An EU official hangs the Union Jack next to the European Union flag at the VIP entrance at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016. British Prime Minister David Cameron is visiting EU leaders two days ahead of a crucial EU summit. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)
And lose the referendum is what the left is about to do because of its refusal to discuss the effects of immigration on local communities. The standard line is to acknowledge the pressures on local services in areas of high migration, but simply blame the government for bad planning and leaves it at that. Owen Jones, in his 2 minute utube video urging ‘Remain’ acknowledges that there is a debate ‘to be had’ about immigration, says: ‘So, let’s have that debate’ but then changes the subject. And we don’t have the debate!
Yet it is desperately urgent that Labour commits, as part of its contribution to the Remain campaign, to fight for changes at the UK and the EU level which will be seen by voters as practical responses to their concerns. Beyond the referendum, these policy positions (or variants of them) will be critical when it comes to winning back Labour voters who have defected to UKIP as a result of our inadequate response to their concerns about immigration.
-
Change at the UK level
Buried in the middle of Jeremy Corbyn’s big Remain speech was a reference to Gordon Brown’s 2008 Migrant Impact Programme which made 50 million available to local authorities to relieve pressures on housing, schools and medical services in areas where migrants settle. This was quietly scrapped by the Tories in 2010 on the grounds that David Cameron was going to cut immigration to tens of thousands and so the impact fund would not be needed. Jeremy said Labour would press the government to reinstate to Programme. Instead, he should be shouting from the rooftops that a Labour government will reinstate an expanded version of the Migrant Impact Programme as its first act on election, promising that an appropriate proportion of the extra taxes the Treasury collects from migrant workers will be channeled to fund support for local provision.
With regard to the fact that in some areas/occupations the presence of migrant workers depresses wages, Labour needs to make a firm commitment to enforcing the living wage with vigor and determination when in government. But It takes more than ‘fine words’. We need a commitment to positive and practical initiatives e.g. creating a ‘Living Wage Czar’, someone who would promote and coordinate the enforcement of the living wage and be responsible to parliament for its comprehensive implementation. Labour should also be explicit about implementing sanctions on employers found to be in breach of the requirement to pay the living wage.
-
Change at the EU level
.
As well as Labour committing to work for reform of the EU (democratic overhaul, challenging neoliberalism/austerity, etc) when in government, as part of its remain campaign Labour must also commit to pressing for reform to the conditions governing the free movement of workers.
With the incorporation of poorer countries into the Union following the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, it was inevitable (though seemingly unforeseen) that the direction of movement of workers would predominantly be from these poorer countries to the
richer members – with the UK proving to be, not the only magnet, but a particularly powerful one. This has created a situation in the UK which is politically unsustainable, and which threatens our membership in the form of a vote for Brexit on June 23rd. Even a vote to remain will not resolve the problem, as the continuing migration of workers from the poorer countries of Europe will feed discontent and increase support for right-wing anti-EU political parties in the UK.
If all EU member states were equally prosperous then the movement of workers would tend to balance out and no single country would experience disproportionate population growth. But the EU states are not equally prosperous, and as one of the most prosperous the UK receives a disproportionate share of migrant workers – creating a situation which, in a democracy, is unsustainable.
Labour should make clear its commitment to pressing for reform which would set a limit on how many EU member workers any one member states would receive. Labour needs to commit to making this argument within the EU, initially to its socialist/left-inclined colleagues. It was a clear lack of forethought on the part of the EU in 1992 which led to the current crisis in the UK, the danger of Brexit, and the potential threat to the whole of the Union.
In his negotiations, David Cameron sought and failed to win control over the movement of workers as a matter of ‘exceptionality’. Labour, however, should commit to working together with like-minded politicians across EU member states to win agreement on limits to the disproportionate movements of workers into the most popular state/s, to prevent over-load leading to discontent (and the threat of rejection of the very principle of the EU).
Obviously, Labour needs to be in government to press for reform within the UK and the EU, but should announce now its intention to fight for these reforms, loud and clear, as part of its campaign to win the votes the remain position will need come June 23rd.
John Wright
It doesn’t seem to have dawned on the ‘left’ remainers that the EU, and more particularly the Eurozone, is structurally and constitutionally designed to serve the interests of finance capital, not the people. It is ruled by the three most important institutions the European Central Bank (ECB) The European Commission (EC) and the Council of Ministers. All decisions – most importantly perhaps, foreign policy and economics – are taken by this unelected group who are not accountable to any electorate. The EU is not a democracy it is an oligarchy, so that the normal laws of democratic accountability do not apply
Putting the issue with desperate brevity, the whole purpose of the EU is to enable rent-seeking financial interests, to ensnare countries – I have in mind Greece, Latvia and Ireland, but next in the pipeline are the bigger fish, Spain, Italy and even France – into debt, and then we they cannot pay, they are subjected to austerity, which makes them even less able to pay their debts; then along come the ECB, IMF EC with their ‘reforms’. These reforms include shredding welfare systems, privatising what were formerly public assets which are then milked for economic rent. See the privatisation of many UK assets in this respect, most importantly perhaps, (foreign owned) energy and utility industries. A licence to print money. The country then sinks into debt under Versailles type reparations. It is the method of the loan shark.
The creditor class’ objective is to obtain wealth by indebting populations and governments and then forcing them to pay by relinquishing their property or income. Such financial conquest is less overtly brutal than warfare waged with guns and missiles, but its demographic effect is just as lethal. For debt-strapped Greece and Latvia, creditor imposed austerity has caused falling marriage and birth rates shortening life spans, rising suicide rates and emigration rates.
Additionally, in geopolitical terms the Lisbon Agreement specified that EU foreign and security policy would be brought into line with NATO, which effectively means the United States. I don’t recall any discussion taking place on this vitally important issue. What it means is that under article 5 of the NATO constitution we are now obliged to go to war with Russia if any conflict occurs between say Estonia and Russia. Given the hysterical Russophobia of these ex-soviet states as well as NATO’s provocative expansion right up to Russia’s borders this cannot be ruled out.
As for changing the direction and policies they would appear to have become irreversible. We are led by political pygmies who like the bourbons, who have ‘learned nothing, forgotten nothing.’ And besides capitalist development is not characterised by convergence, it is characterised by divergence; a core and periphery structure. So the ruling elites simply double down simply because they don’t know any other way. Trying to reform the EU, which is a closed system, will require any future UK (Labour?) government to face down the massed ranks of the global financial system and its supporters and institutions of the neo-liberal New World Order. Can we imagine a Parliamentary Labour Party actually even contemplating this? It is quite ludicrous, as Syriza found out. But, hey selling out is par for the course for social democracy.
Enough is enough. Nations must get control of their economic and political systems, and they will not do this in the EU. Vote leave if you value democracy and sovereignty.
Or we could vote to leave the EU, tell the progressive parties to form an alliance for political reform in the national interest, help them get elected to implement the safeguards and reforms the British people need and demand.