[ALB]

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary (who is backing the Clergtman's Daughter May for Tory Leader, an appropriate Prime Minister for Little England, as opposed to the other woman who's a raving Christian as well as a Brexiteer and who now has the financial backing of the capitalist who funds UKIP ), gives in today's Daily Torygraph what diplomacy is involved

Quote:

It is already clear what the central trade off with the EU will be: access to the single market versus freedom of movement of people. Those who believe there is no need for such a trade-off have misunderstood something fundamental about the politics of the European Union.They have a principled belief in the "indivisibility of the four freedoms"; but they also have a political understanding that to give way to Britain on this question would likely lead to the unravelling of the EU. So we will need to come to a consensus as a nation on that central trade-off.The referendum result creates a new political reality: unfettered free movement of EU nationals, as it has worked hitherto, is no longer on the table. Our priority must be securing the best access we can for British businesses to the single market in goods and services, but within the limitations imposed by that political reality. That may be challenging for our economy, but we don't have to let it be a disaster.There is a range of outcomes between "no access" and "full unfettered access" to the market; and there is a range of possible restrictions on free movement and settlement.

Of course "we" don't need to come to a consensus on this, only the government acting on behalf of the British capitalist class as a whole does. The working class can just sit back and watch how they get out of the fix Cameron and Johnson have got them into.

[ALB]

The ruling class seem to regard him as their class enemy too, what with the relentless media attacks on the man since the time he was elected leader, day after day, false accusation after false accusation, biassed commentator after biassed commentator. I'm not quite sure why since, from their point of view as well as ours, he's just an innocuous reformist. In any event, he couldn't bugger things up for them more than a couple of Old Etonians have just done. I suppose it's because they want a Labour Party that, when in office, will fully accept capitalism with its monority ownership and profit motive and apply its economic laws, seeking only to manage the system efficiently (for them). And the mob of self-serving careerists on the Labour benches are prepared to bend over backwards (or is it forwards?) to oblige them.

[ALB]

Michael Gove is not just a misfit, he's a fruit cake. According to the BBC in his manifesto for the Tory party leadership contest,

Quote:

He pledged to leave the EU's single market

This would be consistent with what he promised during the referendum campaign (for instance here) but would be madness from a capitalist point of view as it would mean that British goods would no longer have tariff-free access to the European market. So it's not going to happen. The Tory party are not going to elect him leader and parliament wouldn't stand for it.Gove also pledged to implement the Leave campaign's other promises — more money for the NHS, reduction in VAT on domestic energy but, above all, the end of the free movement of labour. It seems that he stabbed Johnson in the back because he had come to realise that Johnson didn't believe in them but was just promising them to get the votes in. Which was no doubt true.

[ALB]

Here's Yanis Varouflakis writing in last week's Big Issue, i.e before the result. He was in favour of Remain:

Quote:

… why am I against Brexit? The reasons are two. First one is – you cannot leave, even if you vote to leave. You are stuck in the single market. The single market is not a free trade area – there are common industry standards, every service has to be policed according to regulations made in Brussels, environmental protection standards, legal market standards – all from Brussels. The same lack of sovereignty will continue when it comes to writing the rulebook for a great variety of economic and social activities. So why do you want to get out, if you can't get out? By getting out, you are ceding these rules to an alien force in Brussels, in which you are not even participating.The second reason is that Brexit will speed up the political process of Europe's disintegration. And that, of course, is going to make the economic crisis worse in Europe. That economic crisis, as it gets worse in Europe, is going to suck Britain in to a new depression. Even if you have left, that will happen.

[ALB]

Just heard Theresa May, tipped as Cameron's most likely successor, say on the radio that, if she wins, there won't be a general election till 2020 as planned. So the plotters have shown their hand too soon. Panicked about nothing but I don't suppose they really mind as they can keep their seats till then, though it does give the Corbynites more time to arrange for them to be deselected.

[ALB]

Since it's confession time, here's an email I received from a member:

Quote:

I agree with the Party' s stand on the EU Referendum but I have decided to vote remain simply because I cannot stand the xenophobia of the Leave Campaign.

I also received a phone call from a long-time sympathiser and Socialist Standard subscriber who said he had voted Remain because he felt workers had something to lose by Brexit.

[ALB]

One consequence of the Brexit vote is that one section of the electorate has voted to disenfranchise another, i.e. workers in this country who are EU citizens, who will no longer be able to vote in local and regional elections. This is workers losing the right to vote.How does this fit in with the democratic nature of the Brexit vote?

[ALB]

To tell the truth, I'm surprised that 40 Labour MPs supported him. As 172 voted against, that's about 19%, one in 5. So old-fashioned leftwing reformism, as opposed to blatant greasy pole careerism, still exists in the Labour Party.The excuse they gave for stabbing him in the back, that he wasn't active enough in campaigning for Remain, doesn't stand up. In fact, his views on the EU probably coincided more with Labour voters than those of his critics. They probably would only give the EU 7-7.5 points and would not liked him to appear on the same platform as Cameron and other Establishment (or Elite, as they are also being called now) figures.I wonder what will happen next.  The Labour Party could split. It's certainly what some Trotsktists are hoping. Here's Peter Taafe, the SPEW Leader:

Quote:

Therefore it is necessary to face down and confront the blackmail and sabotage of the right by adopting decisive measures. If it is accurate, then a report in the Financial Times is welcome, which indicated a new determination of Corbyn to fight the right wing. He was asked by a delegation of Labour MPs: "Are you prepared to split the party over this?" He replied that he did not want to but then added, "But if necessary…" [Financial Times 28/6/16]If he follows through on this, it would mean a welcome, positive development for the labour movement. It would represent a complete break with the discredited right wing and the formation of a new radical workers' party, which would in turn act like a magnet for workers and youth looking for a serious struggle against capitalism and for socialism.

He's probably fantasising but you never know.The SWP are also sniffing around:https://www.swp.org.uk/video/keep-corbyn-rally-diane-abbott-john-mcdonnell-dennis-skinner-jeremy-corbyn

[ALB]

No

[ALB]

Another book review here, that brings out our difference with and criticism of the position Marx and Engels took towards nationalism and where it led them:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1991/no-1046-october-1991/book-review-marxism-and-nationalism

[ALB]

Thanks. I see. So the vote in the Midlands will have been pure anti-immigrant, not a protest against economic decline or the effects of globalisation — and not just East Europeans but an earlier generation from Asia.  Still, 40% or so voted Remain as did a majority in Leicester but then the earlier generation of immigrants are the majority there.

[ALB]

Meel, I don't think the people you are describing would have made up most or even (m)any of those who voted Leave.  Most of them probably didn't vote — some 28% of the electorate didn't. Statistically too it's not possible. The really poor and destitute only make up between 10 and 15% of the population and 37% of the electorate (52% of 72% turnout) voted Leave. Most of these will have been workers in employment or retired from employment (quite a lot of these) who owned their own car and went on overseas holidays, i.e not the poorest of the poor.  The evidence, unfortunately, is that what swayed most of them was "immigration", aka xenophobia. The only good news is that nearly half the working class who voted rejected this.PS I can't understand YMS's map. What is it supposed to be showing?

[ALB]

So Paul Mason has joined the growing (capitalist) chorus that the only way forward now for British capitalism plc is to negotiate continued free access to the single European market on whatever terms they can get. But I don't see how Britain moving from the EU to the EEA represents a dent in "nei-liberalism". It's rather maintaining its logic.In fact, aren't the Tory leaders of the Leave campaign now openly admitting that they are "liberal Leavers" and not protectionists and isolationists, i.e. believe that the market, including the world market, should decide what is produced, where and when? The real end of "neo-liberalism" would be a return to "national Statism" where the state tried to isolate itself and its subjects from the pressures of the world market, a return to the "reformism in one country" of the 40s, 50s and 60s or even to the beggar (or is it bugger?)-my-neighbour policies of the 30s. I don't see anybody advocating that but, if things go wrong, and a trade war breaks out between Britain and the EU or if the EU breaks up then this could happen but I don't think that's likely.

[ALB]

Yes, it really is the beginning of the end for "Great" Britain. Another Brexit, England just beaten 2-1 by  EEA member Iceland in which minor league they may end up playing.

[ALB]

I don't know about "calls for" (that suggests that he always did). It was something he wrote in 1849 in the context of the failure of the European revolutions of 1848 when certain language groups supported the reactionary Austrian government against the Hungarian democrats. And he didn't envisage their physical extermination but rather their assimilation into Hungarian-speaking or German-speaking  "nations".The background is explained here:https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol3/no2/rosdolsk.htmlNo really an acceptable position but it wasn't his permanent position, just a passing reaction to what had happened in 1848. He didn't support later discrimination inside the Austro-Hungarian Empire  by German-speakers against Czech-speakers nor by Hungarian-speakers against Slovak-speakers. He was of course opposed to Panslavism. But saying that amounts to being against Slavs is like saying that being opposed to Zionism is anti-semitic.If we are going to criticise Engels (and why not?) let's do it on the basis of what he meant.

[Author]

Posts