Farage has quoted that as an argument for Brexit.
You should perhaps have given a link to the original article, and the replies.
https://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu- ... alisation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Screenshot 2019-07-14 at 07.11.21.png
The Conservative Government has renationalised banks, rail companies and recently the probation service.
1) Perhaps you should have noticed that the article you gave a link to is not the same article I quoted.They are separated by 5 years though written by the same professor of Law.This only highlights that Nicol dismisses the replies you quoted after 5 years of consideration.Nicol clearly states that nationalisation of sorts will be tolerated under certain conditions of private tendering etc etc

2) Which bank did the Conservative Government nationalise ? If memory serves me right it was a Labour Government who nationalised RBS & Llyods both to be re-privatised at a later date in an ill thought out bank bailout in the aftermath of the financial crash ?

Its also missing the point to say the East Coast Line was nationalised it was taken under government control on a temporary basis and if permanent would be subject to this http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/eu-seals-mass-ra ... atisation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lastly you forget to mention that the probation service was only privatised 5 years ago and has not been fully nationalised as you claim as 'the private sector will still have a significant role to play' (quoted from government statement)

3) The BMA wrote a report on the new public procurement rules introduced by the EU in 2017.The report tries to figure out how the NHS can operate within these rules.They found out that large areas of the legislation were not clear and would have to seek legal assurances which if disputed can only be resolved by the ECJ.

OK I googled the name and that came up. Can you give the link to the article you quoted? The earlier one seems to be much the same.
Yes it was a Labour Government which nationalised banks, but we were in the EU at the time.
Railtrack was nationalised in 1996, now called National Rail.

26l34 · Post by **26l34** » 15 Jul 2019, 12:18

Problem with the ‘we could get better deals outside the EU’ argument is define better? At the moment we’re governed by a right wing party that attacks the EU from the right - it objects to the EU economically on the grounds that it’s not neoliberal enough. ‘Better’ for these guys inevitably means worse for most of us. They’ve consistently shown that wages, job stability, workplace and community solidarity and the environment are things to be trampled over, so heaven help us if they feel they’ve been restrained for the past 40 years.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 15 Jul 2019, 17:20

At the moment we’re governed by a right wing party that attacks the EU from the right - it objects to the EU economically on the grounds that it’s not neoliberal enough.

Does the current government "object" to the EU? Not as far as I've seen in the last three years. Far more for Remain than Leave, and that's why May's attempts at getting her "deal" through parliament failed.

‘

Better’ for these guys inevitably means worse for most of us. They’ve consistently shown that wages, job stability, workplace and community solidarity and the environment are things to be trampled over, so heaven help us if they feel they’ve been restrained for the past 40 years.

Here-
When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious that what they had in mind was not democratic. I mean, in Britain you vote for the government and therefore the government has to listen to you, and if you don’t like it you can change it. But in Europe all the key positions are appointed, not elected – the Commission, for example. All appointed, not one of them elected.
[..] And my view about the European Union has always been not that I am hostile to foreigners, but that I am in favour of democracy. And I think out of this story we have to find an answer, because I certainly don’t want to live in hostility to the European Union but I think they are building an empire there and they want us to be a part of that empire, and I don’t want that.

Tony Benn speaking at Oxford University; clearly he didn't see the EU as some sort bastion for job stability, workplace solidarity and all that stuff. Corbyn thought much the same for decades too before he sold out his principles in the pursuit of self-aggrandisement and power, so it's not just (those who you perceive to be) Right Wing who "object" to the EU.
On the other hand, if anyone still believes that the EU is either "for" the workers or even on the workers' side, then look no further than the job opportunities in Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece etc etc. One of the very things an international federation like the EU could have been good at (workers rights, job opportunities etc) it failed miserably at.

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 15 Jul 2019, 17:24

Tman wrote:
Does the current government "object" to the EU? Not as far as I've seen in the last three years. Far more for Remain than Leave, and that's why May's attempts at getting her "deal" through parliament failed.

May's deal would have passed if it wasn't for the opposition of the DUP and the Tory ERG.

Woody Guthrie · Post by **Woody Guthrie** » 15 Jul 2019, 18:08

On the other hand, if anyone still believes that the EU is either "for" the workers or even on the workers' side,...

Again the argument descends to look how s**t the EU is, the point now surely is moot. We're leaving so it's time to explain how anyone thinks a Conservative government veering off to the right with Boris at the helm and an ineffective and quite frankly shambolic opposition can possibly be the solution...

What's the plan guys?

The real world plan not wet dreams about renationalising the GPO, opening up the pits again and bringing the Austin Allegro back into production.

Tumbleweed.....

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 15 Jul 2019, 18:50

clashcityrocker wrote:
Tman wrote:
Does the current government "object" to the EU? Not as far as I've seen in the last three years. Far more for Remain than Leave, and that's why May's attempts at getting her "deal" through parliament failed.
May's deal would have passed if it wasn't for the opposition of the DUP and the Tory ERG.

And the entire Parliamentary Labour Party...