Progressive arguments for staying in the EU

[butchersapron]

EU law is enforced by local legislation in the member states. If the member states don't pass local legislation, it doesn't mean that the EU law (directives and/or regulations) don't exist. Have I misunderstood you?

In the UK it has to be passed by Parliament. So it's all law there already. Maybe as part of a wider 'act' but all there.

 

[butchersapron]

This is really just a statement of how fucked things are.
Getting to a state of less fucked would be nice.

The EU is not a friend, but who is the more urgent enemy right now?

Seems to come down to strategy vs ideological purity, as always...

The EU or who? Who is the other enemy?

Thus makes nonsense.

 

[butchersapron]

This is really just a statement of how fucked things are.
Getting to a state of less fucked would be nice.

The EU is not a friend, but who is the more urgent enemy right now?

Seems to come down to strategy vs ideological purity, as always...

And no, it seems to come down to you wanting to suggest that people who don't agree with you are obsessed by ideological purity.

As cover for whatever sell out you're doing when it matters again.

 

[8ball]

The EU or who? Who is the other enemy?

Thus makes nonsense.

Whatevs. Get out of the EU and it's happy time forever with the unicorns shitting out gold coins til the end if time.

Fuck this, I 'm out.

 

[butchersapron]

Whatevs. Get out of the EU and it's happy time forever with the unicorns shitting out gold coins til the end if time.

Fuck this, I 'm out.

See?

 

[8ball]

See?

Clearly you don't.

 

[cesare]

In the UK it has to be passed by Parliament. So it's all law there already. Maybe as part of a wider 'act' but all there.

Yes. And if Parliament doesn't pass it into UK law within a given amount of time the UK gets fined (the fines can be on a daily basis in the most extreme cases) and/or public sector employees can sue the state for non compliance.

I object to the EU. However most of the employment protection in the past 25 years has been driven by EU legislation. Of course, the UK can do that without the benefit of EU legislation but left to its own devices the UK political parties of all stripes won't improve on it but rather will just dismantle what's been done, driving wages and conditions down.

 

[butchersapron]

8ball out.

 

[free spirit]

They're all UK law as i posted years ago on this thread that you haven't bothered to read. All law must have been passed in Parliament to become EU law.

Depends if it's a regulation or a directive. EU regulations are automatically law across the entire EU, directives need to be implemented via local legislation.

Currently any changes to UK the laws involved with EU directives would still need to comply with the EU directive or regulation. If we're out of the EU then they can just be dumped entirely if the UK government (and parliament) decided they wanted to.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes. And if Parliament doesn't pass it into UK law within a given amount of time the UK gets fined (the fines can be on a daily basis in the most extreme cases) and/or public sector employees can sue the state for non compliance.

I object to the EU. However most of the employment protection in the past 25 years has been driven by EU legislation. Of course, the UK can do that without the benefit of EU legislation but left to its own devices the UK political parties of all stripes won't improve on it but rather will just dismantle what's been done, driving wages and conditions down.

That's exactly what the Eu is going to do as well.

edit: or try

 

[Humberto]

Credit to butchers. Fuck the EU if you have any integrity.

 

[free spirit]

I object to the EU. However most of the employment protection in the past 25 years has been driven by EU legislation. Of course, the UK can do that without the benefit of EU legislation but left to its own devices the UK political parties of all stripes won't improve on it but rather will just dismantle what's been done, driving wages and conditions down.

Same with environmental legislation.

eta though the EU is now trying to force HMRC to impose 20% VAT on domestic renewable energy rather than the current 5%, which will be a right git if they do it.

 

[butchersapron]

I go bed, fuck the EU!

 

[cesare]

That's exactly what the Eu is going to do as well.

edit: or try

I agree it will try.

But it's less of a given and will take longer to dismantle. The alternative seems to be leaving the EU and face the immediate dismantling of employment protection and being brought in line with US style "at will" employment where the average wage is bumped up by higher end earners and the lowest paid have terms and conditions far worse than the UK.

 

[cesare]

Same with environmental legislation.

eta though the EU is now trying to force HMRC to impose 20% VAT on domestic renewable energy rather than the current 5%, which will be a right git if they do it.

That's going to hit people hard if they succeed Edit: oh, renewable energy. What's the thinking behind that?

 

[Greasy Boiler]

An EU-wide flat rate of VAT was seen as a major way of simplifying trade so there's always been strong pressure to normalize rates. Various member states (like the UK) have managed to negotiate certain exemptions and reductions but it's not considered ideal.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The Morning Star have written an article echoing some of the points on this thread that EU membership is a block on socialism. But that argument is based upon the false premise that socialism can be brought into existence through parliamentary reform.

AS THE dust settles on the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted “renegotiation” of the terms on which he hopes Britain will remain a member of the European Union, the media have quickly moved on to the soap opera of which leading Tories will end up on which side.

Pundits can hardly be blamed for not focusing on the detail of the supposed concessions David Cameron has snatched from Brussels.

The “emergency brake” on in-work benefits for migrants who are working and paying tax in Britain is not only a demonstration of the Nasty Party’s nastiness, but is also of a piece with the Tory war on all workers, whether born here or abroad: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says 2.6 million families will be an average £1,600 worse off each year as they are moved from tax credits to universal credit.

As for the celebrated treaty amendment, stating that the commitment to “ever closer union” does not apply to Britain, this certainly does not mean Britain “can never be forced into political integration.”

Provisions in the Stability and Growth Pact preventing governments from borrowing to invest in their country’s economic future, clauses in the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties prohibiting state aid for industry and demanding the privatisation of public monopolies — such rules have political repercussions.

Membership of the EU severely curtails the choices available to the electorates of individual countries. Socialism and even Keynesian social democracy cease to be options available to voters, either because the levers of economic control have been handed to unaccountable institutions such as the European Commission and European Central Bank or because socialist measures themselves such as renationalising industries or intervening directly in the economy are illegal.

Support for the European Union on the left has taken a battering in recent years. The brutal and pitiless immiseration of Greece at the hands of the EU-dominated “troika” exposed the bloc’s free-market fanaticism and contempt for democracy.

So too does its enthusiastic, if secretive, pursuit of the TTIP trade deal with the United States, over the heads of national governments and in the face of massive public opposition.

When challenged by War on Want director John Hilary, EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem did not even make a pretence of caring. “I do not take my mandate from the European people,” she sneered.

But many on the left continue to defend membership.
AS THE dust settles on the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted “renegotiation” of the terms on which he hopes Britain will remain a member of the European Union, the media have quickly moved on to the soap opera of which leading Tories will end up on which side.

Pundits can hardly be blamed for not focusing on the detail of the supposed concessions David Cameron has snatched from Brussels.

The “emergency brake” on in-work benefits for migrants who are working and paying tax in Britain is not only a demonstration of the Nasty Party’s nastiness, but is also of a piece with the Tory war on all workers, whether born here or abroad: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says 2.6 million families will be an average £1,600 worse off each year as they are moved from tax credits to universal credit.

As for the celebrated treaty amendment, stating that the commitment to “ever closer union” does not apply to Britain, this certainly does not mean Britain “can never be forced into political integration.”

Provisions in the Stability and Growth Pact preventing governments from borrowing to invest in their country’s economic future, clauses in the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties prohibiting state aid for industry and demanding the privatisation of public monopolies — such rules have political repercussions.

Membership of the EU severely curtails the choices available to the electorates of individual countries. Socialism and even Keynesian social democracy cease to be options available to voters, either because the levers of economic control have been handed to unaccountable institutions such as the European Commission and European Central Bank or because socialist measures themselves such as renationalising industries or intervening directly in the economy are illegal.

Support for the European Union on the left has taken a battering in recent years. The brutal and pitiless immiseration of Greece at the hands of the EU-dominated “troika” exposed the bloc’s free-market fanaticism and contempt for democracy.

So too does its enthusiastic, if secretive, pursuit of the TTIP trade deal with the United States, over the heads of national governments and in the face of massive public opposition.

When challenged by War on Want director John Hilary, EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem did not even make a pretence of caring. “I do not take my mandate from the European people,” she sneered.

But many on the left continue to defend membership.

Some argue that, rather than leave, we should campaign for a better EU — a more democratic union which protects working people’s rights rather than corporate profits. This is the position of Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, and apparently also of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

They must be challenged on how they intend to achieve this. The EU’s anti-democratic structures and legal commitments to neoliberalism are embedded in a succession of binding treaties which cannot be changed without the consent of every single member state. This makes reforming the bloc virtually impossible.

Others point to particular provisions of EU law which protect maternity rights or holiday pay, and argue that the Conservatives would try to unpick these if we left.

Of course they would. But it is not just the Conservatives who have it in for workers’ rights. The EU itself has demanded an end to collective bargaining agreements, the imposition of “flexible” contracts and the deregulation of entire industries.

Staying in is no guarantee that our rights will be protected, especially once treaties like TTIP further subordinate governments to transnational corporations. The labour movement must regain the confidence to fight for a better future, rather than trusting in an anti-democratic institution to shield it from the government’s blows.

Still others claim that since the loudest voices calling for an exit are on the political right, we have to vote to remain to avoid associating with them.

But the big guns of the In campaign — the Prime Minister, Sir Stuart Rose, Goldman Sachs, the US government — are not exactly friends of the labour movement.

The British Establishment is more or less united in its determination to stay in the EU. The status quo suits it down to the ground.

But supporters of radical political change should vote to leave on June 23.

EU membership bars socialism

 

[andysays]

The Morning Star have written an article echoing some of the points on this thread that EU membership is a block on socialism. But that argument is based upon the false premise that socialism can be brought into existence through parliamentary reform.

This is sort of the point I was making earlier, but I wasn't saying that it was a block on genuine socialism (which I agree can't come about simply through parliamentary reform) but that it's even a block on vaguely progressive social-democratic measures as favoured by J Corbyn and a significant % of the electorate. And apparently the Morning Star agrees with me...

Membership of the EU severely curtails the choices available to the electorates of individual countries. Socialism and even Keynesian social democracy cease to be options available to voters, either because the levers of economic control have been handed to unaccountable institutions such as the European Commission and European Central Bank or because socialist measures themselves such as renationalising industries or intervening directly in the economy are illegal.

 

[redsquirrel]

The Morning Star have written an article echoing some of the points on this thread that EU membership is a block on socialism.

Sorry who on this thread has made that argument? The only time that argument has been brought up is when it's being used as a silly straw man to attack people with.

 

[planetgeli]

socialist measures themselves such as renationalising industries or intervening directly in the economy are illegal.

How so? Just asking. I mean, its one thing to say we are stuck with following the neo-liberalism if we stay in the EU, but quite another to suggest, say, re-nationalising the railways would be deemed illegal. What makes it illegal now, this minute? Likesay, just asking.

 

[butchersapron]

How so? Just asking. I mean, its one thing to say we are stuck with following the neo-liberalism if we stay in the EU, but quite another to suggest, say, re-nationalising the railways would be deemed illegal. What makes it illegal now, this minute? Likesay, just asking.

Key text here is The Constitutional Protection of Capitalism by Danny Nichol (not Dandy Nichols - how i wish it were) - where he argues article 106 effectively does this.

 

[andysays]

How so? Just asking. I mean, its one thing to say we are stuck with following the neo-liberalism if we stay in the EU, but quite another to suggest, say, re-nationalising the railways would be deemed illegal. What makes it illegal now, this minute? Likesay, just asking.

Measures in the EU Constitution limit the freedom of national governments to pursue their own economic policies outside of a narrow range of (basically neo-liberal) options.

Maybe someone else can provide links/specific examples, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Cid]

Rhetoric.

It's a fundamental part of the current function of the EU. For example in energy markets and in the general basis of competition law. I'm erring on the side of stay at the moment but mainly because I think it's the worst possible time to leave...

 

[fredfelt]

I doubt it. You've managed to swallow everything else thus far. The devastation of greece, the taking over of spain via the constitution, ok but TTIP - no chance. Drawing a line here.

Despite making it clear in my post that I have big reservations about how the EU operates you try to use my post as a way to condescend. I've made no mention of either of the above topics.

I'm sure you are very knowledgeable but rather than engaging, and giving others an opportunity to share ideas my experience of attempting to engage with you leaves me feeling that you have no interest in engaging or sharing ideas. I feel that you simply want to stamp your 'correct' opinion at every opportunity.

I'm sure you have interesting things to say, however I'll choose not to engage this time as experience tells me it will not be a positive experience.

 

[butchersapron]

Despite making it clear in my post that I have big reservations about how the EU operates you try to use my post as a way to condescend. I've made no mention of either of the above topics.

I'm sure you are very knowledgeable but rather than engaging, and giving others an opportunity to share ideas my experience of attempting to engage with you leaves me feeling that you have no interest in engaging or sharing ideas. I feel that you simply want to stamp your 'correct' opinion at every opportunity.

I'm sure you have interesting things to say, however I'll choose not to engage this time as experience tells me it will not be a positive experience.

It certainly will not be if you can overlook what they did to greece. If that leaves you on the fence. Bye then.

 

[fredfelt]

It certainly will not be if you can overlook what they did to greece. If that leaves you on the fence. Bye then.

If you'd like a conversation you could start by engaging with a point I raised, rather than raising a subject I didn't.

 

[butchersapron]

If you'd like a conversation you could start by engaging with a point I raised, rather than raising a subject I didn't.

I'm not mad keen on the idea - the same method is open to yourself.

 

[gosub]

Measures in the EU Constitution limit the freedom of national governments to pursue their own economic policies outside of a narrow range of (basically neo-liberal) options.

Maybe someone else can provide links/specific examples, but that's the gist of it.

Maastrict critera. Which everybody is getting fined for not adhering to

 

[butchersapron]

Maastrict critera. Which everybody is getting fined for not adhering to

Ooh fines. Has it stopped them? Did it stop 'the rules' being lifted for greece?

 

[andysays]

Maastrict critera. Which everybody is getting fined for not adhering to

The Maastricht criteria are the criteria which European Union member states are required to meet to enter the third stage of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and adopt the Euro as their currency (in case you hadn't noticed, the UK hasn't joined this third stage and isn't attempting to do so).

This is entirely different from the rules imposed on all EU national governments (including the UK) by the EU constitution, so I'm afraid your contribution isn't really relevant to the point that is being made.