Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tory UK EU Exit Referendum

...Sections of 'capital' are lined up on both sides of the debate (see the current froth centered on the British Chambers of Commerce), dependent on how they think they can gain advantage over rivals by exploiting their preferred outcome...

This is a really important point which needs to be recognised and understood.

The "debate" such as it is tends to focus on the two competing sections of capital. The two sides of capital can't agree on this; even the traditional main political wing of British capital (ie the Conservative Party) can't agree, which is arguably the only reason we're having this referendum.

Therefore our response needs to focus explicitly on the interests of labour, but also to use the opportunity to further divide the opposing sections of capital. In that sense, it is worth examining the conflicting interests of capital in this, though not to the exclusion of all else (not suggesting that this last is actually happening here, BTW).
 
I've read #1287. It's an ok rant but doesn't actually say anything substantial. And that, I'm afraid, is symptomatic of the Out campaigning so far.

eg, it's all very well asserting that "capital want's the UK to remain in the EU" but it's simply not true. Sections of 'capital' are lined up on both sides of the debate (see the current froth centered on the British Chambers of Commerce), dependent on how they think they can gain advantage over rivals by exploiting their preferred outcome, but in the sure knowledge they'll be able to continue to exploit come what may.

I'll challenge what, where and when I please, but by and large I won't bother saying things that others are already saying.

Meanwhile I'm hoping you can center your views on labour not on capital.
I think it's fair to say that the global corporations of financialised capital favour the continued denationalisation and internationalisation of the mechanisms inherent in the supra-national body that can ensure debt repayments are honoured above the demands of national citizens. I don't doubt that many SME owners feel differently, but the capital that controls our 'democracy' prefers 'remain'.
That said, the continued and growing power of the corporations to liberalise and escape any democratic interference will occur either 'remain' or 'leave'.
 
Last edited:
This is a really important point which needs to be recognised and understood.

The "debate" such as it is tends to focus on the two competing sections of capital. The two sides of capital can't agree on this; even the traditional main political wing of British capital (ie the Conservative Party) can't agree, which is arguably the only reason we're having this referendum.
yes, but no to only.

I think it's worth recognising that 'capital' is not the only factor or force in society. So eg strong anti-immigration sentiments have contributed to the political demands for the referendum (avoidance of doubt, that's not the same as anti-immigrant), as have notions of sovereignty and so on. This has been such a long running sore within the tory party in particular but the right in general that ascribing it all to competing wings of capital just isn't credible.
Therefore our response needs to focus explicitly on the interests of labour, but also to use the opportunity to further divide the opposing sections of capital. In that sense, it is worth examining the conflicting interests of capital in this, though not to the exclusion of all else (not suggesting that this last is actually happening here, BTW).

Does 'our' mean simply posters on this thread or something wider?

in any case I don't really see what dividing opposing sections of capital means, even if someone could come up with a worked example of how it might be possible. Clearly manufacturing, service and finance sections have different, often competing, interests in stuff like interest or exchange rates or international trading arrangements. A sector may collectively even see sectional advantage being In or Out of the EU, though I rather doubt it. But so what, they all exist to extract maximum profit from labour and resources, so while sectional advantage may help one or other regional labour demographic, overall it doesn't make much odds, does it?
 
I think it's fair to say that the global corporations of financialised capital favour the continued denationalisation and internationalisation of the mechanisms inherent in the supra-national body that can ensure debt repayments are honoured above the demands of national citizens.
Corporations (mostly manufacturing or services) might but finance? dunno, I don't believe anything bankers/financiers say in public anyway, they're all looking for short-term advantage.

This is possibly a diversion, but surely a substantial point about supra-national organisations is to avoid disputes caused by competing demands of national citizens turning to war, as has been traditional?
 
Corporations (mostly manufacturing or services) might but finance? dunno, I don't believe anything bankers/financiers say in public anyway, they're all looking for short-term advantage.

This is possibly a diversion, but surely a substantial point about supra-national organisations is to avoid disputes caused by competing demands of national citizens turning to war, as has been traditional?
That's the certainly the sort of argument used by some of the 'founding fathers' such as Spinelli, but the reality of the development of the project has been more Hayekian than anything to do with "peace".
 
yes, but no to only.

I think it's worth recognising that 'capital' is not the only factor or force in society. So eg strong anti-immigration sentiments have contributed to the political demands for the referendum (avoidance of doubt, that's not the same as anti-immigrant), as have notions of sovereignty and so on. This has been such a long running sore within the tory party in particular but the right in general that ascribing it all to competing wings of capital just isn't credible.

Of course capital isn't the only factor or force, but it's certainly the dominant one, and in my opinion the dominant arguments around immigration and sovereignty in the context of this referendum (and more widely, obviously) are almost entirely about immigration and sovereignty as it benefits or hinders capitalism.

The fact that it has been such a long running sore within the tory party in particular but the right in general suggests to me that ultimately it is all about competing wings of capital. Whether you think that's credible is another question.

Does 'our' mean simply posters on this thread or something wider?

In this case what I mean is those of us, on this thread and more widely, who attempt to approach politics from a pro-working-class and anti-capitalist class perspective, who refuse to take sides with one or other competing section of capitalism.

in any case I don't really see what dividing opposing sections of capital means, even if someone could come up with a worked example of how it might be possible. Clearly manufacturing, service and finance sections have different, often competing, interests in stuff like interest or exchange rates or international trading arrangements. A sector may collectively even see sectional advantage being In or Out of the EU, though I rather doubt it. But so what, they all exist to extract maximum profit from labour and resources, so while sectional advantage may help one or other regional labour demographic, overall it doesn't make much odds, does it?

On a general level, it means making arguments and persuading people to vote in the way which in the short term will most fuck up capitalist interests and in the longer term make space for us to advance our own interests. In this particular case, I suggest it means arguing and voting for Britain to come out of the EU.
 
That's the certainly the sort of argument used by some of the 'founding fathers' such as Spinelli, but the reality of the development of the project has been more Hayekian than anything to do with "peace".
I'm no intellectual, so using shorthand like that is only barely meaningful to me, sorry. If by 'Hayekian' you mean economic liberalism, then yes I accept that.

OTOH the reality of some decades of no war between any of the major European powers is no mean achievement and needs to be recognised. I guess it's drifting into Project Fear territory to note that someone posted the other day something about what happens when supranational bodies break up, citing the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, with, I suppose, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans not so far behind. PF it may be, but it can't be completely dismissed.
 
I'm no intellectual, so using shorthand like that is only barely meaningful to me, sorry. If by 'Hayekian' you mean economic liberalism, then yes I accept that.

OTOH the reality of some decades of no war between any of the major European powers is no mean achievement and needs to be recognised. I guess it's drifting into Project Fear territory to note that someone posted the other day something about what happens when supranational bodies break up, citing the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, with, I suppose, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans not so far behind. PF it may be, but it can't be completely dismissed.
Maybe it can't be dismissed, but it can be questioned/debated.
Whilst there's obviously no way of knowing, it must be questionable that the 'Common Market'/EEC, EC, EU made any contribution towards the elimination of warfare between member states that would not naturally have arisen as a response to the disaster of the mid-century.
 
Of course capital isn't the only factor or force, but it's certainly the dominant one, and in my opinion the dominant arguments around immigration and sovereignty in the context of this referendum (and more widely, obviously) are almost entirely about immigration and sovereignty as it benefits or hinders capitalism.

The fact that it has been such a long running sore within the tory party in particular but the right in general suggests to me that ultimately it is all about competing wings of capital. Whether you think that's credible is another question.
Not particularly. I don't hang out with racists but I've had lots of people tell me they don't like the EU because of mass immigration, and one of the issues has been depressing wages, which I suppose might fit what you're saying in a roundabout sort of way, but the main complaints are about culture, pressure on resources, benefits :rolleyes:, language and why. No-one has ever focussed on competing wings of capital. Now, I fully accept that people can whinge about anything they please without the establishment taking enough notice to call a referendum, but I think you're overplaying your hand a bit.

In this case what I mean is those of us, on this thread and more widely, who attempt to approach politics from a pro-working-class and anti-capitalist class perspective, who refuse to take sides with one or other competing section of capitalism.

On a general level, it means making arguments and persuading people to vote in the way which in the short term will most fuck up capitalist interests and in the longer term make space for us to advance our own interests. In this particular case, I suggest it means arguing and voting for Britain to come out of the EU.

I think only the most politically motivated are thinking about that sort of short-term. I'd say people recognise that this really will affect almost every aspect of the rest of our lives, and will vote accordingly.

Even then, I'm still waiting to be persuaded that overall- as opposed to sectional- capitalist interests are in any way going to be affected.
 
Maybe it can't be dismissed, but it can be questioned/debated.
Whilst there's obviously no way of knowing, it must be questionable that the 'Common Market'/EEC, EC, EU made any contribution towards the elimination of warfare between member states that would not naturally have arisen as a response to the disaster of the mid-century.
of course it's debateable, but your initial assertion that a supranational body "would ensure debt repayments are honoured above the demands of national citizens" has to be seen in the light of what might happen without that body.

The tensions between what an electorate currently wants and paying back debts already incurred won't go away in the absence of the EU, but the mechanism for resolving the tension is, well what?
 
of course it's debateable, but your initial assertion that a supranational body "would ensure debt repayments are honoured above the demands of national citizens" has to be seen in the light of what might happen without that body.
I think I've made it clear, earlier up the thread, that in regard of that specific dynamic, nothing would change if the electorate voted 'leave'. It's just that the pressure from financialised capital to privilege the servicing of their debt would be applied directly through the bond markets, rather than mediated/co-ordinated by the supra-national entity.
 
Which is the easier to change? Mega Capitalism or Little Capitalism?

Okay, okay nothing profoundly Marxist there. Nothing that would stop Rosa Luxemburg from crawling under the bed in embarrassment. Nothing that would make Gramsci order a double espresso in shock at such simplicity and naivety. One thing is for certain, if anybody fools themself into thinking the EU will be the panacea for radical change which will serve the people then they really are deluding themselves.

Hopefully, like all other empires it will collapse and for the time being I shall be on the side that offers us the opportunity for change - out.

Time for that 'Fuck The Fucking Fuckers' billboard.
 
Which is the easier to change? Mega Capitalism or Little Capitalism?

Okay, okay nothing profoundly Marxist there. Nothing that would stop Rosa Luxemburg from crawling under the bed in embarrassment. Nothing that would make Gramsci order a double espresso in shock at such simplicity and naivety. One thing is for certain, if anybody fools themself into thinking the EU will be the panacea for radical change which will serve the people then they really are deluding themselves.

Hopefully, like all other empires it will collapse and for the time being I shall be on the side that offers us the opportunity for change - out.
But membership of the EU (or not) does not affect the 'size' of capitalism?
 
But membership of the EU (or not) does not affect the 'size' of capitalism?

That is true but it would be a damn site easier to take on the corner shop as opposed to the EU's global corporations and their hundreds - maybe thousands - of lobbyists.

As an aside. Does anybody know if the Co-Operative movement has increased or diminished during the time of the EU?
 
That is true but it would be a damn site easier to take on the corner shop as opposed to the EU's global corporations and their hundreds - maybe thousands - of lobbyists.

As an aside. Does anybody know if the Co-Operative movement has increased or diminished during the time of the EU?
But that corporate power remains whatever.
 
An FT piece that pretty much sums up much that rotten in the superstate....
Greece’s warring creditors will attempt to bridge their differences at a meeting of eurozone finance ministers Monday amidst mounting concerns Athens’ €86bn third bailout is already headed for crisis.

The EU and the International Monetary Fund are at loggerheads over the strength of reform measures Athens must adopt to complete the rescue’s first quarterly review, which must be closed before the eurozone will consider the politically combustible issue of granting Greece debt relief.

Without the acquiescence of the IMF, which has not formally signed onto the third bailout yet, the entire rescue risks falling apart since a German-led group of creditor countries have insisted they cannot approve EU bailout funds without IMF participation.

“Will the IMF be in or out?” asked one senior eurozone official involved in the talks. “Many European governments insist that this is unthinkable without the IMF – but the IMF is well aware that it is in the best bargaining position one could wish to be in.”

Under the terms of last year’s bailout agreement, Greece must adopt reform measures that will produce a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of economic output by 2018. A country’s primary budget is its revenues and expenses when debt payments are not counted.

The dispute centres on what Athens needs to do to get to the 3.5 per cent surplus, with Brussels insisting Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, is committed to implementing reforms that will hit the target, but the IMF believes many of the measures agreed are vague and do not add up.

In recent weeks, the standoff has turned increasingly nasty, with IMF and European Commission officials trading accusations during last month’s finance ministerial meeting in Brussels. More recently, IMF and Greek representatives got into a heated exchange at a gathering of deputies last week.

In an effort to clear the air, senior officials from all three bailout monitors – Poul Thomsen, head of the IMF’s Europe department; Benoit Coeuré, the European Central Bank governor responsible for Brussels issues; and Marco Buti, director of the EU commission’s economics department – gathered in Brussels for a dinner Wednesday night at which an agreement was reached to try to mend differences before Monday’s meeting.

But officials said the two sides remain far apart and the only solution may be to send bailout negotiators back to Athens next week with an agreed list of reforms – even if they cannot agree on whether the list will be enough to reach the 3.5 per cent target.

Officials said the two sides cannot even agree on how much must be done, with the EU believing Athens will run a small surplus even without new reforms and the IMF projecting a 1 per cent deficit. The IMF is also insisting that sweeping debt relief is needed to enable Greece to reach the 2018 target, something that is politically difficult in Berlin.

The IMF has come under intense pressure to relax its stance, including from the US and UK, amidst fears the Greek programme could blow up at the same time as Europe struggles with a massive refugee influx and Britain is in the midst of an EU membership referendum.

But Greece does not need bailout cash until July, when about €3.5bn in debt payments come due, and the IMF has signalled it sees no urgency to reach a deal – leading some officials to believe Mr Thomsen is eager to end the IMF’s participation. “There’s growing fear in Europe that the IMF’s hawkish stance is motivated by its desire to get out of Greece or force a change in government,” said Mujtaba Rahman, head of European analysis at the Eurasia Group risk consultancy.

That has turned the focus on Berlin, where Chancellor Angela Merkel has been politically weakened by the refugee crisis and has expressed sympathy with Athens, which has become overwhelmed by the migrant influx – leading some Greek officials believe she will pressure the IMF to back down.

“Berlin is in a fix,” said a senior eurozone official. “They would like to be somewhat more flexible, but the [bailout] agreement has quite explicit targets which are internalised by the Bundestag. And they do not dare to revisit this.”

One senior member of Germany’s governing coalition said even Wolfgang Schäuble, the hawkish finance minister, believes Berlin needs Athens to help solve the migrant crisis and is therefore averse to repeat last year’s drama, where he promoted Greece’s exit from the eurozone.

At the same time, Ms Merkel is reluctant to ease budget targets or grant sweeping debt relief – both of which must be approved by an increasingly hostile Bundestag – and the German coalition official said if the IMF holds firm, “then we have a problem.”
How depressing is that?
 
....equally idiotic for them to put any barriers up to us bearing in mind the famous 70bn a year trade deficit we run with the EU and that Brexit-Britain, in the words of the extremely pro-EU Jonathan Portes ...would become the EU’s single largest trading partner for trade in goods...
If Britain were out of the EU and wanted access to the EU market the EU would argue that to get access to the market we would have to play by the rules and pay the entry fee. i.e. get what we are getting at the moment, for the same cost, but without the say on how the market develops!
 
If Britain were out of the EU and wanted access to the EU market the EU would argue that to get access to the market we would have to play by the rules and pay the entry fee. i.e. get what we are getting at the moment, for the same cost, but without the say on how the market develops!
Nope. worked it out up thread from Norwiegian figures, there is an over £6 billion saving if UK accessed the EEA single market as an EFTA member.
 
Nope. worked it out up thread from Norwiegian figures, there is an over £6 billion saving if UK accessed the EEA single market as an EFTA member.
ONLY IF the terms that Norway got were available.

How did their oil fund figure in those?
 
ONLY IF the terms that Norway got were available.

How did their oil fund figure in those?
EFTA payment terms are set, is dependant on GDP, UK's is 5.22 the size of Norway's. Remain's claim they pay more per head is based on the fact there are only 5 million of them (which is not a factor in the official calculation). I imagine the Norwegian oil fund figures quite largely in there GDP calculation.

(I'm also assuming all monies to the UK from the EU would be met and paid by HMG before you ask)
 
Last edited:
Without any say as to how the market develops.

As I told you before, and you seemingly couldn't see the point, the acquired seat on the Global bodies means you get influencing preliminary drafting.

also how much say does UK have in the reform of the EUrozone?
 
As I told you before, and you seemingly couldn't see the point, the acquired seat on the Global bodies means you get influencing preliminary drafting.
I don't see that. In the field that I have knowledge of, the EU called together representatives of the larger EU manufacturers of the said products to contribute to the drawing up of product standards based on best practice in the EU firms there represented. Once agreed, firms within the EU and outside of it, if they wanted to display the CE mark and supply EU countries, had to comply with the standard so developed. It was a wholly EU thing.
 
I don't see that. In the field that I have knowledge of, the EU called together representatives of the larger EU manufacturers of the said products to contribute to the drawing up of product standards based on best practice in the EU firms there represented. Once agreed, firms within the EU and outside of it, if they wanted to display the CE mark and supply EU countries, had to comply with the standard so developed. It was a wholly EU thing.
which (you don't name the industry) would have to comply with overarching global specs.


Plus these larger manufacturers, (again I'don't know the industry) chances are will have operations in more than one EU state - Roll Royce's letter to employees saying we are wholey owned by BMW and we need to stay in so as to be able influence standards was absurd.
 
Last edited:
which (you don't name the industry) would have to comply with overarching global specs
No I didn't name the industry but before this EU standard we could export to many countries without having to comply with any standard at all. It helped if you supplied North America to have UL or CSA but not having it did not exclude you.
 
Not listing the industry means I don't know when the EU standards came in, so can't point at any global development since then.
 
ISO? IEC? CENELEC?

World Trade Organization recommends in its Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement, that its members to use International Standards rather than regional or national ones whenever possible.

(EU would be classed as regional)
 
eg, it's all very well asserting that "capital want's the UK to remain in the EU" but it's simply not true. Sections of 'capital' are lined up on both sides of the debate (see the current froth centered on the British Chambers of Commerce), dependent on how they think they can gain advantage over rivals by exploiting their preferred outcome, but in the sure knowledge they'll be able to continue to exploit come what may.
With the overwhelming majority backing a "remain". To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest the stuff about the BCC sacking it chairman shows that capital supports the EU (bar a few exceptions), not the opposite.

I'll challenge what, where and when I please, but by and large I won't bother saying things that others are already saying.
Then don't persist in this charade of being 'neutral'
 
Last edited:
ISO? IEC? CENELEC?

World Trade Organization recommends in its Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement, that its members to use International Standards rather than regional or national ones whenever possible.

(EU would be classed as regional)
We, a UK maker, had to use EU norms brought into UK law as BS EN XXXX
 
Back
Top Bottom