How industry, law firms and the European Commission worked
together on EU “trade secrets” legislation - a threat to consumers,
journalists, whistleblowers, researchers and workers.
Summary:
This report (pdf version) is based on the analysis of hundreds of documents, obtained
through an access to documents request, exchanged between the European
Commission's DG Internal Market and the main corporate lobby groups
involved in the development of the EU's draft legislation on so-called
“trade secrets”.
Industry's main message throughout the process has been that trade
secret theft is a major threat to the EU economy that demands a
legislative initiative to improve and harmonise rules on the matter.
Industry's recommended approach for this was to define trade secrets as a
form of intellectual property (IP).
From the very beginning the Commission took a strong interest in the
idea and went on to collect the evidence it needed to demonstrate that
legal "fragmentation" and trade secret theft would, indeed, be a threat.
But it outsourced the research to law firms that have a structural
interest in the development of new legal protection tools for their
corporate clients. In the end, industry and the Commission acted
together, working hand in hand on the methodology of the very evidence
collection for the research, jointly organising a “Commission conference
on trade secrets”, even coordinating media outreach on one occasion.
Eventually, the Commission followed industry's demands almost
completely, stopping short of creating a new IP category for trade
secrets in the EU but granting the associated means of legal redress.
The collaboration between DG Internal Market and the lobby groups
seems to have extended to lobbying the other DGs, jointly preparing the
submission to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board, and lobbying the
two other EU legislators, the Council of Ministers (Member States) and
the European Parliament.
When asked, the Commission did not dispute much of the above and
failed to see how working for three years on a quasi-daily basis with
lobby groups could be a problem. Emails show the opposite is actually
true: the Commission, once the decision to initiate new legislation was
taken, actually needed industry lobby groups' help. The Commission for
example did pro-active outreach to business lobby groups to be sure that
as many companies as possible participated in the public consultation.
Non-industry groups were completely absent from the Commission's
drafting process until the public consultation, and no pro-active
outreach to them seems to have been undertaken by the Commission.
Three other important observations should be made about this correspondence:
- Reference was often made to the upcoming TTIP negotiations to
justify the action, as comparable legal action was being drafted in the
US, and direct lobbying of TTIP negotiators to get trade secrets
protected as IP under TTIP was undertaken.
- Lobbying is made easier by the lack of capacity on the public side
of the discussion. Between 2010 and June 2012, only one policy officer
and his head of unit were in charge of the technical development of the
file, and in June 2012 one other policy officer joined them. Other
levels of the administration also intervened but at the management
level. On the other side, industry sent in teams of consultants, lawyers
and executives, background legal research, field examples, and senior
academic contacts –all free of charge for the Commission.
- To the Commission's credit, there are at least two moments in the
correspondence where the head of unit objected to industry proposals
that went too far from a political independence point of view (a meeting
proposal from the fragrance industry to discuss a template draft
legislation, and angry remarks about suspicious-looking exchanges
between the law firm working for the Commission (Baker & McKenzie)
and lobby groups active on the file), but his staff never wrote anything
of the sort. On the contrary, there are several instances where they
actually facilitated the lobbying work of industry by introducing
various lobby groups and the consultants working for the Commission to
one another. Who doesn't appreciate competent free help for one's work?
Find the rest of the long report here
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Monday, September 08, 2014
Save Lives Or Prevent Immigration?
‘Mare Nostrum' was launched in October 2013 by Italy in the wake of a
shipwreck south of the island of Lampedusa – the southernmost part of
Italy lying 176 km off the coast of Sicily – that took the lives of 368
immigrants, mostly refugees from Syria and African countries.
The search and rescue operation is a military naval operation supported by the Italian Air Force and Coast Guard as well as civilian volunteers and medical personnel. It has operated in a vast area of the Central Mediterranean.
Between October 2013 and August 2014, ‘Mare Nostrum' rescued over 115,000 people, mostly refugees, and transferred them to Italian territory. About 2,000 people are estimated to have lost their lives in the Mediterranean during the same period.
Human rights activists have praised the operation for rescuing refugees while its opponents have blamed it for producing a pull factor for immigrants and providing an illicit shuttle to Europe for them, making the job of traffickers easier.
The European Commission has now decided to flank the ‘Mare Nostrum' initiative, although it has no intention of replacing it. After a meeting on August 27, European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmstrom and Italian Minister of the Interior Angelino Alfano announced a new Frontex operation to stand by Italy's ‘Mare Nostrum' operation in the Mediterranean.
One of the main roles of Frontex – the European Union agency for external border security that started operations in May 2005 – is to protect Europe's external borders from illegal immigration and people trafficking.
Humanitarian organisations in Italy have been quick to criticise ‘Frontex Plus', saying that its description is still vague and that its primary aim is not the rescuing of immigrants and refugees but the upgrading of border surveillance and deterrence.
Other critical voices stress how conservatives in the European Union see an opportunity in the negotiations that will follow on the new operation to capitalise on the issue of returning incoming migrants to safe third countries or to their countries of embarkation.
One day before the Malmstrom-Alfano announcement, the Italian edition of Huffington Post published an article citing an anonymous source in the Italian Ministry of the Interior, who was present at negotiations for the new operations in Brussels, as saying that "many people in Brussels see Mare Nostrum as an informal ferry for migrants."
In the ministry's press release, the term ‘rescue' is again absent and the definition of the aim of ‘Frontex Plus' is to "ensure control and surveillance of the external sea borders of the European Union … according to the rules of Frontex."
From the press release, it also appears that both the Italian and French ministers believe that the issue of immigration should increasingly be dealt with "as a foreign policy issue" with "more emphasis to be given to the role of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", meaning the European External Action Service (EEAS) which implements the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
full article here
(see earlier article on immigration here )
The search and rescue operation is a military naval operation supported by the Italian Air Force and Coast Guard as well as civilian volunteers and medical personnel. It has operated in a vast area of the Central Mediterranean.
Between October 2013 and August 2014, ‘Mare Nostrum' rescued over 115,000 people, mostly refugees, and transferred them to Italian territory. About 2,000 people are estimated to have lost their lives in the Mediterranean during the same period.
Human rights activists have praised the operation for rescuing refugees while its opponents have blamed it for producing a pull factor for immigrants and providing an illicit shuttle to Europe for them, making the job of traffickers easier.
The European Commission has now decided to flank the ‘Mare Nostrum' initiative, although it has no intention of replacing it. After a meeting on August 27, European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmstrom and Italian Minister of the Interior Angelino Alfano announced a new Frontex operation to stand by Italy's ‘Mare Nostrum' operation in the Mediterranean.
One of the main roles of Frontex – the European Union agency for external border security that started operations in May 2005 – is to protect Europe's external borders from illegal immigration and people trafficking.
Humanitarian organisations in Italy have been quick to criticise ‘Frontex Plus', saying that its description is still vague and that its primary aim is not the rescuing of immigrants and refugees but the upgrading of border surveillance and deterrence.
Other critical voices stress how conservatives in the European Union see an opportunity in the negotiations that will follow on the new operation to capitalise on the issue of returning incoming migrants to safe third countries or to their countries of embarkation.
One day before the Malmstrom-Alfano announcement, the Italian edition of Huffington Post published an article citing an anonymous source in the Italian Ministry of the Interior, who was present at negotiations for the new operations in Brussels, as saying that "many people in Brussels see Mare Nostrum as an informal ferry for migrants."
In the ministry's press release, the term ‘rescue' is again absent and the definition of the aim of ‘Frontex Plus' is to "ensure control and surveillance of the external sea borders of the European Union … according to the rules of Frontex."
From the press release, it also appears that both the Italian and French ministers believe that the issue of immigration should increasingly be dealt with "as a foreign policy issue" with "more emphasis to be given to the role of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", meaning the European External Action Service (EEAS) which implements the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
full article here
(see earlier article on immigration here )
Saturday, June 07, 2014
Canada's Tar Sands Oil Comes To Europe
After years of lobbying to break into European markets, Canada's tar
sands oil industry is poised to score a victory from EU lawmakers who
have signaled willingness to drop a requirement that labels tar sands
oil as dirtier than other fossil fuels.
The EU agreed five years ago to a piece of climate legislation called the 'Fuel Quality Directive,' which was to go into effect in 2010 with the aim of cutting transport fuel emissions by 6 percent by 2020. Yet thanks to heavy industry lobbying and government stalling, the plan still has not gone into effect years later.
Both the Financial Times and Reuters reported Thursday that the EU is likely to weaken the language of the not-yet-implemented plan by scrapping a requirement that bitumen—oil extracted from tar sands—be labeled as high-emissions diesel. The higher rating would have discouraged, but not prevented, imports.
A draft document drawn up by the European Commission will, if implemented, allow companies to sidestep penalties on tar sands imports. "Under the new methodology, companies would only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the 'output' fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not," the Financial Times explains.
One of the world's dirtiest fossil fuels, bitumen produces up to five times more carbon than conventional crude oil. The extraction process is extremely energy-intensive, destructive to ecosystems, and creates large reservoirs of toxic waste. Environmental groups have argued that proposed regulations in previous drafts of the Fuel Quality Directive were already too lax, and that tar sands should simply stay in the ground.
The government of Canada and the oil industry have aggressively opposed potential EU penalties on bitumen imports, and Canada's Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford pressed the issue in sideline conversations at the G7 meetings in Rome last month.
Meanwhile, environmental protesters rallied this week against what is believed to be the first large shipment of bitumen to Europe, which arrived in Spain from Canada.
"Tar sands are deadly for our climate and must be kept in the ground and out of Europe," said Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth in a statement about the delivery. "To give a lifeline to this dangerous industry is to set us up for climate disaster."
from here
The EU agreed five years ago to a piece of climate legislation called the 'Fuel Quality Directive,' which was to go into effect in 2010 with the aim of cutting transport fuel emissions by 6 percent by 2020. Yet thanks to heavy industry lobbying and government stalling, the plan still has not gone into effect years later.
Both the Financial Times and Reuters reported Thursday that the EU is likely to weaken the language of the not-yet-implemented plan by scrapping a requirement that bitumen—oil extracted from tar sands—be labeled as high-emissions diesel. The higher rating would have discouraged, but not prevented, imports.
A draft document drawn up by the European Commission will, if implemented, allow companies to sidestep penalties on tar sands imports. "Under the new methodology, companies would only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the 'output' fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not," the Financial Times explains.
One of the world's dirtiest fossil fuels, bitumen produces up to five times more carbon than conventional crude oil. The extraction process is extremely energy-intensive, destructive to ecosystems, and creates large reservoirs of toxic waste. Environmental groups have argued that proposed regulations in previous drafts of the Fuel Quality Directive were already too lax, and that tar sands should simply stay in the ground.
The government of Canada and the oil industry have aggressively opposed potential EU penalties on bitumen imports, and Canada's Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford pressed the issue in sideline conversations at the G7 meetings in Rome last month.
Meanwhile, environmental protesters rallied this week against what is believed to be the first large shipment of bitumen to Europe, which arrived in Spain from Canada.
"Tar sands are deadly for our climate and must be kept in the ground and out of Europe," said Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth in a statement about the delivery. "To give a lifeline to this dangerous industry is to set us up for climate disaster."
from here
Thursday, June 05, 2014
Global Corporations Influencing African Development and Endangering Livelihoods
Global corporations are increasingly
influencing development policy, resulting in partnership agreements
like the New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security that grow
corporate profits while endangering the livelihoods of small-scale
farmers.
This report explores the ways in which global corporations are
influencing development agendas in Africa, and the faulty rhetoric
that underpins their vision of development. Small farmers produce 80%
of the food consumed in Africa today, and farmers’ own investments
make up 90% of all investment in agriculture globally. Yet, when it
comes to the design of large-scale aid and development programs,
corporate capital is increasingly in the drivers seat, shaping
policies that support international investors while endangering and
impoverishing small-scale farmers.
The New Alliance for Food Security
and Nutrition, a new “co-operation framework” launched at the
2012 G8 Summit in the US and boosted at the 2013 Summit in the UK
exemplifies this trend. The partnership now covers 10 African
countries and brings well over 100 companies to the table as donors,
in addition to the G8 governments and the European Union. The stated
aim of this initiative is “to accelerate responsible investment in
African agriculture and lift 50 million people out of poverty by
2022”.
Partnership agreements with individual countries promise
“refinements” to policy “to improve investment opportunities”.
In practice these changes punish small farmers and reward
corporations by privatizing the collective resources on which rural
peoples’ livelihoods depend and revising seed laws to promote
corporations’ products and limit farmers’ rights to use their own
seeds.
This report investigates in depth the process which has given
rise to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition and reveals
the complex ways in which global corporations have influenced this
process as private corporations and through philanthrocapitalist
foundations, corporate private sector forums, and bilateral and
multilateral aid programmes. It explores the ways in which
corporations have used forums to lend the appearance of impartiality
and legitimacy to their recommendations, and reveals the lack of
truly democratic consultation about the New Alliance with national
stakeholders and, especially, with the small farmers who make up the
majority of the population in the African countries involved.
This
push towards corporate-led development has been underpinned by a set
of problematic and widely disputed assumptions. Corporate actors have
promoted a vision of development that emphasizes “modernization,”
implicitly viewing traditional agricultural practices as ‘backwards’
and viewing the maximization of production as a key goal of
development. At the same time it has promoted value chain approaches,
the development of ‘agricultural growth corridors,’ and increased
public private partnerships, all of which have the capacity to
further entrench social inequality by disproportionately benefiting
rich investors while further marginalising small-scale farmers.
Thus,
the New Alliance seems poised to endanger the livelihoods of African
small-scale producers while increasing the profits of major
international corporations. However, activists and civil society
organisations are resisting at all levels, developing and advocating
for viable alternatives.
This paper ends by documenting the counter
movements underway within Africa and internationally through bodies
like the reformed global Committee on World Food Security, suggesting
that another way forward is possible. Nora McKeon, author of the
report says: “The Alliance that could really vanquish hunger would
be one between African governments and their own small-scale
producers. A combination of pressure from above – as in the
reformed CFS – and political pressure from below – from organized
and articulate citizens – may well be the best way to get there.”
Olivier De Schutter, who is just
stepping down after six years of strenuously defending the right to
food in his role as UN Special Rapporteur, notes that “the
smallholder-led, country-led approach, is the type of aid that has
the greatest multiplier effects for the poorest, and presents the
lowest risks of dependency... It remains to be seen whether private
firms, in partnership with public donors, will be willing to support
approaches that look more like this, and less like the rest of their
investment portfolios".
Olivier De Schutter, who is just stepping down after six years of
strenuously defending the right to food in his role as UN Special
Rapporteur, notes that “the smallholder-led, country-led approach, is
the type of aid that has the greatest multiplier effects for the
poorest, and presents the lowest risks of dependency... It remains to be
seen whether private firms, in partnership with public donors, will be
willing to support approaches that look more like this, and less like
the rest of their investment portfolios". - See more at:
http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/23582#sthash.VzM9jGKP.dpuf
Olivier De Schutter, who is just stepping down after six years of
strenuously defending the right to food in his role as UN Special
Rapporteur, notes that “the smallholder-led, country-led approach, is
the type of aid that has the greatest multiplier effects for the
poorest, and presents the lowest risks of dependency... It remains to be
seen whether private firms, in partnership with public donors, will be
willing to support approaches that look more like this, and less like
the rest of their investment portfolios". - See more at:
http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/23582#sthash.VzM9jGKP.dpuf
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
End Young Adult Unemployment: Think Socialism
The elections in Europe may go unnoticed by the U.S. media but the
underlying current speaks very loudly. Europeans are very angry. We see
this through gains being taken on by far more extreme groups. There are
many reasons for this voting trend but one glaring one is young adult unemployment and underemployment.
In the European Union, 12 countries now face an unemployment rate of 20
percent or higher for those 25 and younger. Little relief has come to
this group. Many are with a college education but no employment market
to practice what they have learned. The recipe of course is one where
discontent grows and we saw this with the latest voting results. You
also see a similar trend in the U.S. where a historically high number of
young adults are living at home late into adulthood.
This is partly due to the low wage employment market they are entering
but also, the incredibly high levels of student debt many students exit
college with. While global stock markets seem to have recovered, young
adult unemployment is mired in problems.
Young and looking for work
People have a hard time understanding that work is more than a paycheck. For many people it gives them a sense of contributing to society and also a feeling of providing for their family. During the Great Depression, you had some that worked for reduced wages or promises of payment at a later date simply to avoid the crushing blow of being without work. Today, we face similar actions being taken by young adults working for reduced wages and benefits as they enter the low wage workforce. Many take on near illegal non-paid internships just to gain experience to build up their resumes.
One of the big issues at hand is the race to the bottom when it comes to wages. This is one of the many reasons why Europe is mired in problems especially with young adult unemployment.
Let us take a look at the unemployment rates across Europe:
Source: EuroStat
12 countries in Europe have an unemployment rate of 20 percent or higher for those 25 years of age and younger. Some of the notable standouts:
While the stock market has been on a one way ticket up, young adult unemployment has followed a similar trajectory, for the worse:
Having your youth facing a prospect of a gloomy future when it comes to work results in extreme voting as you recently saw.
Young and not working in the U.S.
The U.S. is not immune to this. We have a shift with young adults and their working habits:
This is an interesting trend. In the 1990s we had 65 percent of those 16 to 24 either working or actively looking for work. Today it is down to 55 percent, a multi-generation low. Now we can attribute this to people going to college but many are simply going to college to avoid looking for work. More troubling is the fact that many are being lured into back breaking levels of debt that are causing irreparable damage even before they have a diploma in hand.
Nearly half of young adults in the U.S. are either underemployed or unemployed. Underemployed signifies that people are working in a job that does not require a college degree. Will this high unemployment rate in young adults result in more dramatic voting as it did in 2008? Many feel disenfranchised because it appears that more of the same had resulted with that vote. The wealth disparity grows as the standard of living slowly gets chipped away for the middle class. Student debt since then has ballooned as well outpacing any reasonable rate of inflation.
Having the young in your society unemployed or underemployed at these levels rarely results in anything positive.
from here
Prospects for the majority are poor and getting worse. This is how capitalism works - profits for a small minority and servitude for the vast majority. It doesn't have to be like this, however. When enough of us recognise the good sense behind 'from each according to ability to each according to need' and get on with the job of building socialism then there will be enough 'work' for everyone to be able to make their contribution and consequently be in a position to satisfy their needs without being made to feel they are a burden on society.
JS
Young and looking for work
People have a hard time understanding that work is more than a paycheck. For many people it gives them a sense of contributing to society and also a feeling of providing for their family. During the Great Depression, you had some that worked for reduced wages or promises of payment at a later date simply to avoid the crushing blow of being without work. Today, we face similar actions being taken by young adults working for reduced wages and benefits as they enter the low wage workforce. Many take on near illegal non-paid internships just to gain experience to build up their resumes.
One of the big issues at hand is the race to the bottom when it comes to wages. This is one of the many reasons why Europe is mired in problems especially with young adult unemployment.
Let us take a look at the unemployment rates across Europe:
Source: EuroStat
12 countries in Europe have an unemployment rate of 20 percent or higher for those 25 years of age and younger. Some of the notable standouts:
-Spain: 53.6%This is extremely problematic. Many countries have layer upon layer of bureaucracy and cronyism and this has created a massive problem on a global scale for these countries. Unfortunately these countries cannot compete with the low wage employment trend that is overtaking the globe.
-Greece: 58.3% (last reading)
-Italy: 42.3%
-Portugal: 35%
-France: 23.6%
While the stock market has been on a one way ticket up, young adult unemployment has followed a similar trajectory, for the worse:
Having your youth facing a prospect of a gloomy future when it comes to work results in extreme voting as you recently saw.
Young and not working in the U.S.
The U.S. is not immune to this. We have a shift with young adults and their working habits:
This is an interesting trend. In the 1990s we had 65 percent of those 16 to 24 either working or actively looking for work. Today it is down to 55 percent, a multi-generation low. Now we can attribute this to people going to college but many are simply going to college to avoid looking for work. More troubling is the fact that many are being lured into back breaking levels of debt that are causing irreparable damage even before they have a diploma in hand.
Nearly half of young adults in the U.S. are either underemployed or unemployed. Underemployed signifies that people are working in a job that does not require a college degree. Will this high unemployment rate in young adults result in more dramatic voting as it did in 2008? Many feel disenfranchised because it appears that more of the same had resulted with that vote. The wealth disparity grows as the standard of living slowly gets chipped away for the middle class. Student debt since then has ballooned as well outpacing any reasonable rate of inflation.
Having the young in your society unemployed or underemployed at these levels rarely results in anything positive.
from here
Prospects for the majority are poor and getting worse. This is how capitalism works - profits for a small minority and servitude for the vast majority. It doesn't have to be like this, however. When enough of us recognise the good sense behind 'from each according to ability to each according to need' and get on with the job of building socialism then there will be enough 'work' for everyone to be able to make their contribution and consequently be in a position to satisfy their needs without being made to feel they are a burden on society.
JS
Friday, March 28, 2014
IMF, Ukraine, Austerity
The International Monetary Fund announced on Thursday a $14 to $18
billion "bailout" for Ukraine that is contingent on Kiev's imposition of
stringent austerity measures.
The package, which is slated for approval by the IMF's board next month, will unlock credits of up to $27 billion from the United States, European Union, Japan, and other countries over the coming years if Ukraine imposes "economic reforms."
According to Reuters, the IMF's requirements include: "allowing the national currency, the hryvnia, to float more freely against the dollar, increasing the price of gas for the domestic consumer, overhauling finances in the energy sector and following a more stringent fiscal policy."
Ukraine's new government on Wednesday passed a drastic increase in domestic gas prices, to take effect May first, and pledged to gradually reduce energy subsidies — a widely unpopular move that former President Viktor Yanukovych refused to take.
The deal comes amid ongoing anti-austerity protests across Europe, including hundreds of thousands strong protests across Spain over the weekend. Critics charge that austerity measures, by eroding vital public goods and services, deepen crises of poverty and inequality.
Welcome to a sinking ship Ukraine! Oh, there will be plenty who manage to make themselves fortunes whilst wages go down, jobs are lost, pensions and services are cut. It's the same old capitalist merry-go-round of business as usual.
Sod the working class. Time for a meaningful revolution - a socialist revolution, All Workers Together!
JS
Copied from here
The package, which is slated for approval by the IMF's board next month, will unlock credits of up to $27 billion from the United States, European Union, Japan, and other countries over the coming years if Ukraine imposes "economic reforms."
According to Reuters, the IMF's requirements include: "allowing the national currency, the hryvnia, to float more freely against the dollar, increasing the price of gas for the domestic consumer, overhauling finances in the energy sector and following a more stringent fiscal policy."
Ukraine's new government on Wednesday passed a drastic increase in domestic gas prices, to take effect May first, and pledged to gradually reduce energy subsidies — a widely unpopular move that former President Viktor Yanukovych refused to take.
The deal comes amid ongoing anti-austerity protests across Europe, including hundreds of thousands strong protests across Spain over the weekend. Critics charge that austerity measures, by eroding vital public goods and services, deepen crises of poverty and inequality.
Welcome to a sinking ship Ukraine! Oh, there will be plenty who manage to make themselves fortunes whilst wages go down, jobs are lost, pensions and services are cut. It's the same old capitalist merry-go-round of business as usual.
Sod the working class. Time for a meaningful revolution - a socialist revolution, All Workers Together!
JS
Copied from here
Friday, July 05, 2013
EU - In or Out?
The CBI wants to stay in EU. The CBI, which represents the bigger corporatioms and employers in Britain, has just published a report rejecting the idea put forward by Eurosceptics and bar room bull-shitters that Britain should leave the EU but stay in the Single Market. The report is summarised in this two-and-a-half minute video:
It is clear that the CBI wants continued free access to the Single European Market and to do this on the best conditions thinks Britain should stay in the EU so as to have a say in decisions about it, which Norway and Switzerland don't have despite having negotiated access to it. The CBI must be worried that xenophobic politicians with their talk of an in-out referendum are playing with fire and might have to withdraw Britain from the EU when this is not in the best interest of the dominant section of the British capitalist class. As Norwegian Conservative MP, Nikolai Astrup pointed out “If you want to run Europe, you must be in Europe. If you want to be run by Europe, feel free to join Norway in the European Economic Area.”
There is a little known fact in the report. Norway has to pay to have access to the Single Market. The report explains:
“Norway is part of the single market, without being an EU member, via the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The Agreement provides access to the single market through the inclusion in national law of EU legislation covering goods, services and capital, as well as the free movement of people. In theory, Norway has equal access rights to any EU Member State. Several areas are not covered by the agreement including trade negotiations, agriculture and fisheries policies, justice and home affairs. EEA members still pay contributions to the EU, with Norway paying 100 EUR per capita, well over half of the UK’s contributions as a full member (180 EUR)."
This was elaborated on in an article in yesterday's Times by CBI Director-General John Cridland in which he said that Norway pays the EU “about 600 million euros a year, making it the tenth highest contributor to the EU, paying more than half the amount that the UK pays per person just to be allowed to follow EU rules as a non-member."
It is difficult to imagine that UKIP would be content with such an arrangement despite their view that Britain should adopt the same policy as Norway. The CBI, on the other hand, has taken on board the point made by the Norwegian MP, with Cridland quoting it with approval in his article
The CBI problem is that many politicians and voters have not and may vote against it.
Adam Buick
It is clear that the CBI wants continued free access to the Single European Market and to do this on the best conditions thinks Britain should stay in the EU so as to have a say in decisions about it, which Norway and Switzerland don't have despite having negotiated access to it. The CBI must be worried that xenophobic politicians with their talk of an in-out referendum are playing with fire and might have to withdraw Britain from the EU when this is not in the best interest of the dominant section of the British capitalist class. As Norwegian Conservative MP, Nikolai Astrup pointed out “If you want to run Europe, you must be in Europe. If you want to be run by Europe, feel free to join Norway in the European Economic Area.”
There is a little known fact in the report. Norway has to pay to have access to the Single Market. The report explains:
“Norway is part of the single market, without being an EU member, via the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The Agreement provides access to the single market through the inclusion in national law of EU legislation covering goods, services and capital, as well as the free movement of people. In theory, Norway has equal access rights to any EU Member State. Several areas are not covered by the agreement including trade negotiations, agriculture and fisheries policies, justice and home affairs. EEA members still pay contributions to the EU, with Norway paying 100 EUR per capita, well over half of the UK’s contributions as a full member (180 EUR)."
This was elaborated on in an article in yesterday's Times by CBI Director-General John Cridland in which he said that Norway pays the EU “about 600 million euros a year, making it the tenth highest contributor to the EU, paying more than half the amount that the UK pays per person just to be allowed to follow EU rules as a non-member."
It is difficult to imagine that UKIP would be content with such an arrangement despite their view that Britain should adopt the same policy as Norway. The CBI, on the other hand, has taken on board the point made by the Norwegian MP, with Cridland quoting it with approval in his article
The CBI problem is that many politicians and voters have not and may vote against it.
Adam Buick
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Celtic tiger or scaredy cat ?
As plans are being drawn up for a potential rescue programme to bail out the Irish government, if it asks for help, by the EU, this article offers a socialist perspective on the Irish economy.
The only flourishing industry in Ireland now seems to be economic punditry.
A fellow socialist recently sent me an economic article critiquing the contrasting financial approaches of the various governments in Europe to the current crisis. It wasn’t the first article that I’ve read on this subject! Ever since the storm broke in autumn 2008, the media in Ireland has filled the airwaves/newspaper pages with an endless procession of economists commenting on various aspects of Ireland’s severe economic situation and either second guessing the government’s decisions on various policy matters or attempting to persuade the people that they have much cleverer solutions to ‘our’ problems. Part of my weariness with all this analysis stems from the fact that as a socialist I know booms and slumps are an inevitable part of the economic operation of capitalism and there was clearly an unsustainable boom occurring in Ireland over the years 2004 to 2008. So now we have the consequent contraction which is just going to have to be endured as long as capitalism governs our lives.
In fact, the only flourishing industry in Ireland now seems to be economic punditry and whether you open a magazine, turn on the TV, listen to the radio or surf the net for news, you wont have long to wait until you encounter the predictions of economists mainly drawn from either academia or the financial institutions or on some rare occasions, the trade unions. Because Ireland’s situation is deemed so critical, we even have Nobel prize winning economists from the United States commenting on us, while just a few years ago we wouldn’t have merited any attention from them as they’d probably have been pre-occupied with China.
In fact one popular media economist, David McWilliams, currently has a travelling roadshow where he tours the country, filling halls and theatres with his views. As the publicity blurb for his ridiculous ‘Outsiders’ tour goes “McWilliams believes Ireland’s political and social divide is not so much about rich and poor, young and old, urban and rural, but about Insiders and Outsiders”. This strange mixture of showbiz and economics has climaxed in a ‘Kilkenomics’ festival that will be held in Kilkenny in late November where stand up comedy will be interspersed with economic analysis. On its website one of the topics listed for discussion is to be '23 Things they don’t tell you about Capitalism’. As the man said, you couldn’t make it up!
What’s tiresome about all the contributors to this public debate, is that in spite of furious argument over some superficial points, essentially they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet. Corrective action is needed to deal with Ireland’s soaring debt and it’s only the time scale (whether it should be over 4 or 6 years) and the areas of public spending to be excluded from cuts (such as old age pension) that are in contention. It is now anticipated that a general election is only months away and it’s noticeable that the main opposition parties have moderated their criticism of the government’s budget approach; they know full well that room for manoeuvre is extremely limited and if elected (which seems very probable at the moment) they will be implementing the hair-shirt budgets over the next four years.
To give some background, it now seems accepted that whatever reality lay behind the Celtic Tiger had by about 2003/2004 been replaced by an old-fashioned, foundation-less credit boom based on the expectation that property (both residential and commercial) was destined to appreciate at a significant level beyond any other type of investment. This led to a frenzy of construction, some clearly insane even to non-socialists, where perfectly functioning warehouses, hotels and office blocks were demolished so their footprint could be used for even more profitable apartment blocks and fancier hotels.
By 2006 the unsustainability of what was happening began to be widely commented upon in everyday life though this didn’t seem to flag any warning bells with Brian Cowan, the then minister of finance, subsequently promoted to Taoiseach (Prime Minister). The crash has highlighted a structural weakness in Irish politics whereby that opaque interaction between the politicians and leading business people (particularly property developers) masked the rationale for economic decisions. By 2008, a huge proportion of Irish government revenue was attributable, directly or indirectly, to the construction sector in terms of which has now all but vanished. This has left an almost twenty billion euro gap between the government’s annual income and expenditure. The problem has been exacerbated by the government’s initial decision to give a very wide ranging guarantee to all the main banks’ creditors. As the scale of loses (fifty billion and counting) has turned out to be much greater than anticipated, this has increased Ireland’s need to borrow. Whether the government naively underestimated the risks from this banking strategy or was responding to the pressing needs of some well-connected business people has been hotly debated since.
The predominant response to date in Ireland has been a fearful resignation rather than any outright ‘resistance’ as has intermittently been seen in the strikes and demonstrations of France and Greece. Partly this is due to an apathy to the potential power of real politics, that has been engendered amongst great swathes of the electorate, resulting from so many broken promises by reformist parties over the years.
Unemployment has risen sharply and emigration as a social phenomenon has returned. A reduction in living standards is seen as inevitable in the medium term. There has been a deliberate divide and rule strategy employed by the ruling class with a vociferous campaign, championed by the media outlets controlled by the media tycoons Tony O’Reilly and Denis O’Brien, waged against public sector worker to separate them from private sector employees.
That is not to say that people are not angry about the situation and the heavy penalties and burdens they are now expected to bear as a result of reckless and profligate activities of bankers and developers. What is perceived to be most galling is how when the senior executives in many financial institutions knew that the balloon was going up, they negotiated or arranged legally watertight generous exit packages for themselves, without a care for the consequences to the mass of the people. It certainly has raised questions about the ‘fairness’ of the system which is a clearly welcome development for socialists. Of course some of the discontent is mis-directed, with talk of betrayal by the government, when the recession is an inevitable part of the capitalist cycle albeit in this exacerbated by the greed and incompetence of the local ruling class.
The power of capitalism over people has never been more nakedly exposed. The government’s daily mantra is the need to restore confidence in Ireland’s position to ‘the market’ when we know ‘the market’ is fundamentally that very small number of people who control multi-billion financial investment decisions. So each government action is quantified as to whether it has reassured the markets (which we’re constantly told is a good thing) or has caused uncertainty (‘a very bad thing’) as the more uncertain the markets are, the greater the interest rate Ireland must pay on the loans it needs to raise. The fact that it’s naturally in the market’s interest to either doubt, or at least feign doubt, about Ireland’s economic outlook in order to justify higher loan charges is never commented upon which shows the whole deal is really a gigantic scam. Perceived wisdom is that it should be easier to make socialists in a recession when the shortcomings of capitalism are more evident. This capitalist recession will eventually end and the Irish economy at some time in the future will inevitably return to growth. If there are more socialists in Ireland at that future time, then at least one positive outcome will have resulted from this sorry and preventable mess.
KEVIN CRONIN
The only flourishing industry in Ireland now seems to be economic punditry.
A fellow socialist recently sent me an economic article critiquing the contrasting financial approaches of the various governments in Europe to the current crisis. It wasn’t the first article that I’ve read on this subject! Ever since the storm broke in autumn 2008, the media in Ireland has filled the airwaves/newspaper pages with an endless procession of economists commenting on various aspects of Ireland’s severe economic situation and either second guessing the government’s decisions on various policy matters or attempting to persuade the people that they have much cleverer solutions to ‘our’ problems. Part of my weariness with all this analysis stems from the fact that as a socialist I know booms and slumps are an inevitable part of the economic operation of capitalism and there was clearly an unsustainable boom occurring in Ireland over the years 2004 to 2008. So now we have the consequent contraction which is just going to have to be endured as long as capitalism governs our lives.
In fact, the only flourishing industry in Ireland now seems to be economic punditry and whether you open a magazine, turn on the TV, listen to the radio or surf the net for news, you wont have long to wait until you encounter the predictions of economists mainly drawn from either academia or the financial institutions or on some rare occasions, the trade unions. Because Ireland’s situation is deemed so critical, we even have Nobel prize winning economists from the United States commenting on us, while just a few years ago we wouldn’t have merited any attention from them as they’d probably have been pre-occupied with China.
In fact one popular media economist, David McWilliams, currently has a travelling roadshow where he tours the country, filling halls and theatres with his views. As the publicity blurb for his ridiculous ‘Outsiders’ tour goes “McWilliams believes Ireland’s political and social divide is not so much about rich and poor, young and old, urban and rural, but about Insiders and Outsiders”. This strange mixture of showbiz and economics has climaxed in a ‘Kilkenomics’ festival that will be held in Kilkenny in late November where stand up comedy will be interspersed with economic analysis. On its website one of the topics listed for discussion is to be '23 Things they don’t tell you about Capitalism’. As the man said, you couldn’t make it up!
What’s tiresome about all the contributors to this public debate, is that in spite of furious argument over some superficial points, essentially they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet. Corrective action is needed to deal with Ireland’s soaring debt and it’s only the time scale (whether it should be over 4 or 6 years) and the areas of public spending to be excluded from cuts (such as old age pension) that are in contention. It is now anticipated that a general election is only months away and it’s noticeable that the main opposition parties have moderated their criticism of the government’s budget approach; they know full well that room for manoeuvre is extremely limited and if elected (which seems very probable at the moment) they will be implementing the hair-shirt budgets over the next four years.
To give some background, it now seems accepted that whatever reality lay behind the Celtic Tiger had by about 2003/2004 been replaced by an old-fashioned, foundation-less credit boom based on the expectation that property (both residential and commercial) was destined to appreciate at a significant level beyond any other type of investment. This led to a frenzy of construction, some clearly insane even to non-socialists, where perfectly functioning warehouses, hotels and office blocks were demolished so their footprint could be used for even more profitable apartment blocks and fancier hotels.
By 2006 the unsustainability of what was happening began to be widely commented upon in everyday life though this didn’t seem to flag any warning bells with Brian Cowan, the then minister of finance, subsequently promoted to Taoiseach (Prime Minister). The crash has highlighted a structural weakness in Irish politics whereby that opaque interaction between the politicians and leading business people (particularly property developers) masked the rationale for economic decisions. By 2008, a huge proportion of Irish government revenue was attributable, directly or indirectly, to the construction sector in terms of which has now all but vanished. This has left an almost twenty billion euro gap between the government’s annual income and expenditure. The problem has been exacerbated by the government’s initial decision to give a very wide ranging guarantee to all the main banks’ creditors. As the scale of loses (fifty billion and counting) has turned out to be much greater than anticipated, this has increased Ireland’s need to borrow. Whether the government naively underestimated the risks from this banking strategy or was responding to the pressing needs of some well-connected business people has been hotly debated since.
The predominant response to date in Ireland has been a fearful resignation rather than any outright ‘resistance’ as has intermittently been seen in the strikes and demonstrations of France and Greece. Partly this is due to an apathy to the potential power of real politics, that has been engendered amongst great swathes of the electorate, resulting from so many broken promises by reformist parties over the years.
Unemployment has risen sharply and emigration as a social phenomenon has returned. A reduction in living standards is seen as inevitable in the medium term. There has been a deliberate divide and rule strategy employed by the ruling class with a vociferous campaign, championed by the media outlets controlled by the media tycoons Tony O’Reilly and Denis O’Brien, waged against public sector worker to separate them from private sector employees.
That is not to say that people are not angry about the situation and the heavy penalties and burdens they are now expected to bear as a result of reckless and profligate activities of bankers and developers. What is perceived to be most galling is how when the senior executives in many financial institutions knew that the balloon was going up, they negotiated or arranged legally watertight generous exit packages for themselves, without a care for the consequences to the mass of the people. It certainly has raised questions about the ‘fairness’ of the system which is a clearly welcome development for socialists. Of course some of the discontent is mis-directed, with talk of betrayal by the government, when the recession is an inevitable part of the capitalist cycle albeit in this exacerbated by the greed and incompetence of the local ruling class.
The power of capitalism over people has never been more nakedly exposed. The government’s daily mantra is the need to restore confidence in Ireland’s position to ‘the market’ when we know ‘the market’ is fundamentally that very small number of people who control multi-billion financial investment decisions. So each government action is quantified as to whether it has reassured the markets (which we’re constantly told is a good thing) or has caused uncertainty (‘a very bad thing’) as the more uncertain the markets are, the greater the interest rate Ireland must pay on the loans it needs to raise. The fact that it’s naturally in the market’s interest to either doubt, or at least feign doubt, about Ireland’s economic outlook in order to justify higher loan charges is never commented upon which shows the whole deal is really a gigantic scam. Perceived wisdom is that it should be easier to make socialists in a recession when the shortcomings of capitalism are more evident. This capitalist recession will eventually end and the Irish economy at some time in the future will inevitably return to growth. If there are more socialists in Ireland at that future time, then at least one positive outcome will have resulted from this sorry and preventable mess.
KEVIN CRONIN
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
being poor
Roughly 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, which is one person every three and a half seconds according to www. poverty.com. Individuals who live in poverty lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves, which causes them to become weaker and often sick. These individuals would become even more poor and more hungry because being sick will make them less able to work and provide for themselves and/or their family.
According to the UN and the World Bank, the social impact of the global economic crisis continues to be felt in terms of rising hunger, unemployment, and social unrest. The combination of rising food and fuel prices and the financial and economic crisis has reduced poor families’ purchasing power, access to social services, and employment opportunities. Moreover, poor households have reduced food consumption, with the UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimating that nearly one billion people are hungry and malnourished. In addition to the millions already pushed into poverty in 2008-09, another 64 million could fall into extreme poverty during 2010 as a result of the combined, lingering effects of the crisis. A UNICEF survey of 126 developing countries found that among the nearly one-half that are reducing public expenditures, common adjustment measures include public-sector wage cuts or caps, withdrawal of food subsidies, and the targeting and rationalization of already meager social-protection systems.
The European Union’s push to help its companies access raw materials in developing countries will drive “a new scramble for Africa” and increase poverty, according to a report released today.
The EU wants to curb the ability of developing countries to restrict the exports of their raw materials. The EU is also negotiating new investment rules with poor countries to secure European companies unprecedented access to raw materials on the same or even better terms as local businesses.The study shows that EU strategy is being driven by European businesses which want access to cheap raw materials.The EU’s proposed investment policies could facilitate land-grabbing and discourage governments from establishing environmental regulations.
"In too many countries, inequality increased and real wages stagnated -- failing to keep up with productivity -- over the past few decades," Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief said.
Ron Formisano, professor of history at the University of Kentucky wrote "Many Americans are living poor and voting rich. They vote for politicians who serve the interests of the very rich, of corporations that ship jobs overseas, employ and exploit illegal immigrants and violate workplace rules to protect workers...."
According to the UN and the World Bank, the social impact of the global economic crisis continues to be felt in terms of rising hunger, unemployment, and social unrest. The combination of rising food and fuel prices and the financial and economic crisis has reduced poor families’ purchasing power, access to social services, and employment opportunities. Moreover, poor households have reduced food consumption, with the UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimating that nearly one billion people are hungry and malnourished. In addition to the millions already pushed into poverty in 2008-09, another 64 million could fall into extreme poverty during 2010 as a result of the combined, lingering effects of the crisis. A UNICEF survey of 126 developing countries found that among the nearly one-half that are reducing public expenditures, common adjustment measures include public-sector wage cuts or caps, withdrawal of food subsidies, and the targeting and rationalization of already meager social-protection systems.
The European Union’s push to help its companies access raw materials in developing countries will drive “a new scramble for Africa” and increase poverty, according to a report released today.
The EU wants to curb the ability of developing countries to restrict the exports of their raw materials. The EU is also negotiating new investment rules with poor countries to secure European companies unprecedented access to raw materials on the same or even better terms as local businesses.The study shows that EU strategy is being driven by European businesses which want access to cheap raw materials.The EU’s proposed investment policies could facilitate land-grabbing and discourage governments from establishing environmental regulations.
"In too many countries, inequality increased and real wages stagnated -- failing to keep up with productivity -- over the past few decades," Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief said.
Ron Formisano, professor of history at the University of Kentucky wrote "Many Americans are living poor and voting rich. They vote for politicians who serve the interests of the very rich, of corporations that ship jobs overseas, employ and exploit illegal immigrants and violate workplace rules to protect workers...."
Vindicated
In the October 2008 Socialist Standard of the increased negative effects on the environment of the plans to increase use of biofuels . Now new research indicates that our warning was timely.
We said:-
"Biofuels were originally heralded as the wonder fuel, something to challenge fossil fuels and a way to save the world from its dependence on oil, a greener product, sustainable and easily grown around the world. David Moberg, in an August 2008 article “Let them eat free markets” in ,These Times, writes, “once seen as a way of using up European and US surpluses biofuels are now threatening to become a global, corporate-controlled, industrial farming and export business that could put US SUVs in competition with food for poor people in other countries whilst degrading tropical forests.” So, here again is monoculture on a grand scale, degradation of the environment, cash crops taking the place of food crops and small farmers forced off the land to increase production and profit. A further downside to biofuels and a good reason to take another look at the topic for those who still believe it to be a 'green' fuel is that it actually takes something like 18 percent more energy to process the fuel than will be available in the finished product. Not best use of agricultural land, resources or manpower."
A new study has revealed that an area over twice the size of Belgium will need to be converted into fields and plantations – putting forests, natural ecosystems and poor communities in danger, if European countries do not change their plans for getting petrol and diesel from food crops by 2020.
The new analyses of the EU renewable energy plans concludes that Europe is set to increase significantly biofuel use by 2020 when biofuels will provide 9.5% of transport fuel – more than 90% of which will come from food crops. When indirect land use change is taken into account, biofuels will emit an extra 27 to 56 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year , the equivalent to an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020. Unless EU policy changes, the extra biofuels that Europe will use over the next decade will be on average 81 to 167% worse for the climate than fossil fuels. Under the plans, five countries will be responsible for over two thirds of the increase in emissions.
We said:-
"Biofuels were originally heralded as the wonder fuel, something to challenge fossil fuels and a way to save the world from its dependence on oil, a greener product, sustainable and easily grown around the world. David Moberg, in an August 2008 article “Let them eat free markets” in ,These Times, writes, “once seen as a way of using up European and US surpluses biofuels are now threatening to become a global, corporate-controlled, industrial farming and export business that could put US SUVs in competition with food for poor people in other countries whilst degrading tropical forests.” So, here again is monoculture on a grand scale, degradation of the environment, cash crops taking the place of food crops and small farmers forced off the land to increase production and profit. A further downside to biofuels and a good reason to take another look at the topic for those who still believe it to be a 'green' fuel is that it actually takes something like 18 percent more energy to process the fuel than will be available in the finished product. Not best use of agricultural land, resources or manpower."
A new study has revealed that an area over twice the size of Belgium will need to be converted into fields and plantations – putting forests, natural ecosystems and poor communities in danger, if European countries do not change their plans for getting petrol and diesel from food crops by 2020.
The new analyses of the EU renewable energy plans concludes that Europe is set to increase significantly biofuel use by 2020 when biofuels will provide 9.5% of transport fuel – more than 90% of which will come from food crops. When indirect land use change is taken into account, biofuels will emit an extra 27 to 56 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year , the equivalent to an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020. Unless EU policy changes, the extra biofuels that Europe will use over the next decade will be on average 81 to 167% worse for the climate than fossil fuels. Under the plans, five countries will be responsible for over two thirds of the increase in emissions.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The New Model Army ?
The Irish journal Sunday Business Post carries a story about possible future developments of the EU ,one which will be greater European defence integration and co-operation .
''The EU," the Finnish defence minister observes, ''is likely to have a much stronger security and defence dimension in 2020 than it has now."
We read that a new publication from the Paris-based European Union Institute for Security Studies warns of ''explosive tensions'' between a rich, globalised group of countries and poorer, alienated states. If technology is turning the world into a global village, it is a ''village on the brink of revolution'', for reasons of inequality and competition for resources like water, fuel and usable farmland.
The EU will need to pursue the ''morally distasteful, losing strategy'' of strengthening our barriers, if it cannot solve the problems of global misery at their roots. The less developed parts of the world may need ''barrier operations'', or operations to ''shield the global rich from the tensions and problems of the poor''.
It is recommended that the EU should commit itself to have a sizeable force with adequate equipment ready to deploy at any time - over 100,000 in a constant state of readiness, or 300,000 troops allowing for rotation, by 2020. EU member states spend some €250 billion on defence annually, according to 2005 figures .
"Of course, no right minded person wants war," they say, but then turn round and lay down their plans for just that. Plans for achieving their policy ends by cold-blooded murder. Where all other parties utter their sanctimonious opposition to war yet endorse slaughter after slaughter we have asserted that war and organised violence are not the means by which a civilised society can be achieved.
''The EU," the Finnish defence minister observes, ''is likely to have a much stronger security and defence dimension in 2020 than it has now."
We read that a new publication from the Paris-based European Union Institute for Security Studies warns of ''explosive tensions'' between a rich, globalised group of countries and poorer, alienated states. If technology is turning the world into a global village, it is a ''village on the brink of revolution'', for reasons of inequality and competition for resources like water, fuel and usable farmland.
The EU will need to pursue the ''morally distasteful, losing strategy'' of strengthening our barriers, if it cannot solve the problems of global misery at their roots. The less developed parts of the world may need ''barrier operations'', or operations to ''shield the global rich from the tensions and problems of the poor''.
It is recommended that the EU should commit itself to have a sizeable force with adequate equipment ready to deploy at any time - over 100,000 in a constant state of readiness, or 300,000 troops allowing for rotation, by 2020. EU member states spend some €250 billion on defence annually, according to 2005 figures .
"Of course, no right minded person wants war," they say, but then turn round and lay down their plans for just that. Plans for achieving their policy ends by cold-blooded murder. Where all other parties utter their sanctimonious opposition to war yet endorse slaughter after slaughter we have asserted that war and organised violence are not the means by which a civilised society can be achieved.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Common Ownership - the only solution to world problems
On this day in 1957 the Common Market was established by the agreement of six west European countries. The editorial in the March Socialist Standard of that year drew a parallel with the gradual formation of the German Customs Union over a century earlier and scoffed at the notion of a united Europe leading to a warless, united world.
An article titled Britain on the Brink in the November 1961 edition of the same journal commented amusingly:
"British capitalism has decided to take its chance with the Common Market. After shivering at the water's edge for a long, long time it has at last ventured as far as the end of the diving-board. It even shows signs this time that it is really going to take the plunge..."
Well, those signs were misleading: British capitalism did join, but not until January 1973 after two attempts to do so were vetoed. However, the very same article did point out correctly that "..the motive force of the Common Market and the events now associated with is economic interest - the drive for profit. The task of the working-class, whether Britain joins or not, will still be to get rid of the system that generates this drive for profit. And in setting about that task the workers of Britain and the Common Market do have a common interest."
The Socialist Standard of May 1975 posed the question 'The Common Market In or out - does it matter?' and stated clearly that the issue was (is) of no concern to our class.
The related article did not fail to mention the infamous butter mountains and wine lakes and concluded by stating: "Away with all the trappings of capitalism - tariffs, customs duties, monetary union, competition, buying, selling etc. Vote for nothing but Common Ownership."
An article titled Britain on the Brink in the November 1961 edition of the same journal commented amusingly:
"British capitalism has decided to take its chance with the Common Market. After shivering at the water's edge for a long, long time it has at last ventured as far as the end of the diving-board. It even shows signs this time that it is really going to take the plunge..."
Well, those signs were misleading: British capitalism did join, but not until January 1973 after two attempts to do so were vetoed. However, the very same article did point out correctly that "..the motive force of the Common Market and the events now associated with is economic interest - the drive for profit. The task of the working-class, whether Britain joins or not, will still be to get rid of the system that generates this drive for profit. And in setting about that task the workers of Britain and the Common Market do have a common interest."
The Socialist Standard of May 1975 posed the question 'The Common Market In or out - does it matter?' and stated clearly that the issue was (is) of no concern to our class.
The related article did not fail to mention the infamous butter mountains and wine lakes and concluded by stating: "Away with all the trappings of capitalism - tariffs, customs duties, monetary union, competition, buying, selling etc. Vote for nothing but Common Ownership."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)