Which way would you vote in an EU referendum?

[butchersapron]

From your link:



Why haven't Hungary been forced to impose austerity by the EU?

Let me get this right - you say that it's not the eu that demands austerity, it's the eurozone. The eu wouldn't demand austerity of countries outside of the eurozone. You're presented with clear evidence of the eu demanding austerity from Romania and Hungary and you notice hungary (seemingly) not agreeing, but you don't notice the eu demand for austerity from both? That's odd isn't it?

Guess what happened next - the eu imposed sanctions on hungary and demanded it impose austerity. And it won.

 

[DotCommunist]

on the one hand it is nice to be able to get produce from foriegn places in my shop without it being stupidly expensive but on the other hand the PTB use the system to transfer labour from one place to the next like auf weidershen pet and in the long run thats not good for anyone except MOP owners.

Not as it stands anyway. There must be an equitable way of doing free movement of labour. Its not this though.

There's got to be a better way. A vast pan-european, nay worldwide network of producers and buyers all united in a mutually beneficial and non exploitative relationship which keeps everyone happy. I have a dream

 

[butchersapron]

in what way do you think that britain leaving the EU would change that?

We're actually currently one of the main driving forces behind austerity and doing it entirely voluntarily, so it's not like leaving Europe would have any impact on that side of things in the UK.

The EU has definitely made a huge mistake with it's handling of this debt crisis - turning something better described as a minor issue into a massive international crisis, but that doesn't mean that the EU institution itself is at fault to the degree that it must be abandoned. By far the best way of solving these problems would be via an about face by the EU, and refocussing on spending to promote economic growth into those countries.

If the EU falls apart entirely, those countries would then be left entirely to their own devices to sort themselves out, which from the position they're now in would be incredibly difficult for them - they can't now just go out and borrow to invest themselves on the international markets, so they need the EU to change it's stance and do the borrowing and investing.

The reality of the situation IMO is that the EU are struggling to make the Euro work across the continent, and basically having to make the economic policies up as they go along to try to keep it all working. They've obviously fucked that right up, but that doesn't necessarily mean that abandoning the entire project is the best response to the situation.

I don't think that, i've said that the break up of the eu would do that. Thanks for reading so closely.

And thanks for thinking so internationally - we're already doing austerity but we're not in the eu so you know, they've obviously very different and totally separate things that could not ever impact on each other.

That's exactly what it means - it has shown itself to be a spur to and a whip-holder for those bad things. A nice little oh they must not do that (despite writing that they must into their constitution) is worthless. That's the 'reality of the situation'.

 

[Pickman's model]

as long as the conservative party rips itself apart over europe i will always vote for continued membership of the eu.

 

[frogwoman]

I cant see the EU lasting another 20 years tbh.

 

[Pickman's model]

I cant see the EU lasting another 20 years tbh.

i can see the conservative party lasting another 20 years so i see the eu lasting another 25 years.

 

[Wilf]

If Mr Falange takes his summer hols north of the border, I can't see him lasting 5 minutes.

 

[Pickman's model]

If Mr Falange takes his summer hols north of the border, I can't see him lasting 5 minutes.

he might last 10 in inverness. 9 of them very painful though.

 

[butchersapron]

I am saying that Norway which never joined the EU is increasing productivity, cutting down workforces, cutting social spending, forcing individuals to bear previously social costs. The struggle at Statoil and other oil firms is all about austerity. I'm no expert on it - but have read of it on wsws The Norweigan conservatives poised to win the election (after a union sellout and abstention from Labour Party, sound familiar?) are in favour of even deeper austerity.
I don't know too much about Greenland's politics - the only territory to have left the EU, in 1982 - but its politics are split around a risky extension of oil exploration with further environmental damage or deepening austerity. That's it:- austerity for future generations or for present ones. At the same time Denmark is trying (but failing) to impose more of the costs of defense/militarisation onto Greenland.
The EU aspect doesn't matter as much the austerity itself does.




This is a fantasy dream, what happened when France voted no to new constitution in 2005 - left spent ages and lots of resources arguing the case there - nothing much different.

The IMF has nothing to do with the EU, it will exist whatever happens in an in-out referendum on the IMF, with Britain as 4.3% of its voting power, it will release or block the flow of SDRs as it sees fit.
Wrong building up the EU into a body independent of the IMF - the 4 biggest economies in the EU: Germany France UK Italy hold 18.4% of its voting rights. The EU does for Europe what the IMF thinks and doesn't do directly.

So Greece receives EU medicine in this 2009- crisis, whilst Turkey received IMF medicine in the 1999- crisis.
Prove to me the actual difference between the two, why the latter option is unsustainable why the first is crucial and indispensable.

Once Britain leaves, already civil servants will have prepared a back-up option for Britain's new bloc on leaving the EU, almost certainly by trying to EU-ify EFTA which Britain will almost certainly join and mostly be welcomed into.



Comparison. As you have slated people as ultra-lefts: Are you encouraging a vote in favour of Cornish nationalism whenever you get the chance? The rise of Cornish nationalism would be a body-blow to the concept of England, a real stake in the heart of the kind of austerity the United Kingdom is imposing, it would accelerate Scottish pro-independence nationalism leading to a yes vote for end of the UK as it exists now, the UK would not survive.

Austerity doesn't need the EU, the EU needs austerity.
If you have enough anti-austerity action within it, the Euro will start cracking or hyper-inflating, leading to intolerable stresses and separation.

Of course the EU aspect doesn't matter as much as the austerity aspect, but it damn well matters in their medium-long term plans. That's why they have spent 60 years (well 40 seriously) constructing it.

I'm not arguing the left should spend all their time on an anti-eu campaign - i'm outlining the situation and the possible outcomes - to benefit from them we would need to be doing something very different from anti-eu stuff.

I'm not arguing that any body IMF or EU is better or preferable to another

Of course the uk state will have plans in place? They have plans in place for everything - so what?

I've slated the idea that the organisation of work, education, health and leisure are internal business of the bosses - yes. Don't know what you're on about with the cornish stuff.

You open with "The EU aspect doesn't matter as much the austerity itself does." then end with "Austerity doesn't need the EU, the EU needs austerity." - aren't these two opposed things to say?

And of course, if enough anti-austerity actions take place within the eu it will break - but why is that a reason to say that they couldn't take place within a better situation post-eu? Why ignore potential dyanmics just because another potential one exists?

 

[butchersapron]

as long as the conservative party rips itself apart over europe i will always vote for continued membership of the eu.

Leaving would force them to a real split that makes this stuff look like a wetherspoons anarchist disco.

 

[Pickman's model]

Leaving would force them to a real split that makes this stuff look like a wetherspoons anarchist disco.

i hope you're not referring to the 2005 battle of holloway road

 

[butchersapron]

i hope you're not referring to the 2005 battle of holloway road

The battle to end all battles.

 

[Fez909]

Let me get this right - you say that it's not the eu that demands austerity, it's the eurozone. The eu wouldn't demand austerity of countries outside of the eurozone. You're presented with clear evidence of the eu demanding austerity from Romania and Hungary and you notice hungary (seemingly) not agreeing, but you don't notice the eu demand for austerity from both? That's odd isn't it?

Guess what happened next - the eu imposed sanctions on hungary and demanded it impose austerity. And it won.

Thanks for that. I didn't realise such a thing as an EDP existed, and it looked as though you were right that the EU can force this on its members. But then I saw this in Britain's own EDP (pdf) from 2008:

Article 104 of the Treaty lays down an excessive deficit procedure (EDP). This procedure is further specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 “on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure”, which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact. While the provisions above apply to the UK in the same manner as to other countries not participating in the Euro area, it should be recalled that under Article 5 of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the obligation under Article 104(1) of the Treaty to avoid excessive general government deficits does not apply to the United Kingdom unless it moves to the third stage of EMU. Instead, as long as it is in the second stage of EMU, the UK is committed under Article 116(4) of the Treaty to "endeavour to avoid excessive deficits".

So we are obliged to reduce the deficit, but exempt from the treaty. So what happens if we fail to comply with the EDP? They write another report!

Article 104(3) stipulates that, if a Member State does not fulfil the requirements under one or both of these criteria, the Commission has to prepare a report.

So the EU can demand, but cannot enforce, a member state to carry out an austerity programme unless the state has progressed to the third stage of economic monetary union - which is what I was saying.

 

[RedDragon]

Perhaps like what happened after the black death.

 

[sihhi]

Let me get this right - you say that it's not the eu that demands austerity, it's the eurozone. The eu wouldn't demand austerity of countries outside of the eurozone. You're presented with clear evidence of the eu demanding austerity from Romania and Hungary and you notice hungary (seemingly) not agreeing, but you don't notice the eu demand for austerity from both? That's odd isn't it?

Guess what happened next - the eu imposed sanctions on hungary and demanded it impose austerity. And it won.

Hungary is being forced to keep its year-on-year deficit under 3% as stipulated by the 2004 Growth and Stabiliy Pact. The EU is imposing this.

However, back in 1994 the IMF refused to give any funding to Hungary facing a massive credit squeeze from every bank in the world, unless it 'refocused' ie cut from being universal its generous Communist-era family and child benefit schemes. Back then Hungary was not an EU member, yet it still happened. The conservatives - I think FIDESZ even then - couldn't do it. So the Socialists MSZP under Gyula Horne did it in 1994-5-6-7 a whole raft of social changes, blessed and operated by a joint IMF-Hungarian govt team. In the same way that the Troika can basically veto the Greece budget so the IMF with its resident representative could veto Hungary's budget.
IIRC this is when disenchantment and the rise of the far-right in Hungary really stepped up became a vital national force.

Leaving the EU means without struggle to leave capitalism and the IMF means nothing. To think it might is stagism, hope against hope, wishing something might happen. Let's be realistic :- nothing good can come out of either result.

 

[butchersapron]

Thanks for that. I didn't realise such a thing as an EDP existed, and it looked as though you were right that the EU can force this on its members. But then I saw this in Britain's own EDP (pdf) from 2008:




So we are obliged to reduce the deficit, but exempt from the treaty. So what happens if we fail to comply with the EDP? They write another report!



So the EU can demand, but cannot enforce, a member state to carry out an austerity programme unless the state has progressed to the third stage of economic monetary union - which is what I was saying.

Think about what you just said - the eu cannot force a state into austerity unless it has already done austerity steps 1 and 2. Austerity steps 1 and 2 being conditions of entry.

 

[butchersapron]

Hungary is being forced to keep its year-on-year deficit under 3% as stipulated by the 2004 Growth and Stabiliy Pact. The EU is imposing this.

However, back in 1994 the IMF refused to give any funding to Hungary facing a massive credit squeeze from every bank in the world, unless it 'refocused' ie cut from being universal its generous Communist-era family and child benefit schemes. Back then Hungary was not an EU member, yet it still happened. The conservatives - I think FIDESZ even then - couldn't do it. So the Socialists MSZP under Gyula Horne did it in 1994-5-6-7 a whole raft of social changes, blessed and operated by a joint IMF-Hungarian govt team. In the same way that the Troika can basically veto the Greece budget so the IMF with its resident representative could veto Hungary's budget.
IIRC this is when disenchantment and the rise of the far-right in Hungary really stepped up became a vital national force.

Leaving the EU means without struggle to leave capitalism and the IMF means nothing. To think it might is stagism, hope against hope, wishing something might happen. Let's be realistic :- nothing good can come out of either result.

Other people than the EU do austerity? Whoah!!

I'm glad that you've edited your last line - it's still wrong. Identifying what may happen in the current conditions of our weakness is exactly as fanciful as saying hey let's break the eu from within through our anti-austerity struggle. And one is closer to happening than the other.

 

[Fez909]

Think about what you just said - the eu cannot force a state into austerity unless it has already done austerity steps 1 and 2. Austerity steps 1 and 2 being conditions of entry.

Except that's not true. Stage 2 is voluntary and Hungary have not progressed to stage two yet. Nor Romania, the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden or Bulgaria.

 

[free spirit]

I don't think that, i've said that the break up of the eu would do that. Thanks for reading so closely.

And thanks for thinking so internationally - we're already doing austerity but we're not in the eu so you know, they've obviously very different and totally separate things that could not ever impact on each other.

That's exactly what it means - it has shown itself to be a spur to and a whip-holder for those bad things. A nice little oh they must not do that (despite writing that they must into their constitution) is worthless. That's the 'reality of the situation'.

To clarify, are you insinuating that the UK position on austerity is anything other than a voluntary position?

I'm aware that the UK has signed a notional agreement to endeavour to keep borrowing below 3% of GDP, but it's an agreement without any teeth and Osbourne is a true believer in this not someone being forced into it.

Obviously those sorts of agreements do demonstrate that the EU has long had this wrong, and the groundwork for enforced austerity measures was laid with those agreements, but I'd argue that we'd better campaigning to change those agreements now they've been proven to have failed / been counterproductive, rather than giving up on the EU entirely.

I seriously doubt that this is the measure Cameron has in mind to renegotiate though.

I'm sure I've missed the nuances of your position btw, but that's down to your oblique posting style.

 

[butchersapron]

Except that's not true. Stage 2 is voluntary and Hungary have not progressed to stage two yet. Nor Romania, the Czech Republic, Poland or Bulgaria.

Yeah, voluntary austerity. Before you join the EU. It's up to you, your call.ty.

And look, hungary aren't even at stage two and we found them facing sanctions from the EU to impose austerity already. Wonder what real stage 3 austerity looks like?

 

[Fez909]

it's an agreement without any teeth

As acknowledged in the EU's own 'warning' to the UK which I quoted and linked above.

 

[sihhi]

I'm not arguing that any body IMF or EU is better or preferable to another

But you're saying the EU is worse for the European working-class than the IMF by your urging a decisive end to the EU project, suggesting it might ease up the austerity wagon for a while because of a new reconfiguration (which won't, as you acknowledge, exclude the IMF).

You open with "The EU aspect doesn't matter as much the austerity itself does." then end with "Austerity doesn't need the EU, the EU needs austerity." - aren't these two opposed things to say?

No - the EU needs collective step-by-step austerity for it to survive as a block, but austerity can be imposed by other vectors - the IMF or the unregulated money markets. The EU is a subset of austerity.

 

[butchersapron]

To clarify, are you insinuating that the UK position on austerity is anything other than a voluntary position?

I'm aware that the UK has signed a notional agreement to endeavour to keep borrowing below 3% of GDP, but it's an agreement without any teeth and Osbourne is a true believer in this not someone being forced into it.

Obviously those sorts of agreements do demonstrate that the EU has long had this wrong, and the groundwork for enforced austerity measures was laid with those agreements, but I'd argue that we'd better campaigning to change those agreements now they've been proven to have failed / been counterproductive, rather than giving up on the EU entirely.

I seriously doubt that this is the measure Cameron has in mind to renegotiate though.

I'm sure I've missed the nuances of your position btw, but that's down to your oblique posting style.

Insinuating? Blimey. UK austerity is a choice. It's a choice within a global configuration of capital movements.

They haven't been shown to have failed, they've been shown to work for and by those who designed them. You haven't got that this is about capital and not the eu operating as some lovely protective body yet have you? Yeah, one more euro-march - make the eu bosses, the strategists understand. They're only doing it because they think it helps us. Oh tsar, these worthless ministers.

 

[free spirit]

Yeah, voluntary austerity. Before you join the EU. It's up to you, your call.ty.

And look, hungary aren't even at stage two and we found them facing sanctions from the EU to impose austerity already. Wonder what real stage 3 austerity looks like?

better to focus on opposing austerity across the EU rather than diverting lots of effort into trying to leave the EU as part of a largely right wing campaign - nothing good is going to come from us leaving the EU due to a UKIP led campaign IMO.

 

[butchersapron]

But you're saying the EU is worse for the European working-class than the IMF by your urging a decisive end to the EU project, suggesting it might ease up the austerity wagon for a while because of a new reconfiguration (which won't, as you acknowledge, exclude the IMF).



No - the EU needs collective step-by-step austerity for it to survive as a block, but austerity can be imposed by other vectors - the IMF or the unregulated money markets. The EU is a subset of austerity.

I've said the EU is the IMF in europe - i've said IMF/EU/ECB for a reason.

Sure, and i agree - why not smash up a weapon of austerity, esp if it it throws the political class behind it into utter confusion? Better if we do if, but we're not talking fantasy are we?

 

[Fez909]

Yeah, voluntary austerity. Before you join the EU. It's up to you, your call.ty.

And look, hungary aren't even at stage two and we found them facing sanctions from the EU to impose austerity already. Wonder what real stage 3 austerity looks like?

From Hungary's EDP (pdf):

Countries that joined the EU on 1 May 2004 are Member States with a derogation and are to avoid excessive deficits, but sanctions according to Article 104(9) and (11) cannot be imposed on them.

I'm not just arguing for argument's sake here. I'd genuinely like to have my opinion swayed one way or the other. If the EU cannot impose austerity on the UK, then using austerity as the reason why we should vote to leave the EU doesn't make sense.

By what legal mechanism is it enforced by the EU? I know capital exerts political pressure, but that's separate and nothing to do with the referendum, as sihhi is arguing.

 

[butchersapron]

better to focus on opposing austerity across the EU rather than diverting lots of effort into trying to leave the EU as part of a largely right wing campaign - nothing good is going to come from us leaving the EU due to a UKIP led campaign IMO.

What energy? I've not argued for any energy to be put into any campaign - my only post on this thread about energy was to say the sort of localist stuff i've long encouraged is what will be needed to develop international links post eu-collapse. You're assuming far too much - either from not reading the thread, reading it backwards.

 

[butchersapron]

From Hungary's EDP (pdf):



I'm not just arguing for argument's sake here. I'd genuinely like to have my opinion swayed one way or the other. If the EU cannot impose austerity on the UK, then using austerity as the reason why we should vote to leave the EU doesn't make sense.

By what legal mechanism is it enforced by the EU? I know capital exerts political pressure, but that's separate and nothing to do with the referendum, as sihhi is arguing.

Did the eu impose sanctions on hungary or not? Was hungary not even a step 2 country or not? Did it happen? There is your answer.

We've gone from only eurozone, to only step 3, to oh anyone they like back to, well if they can't do it to the UK then the stuff we just talked about couldn't have happened.

 

[free spirit]

Insinuating? Blimey. UK austerity is a choice. It's a choice within a global configuration of capital movements.

ok, so nothing to do with the EU then, so leaving the EU wouldn't help change that policy.

Thanks for the clarification - I had to say insinuating as I'm having to read between the lines to work out wtf you're actually getting at in your posts.

They haven't been shown to have failed, they've been shown to work for and by those who designed them.

I don't see that it's working for anyone, although the ultra rich have been able to make a killing from QE and bank bailouts, an austerity policy that kills the economy is bad for business, and bad for capital as well as being bad for those stuck on the dole.

You haven't got that this is about capital and not the eu operating as some lovely protective body yet have you? Yeah, one more euro-march - make the eu bosses, the strategists understand. They're only doing it because they think it helps us. Oh tsar, these worthless ministers.

thanks for that.

 

[Fez909]

Did the eu impose sanctions on hungary or not? Was hungary not even a step 2 country or not? Did it happen? There is your answer.

We've gone from only eurozone, to only step 3, to oh anyone they like back to, well if they can't do it to the UK then the stuff we just talked about couldn't have happened.

I'm still trying to figure that out, hence my question: how did they impose sanctions on Hungary? Stage 3 is the Eurozone, btw, so my argument has not changed. I'm just more informed about the terms and legal requirements now.