Cameron's Referendum

Taking sides in this is splitting hairs, the bosses are going to find new ways to fuck us over as hard or worse. Also the main people who talk about EU being some big scary group of nation states with fascist tendencies is are ukip and other right wingers.

the croydonian anarchist

Taking sides in this is splitting hairs, the bosses are going to find new ways to fuck us over as hard or worse. Also the main people who talk about EU being some big scary group of nation states with fascist tendencies is are ukip and other right wingers.

Exactly. This referendum offers nothing to working people: all we can do is fight for our own material interests against bosses and governments of all nationalities.

That said, it's amusing political theatre, especially seeing the Tories tear themselves apart over it. It is funny to see them argue amongst themselves over it, as while they like big business, they don't like foreigners. Quite a conundrum for them…

If the UK vote to leave, do you think EU nationals doing low paid, unskilled work will be granted appropriate visas?

wojtek

If the UK vote to leave, do you think EU nationals doing low paid, unskilled work will be granted appropriate visas?

I think if we vote to leave, we would instead join the EEA, so basically the situation will be completely unchanged, so EU rules would still apply, but the British government would have no say in them any more (like Switzerland for example)

Surely anti-EU politics among the Tories, UKIP and daily mail readers has a central racist component to them? Particularly directed against Eastern European migrants.

Cameron is trying to use the vote as a leverage for renegotiating the terms of the UK's continued membership. If they want something out of it, it is curtailing migration to the UK and exceptions to EU human rights provisions on freedom of movement and maybe union legislation as well. It's not a conservative campaign for the right to eat curved bananas but something much more sinister.

Am I wrong on this?

I'd probably vote to stay in if I were in the UK.
The EU seems that it's a better deal to me. Fun watching the Tory bloodbath, don't give a fuck about labour but always happy to see the Tories have a problem.

Where I am, in East Anglia, people round me are not fascist though many are xenophobic.

If I do vote I’ll vote to stay in, as the Scot nationalists are secretly hoping there is an ‘out’ vote and then their band waggon can roll again. So it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

A vote for either camp is a vote for capitalism, that really is all there is to it.

I believe you Steven, but do you have a link?

wojtek

I believe you Steven, but do you have a link?

TBH not seen that much about it recently. There were some articles a few years ago, like this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9383678/Is-Norways-EU-example-really-an-option-for-Britain.html

edited to add, there were some good discussion about this last year here: https://libcom.org/blog/should-we-care-about-eu-referendum-01062015

jef costello

I'd probably vote to stay in if I were in the UK.
The EU seems that it's a better deal to me.

^^Tsiprasism.

Burgers

A vote for either camp is a vote for capitalism, that really is all there is to it.

I am absolutelty amazed that anyone here has a different view to this, yet we have 2 down votes. I mean, WTF?
Anyways, since(incredibly) people are talking about voting(???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I'll put my X against Croydonian.

I forgot the anarchist commandment, 'Thou shall not vote'. But then, I've never been religious.

Auld-bod

I forgot the anarchist commandment, 'Thou shall not vote'. But then, I've never been religious.

You forgot the "and pro-capitalist " bit.

Burgers #15

You're too clever for me. Tell me about tactics and capitalism.

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Did you have some kind of contribution to the discussion, beyond "(???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)"? Just asking.

Sharkfinn

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Did you have some kind of contribution to the discussion, beyond "(???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)"? Just asking.

Yes, I should think I do, but a bit of time to gather my thoughts, find out about and consider other people's position should be afforded me, should it not?
However, I'm very flattered that you're so desperate to hear my opinion. If you like you could pm me your address and I'll send you it written in calligraphy on sepia parchment along with a signed photograph.

Alright, fine. From the style of your two posts I assumed that you were just looking for a chance to start calling people liberal. I'm sorry if I offended you If you actually had a valid reason for asking that.

Noah Fence

Burgers

A vote for either camp is a vote for capitalism, that really is all there is to it.

I am absolutelty amazed that anyone here has a different view to this, yet we have 2 down votes. I mean, WTF?
Anyways, since(incredibly) people are talking about voting(???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I'll put my X against Croydonian.

Errr, I think you misunderstand basic anarchism. It's not that anarchists have some irrational phobia of putting crosses on pieces of paper etc - anarchists are opposed to representative politics and to the strategy of grabbing state power via the means of political parties. And anarchists are generally in favour of more direct forms of democracy, and the referendum arguably would fall under that, though of course the present referendum on the EU doesn't have anything to offer anarchists.

Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combatted internationally - EU or no EU.

And, yes, the EU is super neo-liberal, but freedom of movement within the EU is pretty damn nice. Of course a vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism but I'd rather have a capitalism with freedom of movement and 26 paid vacation days...

EDIT: or visa-less travel, if we don't want to use the boss' terminology.

Sharkfinn, no need to apologise, I wasn't offended, just making a point and being a bit playful.
My first post was a gut reaction abhorrence at the idea of comrades partaking in the sham of capitalist created delusions of us creating our own democracy. Then, having seen Auld Bod's and Red and Black's posts thought I'd shut my trap for a bit and listen.
I kind of accept the points being made to some degree - Chilli's is the strongest - but then similar arguments can be made for voting Labour. I'm far from convinced but I'll keep an eye on the thread before making my mind up for certain.

Errr, I think you misunderstand basic anarchism

Ouch! Now that's a bit harsh. Still No1, it seems you think I'm full of No2s so I won't challenge you on this.

red and black riot

We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights.

You're wrong there fella. The Human Rights Act has got nothing to do with the EU but is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, a totally different kettle of fish.

For the record, I'm not voting either as it's a choice between two capitalist factions: pro EU capitalist shite or (for now) rightwing little England bigoted shite. Mind you, empoyment rights are marginally better in the EU (e.g. part-time workers' [prevention of less favourable treatment] directive - which I personally benefit from as a part time worker)... ooh... decisions decisions...

Nah, fuck 'em. We reap what we sow. If we aren't prepared to rise up against these toffee-nosed cunts, then it's hard fucking lines for us.

No doubt no1 will be sending Cameron a thank you letter for giving us anarchist direct democracy.

However there is a more serious issue, a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them) , EU war on terrorism, EU Austerity (anyone remember Greece and still ongoing), the war in Ukraine and the list is endless.

double post

Burgers #27:

‘No doubt no1 will be sending Cameron a thank you letter for giving us anarchist direct democracy.
However there is a more serious issue, a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them), EU war on terrorism, EU Austerity (anyone remember Greece and still ongoing), the war in Ukraine and the list is endless.’

What supercilious tripe. Strawman after strawman.

If this is your ‘more serious’ contribution then Cameron and co. have nothing to fear. And if you’re a ‘Left Communist’ as you claim, why do you give a flying f**k what some anarchists think?

However there is a more serious issue, a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them) , EU war on terrorism, EU Austerity (anyone remember Greece and still ongoing), the war in Ukraine and the list is endless.

I though it was "a vote for capitalism", for which the leaving vote is also for. Make up your mind. Seriously though, the issue freedom of movement is a central point. Defense of which should be among the central issues for communist. "Vote for the EU is a vote for a Fortress Europe" is nonsense. Britain staying in Europe does nothing to Frontex. If Cameron however manages to renegotiate the terms of freedom of movement for Britain that would probably have a lot of political spill over in the rest of the EU. Frontex doesn't just patrol the EUs border, in fact that happens in partnership with countries outside the EU through agreements between the EU and its neighboring countries. Which would be unaffected whether or not Britain leaves the EU.

Our movement within the EU is free but constantly monitored. Change into a Fortress Europe with also internal walls could happen fairly quickly thanks to already existing illegality industry around migration. What I'm afraid of is that a high vote for leaving would be a watershed moment towards this development.

Oh dear, looks like as per usual as soon as some real-life situation comes along some anarchists ditch their principles and try to be "pragmatic".

People saying they would vote to stay might as well be saying they are voting for TTIP (i.e. the enforced privatisation of everything) which the EU will be bringing in.

The question asked by Noah was entirely valid. If you say we shouldn't support either type of government (e.g. Conservative or Labour), and you say we shouldn't support either type of government in a war (e.g. Iraqi or American) then how can you say we should take sides between Brussels and Westminster? It's entirely illogical.

You would think that the fact that the campaign to stay in is being led by David Cameron might lead some people to question it at least…

Burgers, at least argue in good faith.

Steven, some workplaces are staffed almost entirely with foreign, mostly EU nationals. Granted, it's far from the whole picture as you and others have said, but surely it's legitimate to enquire/be fearful about their potential status - and thus that of their 'native' co-workers?

Burgers

No doubt no1 will be sending Cameron a thank you letter for giving us anarchist direct democracy.

However there is a more serious issue, a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them) , EU war on terrorism, EU Austerity (anyone remember Greece and still ongoing), the war in Ukraine and the list is endless.

I hope your not from Britain and are just really ignorant about things over here. Because if you are and you think the British political establishment has had all this anti immigration, pro austerity/pro war policies forced onto it by a Continental clique of bureaucrats in Brussels, then well you've got more series problems then a referendum.

Noah Fence wrote:

Burgers wrote:

A vote for either camp is a vote for capitalism, that really is all there is to it.
I am absolutelty amazed that anyone here has a different view to this, yet we have 2 down votes. I mean, WTF?

Revise that to seven a piece.

Steven #31
‘Oh dear, looks like as per usual as soon as some real-life situation comes along some anarchists ditch their principles and try to be "pragmatic".’

I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to here.
I see voting in any given circumstance as a tactical decision not a ‘principle’ (as in first rank of importance). Nor do I think pragmatism is something anyone can avoid - or one will settle for a life behind bars or on the run. The word ‘pragmatism’ is usually used pejoratively and yet dealing with matters with regards to their practical requirements or consequences – like treating the facts of history with reference to their practical lessons seems to me a basic requirement of a revolutionary.

For the record, yesterday I was asked by e-mail to comment on the coming referendum and replied I thought it of no interest as basically nothing would change as we’d have the same economics and bosses no matter the outcome.

Reddebrek

Burgers

No doubt no1 will be sending Cameron a thank you letter for giving us anarchist direct democracy.

However there is a more serious issue, a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them) , EU war on terrorism, EU Austerity (anyone remember Greece and still ongoing), the war in Ukraine and the list is endless.

I hope your not from Britain and are just really ignorant about things over here. Because if you are and you think the British political establishment has had all this anti immigration, pro austerity/pro war policies forced onto it by a Continental clique of bureaucrats in Brussels, then well you've got more series problems then a referendum.

That would suggest I'm vote no, but I'm not. I was pointing out that voting for either makes little difference, but voting for the EU is to vote for the continuation of EU polices which all of the above are, yet some anarchists here seem to think that is fine to vote with Cameron and Corbyn for European Union. Likewise voting no is just as bad for many of the same reasons.

I am an immigrant to the UK from Slovakia (EU member since 2004), so unfortunately I can't just say, like some of you said, : whatever... the bosses will be the same, the system will be the same.. Similarly to what Wojtek said, I am a bit worried about the consequences of all this circus, things like my and my family status in this country, my rights... I agree with Aud-bold, my libertarian principles are important, but it's a privileged position if you can live your life only by your principles, without a dose of pragmatism. I am not in such a position and will never be.

But beyond my immigrant status, there is a political international perspective I see the things. The forces demanding Brexit are similar to anti-EU forces in the new EU countries such as Slovakia, Czech republic, Poland and Hungary: the so-called Visegrad Group. This group now acts in a real coalition against the EU 'super state'. These national-conservative governments see themselves as the saviours of Europe from the 'oriental hordes' and hate the 'soft liberalism' from Brussels. One future scenario could see them if not break away from EU then set up a proper hard core frontier mentality regime attacking the whole of society in that region (what has already begun). I suspect a successful Brexit would only encourage these forces, as well as other similar movements across the EU.
The year 2015 made me realize the trend is getting worse and only a European class struggle wave could stop it or at least slow it down. In the meantime, as long as such a movement isn't around, I am not convinced we can rely only on our political principles, without making pragmatic choices. Going to referendum (I am not allowed by law, but if...) doesn't stop me from contributing a little to this bigger struggle. It's not either/ or...

Maclane Horton

There seems to be an idea that anarchism is going to come floating down out of the sky. You don't have to do anything. Just wait for it to happen thanks to Hegelian dialectics or some other romantic notion.

I don't buy it.

this is a strawman

We have to start from where we are and use whatever means are available to chip away at the capitalist edifice.

A good first step is to get rid of the EU.

And this is just silly. On what evidence are you basing this?

Capitalism was just fine before the EU, and it will be just fine if the UK leaves. The only thing which can get rid of capitalism is the working class deciding collectively to take control of society, appropriate the means of production and decide to run things for ourselves.

A good second step is to weaken the multinationals by using public opinion to impose oversight and controls on them.

now this is getting onto a different discussion. But not only does this not really mean anything (how do we "use" public opinion?), but it entirely conflicts your previous point. Whatever your thoughts on the EU, it is an international body which does "impose oversight and control" on multinational (and smaller) companies.

wojtek

Steven, some workplaces are staffed almost entirely with foreign, mostly EU nationals. Granted, it's far from the whole picture as you and others have said, but surely it's legitimate to enquire/be fearful about their potential status - and thus that of their 'native' co-workers?

hi, yes of course. There is not a lot of information out about what might actually happen to EU migrants currently in the UK.

Firstly on this I guess I think there is basically no way that people are going to vote to leave.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

Bambulka kvantová I completely sympathise with you, but don't think we need to worry for the above reasons. On this point:
Bambulka kvantová

The forces demanding Brexit are similar to anti-EU forces in the new EU countries such as Slovakia, Czech republic, Poland and Hungary: the so-called Visegrad Group. This group now acts in a real coalition against the EU 'super state'. These national-conservative governments see themselves as the saviours of Europe from the 'oriental hordes' and hate the 'soft liberalism' from Brussels.

Sorry, but that's not the case here. Of course there is that right wing element, but plenty of left-wingers are against the EU for left-wing reasons. Like George Galloway, or even Jeremy Corbyn who is anti-EU, but is having to pretend not to be to make the Labour Party look less disunited

Noah Fence

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Are you comfortable enough not to be affected by what the Tories are doing? Just asking.

Steven.

wojtek

Steven, some workplaces are staffed almost entirely with foreign, mostly EU nationals. Granted, it's far from the whole picture as you and others have said, but surely it's legitimate to enquire/be fearful about their potential status - and thus that of their 'native' co-workers?

hi, yes of course. There is not a lot of information out about what might actually happen to EU migrants currently in the UK.

Firstly on this I guess I think there is basically no way that people are going to vote to leave.

i think your severally underestimating how much people have been influenced by the anti eu propaganda up to now.

Steven.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Steven.

Bambulka kvantová I completely sympathise with you, but don't think we need to worry for the above reasons. On this point:
Bambulka kvantová

The forces demanding Brexit are similar to anti-EU forces in the new EU countries such as Slovakia, Czech republic, Poland and Hungary: the so-called Visegrad Group. This group now acts in a real coalition against the EU 'super state'. These national-conservative governments see themselves as the saviours of Europe from the 'oriental hordes' and hate the 'soft liberalism' from Brussels.

Sorry, but that's not the case here. Of course there is that right wing element, but plenty of left-wingers are against the EU for left-wing reasons. Like George Galloway, or even Jeremy Corbyn who is anti-EU, but is having to pretend not to be to make the Labour Party look less disunited

the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists, and i suspect that the leftists supporting leave are motivated by nationalism and racism or are trying to appeal to racists, because they believe the majority of the working class are anti eu racists.

Auld-bod

And if you’re a ‘Left Communist’ as you claim, why do you give a flying f**k what some anarchists think?

Actually I would say that the fact you want to vote and therefore side with one side of the bosses system over the other would make you not very anarchist at all.

red and black riot

Noah Fence

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Are you comfortable enough not to be affected by what the Tories are doing? Just asking.

I take that means you will be voting Labour/Green/Lib Democrats then, just asking.

Are you comfortable enough not to be effected by what the tories are doing? Just asking.

I strongly suspect you are being disengenuous here but I'll try to answer. So, yes, I'm fairly comfortably off right now but that ain't gonna last. However, my daughter is very badly off. She lived on benefits due to mental illness for 4 years under the Tories. Dependant on her hours now, some weeks she is worse off than when she was on benefits. Personally I've been unemployed under both Labour and Conservative government's. I don't recall any difference between the two. So what is your point? Why (seemingly) so touchy in response to a straightforward question? I just wanted to know what your general position was on voting for one particular representation of capitalism over another.
Capital does what capital does, government administrates on it's behalf, sometimes placing slight restraints upon it but capital dictates the story and will get it's way. Governments respond to capitals requirements, not the other way round.
Things ain't gonna be so different with either an in or out decision. The same is true of a Labour vs Tory election. If there are real differences we don't really know what they'll be. Beyond guesswork the only other guide we have is the promises of the politicians. Anyone who trusts what they say is clearly a fucking idiot.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Not really; it's just a formality. IIRC two weeks after Norway voted no in the EU membership referendum we became members of the EEA. No problem what so ever. And the EU needs the UK more than it does Norway.

norway never joined the eu though

Burgers

a vote for the EU is a for Fortress Europe, war on migration (but as long as chilli doesn't have to use a visa who cares about them)

Yes, cause that's clearly what I meant...

Any other definitely true, totally accurate insights you'd like to share with us?

i suspect that the leftists supporting leave are motivated by nationalism and racism or are trying to appeal to racists, because they believe the majority of the working class are anti eu racists.

For the anti-EU lefties I know, it's about the fact that the EU is basically premised on the movement of cheap labour (albeit with better baseline working protections than are customary in the UK) and the full-scale liberalization of the economies of member-countries.

Take, for example, my Commie in-laws: In line with the CP position, they are anti-EU on the (correct) grounds that it's basically neo-liberalism incarnate. Now whether leaving the EU will bring social democracy back to the UK or make revolution any more likely...

norway never joined the eu though

as, I wrote

two weeks after Norway voted no in the EU

But I guess your point is that the EU would be *harder* on an ex-member? I really don't think it matters; the EU want the UK to be part of the common market at all cost. I mean, the UK compared to any other EU member state has more exceptions to EU law, rules and regulations. For example, EEA members are not considered to be EU citizens in the UK (e.g. for studying, meaning international tuition) whereas almost all other EU states consider EEA members as EU citizens. The UK leaving the EU but retaining membership in the EEA would not change much.

Steven.

Oh dear, looks like as per usual as soon as some real-life situation comes along some anarchists ditch their principles and try to be "pragmatic".

People saying they would vote to stay might as well be saying they are voting for TTIP (i.e. the enforced privatisation of everything) which the EU will be bringing in.

The question asked by Noah was entirely valid. If you say we shouldn't support either type of government (e.g. Conservative or Labour), and you say we shouldn't support either type of government in a war (e.g. Iraqi or American) then how can you say we should take sides between Brussels and Westminster? It's entirely illogical.

You would think that the fact that the campaign to stay in is being led by David Cameron might lead some people to question it at least…

Steven, I get your point here, but I feel like we're gonna have to fight neo-liberalism and privatization within the EU or outside the EU, with a Tory government or a Labour government.

Should anarchists be campaigning for a vote either way? Of course not. Should we make clear our belief that EU and the British state are both racist, repressive, capitalist institutions? Should we always prioritize on-the-ground and practical solidarity? Yes, yes and yes.

But, to me, it seems to me that if the UK pulls out of the EU that my life will become harder as a direct result - both in terms of working conditions and the fact that I have a job that allows me to quite easily work in other countries. For me, I think it's worth putting a cross on a sheet of paper to maintain that (also note here that, as an immigrant, I can't).

I don't care if other anarchists vote in the referendum and I totally get the arguments for abstention, but from a personal perspective I see why anarchists might choose not to sit this one out.

One of my party comrades has said in support of the EU that it protects mobility of labour. He recognises capitalism as a "prison" but he is happy enough to vote for the bigger prison cell the EU offers rather than accept the smaller one of the leave campaign.

Fair enough, but i feel, as the Fortress Europe phrase depicts, the prison walls are not to keep us in but to keep outsiders out.

I think we have to recognise class interests, not personal, sectional or nationalist interests, no matter if it is because our jobs depends upon keeping out competitors for work or European products from GB Ltd , or excluding people and trade from outside EU Plc, with visa and tariff barriers.

Our class loyalties extend beyond the frontier fences patrolled by Frontex and encompasses solidarity with the world-wide working class, and not simply the UK or EU workers. This referendum (as been said by a few on the thread) may have specific implications for some certain individuals but holds little relevancy for most of us.

Call me naive or an idealist if you wish.....but i'm for world socialism and the global class struggle...That should be the message we have to send and we should't be distracted by squabbles within the capitalist class that doesn't benefit us as a class regardless of the referendum outcome.

wojtek

Steven, some workplaces are staffed almost entirely with foreign, mostly EU nationals. Granted, it's far from the whole picture as you and others have said, but surely it's legitimate to enquire/be fearful about their potential status - and thus that of their 'native' co-workers?

I think this is a legit point to raise. If the referendum said 'deport all 2m+ EU nationals? ' then the 'a vote either way is a vote for capitalism' line would ring pretty hollow.

However while I think that concern is legit I don't think it's likely. There's also 2m+ UK emigrants in the EU, and the government is unlikely to risk tit-for-tat expulsions. Most likely Brexit would mean staying in the EEA and other European treaties and/or lead to new reciprocal agreements with EU states.

So while it's being framed as a referendum on migration it's not at all clear it will have much effect (the UK was never in Schengen, for example, which anyhow can be suspended within the EU, as we're now seeing).

(As an aside, the left communist line doesn't usually argue all forms of capitalism are equally preferable, but that we have no choice which form we get. E.g.

Gilles Dauvé

We are not denying that democracy assures a gentler exploitation than dictatorship: anyone would rather be exploited like a Swede than like a Brazilian. But do we have a CHOICE?

That argument is a lot weaker in the face of a referendum, though like I said above its entirely possible for a referendum to have far fewer consequences - to allow far less choice - than you might expect).

Steven #31

‘Oh dear, looks like as per usual as soon as some real-life situation comes along some anarchists ditch their principles and try to be "pragmatic".’

When do principles become dogmatism?

James MacBryde

Steven #31

‘Oh dear, looks like as per usual as soon as some real-life situation comes along some anarchists ditch their principles and try to be "pragmatic".’

When do principles become dogmatism?

At the first opportunity going on this thread.

We may not vote but alot of workers do.

On the basis of, the enemy is in your own country – it is your own bourgeoisie, perhaps the question we should ask is:

What result do our own bourgeoisie want in this vote?

My impression is that they would prefer a 'Yes' to Europe win. So, maybe we should hope for the opposite.

Burgers #43
‘Actually I would say that the fact you want to vote and therefore side with one side of the bosses system over the other would make you not very anarchist at all.’

Tis a pity when you appear to base your views of the referendum on high political principle, that it does not extend itself to correctly representing my views. Nowhere have I written ‘I want to vote’. I stated: ‘If I do vote I’ll vote to stay in…’ (post #8)

With regards to your opinion of my ‘anarchism’, I can only reciprocate your contempt.

If I do vote I’ll vote to stay in, as the Scot nationalists are secretly hoping there is an ‘out’ vote and then their band waggon can roll again. So it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

We can only advise you not to vote; we are not showing you our contempt.

James #59

I was directing my remarks to Burgers. I generally have respect for people who may not agree with my opinions.

I feel voting in this instance is fairly irrelevant as both sides represent interests I am against. As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice (also pious anarchists make my skin creep).

Auld-bod

James #59

I was directing my remarks to Burgers. I generally have respect for people who may not agree with my opinions.

I feel voting in this instance is fairly irrelevant as both sides represent interests I am against. As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice (also pious anarchists make my skin creep).

Shit, I hope you don't think that I'm a pious anarchist???

Noah #61

Noah, you're at the madame! Gasp!

Auld-bod

Noah #61

Noah, you're at the madame! Gasp!

Ok, now I'm really confused.

Noah, let me be clear, I do not think you’re a ‘pious anarchist’.

You don’t think you have all the answers (and importantly can admit it). All of us at times leave ourselves open to the accusation of being self-righteous pompous asses. The pious are oblivious of this fact.

Hey, maybe we should form a 1960s retro anarcho singing duet?

THE SELF RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS!

Certainly some of the posters on this thread seem to have 'lost that loving feeling'.

Burgers

red and black riot

Noah Fence

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

Did you vote in the general election? Just asking.

Are you comfortable enough not to be affected by what the Tories are doing? Just asking.

I take that means you will be voting Labour/Green/Lib Democrats then, just asking.

I certainly won't be voting Lib Dem but I will probably vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be PM at the next general election because there is a real chance he will make things better for working class people if he gets in, if only a bit better. Things will be better for myself and my family. I am well aware that the working class needs to self organise and manage itself, but that is not happening.

Well, Red and Black. I have to disagree in every way but if you're mind is made up then fair enough.

Burgers

That would suggest I'm vote no, but I'm not.

No it wouldn't because I didn't, this is a strawman. If anyone was suggesting that you'd vote no it was yourself with that terrible comment.

I was pointing out that voting for either makes little difference, but voting for the EU is to vote for the continuation of EU polices which all of the above are,

If that were true you were doing an abysmal job. You taking a no vote line by criticising the EU with another strawman, that these nasty awful things are an EU construction alone, which their not. Indeed the EU far from being an alien system represents most of the nastiest aspects of British society, and I suspect its the same in most member states.

I think there's a certain fetishisation of not voting in this discussion. Talk of betraying principles is a bit daft because 'thou shalt not vote, never' should not be a principle. Not voting is a tactic or it might be a general feeling of futility but once we start to invoke the iron law of abstention, then we're on dodgy ground.

Occasionally, one might tactically participate in such shenanigans - for example, with the referendum in Ireland over abortion, I would have definitely broke my usual abstention and voted had I lived there at the time. With the in/out EU referendum however, I see both sides as offering nothing but pain for the working class so will give it a swerve - though if anyone can find a good proletarian reason to support one side or the other, then good luck to them. Likewise, if it was a choice of being faced with a few more years of rule by that horrid Mr Cameron or voting for a superficial change with that nice Mr Corbyn, then I'd understand voting for Labour (for the record I'll probably abstain).

What I don't understand is when people believe such voting would make any significant changes or do any real damage to capitalism. It wouldn't. In fact it would bolster capitalism, though admittedly, in a less vicious form. And maybe that's good enough reason for some.

Chilli Sauce

Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combatted internationally - EU or no EU.

And, yes, the EU is super neo-liberal, but freedom of movement within the EU is pretty damn nice. Of course a vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism but I'd rather have a capitalism with freedom of movement and 26 paid vacation days...

EDIT: or visa-less travel, if we don't want to use the boss' terminology.

So try this on:

"Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combated internationally, Corbyn or no Corbyn.

And yes, a vote for Corbyn is a vote for capitalism, but having a more left capitalism is pretty damn nice. I'd rather have capitalism that allows unions to organize, is sympathetic to social welfare, funds education....and provides 26 paid vacation days"

So now that you've got your paid vacation days, what do you say to the unemployed who might be inclined to tell you to piss off?

I wish I could say I'm surprised that any participant in Libcom could seriously consider voting or supporting, or approving, or accepting a vote for membership in the EU.... I mean look at how that's worked out for workers in Greece...or Spain...or Italy.....or Portugal.

But I'm not.

Me? I kind of wonder what those who denounced Marx's endorsement of the North in the US Civil War have to say about this equivocating about British membership in the EU.

Step right up, RC, lettersjournal, soapy, Sander.

The EU is not an incarnation of the IMWA. It provides no opportunity for proletarian internationalism, generating in its direct and indirect actions nothing but chauvinism.

I genuinely don't have much of an opinion one way or another about whether the UK should leave or stay in the EU, nor would I be likely to vote if I still lived there but I think whether or not someone decides to vote in this referendum is a bit of a small hill for your anarchist principles to live or die on.

So now that you've got your paid vacation days, what do you say to the unemployed who might be inclined to tell you to piss off?

I didn't know you and Burgers had gone into the straw business together? You'll have to let me know how that works out for the two of you.

The EU is not an incarnation of the IMWA.

I wish I could say someone on libcom had made this argument. Or anything even remotely close to it.

But I can't.

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital. On economic matters they do not act like jilted partners. As we have seen from the G20 meeting, basically global capital wants the UK to remain in the EU, and capital within the EU particularly so.

There is no way that the remaining governments of the EU are going to massively damage their own economies because of hurt feelings. So there would be no issue with the UK joining the EEA, as Khawaga rightly points out. Which would then mean with regard to basically all of the issues people are talking about we would be in exactly the same position as we are now (visa-free movement within it, European laws/protections and European neoliberalism).

I think a really big issue with this referendum is that actually the Out camp hasn't answered any questions about what it will actually mean. TBH I'm not sure they're going to be able to because much of it will be unknowable at the moment, because it will depend on what other countries decide afterwards. And also their camp will be divided. Farage for example wouldn't want to remain in the EEA, as then "free movement" would remain. If this remains the case (which I believe it will), then I cannot see people voting for a massive unknown, especially as the press will ramp up the bogeyman of "economic insecurity"

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA. But even if we don't, there are still the situation where there are over 2 million British people living other EU countries. So I can't see that the government wouldn't just make a deal that the rules would only apply to potential new arrivals.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital. On economic matters they do not act like jilted partners. As we have seen from the G20 meeting, basically global capital wants the UK to remain in the EU, and capital within the EU particularly so.

There is no way that the remaining governments of the EU are going to massively damage their own economies because of hurt feelings. So there would be no issue with the UK joining the EEA, as Khawaga rightly points out. Which would then mean with regard to basically all of the issues people are talking about we would be in exactly the same position as we are now (visa-free movement within it, European laws/protections and European neoliberalism).

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Steven #73
‘Sorry, but national governments act in the interests of capital.’

I feel both Steven and radicalgaffiti are making good points, however future events may spring some surprises. Steven’s statement above is generally true, though because capitalism is chaotic and made up of competing interests, internally and externally, it often throws up surprising policy changes (though of course always in what is perceived as the general good of the system).

Watching a documentary the other day, it was stated by a government minister at the time, a reason why the RAF for the first year of WWII dropped only leaflets on Germany, was because the munition factories were ‘private property’. And as we all know, private property is sacrosanct to capitalism. Later after the Nazis started kicking the crap out of the allied armies, this policy was scrapped – in the greater interest of British capital.

EDIT
Substituted 'sacrosanct' for sacred!

radicalgraffiti

There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

I think I'm changing my mind on this one.
Most other countries don't have the potential to do this as they're not net contributors (like the UK) and they don't have huge euro debts (like Greece)
If Poland etc threatened to leave then their bluff would be called.
As the leaving process would take time there probably wouldn't be a break in membership between the EU/EEA.
And while Britain does kick in a relatively large amount of cash, British capitalism has reaped the rewards of cheap european labour. Other countries don't want hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed citizens returning any more than British businesses want to lose employees and see the labour pool dropping given that there is already slight upward pressure on wages iirc.
With the huge numbers of British ex-pats in places like Spain France and Greece there could be serious problems if they all suddenly had to come home, imagine the Spanish property market if all the retirees started coming home.
I still think voting in a referendum on an issue of direct interest is acceptable, but I'm not sure any more that this is a direct interest (although if Britain left the EU and didn't join the EEA I would technically lose my job. ) and I imagine that a referendum with a real choice would be unlikely to be offered but it's possible.

As an anarchist I will be arguing for leaving the EU. The centralising of state control is against all we believe in isn't it?

Auld-bold #60

As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice

Personally, I think Scottish nationalism is just a petty diversion; I reserve my hatred for African nationalism.

Sleeper:

The centralising of state control

A decision to leave the EU will not decentralise state control, it will mean that the UK will move further towards the centralistion of US state control. For this reason only (and I don't care to explain why) I am for a NO vote, although of course, as a member of the party of anarchy I will abstain from voting myself.

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

Sleeper

As an anarchist I will be arguing for leaving the EU. The centralising of state control is against all we believe in isn't it?

No, anarchism is about abolishing states, and capitalism and replacing them with a society run by people ourselves, with production based on needs, not private profit.

It is not about choosing between different states, or leaders of different nationalities (British or Belgian).

James MacBryde

Auld-bold #60

As I detest nationalism I exhibited my prejudice

Personally, I think Scottish nationalism is just a petty diversion; I reserve my hatred for African nationalism.

James, you posting complete nonsense is one thing. But you posting racist nonsense is another. You are now temporarily banned. You can come back if you retract this comment and desist from your off topic rubbish. Send us an e-mail to let us know (libcom.org at Gmail.com)

James, you posting complete nonsense is one thing. But you posting racist nonsense is another. You are now temporarily banned. You can come back if you retract this comment and desist from your off topic rubbish. Send us an e-mail to let us know (libcom.org at Gmail.com)

That's the least bit of this clown's racism. He's the guy who said that slaves had it better of than wage-workers because slaves received more exposure to natural light.

Didn't see that, well that's another reason to be rid of him. Anyway no more derailing, back to the topic at hand. Further off topic comments will be deleted.

admin: subsequent off topic comment deleted, moved here: http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/banning-user-29022016

Actually, having given it more thought I'm probably going to abstain from voting. I didn't know the Human Rights Act was thanks to the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU and is just an advisory body). Also the EU makes statements, such as urging countries to boycott arms to Saudi Arabia (European Parliament) and criticising Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the illegal settlements- but they don't actually do anything. It's also ofcourse clearly a capitalist institution and one that is pro-austerity- just look at how they treated Greece.

red and black riot

Actually, having given it more thought I'm probably going to abstain form voting. I didn't know the human rights act was thanks to the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU as far as I know and is just an advisory body). Also the EU makes statements, such as urging countries to boycott arms to Saudi Arabia (European Parliament) and criticising Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the illegal settlements- but they don't actually do anything. It's also ofcourse clearly a capitalist institution and one that is pro-austerity- just look at how they treated Greece.

Just been reading this R&BR. A pretty good and simply put argument against voting with a bit of pro voting sentiment in the comments.

http://libcom.org/library/why-anarchists-dont-vote

DP

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Steven.

If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

Steven.

[
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Yes, this is right. However it was a "better deal", by threatening to leave. So that undermines your point.

Steven.

If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

Steven.

[
As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

Britain has already got the EU to give it a more favourable deal by threatening to leave.

i've not actually checked what the results of that where, but the general consensus seems to be it was pretty rubbish and not at all what they where aiming for.

Yes, this is right. However it was a "better deal", by threatening to leave. So that undermines your point.

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

Steven.

Steven.

If the British government isn't willing to make the "concessions" required to join the EEA, then it won't be allowed to join.

thats my point

No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

you arrogant arsehole.

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

Steven.

Steven.

As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

this doesn't conflict at all, the anti EU campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic, and some people wish to leave the EU and join the EEA for business reasons. UKIP, Boris etc may wish to leave alltogeather but other people wish to leave and join the EEA and intend to use the xenophobice anti EU sentiment to achieve the goals.

Steven.

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

when i said "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " I MEANT "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " not the entire out campaign ffs

i'm not saying definitely that the after leavign the EU the UK will definitely not join the EEA, i'm saying it we can't assume it will happen automatically, and it is possible that the uk would leave the eu and not join the EEA.

radicalgraffiti

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

I don't understand how this relates to the discussion.

You said that you thought that the EU wouldn't let the UK enter the EEA, as they would one countries thinking they could leverage concessions by leaving. I pointed out that the UK leveraged (admittedly shit) concessions by threatening to leave, so clearly they believe that the goal of keeping the UK in the EU is worth the risk of other countries trying the same thing. The EEA would be no different to the EU in this regard, as the economic benefits to the rest of Europe would be about the same.

Steven.

No, you have forgotten what your original point was. Your original point was that the EU would not let the UK join the EEA if we left the EU. I pointed out this was nonsense. You have then responded saying something completely different, essentially saying that if the UK wasn't prepared to join the EEA they wouldn't be allowed to. This of course is a tautology. And is nothing to do with the point that I made or your response.

you arrogant arsehole.

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

firstly, this is a no flaming forum. Desist from personal insults.

Negotiation may or may not be required, as the UK is already part of the EEA.

In terms of the latter bit of your point, the other countries having no motivation to give the UK a better deal, I don't get what this means. Being part of the EEA is a pretty fixed package. And the point is it is not a "better" deal than being part of the EU.

The basic substance of my point is that the rest of Europe wants the UK to remain in the EU, as it is in all of their economic interests. If the referendum goes the wrong way, it will then be in their best interests for the UK to remain part of the EEA.

Steven.

Steven.

As for your final point, that doesn't make sense as you seem to be implying that being in the EEA is a "better deal". This is nonsense, as I have pointed out previously. Being in the EEA puts just about all of the same obligations on national governments as being part of the EU, but you no longer have any say in them.

i guess to continue this further i'll have to actually research the differences between the EU and the EEA, but the argument that the EEA would be a better deal is the main argument of the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, so clearly there are a bunch of people that think this, i'm not one of them as i explained in my post

Now you are conflicting your other previous point, which was this:

the leave campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic right wing racists

now of course this lot, like UKIP and the right wing Tories, haven't been saying anything about the EEA because that would undermine their entire argument. Because crucially it was still mean Europe would override UK laws and the UK would still have to allow Visa-free movement. So I don't think this is what they want at all.

this doesn't conflict at all, the anti EU campaign is overwhelmingly xenophobic, and some people wish to leave the EU and join the EEA for business reasons. UKIP, Boris etc may wish to leave alltogeather but other people wish to leave and join the EEA and intend to use the xenophobice anti EU sentiment to achieve the goals.

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen any anti-EU types saying we should remain part of (not join BTW) the EEA. Could you direct me to some please? If they do this would be quite bizarre because basically the only difference between the two groups is EU fishery and agricultural laws don't apply in EEA. And I have not seen a single campaign in the Out campaign complaining about repressive EU fishery and agricultural laws.

Steven.

To be absolutely clear, i take issue with the assumption that if the UK leaves the EU it will automatically join the EEA and nothing will change

That's not what I said. I think that is the most likely outcome, because it's the only one which won't completely screw the economy and massively damage UK businesses and UK capital.

If you now have now changed your view from the Out campaign being right wing racists to people thinking we would be better off in the EEA (n.b., this is not what I believe, this is what you said), and you acknowledge that EU governments make decisions based on economic benefits rather than feelings (and so of course they want wealthy countries in the EU or EEA) then why don't you think if we left the EU we would join the EEA? If everyone wants to be in the EEA, and wants us to be in it, why wouldn't we?

when i said "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " I MEANT "the people advocating for britain to leave the EU and join the EEA, " not the entire out campaign ffs

i'm not saying definitely that the after leavign the EU the UK will definitely not join the EEA, i'm saying it we can't assume it will happen automatically, and it is possible that the uk would leave the eu and not join the EEA.

again, who are these people? Seriously maybe this is a faction I just haven't noticed (although this seems very unlikely). Could you name some of them?

I didn't say it would definitely happen either, as I have said repeatedly.

Of course that's not even mentioning the single market. As even if we did leave the EU and the EEA, there would still be the option (again, preferable to capital) of us remaining in the single market, like Switzerland.

In terms of the latter bit of your point, the other countries having no motivation to give the UK a better deal, I don't get what this means. Being part of the EEA is a pretty fixed package. And the point is it is not a "better" deal than being part of the EU.

A "better deal" could be understood as not allowing the UK to take so many exceptions as they have today? But yeah, usually the EEA is pretty much a fixed package with some minor modifications here and there (some exceptions are permanent, others are temporary).

Good piece by the SPGB on why we should abstain from the referendum http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/workers-have-no-father-or-motherland.html

I must say though, I'm tempted to vote to stay simply because the Ukippers and probably most of the Tories want me to do the opposite.

Noah Fence

red and black riot

Actually, having given it more thought I'm probably going to abstain form voting. I didn't know the human rights act was thanks to the Council of Europe (which has nothing to do with the EU as far as I know and is just an advisory body). Also the EU makes statements, such as urging countries to boycott arms to Saudi Arabia (European Parliament) and criticising Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the illegal settlements- but they don't actually do anything. It's also ofcourse clearly a capitalist institution and one that is pro-austerity- just look at how they treated Greece.

Just been reading this R&BR. A pretty good and simply put argument against voting with a bit of pro voting sentiment in the comments.

http://libcom.org/library/why-anarchists-dont-vote

Good stuff, Elisee Reclus is awesome. I will probably still vote for Corbyn though at the next General Election. Six years of living under the tories as a low-paid working class person has convinced me that a left-wing government is better than a right-wing one.

red and black riot

Good stuff, Elisee Reclus is awesome. I will probably still vote for Corbyn though at the next General Election. Six years of living under the tories as a low-paid working class person has convinced me that a left-wing government is better than a right-wing one.

I think you should bear in mind that seven years ago we had a massive global economic crisis. That has had a much bigger impact on living standards than the colour of the ruling party's ties. You should also bear in mind that Labour has supported the majority of austerity policies over these last six years as well, and that globally left and socialist parties have implemented brutal austerity…

Serge Forward

red and black riot

We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights.

You're wrong there fella. The Human Rights Act has got nothing to do with the EU but is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, a totally different kettle of fish.

no human rights on national level, that what it means when council of human rights are under EU, india and russia have their own human rights court rooms, but in eu everybody have to go to france. they speak france and english there. to me has been told and I have tried that, can complain when officers do crimes or other way violate human rights, they dont have to be involved to complaining prosess and victim gets money out of there if any, if application goes through the system. but criminals working inside state they dont get punishments or havto cover damage to victim from their personal incomes or property. it doesent work, how many customers are and how many judges there, impossible that justice would come true like that.

Hi
Actually I think voting to leave may well allow some decentralisation. It also allows for law making and law breaking within the constraints of an island nation. But best of all it will create yet another crisis for capitaism.

Sleeper, I think MacBryde's reasoning was well off kilter on this occasion and I agree that a NO vote could definitely be problematic for capitalism. I like your other remark too. Too late for me now though: I roached the Voting Card; hard to get a decent piece of card since they plasticised the Rizzla packets.

My reason for not voting in elections/sanctioned referendums is that doing so encourages people to pursue liberal modes of political activity and discourse. The "them" in "Don't vote it only encourages them" doesn't just refer to politicians, but the activists who direct and orientate their - and our - political activities towards and around electoralist/liberal politics.

My objection to participating in elections and referendums isn't about the liberal notion of conferring legitimacy on the outcome, but sanctioning the process. I want to encourage people to do their politics outside the frameworks and confines of liberalism and the sham choices presented to us. Surely voting in elections and plebicites laid on by liberals goes against that?

orkhis

My reason for not voting in elections/sanctioned referendums is that doing so encourages people to pursue liberal modes of political activity and discourse. The "them" in "Don't vote it only encourages them" doesn't just refer to politicians, but the activists who direct and orientate their - and our - political activities towards and around electoralist/liberal politics.

My objection to participating in elections and referendums isn't about the liberal notion of conferring legitimacy on the outcome, but sanctioning the process. I want to encourage people to do their politics outside the frameworks and confines of liberalism and the sham choices presented to us. Surely voting in elections and plebicites laid on by liberals goes against that?

Spot on.

Just a taste of things to come...

http://socialistunity.com/grassroots-out-the-peoples-campaign-for-brexit/#comments

Greetings comrade. I don't intend to vote either but I will suggest to those who want to that they should vote to leave Fortress Europe, and all the dirty political corruption that goes on there.

Forward to a proper decentralised and federative structure in each nation or area that reflects the needs of the people.

whirlwind

Sleeper, I think MacBryde's reasoning was well off kilter on this occasion and I agree that a NO vote could definitely be problematic for capitalism. I like your other remark too. Too late for me now though: I roached the Voting Card; hard to get a decent piece of card since they plasticised the Rizzla packets.

Apparently the head of the British Chamber of Commerce has been removed because he didn't support international capitalism.

The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has been temporarily suspended over his comments this week on Britain leaving the EU.
John Longworth told the business group's annual conference on Thursday that the UK's long-term prospects could be "brighter" outside the EU.

This news story appeared and disappeared just as quickly - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35732291

Sleeper

Greetings comrade. I don't intend to vote either but I will suggest to those who want to that they should vote to leave Fortress Europe, and all the dirty political corruption that goes on there.

Forward to a proper decentralised and federative structure in each nation or area that reflects the needs of the people.

Yes like the UK Parliament, brilliant!
Sleeper

Apparently the head of the British Chamber of Commerce has been removed because he didn't support international capitalism.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. What point are you trying to make here? He was removed for disagreeing with the line of his organisation, from a clearly pro-business perspective. Or do you think his true aim was "a proper decentralised and federative structure… that reflects the needs of the people"?

Sleeper

Hi
But best of all it will create yet another crisis for capitaism.

I know I've been loving the most recent one...

I don't know Chilli, I found this crisis of capitalism really fun, especially the bit in 2014 when both me and my partner were unemployed & I had to feed my family from foodbanks and had to sell half the stuff I own on craigslist for a pittance. I found it entirely character forming and am personally thrilled that it has helped usher in the revolution.

Steven.

Sleeper

Greetings comrade. I don't intend to vote either but I will suggest to those who want to that they should vote to leave Fortress Europe, and all the dirty political corruption that goes on there.

Forward to a proper decentralised and federative structure in each nation or area that reflects the needs of the people.

Yes like the UK Parliament, brilliant!

Sleeper

Apparently the head of the British Chamber of Commerce has been removed because he didn't support international capitalism.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. What point are you trying to make here? He was removed for disagreeing with the line of his organisation, from a clearly pro-business perspective. Or do you think his true aim was "a proper decentralised and federative structure… that reflects the needs of the people"?

Hi Steven no I would prefer a federative structure created from the grassroots up, but of course you know that. I also have a soft spot for the Swiss Canton System as did Kropotkin and other anarchists.

It made me laugh to see the ruling class removing one of their own for not doing as expected. This whole process weakens them because they are now under public scutiny. They don't like it, and we should exploit it whenever we can to show them up for what they are.

I thought you would understand this Steven?

Is

As for the

This whole process weakens them because they are now under public scutiny.

Man, I don't want to be a dick, but this is not how class struggle works. As anarchists, we should be the first to recognize the folly of "public opinion" or "public scrutiny".

Ah ok I see you are one of those who like to be personally abusive and don't have any respect for ordinary working class people. Now perhaps we can have a discussion. We are involved in a class war. The ruling class know that and we should use whatever situations arise to wage our war against them. If that means mocking them we do that. Use whatever is at hand to strike at them Chilli. We should never believe ourselves to be too important, knowing or above things to get stuck in and get dirty.

Chilli Sauce

This whole process weakens them because they are now under public scutiny.

Man, I don't want to be a dick, but this is not how class struggle works. As anarchists, we should be the first to recognize the folly of "public opinion" or "public scrutiny".

Sleeper

Ah ok I see you are one of those who like to be personally abusive and don't have any respect for ordinary working class people. Now perhaps we can have a discussion. We are involved in a class war. The ruling class know that and we should use whatever situations arise to wage our war against them. If that means mocking them we do that. Use whatever is at hand to strike at them Chilli. We should never believe ourselves to be too important, knowing or above things to get stuck in and get dirty.

Chilli Sauce

This whole process weakens them because they are now under public scutiny.

Man, I don't want to be a dick, but this is not how class struggle works. As anarchists, we should be the first to recognize the folly of "public opinion" or "public scrutiny".

He wasn't personally abusive.
How did he show a lack of respect for ordinary working class people? By not thinking that public opinion in itself matters? Class struggle is class struggle and working class consciousness is important, but it is important because it leads to working class action. There was a discussion (well more than one) about unions and strikes and lots of people talking about awareness and publicity when a strike is an economic weapon, not a public relations exercise. I've got no problem with shaming capitalists but the problem is that if we rely on that to effect change then we can only win 'reasonable' actions which are appealing and secondly we can only beat capitalists who can be shamed. Pubic opinion can force a change but it is not a goal in itself and generally bowing to public opinion (rather than action) is at best a reprieve. The NHS in Britain is pretty much universally liked by the public yet successive governments have been destroying it, if public opinion meant something then how can policies that consistently damage and destroy something popular and useful exist? Nurses pay and conditions have not improved, no one is against them, in fzact they're constantly lionised in the media. No one supports paying them badly and overworking them, yet that is the universal treatment of them in the NHS.
You also seem to believe that the ruling class is a monolith even though you cite an internal dispute. The ruling class may stick together or parts of it may turn on other parts or ally with other classes, but that isn't necessarily a sign of stress or danger, the ruling class is a heterogenous body defined by broadly similar interests and it will (like the middle and working classes) ignore those interests for a variety of reasons including, ignorance, personal interest and any number of possibilities.

Aw, come off it Sleeper, quit all the smart mouth shit, back to basics, eh? Your basic position is that we will start the smashing of capitalism if we leave the EU. I won't bother to waste my time arguing against that, but...

Countless anarchists all over the world said

Hahahahahahaha!

Jef

How did he show a lack of respect for ordinary working class people? By not thinking that public opinion in itself matters?

That's Sleeper's schtick. Whenever challenged, he will at some point say something like that. You know because he really understand ordinary working clarse people (well, unless they are women, racialized, homosexual; they are just a diversion).

Sleeper

Ah ok I see you are one of those who like to be personally abusive and don't have any respect for ordinary working class people. Now perhaps we can have a discussion. We are involved in a class war. The ruling class know that and we should use whatever situations arise to wage our war against them. If that means mocking them we do that. Use whatever is at hand to strike at them Chilli. We should never believe ourselves to be too important, knowing or above things to get stuck in and get dirty.

What does any of this mean?!

Sleeper

We should never believe ourselves to be too important, knowing or above things to get stuck in and get dirty.

Remind me,
weren't you the user who said this "Looking around I think you have to realise that it would be Libcom missing out on what I have to offer. Your loss not mine." ?

Chilli Sauce #111

‘‘Use whatever is at hand to strike at them Chilli. We should never believe ourselves to be too important, knowing or above things to get stuck in and get dirty.’
|
What does any of this mean?’

...

EDIT
Deleted - decided not to compound stupidity.

Let's, for a switch, start with the obvious: the EU is breaking apart-- the immiseration of Greece, the reestablishment of border controls; the inability of Spain to even establish a government; Italy's resistance to the austerity program; the growth of the power of right nationalist forces within the EU itself-- the EU as a capitalist union of countries is, to say the very least, coming undone.

OK, so then what's the point of voting either way on this? Only if voting one or the other represents a class alternative, a class based opposition to the EU. As the referendum will be structured by the bourgeoisie, to accommodate this or that section of the bourgeoisie, why would any anarchist/socialist/working class organization do anything other than point out the total irrelevance and hypocrisy behind the vote itself?

Why wouldn't every anarchist/socialist/working class advocate produce some analysis highlighting the centrifugal forces that will overwhelm the EU no matter what Britain votes? Too much trouble? Too much effort? Too deep? Not superficial enough? Can't be done within the space allotted on Facebook?

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

I don't understand how this relates to the discussion.

You said that you thought that the EU wouldn't let the UK enter the EEA,

i never said that stop claiming i said thing s i didn't

Orkhis:

My reason for not voting in elections/sanctioned referendums is that doing so encourages people to pursue liberal modes of political activity and discourse.

How does your X on the ballot paper encourage others 'to pursue liberal modes of political activity'?

I will not vote but I don't imagine this to be a discouragement for others to do so.

whirlwind

Orkhis:

My reason for not voting in elections/sanctioned referendums is that doing so encourages people to pursue liberal modes of political activity and discourse.

How does your X on the ballot paper encourage others 'to pursue liberal modes of political activity'?

I will not vote but I don't imagine this to be a discouragement for others to do so.

Voting is one of - if not the main - way capitalism and the state justifies itself. By participating - as explicit radicals and revolutionaries - we help to legitimize that process.

I'm a huge fan of that Solidarity quote:

Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

If, as anarchists, we truly believe this and we still go out there and vote, we're talking out of both sides of our mouth.

All that said, I don't bother to argue with people why they shouldn't vote. But, when appropriate, I do make arguments about the inherently oppressively role of the state and why direct action and self-organization is how we change the world. I'd rather not undermine my own argument by going out there and voting.

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

I don't understand how this relates to the discussion.

You said that you thought that the EU wouldn't let the UK enter the EEA,

i never said that stop claiming i said thing s i didn't

Er well you did, a few times. That seemed to be the main plank of your disagreement with me. As if that's not what you were saying, what was your disagreement with what I said?

Anyway here are a couple of times you said that:
radicalgraffiti

Steven.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

radicalgraffiti

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

Also, you still haven't answered this question:
Steven.

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen any anti-EU types saying we should remain part of (not join BTW) the EEA. Could you direct me to some please?

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

Steven.

radicalgraffiti

not at all, a UK threatening to leave the EU is in a much stronger position than a UK that has left the EU, about half the uk trade is with EU countries after all.

I don't understand how this relates to the discussion.

You said that you thought that the EU wouldn't let the UK enter the EEA,

i never said that stop claiming i said thing s i didn't

Er well you did, a few times. That seemed to be the main plank of your disagreement with me. As if that's not what you were saying, what was your disagreement with what I said?

Anyway here are a couple of times you said that:
radicalgraffiti

Steven.

But secondly, even if we did, like I said I think we would still end up remaining in the EEA.

joining the EEA or any deal have to be agreed with the EU countries that are still left, and they may well not want to make things easy for a country that leaves

radicalgraffiti

this isn't about feelings. the other countries of the eu would obviously push for a more favourable deal for themselves if britain leaves the eu and applies to joint the eea, and the british government may not be willing to make the concessions required. There is also the issue that it would be bad for the eu project if countries where able to get a better deal by leaving and joining the eea.

radicalgraffiti

you miss read what i said, i was pointing out that negotiation would be required to join the EEA and that the other countries involved have no motivation to give the UK a better deal they they already have.

neither of those quotes says what you said, do you really not understand the difference between the UK wont be allowed to join the EEA and the UK wouldn't just automaticity join the EEA if it leaves the EU?

Steven.

Also, you still haven't answered this question:
Steven.

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen any anti-EU types saying we should remain part of (not join BTW) the EEA. Could you direct me to some please?

I may have confuessed the EEA with the single market, i do seem to recall a tory arguing that the UK should have joined the EEA/single market not the EU, but i don't keep records of all this stuff in case it turns out to be useful in a internet argument years later. If these people don't exist wouldn't that undermine you claim that the UK would defiantly seek the become a member of the EEA if the vote was to leave the EU.

No Noah by all means smash capitalism and the state where and whenever you can. What I'm trying to highlight is that international capitalism is now vulnerable because they are forced in to a position where they have to defend themselves and their plans publically. If people have forgotten how to strike back at capital and the state perhaps now is the time to learn again...

Noah Fence

Aw, come off it Sleeper, quit all the smart mouth shit, back to basics, eh? Your basic position is that we will start the smashing of capitalism if we leave the EU. I won't bother to waste my time arguing against that, but...

Countless anarchists all over the world said

Hahahahahahaha!

Whereas Kwhawaga has nothing original to say but likes to tailgate working class people who do. A middle class trait that is well known to anyone who has tried to express themselves on internet bulletin boards.

Khawaga

Jef

How did he show a lack of respect for ordinary working class people? By not thinking that public opinion in itself matters?

That's Sleeper's schtick. Whenever challenged, he will at some point say something like that. You know because he really understand ordinary working clarse people (well, unless they are women, racialized, homosexual; they are just a diversion).

Sleeper

No Noah by all means smash capitalism and the state where and whenever you can. What I'm trying to highlight is that international capitalism is now vulnerable because they are forced in to a position where they have to defend themselves and their plans publically. If people have forgotten how to strike back at capital and the state perhaps now is the time to learn again...

How is international capital vulnerable? And if it fails to defend itself what are the consequences? Is a win for one side a defeat for international capitalism?

Because it's an imposed economic system that benefits only a minority. Destruction jef. Sorry I don't have the answer to that but maybe Steven or Khwanga could help you on that question.

What I'm trying to highlight is that international capitalism is now vulnerable because they are forced in to a position where they have to defend themselves and their plans publically.

Wait. How is international capitalism vulnerable? Like someone said, that only makes sense if one side of the EU debate is some sort of definitive victory for the working class.

More importantly, who made international capitalism vulnerable and how'd they do it?

In any case, I always find the best way to strike back at capital is to call people who challenge your argument "middle class". Take that!

Sleeper

Because it's an imposed economic system that benefits only a minority. Destruction jef. Sorry I don't have the answer to that but maybe Steven or Khwanga could help you on that question.

So voting for which side is voting against an imposed economic system and will voting for that side mean that International capital is defeated?

Oh yeah, good point Jef.

Sleeper, will local capitalism (as if such a thing could exist...) not be "imposed"?

To think of ‘capitalism’ as imposed is not very helpful, as surely it was a product of ‘trade’ winning out over the ‘landed aristocracy’. To get a perspective on Cameron’s referendum it is best to see it as a squabble between various factions of capital on what choice is in its respective interest. Does the working class have any advantage in siding with one faction – none.

In any case, I always find the best way to strike back at capital is to call people who challenge your argument "middle class". Take that!

Chilli, I hereby challenge your argument. Now go ahead punk, make my day.

Noah Fence

In any case, I always find the best way to strike back at capital is to call people who challenge your argument "middle class". Take that!

Chilli, I hereby challenge your argument. Now go ahead punk, make my day.

What you've got to ask yourself, Noah, is do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?

Auld-bod

To think of ‘capitalism’ as imposed is not very helpful, as surely it was a product of ‘trade’ winning out over the ‘landed aristocracy’. To get a perspective on Cameron’s referendum it is best to see it as a squabble between various factions of capital into what choice is in its respective interest. Does the working class have any advantage in siding with one faction – none.

I agree with this (despite my soft outlook on individual participation).

And, historically, I think you're right about capitalism "winning out". But for people born after capitalism won out, it is imposed upon us. I mean, we don't wake up one day and choose to participate in social relations, know what I mean?

Chilli #130

I’d go part of the way with you regarding our lack of choice to live in this society. However, nether do we choose our parents or believe them to be an ‘imposition’ (even when they’re oppressive).

We’ve inherited an oppressive system and crucially many/most people believe that, like having parents, there is nothing we can do about it. Luckily there the similarity ends, as capitalism is open to revolutionary change, even if the ruling class like the aristocracy before them feel it is the natural order of things.

EDIT
I've changed a word or two to clarify (hopefully).

I seem to remember that Khawaga means 'stranger' in Arabic.

Whereas Kwhawaga has nothing original to say but likes to tailgate working class people who do. A middle class trait that is well known to anyone who has tried to express themselves on internet bulletin boards.

Yeah, it does. Depending on inflection, it could mean foreigner, tourist, fucking outsider etc.

Sorry, but the posts by Sleeper are amongst the most ridiculous things I have ever read by a self-declared radical.
Sleeper

No Noah by all means smash capitalism and the state where and whenever you can. What I'm trying to highlight is that international capitalism is now vulnerable because they are forced in to a position where they have to defend themselves and their plans publically. If people have forgotten how to strike back at capital and the state perhaps now is the time to learn again...

Yes, strike back at capital and the state: learn from Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and UKIP, those well-known revolutionaries…

Radical graffiti, we are going round in circles so after this I don't intend to respond anymore.
radicalgraffiti

neither of those quotes says what you said, do you really not understand the difference between the UK wont be allowed to join the EEA and the UK wouldn't just automaticity join the EEA if it leaves the EU?

Right okay then but in that case who said the UK would "just automatically join the EEA"? I don't think anyone said that. What I said was I thought we would probably remain in it (as joining it may not be an issue, as we are already in it, as we are the single market). And I haven't heard either side of the referendum talking about whether or not we would still be in either of these groups or not.

I may have confuessed the EEA with the single market, i do seem to recall a tory arguing that the UK should have joined the EEA/single market not the EU, but i don't keep records of all this stuff in case it turns out to be useful in a internet argument years later. If these people don't exist wouldn't that undermine you claim that the UK would defiantly seek the become a member of the EEA if the vote was to leave the EU.

Again, I didn't claim the UK would "defiantly seek to become a member of the EEA". At the moment we are in the EU, the EEA and the single market. The government, led by Cameron, wants us to remain in the EU. However they have been forced by Tory backbenchers to offer a referendum. If it doesn't go their way I wouldn't be surprised if they would then just say, well we will leave the EU, but remain in the EEA and single market. As this would be almost the same thing. And still technically they will have given "the people" choice.

You know what I realise now why I stopped contributing anything to the so called anarchist movement for years. All of the above posts, apart from the whirlwind, are fucking idiocy. Yep I remember it well. None of you can offer anything positive because you are all negative. You lot are why the anarchist movement isn't where it should be, and why the wrong turn was taken when Freedom Newspaper was handed to you. Will no one rid me of this...:-)

Sleeper:

re: Your relationship with the anarchist movement.
Maybe it's not them, it's you.

I stopped contributing anything to the so called anarchist movement for years.

You can say that again.

So the anarchist movement lost out on a lot of empty rhetoric? And women and POC being told their struggles are a diversion? A heavy loss indeed.

Sleeper

You know what I realise now why I stopped contributing anything to the so called anarchist movement for years. All of the above posts, apart from the whirlwind, are fucking idiocy. Yep I remember it well. None of you can offer anything positive because you are all negative. You lot are why the anarchist movement isn't where it should be, and why the wrong turn was taken when Freedom Newspaper was handed to you. Will no one rid me of this...:-)

hey well don't mind us, have fun with Nigel Farage. He doesn't care much for women, people of colour or gay people either so is probably a much better fit for you.

yeah yeah, Bye Steven.

Steven.

Sleeper

You know what I realise now why I stopped contributing anything to the so called anarchist movement for years. All of the above posts, apart from the whirlwind, are fucking idiocy. Yep I remember it well. None of you can offer anything positive because you are all negative. You lot are why the anarchist movement isn't where it should be, and why the wrong turn was taken when Freedom Newspaper was handed to you. Will no one rid me of this...:-)

hey well don't mind us, have fun with Nigel Farage. He doesn't care much for women, people of colour or gay people either so is probably a much better fit for you.

bye Steven

Come on Sleeper, we haven't seen the last of you yet, I'll be bound!

Seriously though, do you really think you've got it sussed better than everyone else on here? Just think about how arrogant that idea is. Try listening and chill or a bit. You may have a much better experience.
Alternatively, you could tell me to fuck off. No skin off my nose.

Try listening and chill or a bit.

God, do you want to know how arrogant I am?

I first read this as "try listening to chilli a bit"...

Chilli Sauce

Try listening and chill or a bit.

God, do you want to know how arrogant I am?

I first read this as "try listening to chilli a bit"...

TW - following may be unsuitable to those with an aversion to injokes.

I wouldn't suggest that new guys around here listen to you Chilli - you might call them a dick!

Chilli Sauce

Try listening and chill or a bit.

God, do you want to know how arrogant I am?

I first read this as "try listening to chilli a bit"...

me too

...have fun with Nigel Farage. He doesn't care much for women, people of colour or gay people either so is probably a much better fit for you.

He does care if he can count on their votes.

Sometimes we should listen to the capitalists.

Mark Preston, the new executive trustee of the Grosvenor Group (the 6th Duke of Westminster's company, the richest man in the UK) said “The world will not come to the end if we come out nor ghastly if we stay in”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/05/how-the-grosvenor-property-empire-spread-across-the-world/

In other words, he and the capitalists will keep on rolling along as they have since the first duke.

You and i might budget for the end of the week or the month but for his class, they think in centuries. Longevity underpins every move Grosvenor makes:

“Despite its [China’s] slowdown the long term growth trend is a good deal better than we are going to get in Europe. In 100 to 150 years’ time we need to be in China to reap the rewards.”

Sometimes we should listen to the capitalists.

No, we shouldn't.

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

It's not clear that's the case. 'Europe' is a web of treaties and institutions of which the EU is an important, but not exclusive part. For example there's the EEA, which Britain would probably remain in, which incorporates the 'four freedoms' of the European Community (now absorbed into the EU), including free movement. Or Britain might follow the Swiss model of EFTA membership plus bilateral treaties (which might not include free movement).

(Obv the current refugee situation is showing that internal free movement is fairly provisional etc).

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

You're kidding right? Vote to stay in an organization that expels migrants; that impoverishes entire countries, so you don't have to apply for a visa?

Priceless.

Joseph Kay

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

It's not clear that's the case. 'Europe' is a web of treaties and institutions of which the EU is an important, but not exclusive part. For example there's the EEA, which Britain would probably remain in, which incorporates the 'four freedoms' of the European Community (now absorbed into the EU), including free movement. Or Britain might follow the Swiss model of EFTA membership plus bilateral treaties (which might not include free movement).

(Obv the current refugee situation is showing that internal free movement is fairly provisional etc).

Interesting. Thankyou for you're response.

S. Artesian

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

You're kidding right? Vote to stay in an organization that expels migrants; that impoverishes entire countries, so you don't have to apply for a visa?

Priceless.

But not as priceless as the 5 "down" votes. Long live libertarian anarcho european unionism!

Europeans unite! You have nothing to lose but your visas.

S. Artesian

S. Artesian

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

You're kidding right? Vote to stay in an organization that expels migrants; that impoverishes entire countries, so you don't have to apply for a visa?

Priceless.

But not as priceless as the 5 "down" votes. Long live libertarian anarcho european unionism!

Europeans unite! You have nothing to lose but your visas.

Mate, as I made clear I am for abstention in this referendum, and have been a vocal opponent of people arguing to vote to stay in. However, your comment got down votes because it is dismissive, and also makes no sense.

For workers in the UK, it is a great benefit of EU membership that we can travel and work anywhere in the EU. If the UK did vote to leave, that would not help end the impoverishment of any countries, and would not help migrants at risk of being expelled. In fact lots of people want the UK to leave the EU, so that the UK can expel loads more migrants.

So I disagree with red and black riot here, however your argument is even worse than his.

Your not my mate, mate.

I never said that voting to leave the EU would abolish poverty or stop the abuse of migrants. However voting for the EU is explicitly endorsing the actions of an association that represses migrants, impoverishes populations, and not to put too fine a point on it finds its most important task is bailing out banks.

I don't care why neo-fascists want to leave the EU; I want to know why a so-called libertarian anarchist would urge support for the bourgeoisie's plan for a European Union, and for Britain staying in the European Union.

Red and Black Riot thinks visa free travel is worth it? Really? Well let's see how many of the sacked Tata steelworkers take advantage of this wonderful benefit and find jobs equivalent to what they lose in the European Union.

Check-mate.

Oh, just to add to this thread, the SPGB's EC Statement

EU referendum: an irrelevant sideshow

We face months of debate over Britain staying in or leaving the European Union. It will dominate headlines and all political discussions, yet it is not the most pressing issue facing us by a long shot,
In the UK thousands of early deaths each year are related to poor diet, fuel poverty and inequality. Wages have only just returned to the same value they had in 2008, before the Great Crash, and are growing slowly. 1.7 million people are unemployed (according to official statistics) and millions more are in insecure and stressful jobs.

In reality, it doesn’t matter for the vast majority of us. Yet the politicians and journalists are full of discussions about whether or not Britain should be part of the EU.

Those who own the productive wealth of society aren’t going to willingly let their capital lie idle. In or out of the EU, they will need workers and seek profits in pretty much the same way. They will always seek to make the most profit they can, and they will need the labour of those of us who work to make their profits for them.

In order to do business, there will have to be arrangements with other governments, especially those that neighbour Britain. Pretty much all free trade agreements have an arbitration process, which will mean courts telling the British government what to do in order to comply with the treaties it signed.

They’ll still need to ensure that goods and workers can get from A to B without massive queues, delays and bureaucracy. The only countries with truly controlled borders are the likes of Cuba and North Korea, whose example is hardly worth following.

The owners of capital will still try to ensure that they get privileged access to the corridors of power, so that the rules and terms of trade are in their favour. Most of us will continue to have as little control over the laws of the land as before.

Worldwide millions die due to lack of available medical services. Starvation exists in the midst of plenty of food. Man-made climate change is changing eco-systems across the world. Millions are displaced by war. These are Human problems, that we must confront on a worldwide scale.

If we want practical control of our own lives, if we want to confront these problems, we have to organise on a worldwide basis, not a national basis. We need to join with the vast majority of the world who do not own a single square inch of it, in order to bring the wealth of the world under the democratic control of everyone, rather than taking sides in a factional dispute between members of the propertied class.

Executive Committee
The Socialist Party of Great Britain

Might as well be hung for a sheep than a lamb and now re-publish the proposed leaflet that members intend to distribute.

The problem is not the EU…it’s capitalism

On 23 June you will asked to make a decision on behalf of the minority who own and control the means of production in Britain: should they stay or should they leave the EU? Perhaps you ought to feel flattered that, for once, they have entrusted you with making a decision of vital importance to them. But our answer, as socialists, is “we are not interested. Settle the matter yourselves”.
This is because the problems we and you face as wage and salary workers or their dependents are caused by the capitalist system of ownership by the few and production for profit. This system, which requires that making profits comes before meeting needs, will continue whether Britain is in or out of the EU. Whichever it is to be, the problems will continue. They will continue for as long as capitalism does. The only way out is if you, together with wage and salary workers in the rest of the world, organise democratically to replace global capitalism by a worldwide classless socialist society of common ownership and democratic control, with production to satisfy people’s needs not for profit, and distribution on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” not by the amount of money you have – or don’t have.

The devil you know
Apart from a few idealists who want to see a Federal European State, the main group in favour of staying is Big Business. With good reason, from their point if view. The EU gives them tariff- free access to a vast single market with common standards. And the EU, negotiating as a single body with non-member States over trade and other economic matters and so with more bargaining power, gets them a better deal than if Britain had to do this on its own.

Other supporters are the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists who want to protect the EU subsidies their parts of Britain get. More principled is the position of the Green Party which wants to defend the free movement of workers throughout the EU – out of as well as into Britain.

Cameron claims to have negotiated some fundamental reform of the EU. Actually, he has done no more than freeze the position of Britain as a non-member of the Eurozone. He hasn’t undone anything. He hasn’t even stopped immigration which some mistakenly see as a problem, only held out a hope that it will be less attractive in a few years. No wonder the Eurosceptics are sceptical.
Basically, the Stay campaign are campaigning for the status quo. As is the Labour Party. In other words, capitalism as we know it, with all the problems it causes, and so not worth supporting even if it is the devil we know.

The devil you don’t
But what about the devil we don’t know? Its supporters are an unsavoury lot. UKippers, Tory backwoodsmen and other xenophobes plus a few ambitious politicians calculating that leaving will provide them with a better chance to climb further up the greasy pole. They have some limited business support, mainly small businesses producing for the home market rather than for export and some hedge funds that don’t want to be regulated. The leave camp are the ones proposing a change, which they claim will be for the better. But their case is a mixture of wishful thinking and the usual empty promises of politicians. It doesn’t even make sense from a capitalist point of view. Certainly, as they claim, outside the EU British capitalism could still have access to the single EU market, but would no longer have a say in fixing its rules and regulations. A non-EU Britain could still, as they also claim, negotiate trade deals with other countries and trading blocs, but on its own would be in a weaker bargaining position. No wonder Big Business and its supporters regard them as flat-earthers.

The sovereign has no clothes
One more respectable argument for leaving than “Keep Immigrants Out” or “Send Them Back” is that leaving would give back to parliament the “sovereign power” to decide what laws should apply in Britain. Capitalism, however, is a single world economic system, which makes “independence” and “sovereignty” purely formal when it comes to economic matters. Governments, whatever formal powers they may have, cannot control the way the profit system works. In fact it’s the other way round. Capitalism is sovereign and governments have to apply its basic economic law that priority must be given to profit-making as this was what drives the system.

A State can choose that its government and parliament take the decisions required to comply with capitalism’s basic economic law (as the leavers want) or it can delegate some of these decisions to some inter-governmental body (as at present and as the stayers support), but in the end it doesn’t matter who makes the decision. Nor where, whether London or Brussels. The decision is made.

How to vote, then?
You don’t need to accept the sham choice on offer in this referendum between the devil you know and the devil you don’t. Leave that choice to those who support capitalism in one form or another. As we consider the right to vote as a gain and a possible tool to end capitalism we will be going to the polling station, to cast a write-in vote for socialism by writing “WORLD SOCIALISM” across our ballot paper. If you agree with us, we urge you to do the same.

It's not useful or detailed (i.e. dialectical) enough to simply say that both positions are equally capitalist - it may be true in the abstract, but in the concrete, there are real political consequences with each choice, those consequences reverberate throughout society, they shape decision-making, they shape the course of events, they influence our movements.

For example, if we leave and workers' rights are eroded, will it galvanise unions (etc.) into a fight-back? If we leave, and the hard/far-right is emboldened, will we see an upsurge in the anti-fascist movement? What effect will it have on the economy (probably negative) and Osborne's plans? How will an EU without the UK be different? Will it be more social democratic (if we take into account changes in the balance of votes)?

I think there will be consequences whatever the decision is, many being unintended consequences and as you ,i think infer, fairly unpredictable ones.

So what is the answer in practical rather than theoretical terms? A list of maybes and possiblies and perhapses and who knows and don't knows for sure but i'm guessings...

We may speculate but the conclusion i reach is whatever is decided by the referendum, little will constructively change in the consciousness of my fellow workers and it will be basically business as usual for the capitalist class. Workers will be sadly disillusioned and declare they been cheated regardless of the result and retreat back into some cynical apathy that they don't have any political power in the end...when it is really the nature of the question that is loaded against them in the first place...

Depending upon your actual job and employer, in or out, is a very simple decision...Will in or out benefit your boss and his profits? Already many businesses are making it clear that Brexit will effect security and conditions and are recommending to their work-force to vote for the status quo. Other companies argue that increased protectionism and more opportunity for entering markets outside the EU will be advantageous to them and their advice is to leave.

I think we as socialists (and anarchists) try to reflect the interests of the global working class and not simply for sections of it, whether regional (UK or EU) or a particular section of commerce and industry. So at times we have to stand aside and sit on the fence and follow the prime directive of medicine - Primum non nocere ...First, do no harm

Let's not blindly opt for a Hobson's Choice and lets begin making the argument for another alternative when the debate and discussion turns to the referendum.

But being truthful and personal, i'm not going to be upset with any of my friends if they vote Stay or Leave...I'm not going to be on any dogmatic high-horse and throw about accusations of class betrayal or whatever but i will deliver a dispassionate analysis as i see it when the topic arises.

No, I generally agree with you - I have friends on the left who support 'In' (due to immigration issues/not wanting to embolden the far-right), 'Out' (anti-imperialism, memories of Greece) and 'Abstain'. I understand their reasons, it's a ridiculously complicated issue with unpredictable consequences.

Personally, I think to myself: "which choice is the most destabilising (if, even, at least temporarily)?", "which choice is more likely to lead to riots?", to economic instability, etc., in order to open a window, no matter how small, for some proletarian action.

The bourgeoisie, like the proletariat, is divided on this issue; different parties, and different sections of parties, represent the differences in material interests and ideological commitments of different sections of the ruling class.

I think the most important thing for internationalist revolutionary socialists to focus on is not the vote itself (over which we, as a minority, have little influence anyway), but, instead, the consequences of each vote, and position ourselves accordingly. For example, in 2017 there will be elections in France and Germany, where both the FN and the AfD are expected to make real gains - this will likely pressure the governments of those countries to resort to more illiberal policies w.r.t. immigration, which, in turn, will likely push the EU in a more illiberal direction. Preparing ourselves for these fights is the most important thing.

whirlwind #147

‘Quote:
Sometimes we should listen to the capitalists.

No, we shouldn’t.’

Gathering intelligence from and about your enemy is imperative to waging a successful war. Even a simpleton like me knows this.

Honestly, I can't understand why this--"vote yes/no/not at all" is even a question of discussion. What is the European Union? An association of the ruling class designed to further its exploitation of labor power, right? It's about extending the rule of private property, right?

Given that this is the 21st century, and the bourgeoisie and their system is not about to ignite a war against slavery; or lay siege to the "remnants of feudalism," exactly why should anyone not a member of that ruling class, or supporting that ruling class, support that ruling class association?

Yes, it really is just that simple: why would anyone support a Union of the European bourgeoisie?

You can oppose the European Union and xenophobia at the same time you know. Indeed as recent events have made clear (thanks to Austria, Merkel, and Syriza) to do either you have to do both.

S. Artesian

Honestly, I can't understand why this--"vote yes/no/not at all" is even a question of discussion. What is the European Union? An association of the ruling class designed to further its exploitation of labor power, right? It's about extending the rule of private property, right?

are you saying discussing it at all is bad because its capitalist?

this seems like a argument from the same family as "how can anticapitalists have iphones/drink coffee"

radicalgraffiti

S. Artesian

Honestly, I can't understand why this--"vote yes/no/not at all" is even a question of discussion. What is the European Union? An association of the ruling class designed to further its exploitation of labor power, right? It's about extending the rule of private property, right?

are you saying discussing it at all is bad because its capitalist?

this seems like a argument from the same family as "how can anticapitalists have iphones/drink coffee"

No I'm not saying that: I'm saying that I find it hard to accept the semi- or qualified, or the partial endorsements the "stay" position seems to evoke.

And no, supporting the EU is not even close to arguing about Iphones or drinking coffee. Supporting the EU is like supporting the police, or the executive committee of the police because the committee wants the police to be less inhumane.

S. Artesian

radicalgraffiti

S. Artesian

Honestly, I can't understand why this--"vote yes/no/not at all" is even a question of discussion. What is the European Union? An association of the ruling class designed to further its exploitation of labor power, right? It's about extending the rule of private property, right?

are you saying discussing it at all is bad because its capitalist?

this seems like a argument from the same family as "how can anticapitalists have iphones/drink coffee"

No I'm not saying that: I'm saying that I find it hard to accept the semi- or qualified, or the partial endorsements the "stay" position seems to evoke.

And no, supporting the EU is not even close to arguing about Iphones or drinking coffee. Supporting the EU is like supporting the police, or the executive committee of the police because the committee wants the police to be less inhumane.

but equating the position that freedom of movement could make it worth voting to stay with supporting the EU is kind of like equating owning an iphone or drinking starbucks coffee with supporting capitalism

and the EU's more like a Office of Weights and Measures or the BSI Group than the police really

and the EU's more like a Office of Weights and Measures or the BSI Group than the police really

Yeah? That's what you think? Tell that to those being shipped back to Turkey. Tell that to those whose pensions have been reduced by half in Greece.

Tell that to those in Libya who were collaterally vaporized by EU air strikes.

If you don't think voting to stay in the EU for whatever reason is supporting the EU, then one of us is deluded.

Given the characterization of the EU as an office of weights and measures makes it clear I'm not the one.

S. Artesian

and the EU's more like a Office of Weights and Measures or the BSI Group than the police really

Tell that to those in Libya who were collaterally vaporized by EU air strikes.

since when did the EU have a military? name a single air strike or any military action carried out by the EU

radicalgraffiti

S. Artesian

and the EU's more like a Office of Weights and Measures or the BSI Group than the police really

Tell that to those in Libya who were collaterally vaporized by EU air strikes.

since when did the EU have a military? name a single air strike or any military action carried out by the EU

Correct the EU has no military. You're right on the military.

I'm right on the economics of expelling refugees and impoverishing people. It does have a police. It is expelling refugees back to Turkey. It has, as a European Union, impoverished Greece; imposed terms of austerity on Portugal, Spain, and Ireland.

Weights and measures? Some weights, some measures.

Tell me again about the benefits of freedom of movement

The EU doesn't have a military but it does have Frontex. However it's not clear that a vote to leave would weaken Frontex while it may well boost domestic border violence too.

I'm not minded to vote, partly because either outcome is fucked. If pushed I think the status quo is probably marginally preferable to a right-wing exit, but that's mainly 'better the devil you know' thinking.

In 1999, the European Council agreed that "the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and the readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO". Also the Amsterdam Treaty lays down new principles and responsibilities in the field of the common foreign and security policy, with the emphasis on projecting the EU's values to the outside world, protecting its interests and reforming its modes of action.

What about this. Certainly the nucleus of a European Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

And this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Headline_Goal

Since January, 1st of 2007 60,000 soldiers have been available for a possible European Rapid Reaction Force who are potentially deployable for at least a year.

These too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Gendarmerie_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

The NATO and the EU relationship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Plus_agreement

Actually, the European Union External Action website lists 6 ongoing military operations in Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic, Boznia and Herzegovina, etc. and 5 completed military operations: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/

Libya is not among them, but the point is the EU is not simply a bureau of weights and standards.

Now about that "freedom of movement........."

I think 'EU military operations' are kinda like UN ones, i.e. national units deployed under a joint command. But yeah the EU isn't just some technical standards bureau. It was born in part as a dream of the joint colonial exploitation of Africa, and those maps show that's not just an historical detail...

S. Artesian

Check-mate.

lol I'm so glad I don't take these forums that seriously.

S. Artesian

Your not my mate, mate.

lol

S. Artesian

S. Artesian

red and black riot

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

You're kidding right? Vote to stay in an organization that expels migrants; that impoverishes entire countries, so you don't have to apply for a visa?

Priceless.

But not as priceless as the 5 "down" votes. Long live libertarian anarcho european unionism!

Europeans unite! You have nothing to lose but your visas.

You should relax dude, I'm just asking questions and exploring the issue.

Me too. Like the original one: Are you serious? Vote for the EU. Preserve visa-free travel to the Continent?

S. Artesian

Me too. Like the original one: Are you serious? Vote for the EU. Preserve visa-free travel to the Continent?

I think I've already made it quite clear that I'm going to abstain.

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

And this:

Good piece by the SPGB on why we should abstain from the referendum http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/workers-have-no-father-or-motherland.html

I must say though, I'm tempted to vote to stay simply because the Ukippers and probably most of the Tories want me to do the opposite.

Sure thing. Clear as can be.

lol I suppose you want a photo of me self-flagellating

I must say though, I'm tempted to vote to stay simply because the Ukippers and probably most of the Tories want me to do the opposite.

This Tory bashing bollocks, which has now reached fever pitch is so barking up the wrong tree. Labour are one of the biggest obstacles to grass roots action and working class self assertion that we have. Far more damaging than the Tories. We all know Tories are cunts, big fucking deal. This Cameron tax stuff is the biggest non story ever. It's all just embarrassing how supposed revolutionaries point their ire at just one small element of capital(I'm not saying you're doing this RBR). Talk about barking up the wrong tree.

red and black riot

lol I suppose you want a photo of me self-flagellating

No.

S. Artesian

red and black riot

lol I suppose you want a photo of me self-flagellating

No.

Aw come on, that would be great. It would give all the Libcom puritans a right fucking hard on!

That explains it then. I'm not a Libcom puritan.

S. Artesian

That explains it then. I'm not a Libcom puritan.

Join the club. And watch those opinions comrade!

Tell that to those being shipped back to Turkey. Tell that to those whose pensions have been reduced by half in Greece.

So, this is sort of part of the problem I have with the anti-EU stuff. I'm not pro-EU or whatever, but those pensions would be getting fucked those people would be getting deported EU or no EU.

There're entirely legitimate criticisms of the EU to be made, but the EU didn't create neo-liberalism, racist immigration policies, or public debt crises - and it's not like disbanding the EU would alleviate any of that.

I sort of get that the EU does provide a 'superstructure', but by making those criticisms the implication is that those things wouldn't be happening if the EU didn't exist, which I think we all agree is not the case.

I also get that is sounds selfish, but if those things are going to exist (and need to be struggled against) regardless, I don't think it's fair to equate those who might consider a visa-less travel vote with somehow being complicit with pension cuts or deporting refugees, know what I mean?

Chilli Sauce

There're entirely legitimate criticisms of the EU to be made, but the EU didn't create neo-liberalism, racist immigration policies, or public debt crises - and it's not like disbanding the EU would alleviate any of that.

Yeah, exactly. I mean with Greece and the Eurozone countries there is more of a point, because being part of the Eurozone meant they couldn't devalue the currency. However the Eurozone and EU are not the same thing.

Steven

Chilli Sauce wrote:

There're entirely legitimate criticisms of the EU to be made, but the EU didn't create neo-liberalism, racist immigration policies, or public debt crises - and it's not like disbanding the EU would alleviate any of that.

Yeah, exactly. I mean with Greece and the Eurozone countries there is more of a point, because being part of the Eurozone meant they couldn't devalue the currency. However the Eurozone and EU are not the same thing.

What equivocating nonsense. Right the Eurozone and the EU are not the same thing, which of course is why the refugees are only being expelled from a Eurozone country.

Yeah, and we can belong to the EU, and support its military adventures, and its anti-immigration policies, because we're not in the Eurozone, and even if we were it wouldn't matter because racism and austerity exist outside the EU so why give up my visa-less travel?

Sure thing. and you know what? Over on this side, I think that we shouldn't be so quick to knock NAFTA, because it isn't like all those people in Mexico wouldn't have lost their rights to the land, to maintain some level of subsistence agriculture if NAFTA didn't exist, and with NAFTA the avocados I love are actually cheaper.

Hip-hip-hooray for contortionist libertarian communo-market capitalism.

I just don't think you're arguing in good faith at this point, S.

Chilli Sauce

I just don't think you're arguing in good faith at this point, S.

Well, if arguing that "racism and oppression exist whether or not we vote for remaining in the EU" is arguing in good faith, then I'm only too happy to be not of that faith.

The thing is, though, that's objectively true. Suggesting that libcom's "libertarian communo-market capitalism" posters support NAFTA cause they get cheap avocados is just blatant strawmanning.

Of course, racism and oppression exist with or without the EU. The issue isn't that. The issue is the delusion, the self-serving rationalizations that say -- "oppression and racism exist without the EU, so the fact that the EU engages in racism and oppression doesn't mean I'm necessarily endorsing those things when I'm voting for the EU-- I'm just trying to preserve the perk of visa-less travel."

--As if your visa-less travel somehow exists separate and apart from the racism and the oppression that, while existing outside the EU, the EU enforces.

Yeah, I'm not arguing in "good faith," and you are putting forth a faith-based argument.

The avocado analogy is a hyperbole, a caricature used to make the point. And when you get right down to it, your visa-less travel is no different than the price of the avocado. Commodity fetishism.

Just for the record, I have to say that I'm with S Artesian on this.

Auld-bod

whirlwind #147

‘Quote:
Sometimes we should listen to the capitalists.

No, we shouldn’t.’

Gathering intelligence from and about your enemy is imperative to waging a successful war. Even a simpleton like me knows this.

Read Das Kapital, then. What they claimed to 'know' was merely from their perspective, and could not be taken over by one opposed to that.

Being dependent on your opponent for having any idea of what you're fighting against is really not a great modus operandi.

And no, supporting the EU is not even close to arguing about Iphones or drinking coffee. Supporting the EU is like supporting the police, or the executive committee of the police because the committee wants the police to be less inhumane.

It does seem a bit ambiguous to take a political or state issue and just reduce it to some matters of personal convenience. As if denying the overall thing is an issue is more a priority than actually engaging with it. No point in abandoning the categories of politics in any way as soon as a political question comes up. Obviously, opponents of socialism were usually quite keen to deny a social viewpoint and just try and keep a focus on atomised, abstract people while pretending that their social perspectives and relations were just a 'natural' quality, but anyway. Of course, society actually functioned like that. No need to have helped them, then.

As a slightly tangential remark, part of the reason why books like 'Das Kapital,' however weirdly, had to be dismissed out of hand with some slogans and occasional slights at them being 'boring,' 'old' or 'inaccessible,' was that capital was quite simply not going to abide by not being able to automatically scold or threaten people while the validity of the system was in question, or attack them for not being of stature within the system when the validity of the system and their judgements (obviously all jobs had as their purpose to serve capital) was not simply taken for granted, and hence the whole thing would be dysfunctional. This would occasionally lead to such slogans of attack at such books, or anything which might make similar suggestions, becoming automatic or having to be identified with people, for instance rejection of Marxism because of a generic rejection of 'absolute values' (heh), 'hope' (and possibly feathers), and so on, and then these people would be praised briefly but ultimately reactionary and faddish, etc.

Of course, there might be a case for such reactionary viewpoints where a person was by nature just to encounter a 'society' and then try and get really excited about it seeming slightly dysfunctional, but anyway.

The EU obviously, as Artesian points out, stood as an organisation for more than just free and barely more convenient travel to see the Tour d'Eiffel, and it might be worth at least giving them this much credit when evaluating them.

Tell that to those in Libya who were collaterally vaporized by EU air strikes.

It is true that the EU had become a militarised force. There was no real reason to support it on this level, then, except perhaps for convenient oil.

Read Das Kapital, then, What they claimed to 'know' was merely from their perspective, and could not be taken over by one opposed to that.

If we delete the citations made my Marx from avowed supporters and promoters of the capitalist system and all the information he gleaned from their works and his use of Parliamentary reports then i think it would have resulted in a very different and weakened critique (but a much thinner book).

My remark that we can learn from either the statements of or the actions of our ruling class, i thought was fairly non-controversial. Of course, i was never recommending that we adopt the capitalist's (or a section of it) analysis uncritically. I simply noted that a core section of the capitalist class aren't particularly bothered by the EU referendum because they view their interest in centuries, not even in decades, much less in a few years or months, and that overall capitalism is fully capable of adapting to either result in the EU.

By implication, I suggest that the working class is just as able to adjust to either in or out and therefore we don't need to make a tactical or strategic stand for either option. Sitting on the fence and berating both sides for their hypocrisy and their attempted defences of vested interests is a perfectly appropriate position for socialists/anarchists to hold. A plague upon both sides of the EU debate and to (ungrammatically) paraphrase the SWP.."Neither Brussels, Strasbourg or London"

We have no dog in this fight (to express it non-pc)

S. Artesian

The avocado analogy is a hyperbole, a caricature used to make the point. And when you get right down to it, your visa-less travel is no different than the price of the avocado. Commodity fetishism.

Well, not really as it works both ways. What about working-class southern Europeans coming to Britain to escape the crisis, unemployment etc? You know as much as anyone how fucked unemployment is in Greece, Spain etc. In southern Italy I remember reading unemployment for women was something like 80%! A few years ago I remember reading that Spanish and Italians had both overtaken Poles in terms of numbers coming to the UK (dunno if that's still the case). If Britain were to leave the EU and that negatively affected their ability to come and work in the UK (not saying it definitely would, but it's a possibility), then that would be different to the price of an avocado.

That doesn't mean we should definitely vote to remain in the EU, or that the EU is great. Neither does it mean that if Britain left the EU that some deal regarding migrants from the EU wouldn't be arranged. But I think it's facetious to say that Europeans (inc Brits) worried about whether they can work in other European countries is unimportant coz the EU does some evil shit to non-Euro migrants (esp as Britain will continue to do it as well if it was to separate from EU!)..

EDIT TO ADD: I might have missed this earlier in thread, but S. Artesian, are you saying that Brits should vote to leave the EU in the referendum?

Zeronowhere #192

‘Auld-bod: Gathering intelligence from and about your enemy is imperative to waging a successful war. Even a simpleton like me knows this.

… Being dependent on your opponent for having any idea of what you're fighting against is really not a great modus operandi.’

Total dependency on one’s opponent does not come into it. Perhaps you might be good enough to furnish us with an example of a successful struggle based on no knowledge of the opposition.

Ed

EDIT TO ADD: I might have missed this earlier in thread, but S. Artesian, are you saying that Brits should vote to leave the EU in the referendum?

not that he needs me to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure is general point, is the same as mine, which is that we should abstain. Although for some reason, me believing this makes me some sort of market capitalist…

Right, I don't need you to speak for me Steven. I think every socialist, Marxist, working class organization should oppose the European Union. I don't care about Cameron's referendum, but we should certainly use this opportunity to agitate against an executive committee of the European bourgeoisie, organized to intensify the exploitation of the working class. "We"-- I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one-- campaign against the EU on a class, international basis, not a nationalist anti-class basis. It's not a campaign of "Britain Out," but of an "Against the Union of Capitalists."

As for this: A few years ago I remember reading that Spanish and Italians had both overtaken Poles in terms of numbers coming to the UK (dunno if that's still the case). If Britain were to leave the EU and that negatively affected their ability to come and work in the UK (not saying it definitely would, but it's a possibility), then that would be different to the price of an avocado.But I think it's facetious to say that Europeans (inc Brits) worried about whether they can work in other European countries is unimportant coz the EU does some evil shit to non-Euro migrants (esp as Britain will continue to do it as well if it was to separate from EU!)..

That's pretty much nothing but going about things ass-backwards, and swallowing the bourgeoisie's line about "free movement of capital"-- in this case variable capital, hook, line, and sinker.

Tolerate the EU because--- what? Because when European capitalism plunges the economies of Spain, or Poland, or Greece into the abyss, then some minuscule percentage of those impoverished by the collapse, some fragment of those dispossessed, some fraction of those made surplus in one sector, might emigrate and might find work in another sector? Really? That's brilliant. That sounds pretty similar to accepting capitalism lock, stock, and barrel, because after all, when you get made redundant somewhere, somewhere else there might be a job, at a much lower rate of pay, if only you can find it.

Let's see how this works in the concrete: EU capitalism puts its own self between the rock and the hard place, inflicting let's say 50% unemployment rates on young workers. EU capitalism proclaims that the "solution" to the squeeze is, to well-- subsidize the banks on the backs of the workers; to remove protections from labor; to attack the "social wage"-- i.e. stipends, subsidies for university education, for general health care, for public utilities. BUT........

But, let's all agree to stay in the EU, so that....why? Why wouldn't we be attacking the EU for what it is; a project of the European bourgeoisie to "regularize" the obstacles big capital finds in the different variations of small capital existing in localities? Because someone thinks, after he or she gets sacked at Tata steel in the UK, or ArcelorMittal in Poland, he or she will be able to find a job at Tata or Arcelor in the other's country?

What was it Ripley said in Aliens, "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

[quote=red and black riot]Joseph Kay

red and black riot

Interesting. Thankyou for you're response.

Clear enough to me.

S. Artesian

red and black riot

leaving with a Tory government will mean we will lose what little rights we have. Our local rulers would be able to bring back the death penalty and cut off our water if we didn't pay our water bills for example. We will also lose the human rights act, which will be replaced with a British 'bill of rights'. Which means no rights. Certainly we would lose the Health and Safety legislation we have and some workers rights.Though there is many problems with the EU , it is better to stick with it rather than leave with a Tory government. I'm voting to stay.

And this:

Good piece by the SPGB on why we should abstain from the referendum http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/workers-have-no-father-or-motherland.html

I must say though, I'm tempted to vote to stay simply because the Ukippers and probably most of the Tories want me to do the opposite.

Sure thing. Clear as can be.

Oh, seems I'm guilty of some kind of thought crime. Sorry Guv, yer got me bang ta rights. It's a fair cop.

S. Artesian

I'm not a Libcom puritan.

Are you sure? You sound like you are trying to convince yourself.

Ed

S. Artesian

The avocado analogy is a hyperbole, a caricature used to make the point. And when you get right down to it, your visa-less travel is no different than the price of the avocado. Commodity fetishism.

Well, not really as it works both ways. What about working-class southern Europeans coming to Britain to escape the crisis, unemployment etc? You know as much as anyone how fucked unemployment is in Greece, Spain etc. In southern Italy I remember reading unemployment for women was something like 80%! A few years ago I remember reading that Spanish and Italians had both overtaken Poles in terms of numbers coming to the UK (dunno if that's still the case). If Britain were to leave the EU and that negatively affected their ability to come and work in the UK (not saying it definitely would, but it's a possibility), then that would be different to the price of an avocado.

Yeah I agree with Ed here. I met my new students today and there are eight students with EU resident status, and only one of them is actually a 'European', the others are all from Latin America or Africa who have been living in Spain and Portugal for years and have EU papers. I don't think the freedom of movement situation is quite as simple as some people see it. Before 1992 there were still loads of immigration controls on non - European migrants, and there were also controls on poorer European migrants. It doesn't feel like it's a straightforward 'good for wealthier Europeans/bad for poorer non-Europeans' thing to me.

Yeah good point, fingers.. and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status (considering that's one of the main planks of the anti-EU argument) without having someone from the other side of the Atlantic telling them it's like supporting NAFTA for cheap avocados (even if it was hyperbole, it's still a rubbish analogy)..

Ed

Yeah good point, fingers.. and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status (considering that's one of the main planks of the anti-EU argument) without having someone from the other side of the Atlantic telling them it's like supporting NAFTA for cheap avocados (even if it was hyperbole, it's still a rubbish analogy)..

it would be equivalent to supporting NAFTA, if NAFTA also allowed free movement across the Americas, and had various workers' rights protection laws thrown in there as well.

Now I am also confused by Artesian's position. I assumed he was in favour of abstention, however now he's just saying we should just be agitating against the EU, so are you saying you are for a vote to leave? Or you just saying we should support the leave campaign, but not actually go as far as asking people to vote?

Ed

Yeah good point, fingers.. and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status (considering that's one of the main planks of the anti-EU argument) without having someone from the other side of the Atlantic telling them it's like supporting NAFTA for cheap avocados (even if it was hyperbole, it's still a rubbish analogy)..

Oh priceless. Love the creeping continental chauvinism . I can't understand, cause I'm a yank, right? Heard that before. Numerous iterations of "can a white man sing the blues?" It's a black thang, you wouldn't understand; Piss off.

Nothing shows the bankruptcy of this baloney like saying "and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status" as a rationalization for acquiescence to the miserable coterie of bankers and bankers toadies that is the EU at the very moment that the EU expels immigrants back to Turkey; as it provides that wonderful perk of visa-free travel to Turkey in exchange for Erdogan doing the dirty work; at the very moment that Austria reestablishes border controls; and that country after country in the EU refuses to abide by their own so-called agreements on immigrants. Fucking brilliant.

Do make this shit up, Ed, on your own, or does someone write it down for you?

I'll take the avocados anytime. At least I'm not pretending anything about motivation.

And BTW, we do have the answer to Ripley's question. Courtesy of chauvinists lining up to be a hot lunch on the European Union's plate.

Now I am also confused by Artesian's position. I assumed he was in favour of abstention, however now he's just saying we should just be agitating against the EU, so are you saying you are for a vote to leave? Or you just saying we should support the leave campaign, but not actually go as far as asking people to vote?

[/quote]

I think I made it about as clear, explicit, direct, and plain as possible. If you can't understand it, then you should keep rereading it until you do.

S. Artesian

Now I am also confused by Artesian's position. I assumed he was in favour of abstention, however now he's just saying we should just be agitating against the EU, so are you saying you are for a vote to leave? Or you just saying we should support the leave campaign, but not actually go as far as asking people to vote?

I think I made it about as clear, explicit, direct, and plain as possible. If you can't understand it, then you should keep rereading it until you do.[/quote]
Earlier you seem to be arguing for abstention, then you started saying no one should even discuss it, then you started saying we should be agitating against the EU. I'm sure you know what you mean, but from someone not living inside your head you seem a bit all over the place.

Your attacks on other people's arguments are also all over the place. As if you are arguing for abstention, that's the same argument as me, and yet you accused me of being a market capitalist.

S. Artesian

Ed

Yeah good point, fingers.. and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status (considering that's one of the main planks of the anti-EU argument) without having someone from the other side of the Atlantic telling them it's like supporting NAFTA for cheap avocados (even if it was hyperbole, it's still a rubbish analogy)..

Oh priceless. Love the creeping continental chauvinism . I can't understand, cause I'm a yank, right? Heard that before. Numerous iterations of "can a white man sing the blues?" It's a black thang

Jesus, can you promise never to say that again?

Piss off.

this is a no flaming forum, Artesian

Nothing shows the bankruptcy of this baloney like saying "and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status" as a rationalization for acquiescence to the miserable coterie of bankers and bankers toadies that is the EU

yeah but no one did that, you have invented that

And BTW, we do have the answer to Ripley's question. Courtesy of chauvinists lining up to be a hot lunch on the European Union's plate.

In your own head you must be so pleased with yourself, thinking you're the only one who is right and everyone else is so so wrong, even those who actually hold the same view as you.

But no of course understanding people's concerns about something means that you actually agree with them and the political perspective of those people, so clearly you are a national/EU chauvinist/market capitalist…

Hell, I have disagreed with Ed about this in the past. But I can understand his worry, especially as his partner and mother of his child is in EU migrant living in the UK, and it's not completely clear if she will be allowed to remain if we leave (now I'm confident that EU migrants will be allowed to remain, however I can understand people worrying that they may not. Oh no there I go again being an EU chauvinist market capitalist…)

S. Artesian

Nothing shows the bankruptcy of this baloney like saying "and I think people have a right to be concerned about their immigration status" as a rationalization for acquiescence to the miserable coterie of bankers and bankers toadies that is the EU at the very moment that the EU expels immigrants back to Turkey; as it provides that wonderful perk of visa-free travel to Turkey in exchange for Erdogan doing the dirty work; at the very moment that Austria reestablishes border controls; and that country after country in the EU refuses to abide by their own so-called agreements on immigrants. Fucking brilliant.

I'll fight against deportations and razor wire after the referendum just the same way as I did before the referendum, whether we are in the EU or not. Along with loads of other people who are arguing with you.
I have seen a young guy get dragged off a bus in the early hours of the morning, who was just trying to travel from one EU country to another to visit his sister. He was working without documents and hadn't seen any of his relatives for a couple of years and chanced his luck with crossing the border and got caught by the border control. What I'm trying to say here is that I don't believe the EU is good or something. However without the EU that kid would probably still have been dragged off that bus. There were border controls before the EU. And people fleeing war being turned back with violence isn't specific to the existence of the EU surely?

S. Artesian

Actually, the European Union External Action website lists 6 ongoing military operations in Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic, Boznia and Herzegovina, etc. and 5 completed military operations: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/

thats interesting but it's kind of unclear what they are actually doing

S. Artesian

Libya is not among them, but the point is the EU is not simply a bureau of weights and standards.

i think that is closer to there roll than that of the police, i think the principle roll of the EU is to facilitate trade between EU countries, and a large part of this is by setting common standards. Direct repression is mostly left to the individual states of the EU. This is the state of things at the current time, there are moves to make the EU more like a state, but this has been resisted by some members particularly the UK.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the states that make up the EU would be less repressive or more welcoming of immigrants if they where not part of the EU. In fact leaving the EU would probably be a significant boost to the far right

S. Artesian

Now about that "freedom of movement........."

freedom of movement for EU citizens exits, its not as good as we want, but its something that directly benefits people. Should we pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't apply to non EU citizens? should UK residents also refuse to use the NHS because its not available out side the UK?

Steven

Earlier you seem to be arguing for abstention, then you started saying no one should even discuss it, then you started saying we should be agitating against the EU. I'm sure you know what you mean, but from someone not living inside your head you seem a bit all over the place.

Wishful thinking on your part. My first post was #70-- in which I questioned the equivocation being evidenced about the perks of being in the EU. Next post was #150-- same thing-- which started the ball rolling.

I've posted nothing the least bit supportive of abstention. I think the referendum is a fraud and a farce-- a spectacle for those of you who claim situationist credentials, absolutely irrelevant to anything except clouding the central issue which is what is the EU, its class basis, what it must do as an agent of that class, and what we must do to oppose it.

This isn't about voting yes/no/or not at all. This is about about pushing forth an anti-ruling class program. Feel free to blow this opportunity by urging yes, no, or abstention.

yeah but no one did that, you have invented that

You might have a problem there, since I quoted someone saying exactly that-- as a consideration for not dumping the EU-- concerns about immigrant status-- at the very moment that the EU is violating "international law"-- such that it is-- expelling migrants and refugees back to Turkey.

But no of course understanding people's concerns about something means that you actually agree with them and the political perspective of those people, so clearly you are a national/EU chauvinist/market capitalist…

Hell, I have disagreed with Ed about this in the past. But I can understand his worry, especially as his partner and mother of his child is in EU migrant living in the UK, and it's not completely clear if she will be allowed to remain if we leave (now I'm confident that EU migrants will be allowed to remain, however I can understand people worrying that they may not. Oh no there I go again being an EU chauvinist market capitalist…)

Well, there you have it then. It's all about personal concerns. You've just proved my exact point. All the equivocation is based on concerns for personal status. Well, glad that's sorted. Fuck the social issues.

So Steven, if personal issues are the razor's edge here, can we apply that across the board? Like to trade union bureaucrats, looking out for old no #1 and the family? Or a labor MP voting to keep the Trident base open because... well there are a number of secondary jobs dependent on those other blokes from the other side of the Atlantic?

And no, I'm not alone in this. I'm pretty sure ZeroNowhere gets it. But then he would, being able to distinguish personal concerns from class issues.

Jesus, can you promise never to say that again?

Nope. But I can promise never to tell you that we don't need your opinion because you're on the other side of the Atlantic and you can't possibly know what the real significance is. Hey Ed, I speak French and German, and I can sing the blues.

S. Artesian wrote:

Actually, the European Union External Action website lists 6 ongoing military operations in Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic, Boznia and Herzegovina, etc. and 5 completed military operations: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/

rg

thats interesting but it's kind of unclear what they are actually doing

Right. Obviously, a humanitarian mission, like MINUSTAH in Haiti, or any of those other UN missions. How silly of me to think the military mission is there to secure commercial advantage; to make it a safe place for the EU to do business.

Or maybe, the military is just there to create a bureau of weights and standards....

That's what the EU is, a bureau of weights and standards? Why don't you tell that to the more than a million Irish who left their country, were forced to leave their country, as a result of the EU's bailout of the banks? Thank Brussels, they had freedom of movement.

S. Artesian

S. Artesian wrote:

Actually, the European Union External Action website lists 6 ongoing military operations in Mali, Somalia, Central African Republic, Boznia and Herzegovina, etc. and 5 completed military operations: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/

rg

thats interesting but it's kind of unclear what they are actually doing

Right. Obviously, a humanitarian mission, like MINUSTAH in Haiti, or any of those other UN missions. How silly of me to think the military mission is there to secure commercial advantage; to make it a safe place for the EU to do business.

obliviously commercial advantage is part of it if not the entire thing, that doesn't mean they are bombing people which you claimed they where

S. Artesian

That's what the EU is, a bureau of weights and standards? Why don't you tell that to the more than a million Irish who left their country, were forced to leave their country, as a result of the EU's bailout of the banks? Thank Brussels, they had freedom of movement.

citation need

Here's the link to the wiki description of the EU military operations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

Regular bunch of Boy Scouts, clearly setting up bureaus of weights and measures... humanitarian to the core.

And I misread the number-- it's half a million that have left Ireland since 2008. Same principle though-- save the banks, fuck the people. they can move.

S. Artesian

This isn't about voting yes/no/or not at all. This is about about pushing forth an anti-ruling class program. Feel free to blow this opportunity by urging yes, no, or abstention.

So you're arguing to completely ignore the referendum? Fair enough.

The Irish who have left the country have been able to because of EU rules (and traditional movement between Ireland and the UK). Every country that could afford to bailed out its banks, this doesn't make the EU better or worse (incidentally Ireland's boom/celtic tiger years for what they were worth were enabled by the EU)

I'm not defending the EU as an institution, but the idea that if it weren't for the EU all the things it does as a supra-governmental agency would no longer happen is a fantasy. It's like the people who think they'll have socialism once they've kicked out the Brits, French, Spanish etc,

In the case of Greece I suppose you could have argued that if it hadn't been in the EU then Greece could have ruled all of its debts illegal and started again (which isn't that unusual in history) but it wouldn't have changed who runs the country, how it was organised nor its reliance on modern trade. Very few countries are self-sufficient, even in the short term, you could blame the EU for that but it is a worldwide phenomenon that helps keep people in line.

I recognise the referendum is bullshit and will probably change nothing, but I also know a lot of people who are scared of losing the lives they have built. The number of people applying for british citizenship (£1000 an application and they recently changed the rules without telling their own £75 checking service so a lot of applications were rejected) has shot up and I know a few who are, if not radicalising, at least thinking about politics as something that affects their daily lives. (I've done my best to explain why petitions for your MP are a bad idea, for example.)

S. Artesian

This isn't about voting yes/no/or not at all. This is about about pushing forth an anti-ruling class program. Feel free to blow this opportunity by urging yes, no, or abstention.

Well it's great for you that you're the only person that actually knows what to do here. It's quite impressive that you have actually managed to make every option other than yours the wrong option. Although of course your option doesn't actually seem to mean anything in the real world, and also that's not what you said a few posts back, where you said we should just be agitating against the EU, not the British part of the ruling class:

Right, I don't need you to speak for me Steven. I think every socialist, Marxist, working class organization should oppose the European Union. I don't care about Cameron's referendum, but we should certainly use this opportunity to agitate against an executive committee of the European bourgeoisie, organized to intensify the exploitation of the working class. "We"-- I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one-- campaign against the EU on a class, international basis, not a nationalist anti-class basis. It's not a campaign of "Britain Out," but of an "Against the Union of Capitalists."

Now onto this:

But no of course understanding people's concerns about something means that you actually agree with them and the political perspective of those people, so clearly you are a national/EU chauvinist/market capitalist…

Hell, I have disagreed with Ed about this in the past. But I can understand his worry, especially as his partner and mother of his child is in EU migrant living in the UK, and it's not completely clear if she will be allowed to remain if we leave (now I'm confident that EU migrants will be allowed to remain, however I can understand people worrying that they may not. Oh no there I go again being an EU chauvinist market capitalist…)

Well, there you have it then. It's all about personal concerns. You've just proved my exact point. All the equivocation is based on concerns for personal status. Well, glad that's sorted. Fuck the social issues.

Right, well it's clear now that you're being completely disingenuous. So I have no intention to continue discussing with you, save to say this. What the hell do you think social issues are, other than things which affect people? There are 3 million non-British EU citizens living in the UK today. These are the friends, lovers, partners, husbands, family of UK citizens. You don't think this is a social issue? You think that being concerned about whether these people get deported are irrelevant, or chauvinist. So fine, you think that, but that means I no longer care about your opinion.

I've made clear that I don't think that is enough to support remaining in the EU, and I think these people will be fine to remain here. But that makes me a chauvinist and market capitalist as well apparently.

PS lol at you trying to show off about the languages you speak. You know in Europe speaking multiple languages isn't really a big deal right? Lots of people here speak three or four languages from birth.

Although of course your option doesn't actually seem to mean anything in the real world, and also that's not what you said a few posts back, where you said we should just be agitating against the EU, not the British part of the ruling class:

Where did I say that? More wishful thinking on your part. "Executive committee of the European bourgeoisie" includes the British bourgeoisie, not to put too fine a point on it. Or on your side of the Atlantic do you not consider Britain part of Europe. Us bumpkins on this side are used to thinking of Britain as being part of Europe, but maybe there's a nuance there that I just can't grasp.

Right, well it's clear now that you're being completely disingenuous. So I have no intention to continue discussing with you, save to say this. What the hell do you think social issues are, other than things which affect people? There are 3 million non-British EU citizens living in the UK today. These are the friends, lovers, partners, husbands, family of UK citizens. You don't think this is a social issue? You think that being concerned about whether these people get deported are irrelevant, or chauvinist. So fine, you think that, but that means I no longer care about your opinion.

That's a very touching narrative. Let me pause and wipe the tears way. There, that's better. The social issue isn't "freedom of travel"-- the social issue is the class issue. The more you blabber the more convinced I am of the correctness of the avocado analogy. Your precious "visa less" travel is a commodity, the product of someone else's labor. That's all it is. Just like the plentiful supply of cheap avocados. Get over it. What was the origin and the purpose of that perk? Simply to give the bourgeoisie [continent wide] greater access and greater ease in the exploitation of labor. That there's now a split in the ruling class, British or otherwise, about this; that national chauvinists now want to "backtrack" means, and means only, that the costs associated with that greater access and exploitation are outweighing the benefits.

The argument about visa-less travel as a "consideration" or a "plus" in doing the double entry bookkeeping about the EU is exactly the same as reformist arguments everywhere, including both sides of the Atlantic, and all the time: "Oh yes, bourgeois 'democracy' isn't really democratic, but it does provide a measure of freedom of -- or "visa-less" speech; and the nasties at the UKIP, or Trump Carnival Cruz lines, threaten that, so maybe we need to consider holding our noses and voting for _______________ (fill in the blank).

The above is, for those of you claiming situationist credentials, called a racket. Self-serving nattering designed to obscure the commitment to the status quo with the purpose, above all, of separating fools and money.

PS lol at you trying to show off about the languages you speak. You know in Europe speaking multiple languages isn't really a big deal right? Lots of people here speak three or four languages from birth

Really? Damn. Thanks for the info. It's so so so different over here in the colonies. Big melting pot and all that rubbish. Well, okay, but I bet you can't sing the blues. It's a black thang, you wouldn't understand.

S. Artesian

Here's the link to the wiki description of the EU military operations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

Regular bunch of Boy Scouts, clearly setting up bureaus of weights and measures... humanitarian to the core.

well thats interesting, EU military forces are much further along than i thought, but this is still a long way from the EU bombing people in Libya as you claimed.
I'm not sure what your tryign to be sarcastic about since no one said anything resembling that

S. Artesian

And I misread the number-- it's half a million that have left Ireland since 2008. Same principle though-- save the banks, fuck the people. they can move.

this seems unlikely the population of ireland is less than 5 million, so you claiming more than 10% of the population has left over the last 8 years.
i'm fairly sure that if that many people have left Ireland i'd have heard of it and googling irland population suggests the population has increased eg http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ireland/population

So if your going to persist with this claim you need to provide evidence of: how may people have left Ireland, and i assume here you mean have left long term not just to visit somewhere outside Ireland, that this was because banks where bailed out, and that the banks that where bailed out where bailed out by the EU, not the Irish state.

The Irish who have left the country have been able to because of EU rules (and traditional movement between Ireland and the UK)

No. The main destinations for the emigrants are US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.

. Every country that could afford to bailed out its banks, this doesn't make the EU better or worse (incidentally Ireland's boom/celtic tiger years for what they were worth were enabled by the EU)

The argument is not if the EU is better or worse, only that it is what it is, an executive committee of the bourgeoisie. You are not 100% right about the celtic tiger years, but close enough to let it stand...and then say, "EXACTLY." And do you think you get one "the celtic tiger years" without the other-- 8 years of austerity, and impoverishment? Of course not.

I have no idea what would have happened if it happened had the EU not happened. Useless speculation. The EU is there. It is designed to facilitate the exploitation of labor, continent wide, by a bourgeoisie, continent wide. It is a union of capitalists. Why the ambivalence about attacking it as that? Because the UKIP wants Britain out? So what? Look, Ron Paul in the US, a wack-job racist wing nut, and a member of Congress (sorry for repeating myself) was against the invasion of Iraq. So what?

Millions of racist wing-nut USers want the US out of the UN. Do you think if there's ever a referendum on this issue, we should not attack the UN for being what it is? That we should defend the UN because it has a human rights commission? Or provides "peacekeeping" military forces? Or provides medical aid?

This started when someone posted that visa-less travel was a consideration in remaining in the EU. Now if that outweighs the gains that might be made by an attack on the EU that is based on its function in, for, of, and by capitalism.....the we're fucked. All of us, no matter which side of the Atlantic you are on.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0315/A-new-great-Irish-emigration-this-time-of-the-educated

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d27e950a-10bf-11e3-b291-00144feabdc0.html#axzz45cyi3DTs

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-emigrating-at-highest-point-since-famine--3000-leaving-per-month-150565735-237446021.html

Figures are around 400,000, 2008-2013.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9584756/Emigration-from-Ireland-soars.html

Net figures are not the issue. The increased numbers of those emigrating are.

Guess you don't hear so well.

I keep wanting to add something then look and Artesian has it covered. Lovely posts yanky dude!

factvalue

I keep wanting to add something then look and Artesian has it covered. Lovely posts yanky dude!

Woah, FV is back, and no words of more than 2 cyllables. Come on matey, you can do better than that!!!

S. Artesian

Well, there you have it then. It's all about personal concerns. You've just proved my exact point. All the equivocation is based on concerns for personal status. Well, glad that's sorted. Fuck the social issues.

Lol, you got me there genius! Just me and my personal concerns! If only I could be like you and only be interested in the 'social issues' that don't affect any actual real people..

Jesus, if the fate of millions of immigrants living across a continent isn't a social issue then I don't know what is.. I mean, lets say my worst case scenario actually came true, and UK exit from Europe led to EU migrants losing ability to work, claim benefits etc in the UK, would that not be a social issue? Or would it still be my personal concern?

As for the rest of your posts, the problem is that they're so filled with mad accusations and aspersions that it's hard to even know where to start and whether it's even worth it.. needless to say, adminning libcom all these years there's definitely a type that crops up year after year..

"The fate of millions of immigrants living across a continent......."

If...what happened, happens, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and soon to Italy, would have happened with or without the EU... as so many would like us to believe, then exactly how can the fate of millions of immigrants depend on....Britain's referendum re staying or leaving the EU?

Maybe it's me, but how do you get to write off the EU as the executive committee of the bourgeoisie when it comes to preserving capitalism at any cost, but think the EU is all powerful, and a "force for good" when it comes to immigration?

The fate of millions of immigrants living across the continent and not on the continent is exactly what's at stake, and supporting the EU, pretending that your cheaper avocado, visa-less, travel protects millions of immigrants is worse than self-delusion, as the EU makes clear every day, in its treatment of refugees.

The social issue is NOT the EU's "guarantees" regarding migrants. The issue is that within or without the EU, capitalism facilitates, triggers, accommodates attacks on the most vulnerable sections of the poor, and the workers.

The referendum, whichever way it goes, will not mitigate the clamor against migrants, the attacks on open, universal, (and adequate) social welfare programs. On the contrary, supporting a "stay" vote in the EU will do exactly what a "go" vote will do-- facilitate further attacks, further restrictions.

You think Cameron won't pursue such attacks, restrictions on such programs if Britain stays in the EU?

Gee but I think I remember a British PM doing something like that against those born in possessions of her very own country. [Great movie that touches on that, BTW, with Denzel Washington, suppressed for years, according to the director, For Queen and Country]

The task is to oppose those attacks. Oppose the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"-- as we call it here in rubeville-- migrants. Demand an end to the EU's policy re refugees; its policing of borders; its "send them back to Turkey" campaign.

I think it's astounding that comments like "surely visa-less travel makes staying in the EU attractive" generate such traction, and so little condemnation, when the EU is conducting policies that devastate people's livelihoods on, and off, the continent; when those behind endorsing the referendum are doing so explicitly on the basis of British exceptionalism, on the privileges Britain will secure that will allow the British bourgeoisie to further attacks on the working class.

I didn't get the point of that ad hominem link to a previous thread. Although littered with fair but unremarkable observation and pseudo reasoning, I think to one degree or another the rambling article in the OP that was linked to, applies to more or less everyone I've come across in the anarcho//-communist 'milieu', as demonstrated - without even a hint of self-awareness - by the fact that it was linked to at this juncture. Stridencies, fears and spat dummies when feelings run strong in disputes over analyses, strategy, tactics, the personal and the political are hardly the province of any one 'type' of person are they?

S. Artesian

Maybe it's me, but how do you get to write off the EU as the executive committee of the bourgeoisie when it comes to preserving capitalism at any cost, but think the EU is all powerful, and a "force for good" when it comes to immigration?

literally no on is doing that, but you seem to be claiming every bad thing that happens in europe or is done by a european country is caused by the eu

I really want to stop engaging with you, but I can't really not respond to this: S. Artesian

"The fate of millions of immigrants living across a continent......."

If...what happened, happens, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and soon to Italy, would have happened with or without the EU... as so many would like us to believe, then exactly how can the fate of millions of immigrants depend on....Britain's referendum re staying or leaving the EU?

Do you really not understand? TBH if you're not grasping this quite simple element of EU regulations that does explain the reason you are making these arguments a bit better.

EU countries block the entry of and deport lots of migrants from outside the EU. Right? But within the EU there is free movement, so EU member states cannot block the entry of or deport migrants from within the EU.

So the UK leaving the EU will not stop non-EU migrants being deported from the EU. However it could mean that the UK government could deport EU migrants from the UK (and of course that other EU governments could deport UK citizens), and block EU migrants from coming to the UK. This is what the bulk of the Leave campaign want.

Do you understand this now?

I understand that your "visa-free" travel applies to only a selected sector of a restricted population, and that's what you are trying so hard to accommodate.

Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that if the referendum succeeds ("stay"), that Cameron will use that to attack immigrants, to restrict welfare program accessibility to immigrants, that it will strengthen the Conservative government. Do you not understand that?

Do you not understand that the EU's "visa-less" travel is a "sometimes thing," and is being undermined by the EU members themselves.

How long do you think it will take Cameron, do you think, once he wins this referendum, and let's be clear, it is his referendum we are talking about, to begin to restrict the "visa-less" migration into the UK of those citizens of other EU countries with Arabic names?

You have a referendum sponsored by a government that "kettles" migrants across the English Channel in another country, essentially sub-contracting France to do the wet work, and you think if that government wins a referendum to stay in the EU, it's going to consider the "visa-less" provisions of the EU "inviolable"?

Do you not understand that Cameron is behind this referendum in part because the EU has made a mockery of the Shengen process, and he, and his class, want to capitalize on that?

Now I'm no genius, and it took me years of study to do what you all on the other side of the Atlantic are able to do at birth (!! "speak three or four languages from birth"- wow you guys must have some really impressive mothers over there if people can speak 3 or 4 languages from birth. somebody ought to tell Chomsky), but to me, this stuff about the EU protecting the "right" of visa-free travel, is a scam that should be painfully clear to the most casual observer.

Thick as a brick, isn't that how you put it?

EDIT: And this:

TBH if you're not grasping this quite simple element of EU regulations that does explain the reason you are making these arguments a bit better.

is just too precious by half. I just love it when anarchists, libertarian communists, place their faith, and it is faith, in the regulations drawn up by the bourgeoisie.

Concerning those who left Ireland, are the statistics counting those EU citizens who put down their roots and made Ireland their home but then when things changed economically decided to depart again?

Just wondering

Steven.

EU countries block the entry of and deport lots of migrants from outside the EU. Right? But within the EU there is free movement, so EU member states cannot block the entry of or deport migrants from within the EU.

Just for completeness, it is possible to deport EU nationals, e.g. These 17 Eastern Europeans in Bognor: "Those who have left were judged not to be making a valuable contribution to the town."

But generally I agree with you that EU free movement is a real thing, and that given as the 'leave' campaign is being run as a referendum on immigration it's completely understandable that many people fear deportation. E.g. they're bringing in a £35,000/year (roughly 75th percentile) income requirement for non-EU migrants. That's a much stricter criteria than EU nationals currently enjoy (and as Fingers says, residency laws in Iberia currently provide a route for (some) non-EU people to settle, get EU citizenship, then move around the EU).

As I say, I don't think the referendum actually will change EU nationals' migration status due to the EEA, but neither side of the public debate is being clear about the concrete consequences (I suspect because they're minimal), while the leave campaign is running on anti-immigrant sentiment. That this makes people wary is understandable.

I am almost convinced by S.Artesian's arguments here accept that for those of us in the UK with an option to vote in the referendum (even if we rarely use that vote) it does appear to me and most others to amount in everyday language to a policy of 'abstention' coupled with an active policy of opposition to both the British state and European Union or the other way around if that suits?
It doesn't surprise or worry me that libcom posters should express concerns about the unpredictable result of the referendum on the personal circumstances of their friends and comrades - it is always a struggle to raise our rational class based politics above other pressing personal circumstances or sectional interests that affect us as individuals like everyone else - but we should strive to do exactly that on this site if it is to be true to it's objectives.
As an aside my Greek comrade recently expressed a personal view that a UK exit along with potentially others in the present context of low level class struggle and rampant nationalism - as opposed to an earlier break up of the European Union predicated on a Greek and Southern European rising tide of radicalised class struggle (which he supported) is likely to have only reactionary results, but then in my opinion he had an overly positive view of what an earlier Greek exit would have achieved anyway.

Well, apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks there can be a working class based opposition to the EU: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35941945, which led me to this: http://www.tusc.org.uk/17202/02-04-2016/tusc-challenge-to-ukip-amp-tories-lets-debate-who-should-be-the-voice-of-leave

Don't recall see a mention of the TUSC in previous posts on this thread, but I'll check.

TUSC position probably isn't as sensitive, nuanced, as that expressed by some here, but TUSC seems like a good place to start when trying develop some sort of alternative to the racket that is the referendum

S. Artesian

Well, apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks there can be a working class based opposition to the EU: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35941945, which led me to this: http://www.tusc.org.uk/17202/02-04-2016/tusc-challenge-to-ukip-amp-tories-lets-debate-who-should-be-the-voice-of-leave

Don't recall see a mention of the TUSC in previous posts on this thread, but I'll check.

TUSC position probably isn't as sensitive, nuanced, as that expressed by some here, but TUSC seems like a good place to start when trying develop some sort of alternative to the racket that is the referendum

TUSC is basically an electoral vehicle for SPEW and SWP

TUSC is basically an electoral vehicle for SPEW and SWP

So what? Is the opposition to the referendum based on class; is the opposition to all the bourgeoisie's "interpretations" of the meaning of the referendum? As an organization, is it trying to advance the class consciousness of workers as separate, opposed to, and distinct from the channels the bourgeoisie would like to have it confined?

The issue is there a "position" that actively opposes the EU, as opposed to the simple passive abstentionism, that at the same time counters the reactionary reactions of nativist, chauvinist, racist, anti-working class forces?

Or, simple version, is there somebody else, some "organized" else, who thinks all this hand wringing about "visa-less" travel is just a trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition to the EU?

There is.

So, there's been very little hand-wringing on this thread. At most, people have said they understand why someone might take a personal choice to vote to stay in the EU while recognizing the class nature of the EU and recognizing the need to struggle against the neo-liberalism it represents. Hardly hand-wringing.

That said, you're now advocating following the lead of electoralist, Leninist organisations. If TUSC doesn't qualify as a " trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition" , I don't know what does.

There's been a lot of hand-wringing about "visa-less" travel, the EU as a bureau of weights and measures, the "non-culpability" of the EU for the actions taken to maintain capitalism in Greece, Spain, Ireland etc. ("it would have happened anyway; everybody who could would have bailed out their banks"), the human rights guarantees of the EU agreements, etc. etc.

That said, you're now advocating following the lead of electoralist, Leninist organisations. If TUSC doesn't qualify as a " trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition" , I don't know what does.

Technically not-- I haven't advocated following the lead of an electoralist, Leninist organization-- I have cited TUSC as an example of an anti-EU, anti-referendum position, to the EU that articulates, however poorly or non-libcommunistically, a class-based opposition-- something that gets behind the passive abstentionist position that does absolutely nothing to confront the real issues.

However smarmy you may think TUSC to be, they have done exactly that, warts and all, and it happens to be a step above and ahead of what seems to be the major concerns in this thread.

S. Artesian

That said, you're now advocating following the lead of electoralist, Leninist organisations. If TUSC doesn't qualify as a " trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition" , I don't know what does.

Technically not-- I haven't advocated following the lead of an electoralist, Leninist organization-- I have cited TUSC as an example of an anti-EU, anti-referendum position, to the EU that articulates, however poorly or non-libcommunistically, a class-based opposition-- something that gets behind the passive abstentionist position that does absolutely nothing to confront the real issues.

Now, see this? This is hand-wringing.

Chilli Sauce

S. Artesian

That said, you're now advocating following the lead of electoralist, Leninist organisations. If TUSC doesn't qualify as a " trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition" , I don't know what does.

Technically not-- I haven't advocated following the lead of an electoralist, Leninist organization-- I have cited TUSC as an example of an anti-EU, anti-referendum position, to the EU that articulates, however poorly or non-libcommunistically, a class-based opposition-- something that gets behind the passive abstentionist position that does absolutely nothing to confront the real issues.

Now, see this? This is hand-wringing.

Hand-wringing, n: the clasping together and squeezing of one's hands, especially when distressed or worried.

The worry that has been expressed has been expressed by those distressed about losing visa-less travel; free migration within the EU for (some) residents/citizens of EU countries; vacation policies; human rights "guarantees," etc.

All those "rights" and "guarantees" exist at the convenience of the bourgeoisie. When no longer convenient, they'll be shit-canned like any other bourgeois "right" or "guarantee." Like cheap avocados.

You're worried about what? TUSC is an "electoralist, Leninist organization" and therefore what? you can't participate in a campaign that exposes the referendum for what it is by developing a class-based opposition? Brilliant.

S. Artesian

Technically not-- I haven't advocated following the lead of an electoralist, Leninist organization-- I have cited TUSC as an example of an anti-EU, anti-referendum position, to the EU that articulates, however poorly or non-libcommunistically, a class-based opposition-- something that gets behind the passive abstentionist position that does absolutely nothing to confront the real issues.

However smarmy you may think TUSC to be, they have done exactly that, warts and all, and it happens to be a step above and ahead of what seems to be the major concerns in this thread.

tusc isn't anti referendum, it is campaigning for people to vote to leave the eu in the referendum, that is vary obvious from the news article and the website

Before I respond to Artesian again, I think it's worth stressing that initially I was arguing against people like red and black riot saying that visa-free travel was a reason to vote to remain in the EU. I'm only now arguing with Artesian because some of the, similar arguments he made, were flawed.
S. Artesian

I understand that your "visa-free" travel applies to only a selected sector of a restricted population, and that's what you are trying so hard to accommodate.

Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that if the referendum succeeds ("stay"), that Cameron will use that to attack immigrants, to restrict welfare program accessibility to immigrants, that it will strengthen the Conservative government. Do you not understand that?

Those things will also all happen if people vote to Leave. And more immigrants and more people will lose welfare benefits if the Leave campaign wins.

Do you not understand that the EU's "visa-less" travel is a "sometimes thing," and is being undermined by the EU members themselves.

This is odd. I don't know what you are referring to here. With the exception of some restrictions on new entrants to the EU which can be in place for five years, I'm not aware of any times free movement for EU citizens has been restricted. What are you talking about here?

How long do you think it will take Cameron, do you think, once he wins this referendum, and let's be clear, it is his referendum we are talking about, to begin to restrict the "visa-less" migration into the UK of those citizens of other EU countries with Arabic names?

If he did this, the UK would have to leave the EU.

You have a referendum sponsored by a government that "kettles" migrants across the English Channel in another country, essentially sub-contracting France to do the wet work, and you think if that government wins a referendum to stay in the EU, it's going to consider the "visa-less" provisions of the EU "inviolable"?

why would the government change its approach following the referendum? If the UK decided to abandon free movement, it would be kicked out of the EU. Restrictions on free movement was one of the "reforms" Cameron tried to get the EU to agree to, but they told him to get fucked.

Do you not understand that Cameron is behind this referendum in part because the EU has made a mockery of the Shengen process, and he, and his class, want to capitalize on that?

This is absolute rubbish. This referendum has been planned for ages, certainly before the current migrant crisis, because the racist right-wing of the Conservative party hates the EU. And the UK is not part of the Schengen area, so Schengen is nothing to do with us.

is just too precious by half. I just love it when anarchists, libertarian communists, place their faith, and it is faith, in the regulations drawn up by the bourgeoisie.

This is bizarre. The UK bourgeoisie can't just ride roughshod over the entire EU bourgeoisie. If it did the EU bourgeoisie would kick the UK out.

If you think the governments just do what they want regardless of their own regulations, then why are you even getting involved in this discussion? As in the EU are not in the EU any of them will just do anything, what would it matter either way? (Of course I know that some international laws aren't enforced, like UN conventions, human rights laws outside the EU etc. But plenty of them are, like free trade within NAFTA, EU regulations etc)

Also you seem to misunderstand why it is the UK bourgeoisie actively wants to keep the free movement within the EU: it is to keep a constant flow of workers from the poorer parts of the EU to the UK to act as low wage labourers.

Another misunderstanding you have is around your mention of human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is separate and unrelated to the EU.

As the you saying that you support the position of TUSC, sorry but that is hilarious. Their position is Vote Leave because they are left nationalists. TUSC is the pet project of the Socialist Party, formerly Militant, who were the homophobic, left-wing of the - often governing - Labour Party, who got booted out. To try to paint their bog standard left-wing British nationalism as internationalist communism is ridiculous to the extreme.

Joseph Kay

Steven.

EU countries block the entry of and deport lots of migrants from outside the EU. Right? But within the EU there is free movement, so EU member states cannot block the entry of or deport migrants from within the EU.

Just for completeness, it is possible to deport EU nationals, e.g. These 17 Eastern Europeans in Bognor: "Those who have left were judged not to be making a valuable contribution to the town."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I can only assume these must be nationals of some of the member states who have entered the EU in the last five years. Otherwise according to all the legal documents I've read the only reason you can deport an EU national, depending on their length of stay, is if they get a criminal conviction.

Some recent entry member states have some restricted travel requirements for five years, which include things like if they haven't got a job within three months they need to go.

TBH it seems that S Artesian actually has a misunderstanding that free movement within the EU isn't real or universal.

Steven.

Joseph Kay

Steven.

EU countries block the entry of and deport lots of migrants from outside the EU. Right? But within the EU there is free movement, so EU member states cannot block the entry of or deport migrants from within the EU.

Just for completeness, it is possible to deport EU nationals, e.g. These 17 Eastern Europeans in Bognor: "Those who have left were judged not to be making a valuable contribution to the town."

TBH it seems that S Artesian actually has a misunderstanding that free movement within the EU isn't real or universal.

Free movement within the EU isn't universal, it's about if you are exercising your treaty rights or not, it's quite complicated and I'm very hungry and tired, if I can get it together after I cook my dinner I'll try and summarise it but not making any promises.

fingers malone

Free movement within the EU isn't universal, it's about if you are exercising your treaty rights or not, it's quite complicated and I'm very hungry and tired, if I can get it together after I cook my dinner I'll try and summarise it but not making any promises.

yeah if you could that would be helpful, thanks. I've tried to find information about restrictions but other than new member states couldn't find anything.

If you commit serious offences you can in some circumstances be removed or deported from the UK

Removal (or “administrative removal”) for EEA nationals is when a person is being sent back to their country because they are not exercising Treaty rights.

As a pretty big oversimplification, I'm sorry I really am tired, a person who is not working, studying or claiming JSA may be at risk of being removed. People sleeping rough are vulnerable to being picked up in sweeps aimed at removing people in this situation.

If you think the governments just do what they want regardless of their own regulations, then why are you even getting involved in this discussion? As in the EU are not in the EU any of them will just do anything, what would it matter either way?

Exactly. It doesn't make any difference. What makes the difference is opposing the referendum, the British bourgeoisie, and the EU, on a class basis.

-- as opposed to finding the EU a benign entity, that will actually restrain the "less enlightened" elements of the British bourgeoisie.

Yes, the referendum has been planned forever; Cameron got his special treatment. He can't do what without being kicked out of the EU? Set up border guards? Screen entry from other EU countries? You mean like Austria has done on its border with Italy? Can't wait to see Austria kicked out of the EU.

You don't like TUSC? That's fine with me. I'm not asking you to like them. I'm pointing out that they oppose membership in the EU on a class basis-- that the EU is a union of the bourgeoisie to further the exploitation of labor. Or do you think the EU is something else? Is not a union of the bourgeoisie to further the exploitation of labor? Weights and measures, is that it?

Steven.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I can only assume these must be nationals of some of the member states who have entered the EU in the last five years.

Yes, that could be the case - the timing would put it right at the end of the 5 year period for the 2007 accession states.

Steven.

Otherwise according to all the legal documents I've read the only reason you can deport an EU national, depending on their length of stay, is if they get a criminal conviction.

Doing a bit of searching, the Free Movement Directive says to have full rights for free movement a person must be employed, self-employed, a student, self-sufficient (i.e. rich), or retired, or the dependent family member of someone who is. Going by wikipedia's summary, "economically inactive" people have only limited rights of movement. However permanent right to reside is automatic after 5 years of exercising one of the above rights (which can in turn be removed - some permanence! - after 2 years absence from the country).

Basically it's seems like it's mainly free movement for the commodity labour power, as opposed to people per se. But fingers probably knows more than me, as the above is just a 15-minute wikipedia digest.

Basically it's seems like it's mainly free movement for the commodity labour power, as opposed to people per se

word. for the commodity. like avocados. at the convenience and advantage of the bourgeoisie. a sacked steel worker from Tata in the UK doesn't really have much "free movement" does he or she?

fingers malone

If you commit serious offences you can in some circumstances be removed or deported from the UK

Removal (or “administrative removal”) for EEA nationals is when a person is being sent back to their country because they are not exercising Treaty rights.

As a pretty big oversimplification, I'm sorry I really am tired, a person who is not working, studying or claiming JSA may be at risk of being removed. People sleeping rough are vulnerable to being picked up in sweeps aimed at removing people in this situation.

right, thanks I was aware in terms of the criminal offences but not about does not studying/working etc, but having additional read yes looks like that is the case. Lots of documents refer to "free movement for workers" as opposed to people.

S. Artesian

If you think the governments just do what they want regardless of their own regulations, then why are you even getting involved in this discussion? As in the EU are not in the EU any of them will just do anything, what would it matter either way?

Exactly. It doesn't make any difference. What makes the difference is opposing the referendum, the British bourgeoisie, and the EU, on a class basis.

In general I think it's not better one way or another. However saying that EU rules can just be disregarded by member states is just not true.

-- as opposed to finding the EU a benign entity, that will actually restrain the "less enlightened" elements of the British bourgeoisie.

That's not my position

Yes, the referendum has been planned forever; Cameron got his special treatment. He can't do what without being kicked out of the EU? Set up border guards? Screen entry from other EU countries? You mean like Austria has done on its border with Italy? Can't wait to see Austria kicked out of the EU.

Again you seem to be confusing the Schengen area with the EU. The UK has never been part of the Schengen agreement. So the UK has always screened the entry of EU citizens. However it cannot stop them from arriving. Nor can Austria. Are you saying that Austria has denied entry to EU citizens (who don't meet the existing restrictions)? I'm pretty sure you are making this up.

You don't like TUSC? That's fine with me. I'm not asking you to like them. I'm pointing out that they oppose membership in the EU on a class basis-- that the EU is a union of the bourgeoisie to further the exploitation of labor. Or do you think the EU is something else? Is not a union of the bourgeoisie to further the exploitation of labor? Weights and measures, is that it?

They oppose membership of the EU on a British nationalist basis, not on class basis (although they wave a working class figleaf). They are arguing explicitly for a vote to leave the EU. I said before that it looked like this was your position. But you denied it. You are now saying you support the position of TUSC, who are in favour of a vote to leave. So is that your position?

S. Artesian

Basically it's seems like it's mainly free movement for the commodity labour power, as opposed to people per se

word. for the commodity. like avocados. at the convenience and advantage of the bourgeoisie. a sacked steel worker from Tata in the UK doesn't really have much "free movement" does he or she?

Well they would be legally entitled to move anywhere in the EU for work, so they do?

That wouldn't change the devastation of e.g. Port Talbot's economy, which in this instance isn't much to do with the EU common market, as per the NAFTA analogy (in fact, it seems like the British government vetoed EU tariffs aimed at offsetting Chinese subsidies, in the name of free trade).

Joseph Kay

Steven.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I can only assume these must be nationals of some of the member states who have entered the EU in the last five years.

Yes, that could be the case - the timing would put it right at the end of the 5 year period for the 2007 accession states.

Steven.

Otherwise according to all the legal documents I've read the only reason you can deport an EU national, depending on their length of stay, is if they get a criminal conviction.

Doing a bit of searching, the Free Movement Directive says to have full rights for free movement a person must be employed, self-employed, a student, self-sufficient (i.e. rich), or retired, or the dependent family member of someone who is. Going by wikipedia's summary, "economically inactive" people have only limited rights of movement. However permanent right to reside is automatic after 5 years of exercising one of the above rights (which can in turn be removed - some permanence! - after 2 years absence from the country).

Basically it's seems like it's mainly free movement for the commodity labour power, as opposed to people per se. But fingers probably knows more than me, as the above is just a 15-minute wikipedia digest.

Yeah you've got it right. I've got some info I'll send you that sets out the details really clearly but 'free movement for the commodity labour power as opposed to people per se' is a good in a nutshell summary.

I know about this stuff partly because of a recent sharp rise in the number of ESOL students sleeping rough. So my union responsibilities now include things like sorting out for them to be able to use the hot showers and getting hold of second hand coats. We are worried about these sweeps taking place which go after rough sleepers, as well as all the other things that we are obviously worried about (the students getting sick, people attacking them and so on.)

S. Artesian

Chilli Sauce

S. Artesian

That said, you're now advocating following the lead of electoralist, Leninist organisations. If TUSC doesn't qualify as a " trick-bag that immobilizes class based opposition" , I don't know what does.

Technically not-- I haven't advocated following the lead of an electoralist, Leninist organization-- I have cited TUSC as an example of an anti-EU, anti-referendum position, to the EU that articulates, however poorly or non-libcommunistically, a class-based opposition-- something that gets behind the passive abstentionist position that does absolutely nothing to confront the real issues.

Now, see this? This is hand-wringing.

Hand-wringing, n: the clasping together and squeezing of one's hands, especially when distressed or worried.

The worry that has been expressed has been expressed by those distressed about losing visa-less travel; free migration within the EU for (some) residents/citizens of EU countries; vacation policies; human rights "guarantees," etc.

No one has expressed "worry" about visa-less travel, they've only said that from a selfish perspective, visa-free travel might be a reason to vote to stay in. Not the same thing.

People have mentioned worrying about the fate of friends and loved ones who are non-UK nationals living in the UK should the referendum pass. You were quite dismissive, iirc.

Now, about your relationship with avocados, I'm not sure its healthy, mate. There's support groups for that sort of thing.

Steven,

In the beginning: Chili wrote post #23

And, yes, the EU is super neo-liberal, but freedom of movement within the EU is pretty damn nice. Of course a vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism but I'd rather have a capitalism with freedom of movement and 26 paid vacation days..

he followed that up with post #51:

Steven, I get your point here, but I feel like we're gonna have to fight neo-liberalism and privatization within the EU or outside the EU, with a Tory government or a Labour government.

Should anarchists be campaigning for a vote either way? Of course not. Should we make clear our belief that EU and the British state are both racist, repressive, capitalist institutions? Should we always prioritize on-the-ground and practical solidarity? Yes, yes and yes.

But, to me, it seems to me that if the UK pulls out of the EU that my life will become harder as a direct result - both in terms of working conditions and the fact that I have a job that allows me to quite easily work in other countries. For me, I think it's worth putting a cross on a sheet of paper to maintain that (also note here that, as an immigrant, I can't).

So while it may seem callous of me, I think these expressions of purely personal interest in the referendum are the mechanism, the mediation, by which a section of the bourgeoisie garners support for maintaining the EU. "Sure," says our warrior-anarchist who is way far to the left of the TUSC, "it's a capitalist institution. and it's oppressive, racist, but to me it's worth supporting this executive union of the bourgeoisie because I have a job that allows me to quite easily work in other countries."

No howls of protest from the other warrior-anarchists. No "You're a right fucking genius, mate. You've got it all sorted on how we need to progress the struggle. Right. Vote yes-- If you have a job that allows you to travel and see other countries. That's a great reason for supporting a union that has facilitated the devastation of people's lives in Europe, in Africa, etc."

Nobody saying, "Are you out of your fucking mind? Whatever happened to class? To class solidarity."

Chili adds

but from a personal perspective I see why anarchists might choose not to sit this one out.

. From a personal perspective? From a perspective of personal gain, convenience, and comfort, support the advantages being in the EU affords the British bourgeoisie in exploiting that commodity called labor-power?

Again, no protests. Nothing by you pointing out how classically, by DEFINITION, opportunist such a position is. Nothing.

When I expressed my incredulity, drawing the parallel between Chili's personal opportunism, and the political opportunism institutionalized in reformism, and supporting reformists-- it was "strawmen."

Now, have I misunderstood what Chili wrote? Have I misquoted him? And I haven't, is the view he expresses not accurately described as personal opportunism?

In post #114 I wrote:

OK, so then what's the point of voting either way on this? Only if voting one or the other represents a class alternative, a class based opposition to the EU. As the referendum will be structured by the bourgeoisie, to accommodate this or that section of the bourgeoisie, why would any anarchist/socialist/working class organization do anything other than point out the total irrelevance and hypocrisy behind the vote itself?

Why wouldn't every anarchist/socialist/working class advocate produce some analysis highlighting the centrifugal forces that will overwhelm the EU no matter what Britain votes? Too much trouble? Too much effort? Too deep? Not superficial enough? Can't be done within the space allotted on Facebook?

Now I bring up the TUSC only as an example of some group trying to pose an anti-EU perspective from the left, or from a class basis. I don't think anyone has to join TUSC, and I don't think voting either way on the referendum means anything, EXCEPT that it will give support to one or the other section of the bourgeoisie. But at least the TUSC is posing a class based criticism of membership in the EU.

Then R&BR wrote, post #148

Surely the fact that if we leave the EU we will have to apply for a visa everytime we travel to Europe is reason enough to vote to stay?

A reiteration of the previous personal opportunism. And again nobody pointed out that this "freedom of movement" applies to the commodity of labor power; to facilitate the bourgeoisie's exploitation of labor; AND that this freedom of movement cannot be abstracted from what EU has in fact done to Greece, Spain, Ireland-- and what it has done to subsistence producers in Africa; and to what it has done and is doing to refugees from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan; and in the bloodbath unleashed in Syria. Nada by nobody. Not a word.

When I interjected what was a sarcastic remark about the number of down votes I received when I again expressed incredulity at the personal opportunism that was being entertained as radical inquiry-- that's when you gave me the benefit of your "what's helpful and what isn't helpful" shtick.

And... we were off to the races.

So let me sum this up:

1. The "arguments" by CS and R&BR are nothing but personal opportunism expressing its capitulation to the status quo.
2. I don't care whether people vote no, vote yes, or abstain. What is important is posing an opposition to the existing bourgeois "rationales." a) Britain is better off in the EU b) Britain is better off not in the EU. Those two are the sum total of the bourgeoisie's hopes and dreams for the referendum
3. Of utmost importance is developing a position that says,

"We [workers and poor, migrants, and native-born, refugees or not] could care less what is "better for Britain," or "worse for Britain."

We oppose the EU because it is a union of the bourgeoisie designed to facilitate and intensify the exploitation of labor, while transferring the cost for the machinery of repression necessary to preserve that exploitation unto the backs of workers everywhere.

We oppose Britain being in the EU because 1) there is no Britain, there is a British ruling class, and then there's the rest of us, who may or may not even reside here. and 2) we oppose a union of the bourgeoisie everywhere and anywhere, not matter what "privileges" it offers in its pursuit of intensified exploitation.

We oppose the existence of this executive committee that has administered and imposed conditions of austerity through its "multinational" agencies; just as we oppose the executive committees of the bourgeoisie in each country that have imposed austerity through domestic agencies.

We oppose the existence of this executive committee that now expels refugees back to Turkey; that sends military missions into Africa to train police in methods of control and repression, just as we oppose the existence of the executive committee of the British bourgeoisie, called Her Majesty's government, that dispatches military missions into and against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan.

We stand against the patrolling of Greece's borders by the EU police force, interning and returning refugees, just as we oppose the British bourgeoisie's patrolling borders, and paying other to intern refugees in order to keep the from entering Britain. "

Well, needless to say, we haven't gotten any of that. We've gotten equivocation-- how the EU isn't the eurozone, and the EU can't be responsible because what happened would have happened without it; and we've receiving appalling nonsense that says, despite the fact that the EU isn't culpable, that EU can't really control what happens, still, being "in" is better than being "out" because the EU free travel provisions, and "rights" provisions are better than the baseline British provisions.

We are right back where we started. With personal opportunism being flogged as social analysis. It isn't. It's bourgeois ideology, and to the nth degree.

I've said it before: the "freedom of movement" exists as a commodity, the product of someone else's labor. When, and as, that movement is becoming less profitable, then the guarantees, the rights, won't be worth the touch screen you can read them on. Avocado's, mate, Ain't nothing but avocados, value and value producing avocados.

As for Austria and its planned actions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3535936/EU-concerned-Austria-planning-build-fence-border-Italy.html

Joseph Kay

S. Artesian

Basically it's seems like it's mainly free movement for the commodity labour power, as opposed to people per se

word. for the commodity. like avocados. at the convenience and advantage of the bourgeoisie. a sacked steel worker from Tata in the UK doesn't really have much "free movement" does he or she?

Well they would be legally entitled to move anywhere in the EU for work, so they do?

That wouldn't change the devastation of e.g. Port Talbot's economy, which in this instance isn't much to do with the EU common market, as per the NAFTA analogy (in fact, it seems like the British government vetoed EU tariffs aimed at offsetting Chinese subsidies, in the name of free trade).

According to this, it was both the UK and the EU; but the source might be a little suspect, being chairman of US Steel.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4f6d33e-fec1-11e5-9cc4-27926f2b110c.html#axzz45kYJasm0

S. Artesian

As for Austria and its planned actions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3535936/EU-concerned-Austria-planning-build-fence-border-Italy.html

yeah so actually what you said previously was incorrect. Austria is not abandoning free movement for EU citizens at all. Although of course it is well-known that a few countries have suspended Schengen rules because of the migrant "crisis".

Also don't quite get your point about Tata steel workers, of course it's terrible about them being probably put out of work, however you can't blame that on the EU. And they do have the same freedom of movement as everyone else to go seek work elsewhere if they want.

Finally, you're really not doing yourself any favours by continuing to bang on about TUSC and their "class approach" to the EU. They do not take a class approach to the EU at all. They are left-wing nationalists, who are taking a nationalist approach to the referendum and arguing for a vote to leave in a socialist guise. This is typical behaviour of the Socialist Party, who also supported the Falklands war but said that Thatcher should instead turn it into a "socialist war". Which of course would have made a huge difference to all of the Argentinians being murdered, and the British soldiers who died and subsequently committed suicide.

S Artesian

What an astonishing amount of hyperbole in response to someone saying that the possibility of some people feeling that the ability to travel to or settle in other parts of the EU is perhaps a reason why some people who are planning on voting in the referendum to vote to stay. What the fuck? I don't see anyone advocating for the existence of the EU, not noticed anyone trying to persuade anyone else to vote to stay. Just comments that this may be an issue for some people. No hand-wringing, no warrior anarchists planning on taking up the defence of the EU, just a suggestion that a referendum, which is being fought very strongly on immigration on the side of the leave EU side, that people who wish to remain may find this to be an important issue.

Seriously, nobody is fucking denying half the things you're bringing up, like the devastating effects of the EU's agricultural policies on the Global South, or that Fortress Europe is tossing migrants out in a barbaric and inhumane way. Not wanting to see even more people deported from the UK is not exactly selfish opportunism though. We probably stand together on a lot of things but having a genuine concern that friends, family, loved ones may get booted out of the country isn't something to ignore.

I don't care whether people vote no, vote yes, or abstain.

So what's your problem then? That seems to be the position of most of the people here.

False start.

SA

is just too precious by half. I just love it when anarchists, libertarian communists, place their faith, and it is faith, in the regulations drawn up by the bourgeoisie.

Steven

This is bizarre. The UK bourgeoisie can't just ride roughshod over the entire EU bourgeoisie. If it did the EU bourgeoisie would kick the UK out.

That was the basis for Austria reference--it's building a fence across it's border with Italy; it's doing that in violation of EU "principles," because of its opposition to migrants and nobody's talking about expelling Austria despite its direct violation of those principles.

Free movement for Italians? That isn't the issue. Violation of EU principles because those are no longer convenient for the members is.

The reference to the article about the steelworkers at Tata was in response to Joseph's claim that the UK government vetoed EU tariffs, as if the EU was set to impose tariffs on China's steel exports. The UK didn't veto anything because the EU had no intention of imposing tariffs. Do try and pay attention to the context of the discussion.

Bang on about the TUSC approach? TUSC opposes the EU; it opposes the maintenance of EU/UK policies of austerity. It says so. It says it's speaking for workers whose class interests are in opposition. It proposes that unions and socialists should articulate the reasons for leaving the EU.

Is TUSC a revolutonary socialist organization? Of course not. Does it take its position based on the class interests of workers, against the EU, against the coordination of austerity policies that the EU facilitates, supports, and imposes? Yes it does.

You dismiss that as left-nationalist? Maybe. Then show us what a revolutionary anarchist, libcom opposition to the EU looks like. OR do you believe that there can be no "Leave" position that can be class based?

No I don't care which way people vote, but I do care what organizations say; what those who present themselves as revolutionists pretend they are advocating.

Abstention is support of the status-quo, just that simple. Opposition to the whole idea of the referendum, opposition to the EU, opposition to the British ruling class is not support for the status quo. TUSC at least talks about opposition to the EU and the British ruling class in its support of leaving the EU.

Right, TUSC doesn't oppose the referendum; it opposes the stay vote. Still, TUSC opposes the status-quo-- something that all those moved by personal gain, personal advantage, do not, and cannot do.

That's the place to begin-- oppose the status quo. Oppose the left nattering about the "guarantees" and "advantages EU membership offers to individauls

Good post Fleur.

S., here's the thing, when I first posted on this thread I was well aware I'd be in the minority position - and, to be honest, I don't really care as I don't think it's that big a f*cking deal either way.

That means your arguments are probably closer to the default anarchist position. Yet, you've managed to alienate just about every other person on the thread. As my mom always told me, "sometimes it's not what you say...."

I don't care whether people vote no, vote yes, or abstain.

Really? Cause you certainly seem to.

You say that the starting point has to be opposition to the EU and what it represents in terms of global - or at least European - capitalism. And then you proceed to rant and rave like anyone on the thread has said anything to contradict that. Everyone has acknowledged the structural, class basis of the EU. This should be pretty obvious just looking at what you've quoted from my earlier posts.

I mean, what world do you live in if you think anyone has advocated "supporting" the EU?

And, since you chose to bring up the concept of strawmen,

With personal opportunism being flogged as social analysis.

When has anyone claimed a yes vote on anything like social analysis? People have been pretty clear it's based varying degrees of self-interest/concern for those around them. Everyone who's advocated a yes vote has done so explicitly recognizing the class basis of the EU and the contradictions in voting in the referendum at all. No one's claimed "social analysis" but you, dude, and your idea of analysis seems to be flogging an avocado analogy until it's truly good and dead.

Also, lol, "warrior-anarchist".

S. Artesian

False start.

Only 186 posts too late.

Actually, I tell you what this has done. It's convinced me that argument to be made has to begin with advocating leaving the European Union. You can distinguish your position from that of the UKIP, from that of the nationalists, by explaining your reasons for wanting out of the EU. You can confront the anti-working class nature of the anti-immigrant motivation when you articulate the leave position

You can't do any of that when "abstaining" and equivocating about the bullshit guarantees of "free movement" and 26 days paid vacation. All you can do is dance to the bourgeoisie's little tune.

I've alienated.......you Chili, and Ed and Steve and Fleur, and R&BR, and tons of others?... that's OK. Sometimes it's better to be known by the company you don't keep.

But thank you all for allowing me to work through this and come to the conclusion that any alternative begins with demanding the exit from the EU.

S. Artesian

According to this, it was both the UK and the EU; but the source might be a little suspect, being chairman of US Steel.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4f6d33e-fec1-11e5-9cc4-27926f2b110c.html#axzz45kYJasm0

A leftist source says:

Leighton Evans

...it might be worth questioning why the UK government blocked the ‘lesser duty rate’ which would have allowed the EU to raise tariffs on Chinese steel. Yet not only has the government not backed EU partners in protecting the European steel industry, it has offered preferential bidding to Chinese steel for major UK infrastructure projects.

Also reported in the conservative and liberal press.

(This isn't a defence of the EU, it's just in this instance it seems free trade rules allowed compensatory tariffs as a response to state-subsidised steel imports).

S. Artesian #259

‘It's convinced me that argument to be made has to begin with advocating leaving the European Union. You can distinguish your position from that of the UKIP, from that of the nationalists, by explaining your reasons for wanting out of the EU. You can confront the anti-working class nature of the anti-immigrant motivation when you articulate the leave position’

You have argued yourself into a silly corner. While dancing with UKIP you explain, “Hey, they’re doing the tango - I’m doing the mambo!” Go out and clear your head with a long walk in the fresh air.

Artesian - you pretty much had me up till this;

Actually, I tell you what this has done. It's convinced me that argument to be made has to begin with advocating leaving the European Union. You can distinguish your position from that of the UKIP, from that of the nationalists, by explaining your reasons for wanting out of the EU. You can confront the anti-working class nature of the anti-immigrant motivation when you articulate the leave position

DP

I think S.Artesian made some sound arguments in their summary post No 250 even if previously they have relied far too much on referencing some of the weakest poorly thought out and unwise 'off the cuff' comments from other posters to reinforce their aggressive style of responding, but like Auld-bod and Noah, S.Artesian's post No 259 seems to undermine their previous post and equally poses a rather desperate example in the political position of TUSK who have consistently pursued a left-nationalist programme. Ideally this discussion would have been kicked off with a good strong collective statement of opposition to the purpose of the referendum and both the EU and the British state before getting tossed about by others with personal 'off-hand' comments but then libcom isn't a unified political body so that was hardly to be expected.

In Out, in out, shake it all about.

I could agree with S. Artesian #150:

‘We oppose Britain being in the EU because 1) there is no Britain, there is a British ruling class, and then there's the rest of us, who may or may not even reside here. and 2) we oppose a union of the bourgeoisie everywhere and anywhere, not matter what "privileges" it offers in its pursuit of intensified exploitation.’

Unfortunately the phrase: ‘We oppose Britain being in the EU because’, to my mind this makes a logical contradiction to what follows. We oppose the British state and its ruling class (and the EU, the union of the bourgeoisie) but oppose the British state’s membership. If we do not recognise ‘Britain’ or the EU only ‘the rest of us’ (the unity of the working class) the logical thing is to say to hell with them both!

Just saw this on FB;

OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR, THE HOLY MASTER OF SOCIALISM JEREMY CORBYN, HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE SAYS YES TO THE EU. THANKS OH LORD FOR YOUR WISDOM, NOW WE ALL KNOW WHICH WAY TO VOTE IN THE BATTLE OF TWO CAPITALIST FACTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, ON REFERENDUM DAY I HAVE SOME VERY IMPORTANT PAINT THAT I NEED TO WATCH DRYING.

Paint drying for me too on the blessed day.

Sorry to "lose"you Noah. I just think any other position "freezes" one and prevents the development of a class-based opposition to EU/UK capitalism.

Yes, it's a risk, exposing an organizations to charges UKIP-ing, but it's a risk that has to be taken, as abstention cedes the entire issue to the machinations of the bourgeoisie and their agents--

S., I'm sure TUSC must be jumping for joy to have you on side...

Chilli Sauce

S., I'm sure TUSC must be jumping for joy to have you on side...

I don't think they give a fuck. No more than Cameron cares, that after deep thought and weighing up the advantages of a 26 day vacation from your job that allows you to travel freely, you're on his side.

For all those who want to "abstain" -- here's where your passive support of the EU gets you:

The Latest: 10 nations seek military planes for deportations
April 14, 2016 7:41 AM EST

BERLIN (AP) — The Latest on European efforts to respond to the wave of migration (all times local):

2:35 p.m.

Austria and nine East European and Balkan states are calling for an EU declaration endorsing the use of military aircraft for the deportation of migrants who have no chance for asylum, or whose request for that status have been rejected

The Austria Press Agency says the request is being made in a letter to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, signed by Austrian Defense Minister Hans Peter Doskozil on behalf of Austria and the other countries.

APA on Thursday quoted the letter as saying the use of military aircraft should be "seen as an integral and decisive element of a full repatriation program." The agency said the letter asked for the issue to be on the agenda of the next EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on April 19.

___

1:20 p.m.

Human Rights Watch issued a statement criticizing what it said were the "deplorable conditions" in which about 4,000 people were being detained on the Greek islands of Lesbos and Chios.

Eva Cossé, HRW's Greece specialist, said: "The EU's policy, carried out in Greece, has locked up families and others who have fled horrors such as ISIS terror, Taliban threats, or Syrian-government barrel bombs."

The group said Thursday that "blanket detention of all asylum seekers and migrants in closed facilities is unjustified, given the possibility of less restrictive options, and amounts to arbitrary detention. The two closed facilities should be converted into open camps with appropriate services and safety for people needing protection from war, persecution, and human rights abuses."

The statement also said: "Turkey cannot be considered a safe country due to its refusal to grant effective protection to non-Europeans in need, including Afghans and Iraqis."

___

10:45 a.m.

Austria's defense minister says the country is ready to completely close the main border crossing to Italy in case an influx of migrants leads to an "extreme situation."

State-run broadcaster ORF on Thursday quoted Hans Peter Doskozil as saying such a move at the Brenner crossing would be taken if Italy refused to accept migrants turned back by Austria and they could not proceed to Germany.

Doskozil says Austria has registered between 16,000 and 17,000 applications for asylum since the start of the year. The country has announced a cap of 37,500 applications for 2016 after receiving about 90,000 last year.

He expresses skepticism about the EU-Turkey agreement on migrant returns saying "we don't know how long the deal will last."

___

9:55 a.m.

Germany's governing parties say they've agreed upon a broad range of measures to help the country integrate those of the 1.1 million migrants who arrived last year who are granted asylum.

The measures announced Thursday, which will be discussed with state governors before they're formalized to present to Parliament, seek to strike a balance between giving migrants easier access to jobs and integration courses, while increasing expectations of them as well.

They foresee creating thousands of government-funded "job opportunities" for migrants, news agency dpa reported, and the suspension for three years of a rule that asylum-seekers are initially excluded from jobs unless no German or European Union citizen can fill them.

Waiting times for integration courses teaching German will be reduced, but they'll be made mandatory for more migrants.

___

9:30 a.m.

Serbian police say they have arrested six people suspected of smuggling migrants across the border to Hungary and other EU countries.

The six face charges of illegally crossing the state border and people smuggling.

Police said Thursday that the suspects charged the migrants from 900-1,200 euros ($1,000-$1,350) for the illegal transfer. They say the migrants were from Kosovo, Asian and African countries.

Migrants fleeing war and poverty have turned to smugglers to help them reach wealthy European nations after Balkan countries closed their borders for the passage.

Right, I'm tangoing, actually that would be tangling with UKIP by opposing the EU and participation in the EU, but you're not at all doing the hustle with the EU by abstaining and counting your vacation days, because you know how bad the EU is, but......ah those vacation days......

The abstentionist position, based on the "guarantees" and "rights" afforded to EU members amounts to nothing other than Europe for the Europeans.

A joke you are. A bad joke.

S. Artesian

Sorry to "lose"you Noah. I just think any other position "freezes" one and prevents the development of a class-based opposition to EU/UK capitalism.

Yes, it's a risk, exposing an organizations to charges UKIP-ing, but it's a risk that has to be taken, as abstention cedes the entire issue to the machinations of the bourgeoisie and their agents--

My basic opposition to your revised position is simply this - I have never once voted in any capitalist referendum/election and I see no argument that comes anywhere close to that which will convince me to vote this time. This is not abstention, it is refusal to be part of the very thing that my politics are opposed to.

through out this you've shown that you dont really understand what the eu is or how it works

S. Artesian

SA

is just too precious by half. I just love it when anarchists, libertarian communists, place their faith, and it is faith, in the regulations drawn up by the bourgeoisie.

Steven

This is bizarre. The UK bourgeoisie can't just ride roughshod over the entire EU bourgeoisie. If it did the EU bourgeoisie would kick the UK out.

That was the basis for Austria reference--it's building a fence across it's border with Italy; it's doing that in violation of EU "principles," because of its opposition to migrants and nobody's talking about expelling Austria despite its direct violation of those principles.

how is it violating Eu principles? what is it you think eu principles are?

Thank god I don't live in the EU anymore. I no longer have to live with my government deporting people, instigating cruel immigration laws, locking up migrants, denying the right to remain to refugees, involving itself in wars, doing arms deals with dictators, impoverishing the global south with it's trade and agriculture policies. No more. Just leave all that shit to the European Union.

Man, I miss the 28 days paid vacation though. (That's my personal selfish interests talking. )

how is it violating Eu principles? what is it you think eu principles are?

"The EU has spent years building the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which is intended to ensure that the rights of refugees under international law are protected in its member states. The system sets out minimum standards and procedures for processing and assessing asylum applications, and for the treatment of both asylum seekers and those who are granted refugee status. However, many EU states have yet to properly implement these standards. What exists instead is a patchwork of 28 asylum systems producing uneven results.

Where an asylum seeker travels through several EU countries, the CEAS allows one EU country to send that person to the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker, so long as that country upholds the rights of asylum seekers. This so-called “Dublin system” privileges EU countries in the north, the desired destination of many refugees, at the expense of the south, where most refugees first arrived.

But only a very small proportion of asylum seekers are transferred this way, and failures of asylum systems in Greece, Italy, and Hungary have led courts to block transfers. Unlike settled residents and tourists, asylum seekers do not have the right to move freely within the EU’s Schengen area.

Member states have reinstituted border controls at times, endangering the Schengen system of free movement, as well as erected fences along borders, notably in Hungary and Bulgaria. Several countries in Central Europe have been openly dismissive of resettling refugees, and far-right anti-immigrant parties have risen in popularity across Europe.
How has the European Union responded to refugee movements?

Under the revised European Agenda on Migration, the EU pledged to take immediate action to prevent further losses of life and to improve conditions for those seeking protection in Europe.

The EU plans to relocate migrants who reach the EU from countries at the EU’s external frontiers—like Italy, Greece, and Hungary—to countries which have few arrivals. The plan is to relocate 160,000 people across the EU over the next two years. This decision was reached following months of negotiations to overcome the reluctance of governments. Individual states, like the United Kingdom, have plans to resettle refugees directly from countries neighboring Syria.

Support teams of experts from EU agencies such as the European Asylum Support Office will be deployed at major European arrival points, like the Greek islands, to assist in the registration of arriving refugees.

The EU has pledged one billion euros to world food programs to help reduce the flow of arriving refugees. These funds will be directed to host countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan to manage their significant refugee communities. In the fall of 2015, the European Commission launched inquiries against many of its member states that failed to adhere to common rules for granting protection and providing decent conditions to asylum seekers, such as housing, food, and health care.[/quote]"

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-european-union

I think closing the border with Italy clearly is part and parcel of the violation of the CEAS "principles" as elastic and sieve-like as they are.

All the babbling about dancing with the UKIP comes down to this:

"Donald Trump says the US government lied about the reasons for invading Iraq; that the US government lied when it claimed there were weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq and that was the reason for the invasion."

"S. Artesian says the US government lied about the reasons for invading Iraq; that the US government lied when it claimed there were weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq and that was the reason for the invasion."

Ergo, S. Artesian is objectively identical to, the same as, supports Donald Trump. And therefore we should take no position on the US invasion of Iraq due to the risk that by so doing we will be confused with Trump, or Artesian, lend credence, to Trump, or Artesian, and possibly jeopardize the the US Affordable Health-care Act, which is under threat by Trump, and also by Artesian, who did not support the Affordable Health-care Act.

It's all avocados.

We can pose this referendum another way: Do you support the British government contributing money, equipment, and manpower to an association of the bourgeoisie that takes the actions as described in post #269? If yes... vote stay.

If you do not, are you willing to risk confrontation with the nationalists, racists, xenophobes, and generally reactionary forces, which, like right wing nuts in the US think "government = socialism," think "Europe=social democracy" "Europe = the breach in the walls of Fortress Britain" "Europe = the vector, since we've stripped those former colonies of the rights to citizenship in our beloved England, for masses of dark and/or darker skinned to invade our homeland, piss in our bitters?

If you are not willing to do that to confront that when opposing the British bourgeoisie's contributions to a union of capitalists, then do nothing. Stay home

If you are willing to do that, to confront just that nationalism, chauvinism, racism, and reaction, then agitate, propagandize, organize for a "leave" vote by posing a class opposition to the EU and its British cohort.

Can't do that? Can't find or pose a class opposition? Then just shut-up.

And spare us all the bullshit, whatever you do, about the rights, privileges, guarantees of the EU for those in the European Union. It don't mean a thing. Those are commodities, the expropriated product of somebody else's labor. The bounty of capitalism. Cheaper avocados.

S. Artesian

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-european-union

I think closing the border with Italy clearly is part and parcel of the violation of the CEAS "principles" as elastic and sieve-like as they are.

it hasn't closed the boarder though, its trying to make the restrictions that apply in theory to who can cross the boarder apply in reality

radicalgraffiti

S. Artesian

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-european-union

I think closing the border with Italy clearly is part and parcel of the violation of the CEAS "principles" as elastic and sieve-like as they are.

it hasn't closed the boarder though, its trying to make the restrictions that apply in theory to who can cross the boarder apply in reality

Good for you. I'm sure the Austrian bourgeoisie is so happy that you are endorsing its efforts, probably as happy as TUSC is over my support for the "leave" vote. At least that happy.

This is a gross violation of the EU Common Asylum principles. But it doesn't matter because the principles don't account for the reality-- that conditions in Greece are inhumane; that the devastation in Greece makes it unable to comply with the basic human needs of refugees; that the devastation as imposed by the EU compels the asylum seekers to find other "shelter."

And that the response is, and will be, to make conditions worse for asylum-seekers; to increase the repression of asylum seekers, and ALL of that will be done in order -- as you put it, to "try and make the restrictions that apply in theory to who can cross the boarder apply in reality."

You know who that sounds like? That sounds just like Donald Trump-- build the wall to make the restrictions in theory, apply in reality-- the point being that the wall is there because the restrictions themselves are inhumane, and because the cause for the flight of those seeking asylum is embedded in the very organization of the bourgeoisie now trying to control that flight-- in capitalism.

You don't even realize what a mouthful of shit you are mumbling with your "theory" and "reality" contortion.

You claim it's in keeping with the established principle of freedom of movement, and I'm telling you-- precisely. The "Freedom of movement" principles are based on restricting refugees, to the point of reestablishing border controls.

Splitting pubic hairs you are.

So tell us RG, do you want the British bourgeoisie contributing time, equipment, and effort to a union of capitalists that allows, supports, permits, or even legitimizes (if your interpretation is taken as correct)? If not, what do you propose to do about it? Attack the British bourgeoisie's participation in this fucking adventure in xenophobia? Of course not. Don't do that, because Boris Johnson, and the Farage, and so many others don't like the EU... and besides some of your best friends are EU emigres.

Fact is the equivocation expressed here by so many is f nauseating.

Well I'm glad at least that after denying it Artesian has now admitted that his position is supporting a vote to leave, as that had clearly become his position.

Chilli Sauce

S., I'm sure TUSC must be jumping for joy to have you on side...

Yes, the trots and a load of racists. Who basically make up the Out campaign, plus Artesian.

Although as red and black riot points out, Artesian has shown he doesn't really understand a lot of the issues he is discussing. As demonstrated again by his long copy and paste about Austria's actions, which don't actually support the point he has argued, as it just further demonstrates that Austria has not done anything to deny entry to EU nationals.

He has also done an awful lot to go on about the appalling actions of the EU. But strangely hasn't said anything at all about the appalling things that the British government has done. The British government which will still exist following a vote to Leave, and which will be able to enact even stricter anti-immigrant policies than they are currently able to.

I think the probably the worst thing he has argued is that the fate of 3 million migrant EU nationals in the UK is an irrelevant, and even selfish personal concern.

So anyway while Artesian now aligns himself with the British nationalist faction of the bourgeoisie, in its left and right wing guises, I remain opposed both to British nationalism and EU "regionalism", but for the interests of the working class globally.

Neither London and Brussels but international socialism!

Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag. I haven't denied anything. I changed my position in the argument. But since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be a libcom virtue, that probably escaped you.

I haven't mentioned anything about the horrible things the British government has done? Guess what, neither have you. Those "things"-- actually relations-- precede and will post-date the referendum and have to be opposed. But the issue here is passive acceptance of the UK's status in the European Union.

You can ask me, as I've asked you re the EU's actions, do I support the UKIP's policies? The answer is "no." Do I support the attacks on migrants in the UK? Absolutely not. Do I support totally open borders in the UK, the US, everywhere? Absolutely.

Nope you don't do any of that: you use the big smear, practiced by red-baiters all over the world, Stalinists [Franco opposes the popular front government; Trotskyists oppose the popular front government. Trotskyists objectively are fascists.], social democrats, and every sort of glib, facile, suspercilious clown pretending to be erudite, "informed," etc.
While you sit on You wax poetic about 3 million EU emigres, and the importance of defending the right to visa-less travel afforded by the EU while refugees are drowned at sea, and returned to Turkey in order to preserve the great goal of Europe for the Europeans.

What I say is that the status of 3 million EU emigres in the UK can not, and will not be defended, or preserved by Britain staying in the EU. Such freedom can only be preserved through opposition to the EU and British capitalism. That the British government will chip away at that as it finds convenient and still maintain its membership in the EU.

You should change your slogan: Neither Brussel nor London, but all of Europe for Europeans.

So let me repeat myself, fuck you, you dishonest scumbag.

S. Artesian

radicalgraffiti

S. Artesian

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-migration-and-asylum-european-union

I think closing the border with Italy clearly is part and parcel of the violation of the CEAS "principles" as elastic and sieve-like as they are.

it hasn't closed the boarder though, its trying to make the restrictions that apply in theory to who can cross the boarder apply in reality

Good for you. I'm sure the Austrian bourgeoisie is so happy that you are endorsing its efforts, probably as happy as TUSC is over my support for the "leave" vote. At least that happy.

how am i endorsing it?

S. Artesian

This is a gross violation of the EU Common Asylum principles. But it doesn't matter because the principles don't account for the reality-- that conditions in Greece are inhumane; that the devastation in Greece makes it unable to comply with the basic human needs of refugees; that the devastation as imposed by the EU compels the asylum seekers to find other "shelter."

in what way does it violate "EU Common Asylum principles"? according to the thing you quoted above "Where an asylum seeker travels through several EU countries, the CEAS allows one EU country to send that person to the first EU country reached by the asylum seeker, so long as that country upholds the rights of asylum seekers."

S. Artesian

And that the response is, and will be, to make conditions worse for asylum-seekers; to increase the repression of asylum seekers, and ALL of that will be done in order -- as you put it, to "try and make the restrictions that apply in theory to who can cross the boarder apply in reality."

yes and thats a bad thing but i don't see how it violates eu policies in any way

S. Artesian

You know who that sounds like? That sounds just like Donald Trump-- build the wall to make the restrictions in theory, apply in reality-- the point being that the wall is there because the restrictions themselves are inhumane, and because the cause for the flight of those seeking asylum is embedded in the very organization of the bourgeoisie now trying to control that flight-- in capitalism.

lots of people have pointed out that a lot of what trump does is make state things openly that where previously left unsaid

S. Artesian

You don't even realize what a mouthful of shit you are mumbling with your "theory" and "reality" contortion.

You claim it's in keeping with the established principle of freedom of movement, and I'm telling you-- precisely. The "Freedom of movement" principles are based on restricting refugees, to the point of reestablishing border controls.

freedom of movement for eu citizens isn't based on restricting refugees, that makes no sense, the boarder controls are not there because of free movement for eu citizens, they are there are part of a reaction to an increase in refuges caused by the war in syria

S. Artesian

Splitting pubic hairs you are.

So tell us RG, do you want the British bourgeoisie contributing time, equipment, and effort to a union of capitalists that allows, supports, permits, or even legitimizes (if your interpretation is taken as correct)? If not, what do you propose to do about it? Attack the British bourgeoisie's participation in this fucking adventure in xenophobia? Of course not. Don't do that, because Boris Johnson, and the Farage, and so many others don't like the EU... and besides some of your best friends are EU emigres.

Fact is the equivocation expressed here by so many is f nauseating.

i don't want the british government to exist, but the eu is pretty far down the list of bad stuff it does

this is like the "Scotland leaving the uk would be a blow against capitalism" people

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this, S. Artesian's rhetoric is putting the rest of you to shame right now. It's thoroughly entertaining. I'm not taking the piss either. The dismissal of and assumptions made about many of SAs arguments seem a bit disingenuous. S/he is doing a bit too much calling out for the comfort of some. There is no way I agree with voting leave(or stay) but some good points are being raised. Thei don't seem to be getting anything like a fair hearing. Still, that's not particularly unusual around these here parts.

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

Chilli Sauce

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

Bit selective there old chap, final post of many after banging their head against accusations.
Anyways, always one to look for the positives I'll just say this;

Down votes. Yay!!!

That's the fallacy of selection for you. How can you in good faith ignore the agonising hilarious, skewering vaudevillean beauty of SA's post #274? Shame on you Chilli. SHAME!!

Chilli Sauce

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

It's not "rhetoric." It's the truth, he's a liar. I changed my position and posted directly after I changed it explaining the change. And the bullshit about being aligned with "nationalists" and racists...? Let me say it again, a scumbag liar.

The point being: Anybody who thinks he or she can protect the status of EU emigres in the UK by having the UK remain in a union of capitalists intent upon throwing refugees back into Turkey is either blind, ignorant, or just demented.

Since when do "anarchists" make distinctions based on nationality, which after all is exactly what the "free movement" for EU nationals amounts to? Since when do anarchists, or lib-coms, think you can protect the status of a fragment of the class of migrants without protecting the class of migrants as a whole?

S. Artesian

Chilli Sauce

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

It's not "rhetoric." It's the truth, he's a liar. I changed my position and posted directly after I changed it explaining the change. And the bullshit about being aligned with "nationalists" and racists...? Let me say it again, a scumbag liar.

Maybe a bad choice of word, maybe not but anyways, I'm partly with you here and think your getting an unfairly rough ride. Just no on the voting.

Scumbags and avocados, just about sums it up, I reckon.

factvalue

That's the fallacy of selection for you. How can you in good faith ignore the agonising hilarious, skewering vaudevillean beauty of SA's post #274? Shame on you Chilli. SHAME!!

Must admit, I was laughing when I wrote it; but then I laugh when I write most things

It's damned scintillating stuff and funny as hell, I nearly drenched my keyboard, had to spit my drink onto the floor.

Joking aside I'm with you on all this, keep it coming!

FV. You got mail.

factvalue

It's damned scintillating stuff and funny as hell, I nearly drenched my keyboard, had to spit my drink onto the floor.

Joking aside I'm with you on all this, keep it coming!

Thank you. I need all the help I can get.

Noah Fence

S. Artesian

Chilli Sauce

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

It's not "rhetoric." It's the truth, he's a liar. I changed my position and posted directly after I changed it explaining the change. And the bullshit about being aligned with "nationalists" and racists...? Let me say it again, a scumbag liar.

Maybe a bad choice of word, maybe not but anyways, I'm partly with you here and think your getting an unfairly rough ride. Just no on the voting.

Come on, Noah, S.'s behavior on this thread has been characterized by hyperbole, strawmanning, belligerence, and no real attempt to honestly engage with the arguments put forward. The irony being most people on the thread probably agree with him to some extent. If he's been getting a rough ride, he has no one but himself to blame.

You want a fair hearing? Don't act like a petulant child.

DP

I'm not complaining about any quality of the ride. This is nothing. Nobody's shooting at me and I get to go home and sleep in my own bed. This is goody time. A regular Christmas.

Chilli Sauce

Noah Fence

S. Artesian

Chilli Sauce

"Fuck you, you dishonest scumbag?". Is that what passes for rhetoric nowadays? Come on, Noah.

It's not "rhetoric." It's the truth, he's a liar. I changed my position and posted directly after I changed it explaining the change. And the bullshit about being aligned with "nationalists" and racists...? Let me say it again, a scumbag liar.

Maybe a bad choice of word, maybe not but anyways, I'm partly with you here and think your getting an unfairly rough ride. Just no on the voting.

Come on, Noah, S.'s behavior on this thread has been characterized by hyperbole, strawmanning, belligerence, and no real attempt to honestly engage with the arguments put forward. The irony being most people on the thread probably agree with him to some extent. If he's been getting a rough ride, he has no one but himself to blame.

You want a fair hearing? Don't act like a petulant child.

Hyperbole can be an effective tool in getting a point across plus it's a whole bunch of fun. I haven't noticed any strawmanning, at least not by Sart. If you're gonna shout belligerence you'd best shout it in a few other posters direction too. As for honest engagement, come off it, I ain't buying that. I think Sart's problem is too much honesty and others exposed in the light of this have defensively got their knickers in a knot!
This is all mostly a matter of perception - maybe overdoing the vegan cupcakes has addled your perception nodes???

As much as I admire artesian's commitment to avocadoes I think this has re-affirmed my abstentionism. Why choose between two options that the bourgeoisie gives us unless there is a material advantage somewhere. And as has been reaffirmed here the bourgeoisie tends to give us lose-lose choices so why participate.

I do honestly think that a brexit would give a shot in the arm to the right, but the're not exactly struggling to find support and the EU has been funding these shitheads for years because they all get cushy posts because only lunatics vite for the European Parliament.

I'd love to be an MEP so if anyone feels like writing me in as a candidate.

As for honest engagement, come off it, I ain't buying that.

Noah, I re-read S.'s first post on this thread. Snarky and belligerent from the get-go, it ends with that ridiculous comment about the EU not being the IWMA. And you really expect anyone to take him seriously?

Chilli Sauce

As for honest engagement, come off it, I ain't buying that.

Noah, I re-read S.'s first post on this thread. Snarky and belligerent from the get-go, it ends with that ridiculous comment about the EU not being the IWMA. And you really expect anyone to take him seriously?

i assumed that was what noah liked about it? i doesn't matter if your wrong on every detail and your entire argument is based on nationalism, so long as your rude in an amusing way

radicalgraffiti

Chilli Sauce

As for honest engagement, come off it, I ain't buying that.

Noah, I re-read S.'s first post on this thread. Snarky and belligerent from the get-go, it ends with that ridiculous comment about the EU not being the IWMA. And you really expect anyone to take him seriously?

i assumed that was what noah liked about it? i doesn't matter if your wrong on every detail and your entire argument is based on nationalism, so long as your rude in an amusing way

Haha, nice work RG, your insight into my psyche is spot on. Nice work comrade!

Wrong in details, indeed. This:

jef costello wrote:

I'd probably vote to stay in if I were in the UK.
The EU seems that it's a better deal to me.

SA

^^Tsiprasism.

Was my first post. And it has all the elements of the later discussion: personal interest-- a "better deal to me," and is in fact the enduring principle of Syriza.

My first in response to you Chili-- and I understand that you as a narcissistic character find it hard to distinguish between the first post and a first post about you--

(Edited)

Chili

And, yes, the EU is super neo-liberal, but freedom of movement within the EU is pretty damn nice. Of course a vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism but I'd rather have a capitalism with freedom of movement and 26 paid vacation days...

So try this on:

SA

"Local bosses? The rule of capital is international and will have to be combated internationally, Corbyn or no Corbyn.

And yes, a vote for Corbyn is a vote for capitalism, but having a more left capitalism is pretty damn nice. I'd rather have capitalism that allows unions to organize, is sympathetic to social welfare, funds education....and provides 26 paid vacation days"

So now that you've got your paid vacation days, what do you say to the unemployed who might be inclined to tell you to piss off?

I wish I could say I'm surprised that any participant in Libcom could seriously consider voting or supporting, or approving, or accepting a vote for membership in the EU.... I mean look at how that's worked out for workers in Greece...or Spain...or Italy.....or Portugal.

But I'm not.

The EU is not an incarnation of the IMWA. It provides no opportunity for proletarian internationalism, generating in its direct and indirect actions nothing but chauvinism.

That was after your earlier post about how you might put an X next to the stay column if you were voting.

The equivocation about EU membership has been based on opting for "the better deal," for personal interests, for what's "nice," and "easy." The fall-back position, "what about all those EU emigres to Britain, who might be in jeopardy if the UK leaves" was unfurled as the banner of abstention in response to my challenges.

Personal interest it was, and personal interest it is; and it is simply beyond my comprehension that one can be worried about the status of EU emigres in the UK, and therefore equivocate about wanting to break with the executive committee of European capitalism when European capitalism itself generates the threats to emigres.

You were quoted, and you were quoted correctly by me. Now you want to cover yourself with your concern for emigres. Sure you do. Take your sanctimonious, self-righteous posturing somewhere else. It's enough to gag ten million maggots.