I am well aware that when it comes to the politics of EU leader summits predicting anything is hard. But today is a crunch day for David Cameron and a while ago he set a bad precedent by using his veto at such an event. Today there are four states who might feel like doing the same in return.
What if Cameron returns empty-handed? Does the referndum go ahead this year?
Does he then argue that what we have is the best deal and we should vote for it?
Or does he move to Brexit?
And what then? Jacob Rees-Mogg was gloating on the prospect of removing employee rights on Channel 4 News last night.
A move offered in haste to appease the UKIP wing of the Conservative Party is now looking very dangerous indeed. The EU may have awful flaws in it, but I believe they are better than being out. And out now looks to be increasingly likely.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I knew it 2010 it was going to be awful with a Tory Government although I did not realize it was going to be this awful
Jacob Rees-Mogg really is an odious specimen, product of a wealthy sheltered background, and never having to do anything for himself presuming to have the right to restrict yet further the rights of labour in favour of capital.
It is hard – except for the fact that his poisonous ideas are the common currency of the major part of the Nasty Party – to take him seriously. He always looks to me as though he has mislaid his teddy bear somewhere, and is anxiously looking round to see if Nurse has got it. He would never have climbed as high as he has in a sane, healthy, non-deferential society.
Thoroughly agree, Andrew. The man radiates contempt and disdain toward anyone he judges below himself – which appears to be most people. In a political party full of odious individuals it’s saying something that he can mark himself out as even more odious than the norm.
I gather he thinks I am “a socialist in tooth and claw”
Oh well. C’est la vie
You are right about Rees-Mogg and there are very worrying signs that the right wing of the Tory party are starting to salivate at the thought of all the human rights, environmental protection, workers rights etc etc legislation that they can tear up.
These guys are up to their necks in financial and moral corruption (aka “traditional British values”). Matthew Hancock is another prime example of just how low they will stoop to achieve their aims.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matthew-hancock-tory-mp-accepted-4000-donation-from-think-tank-before-announcing-charity-lobbying-a6880071.html
This is absolutely priceless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crjoi8hCgjg
Hancock has the most odious extremes of neo-liberalism running through his financialised veins-he exudes a type of neo-liberal halitosis as well as the concomitant oleaginous qualities that verge on the spine-chilling.
Recently, a woman in tears over potential cuts to her tax credits on Question Time received a response of the ‘we’re living beyond our means’ meme-the standard response of these culturally and intellectually voided individuals.
I try to be as tolerant as I can and maintain the Quaker notion that there is light in everyone but the mere sight of Hancock creates visceral levels of utter disgust. He and his ilk suffer from a fundamental deficit of those qualities that make a person a full human-that’s the deficit that we should worry about!
It was Hancock who I remember telling me fo the virtues of flat taxes many years ago
Glad to read you are now firmly on the in side Richard. Despite the many issues those on the left rightly have against the EU there is no sensible reason for any on the left to vote to support the leave side in this referendum.
Yes-but the left have to get it clear that monetary union and the separation of fiscal from monetary policy that props up a corrupt banking system has to be separated from the issue of human rights/employee rights. The Left is NOT making this clear.
It is not a ‘Union’ that allows:
Three million in Greece to be without health care
Mass emigration from Portugal and Ireland due to lack of jobs
over 50% youth unemployment in Spain
creates mass emigration out of Latvia due to austerity demands.
And protects banks that gave out dodgy loans.
The EU is about as Neo-liberal as it gets-the Left needs to articulate that and it isn’t because it becomes misty eyed with the idea of ‘internationalism’ without noticing that the concept has bee appropriated by financilisation.
I accept all your concerns and share them
It is up to us to make a left of centre EU, not walk away
Completely agree with you Simon, for anyone who has the faintest belief in and hope for real democracy we are left with a choice between the devil, the deep blue sea, a rock and a very hard place – all at the same time and there is no choice of anything better coming out of this referendum!
The EU is not democratic, the Eurozone is even less so, but neither is the UK either. So which option is best – clearly none of them but I don’t see that on the ballot paper!
It made me laugh out loud yesterday when Rees-Mogg said he wanted to see “our democracy restored” – i.e. he means the “democracy” that his class of people can rig even more in their favour as opposed to the “democracy” at the EU which other people (usually from the same class as him but those nasty foreign capitalists not good old British ones don’t you know!) can rig in their favour more than he and his old school mates from Eton can.
It is all a political game of football between which capitalists and their bankers will really call the shots for the next few years.
Time for a change in both the EU and the UK. I really don’t care about the referendum as it is not the heart of the problem.
Better to opt to stay in the neo-liberal torture chamber and see if we can somehow tweak the torturers so it doesn’t hurt as much? Maybe we can stop them doing to us what we see they’ve been doing to Greece? Maybe? You reckon?
I don’t know, I can see the arguments for both sides.
But you know what those who say we’re better off staying inside the EU remind me off?
They sound a little too like the privileged elites in the UK colonies post WWII who warned against the dangers of the independence movements as the winds of change started to gain moentumk in the 1950s.
That isn’t meant to be personal, so please don’t take it that way.
I personally don’t know what is the best choice.
I will blog on this in due course
I feel similar to you John but will probably vote to stay in if only for the human rights/employment rights issues – can’t see the EMU surviving for much longer unless fundamental structures change.
Another reason to not vote for a Brexit is that this side of the argument has been taken over by another bunch of neo-liberals with an admixture of xenophobia and racism.
So it’s [partly between a rock and a hard place: neo-liberalism +Xenophobia/neoliberal-financila structures at the ECB.
“Despite the many issues those on the left rightly have against the EU there is no sensible reason for any on the left to vote to support the leave side in this referendum.”
Yes there is. There is a perfectly reasonable left wing eurosceptic position. Once you leave the EU you free up the Bank of England’s Ways and Means account. That’s a 0% overdraft to the state to do what it wants. A full Job guarantee for all. Rated state pensions. Extensive council house building.
Plus we can nationalise railways for a £1 and tear up every PFI contract in the nation.
Corbyn should focus all efforts on 2020 and not worry about the current referendum IMO. Of course we can do little now as the Tories are made from the same cloth as the EU. Maybe we can have *another* referendum if Corbyn comes to power.
The question for those wishing to remain in the EU is why they think we should have to pay millions to capitalists to recover assets that were *stolen* from us. Why we should have to maintain PFI contracts that are closing A&E departments and why we have to continue to pay millions in interest to rich foreigners when we don’t need to.
So it’s really for those who want to remain in the EU to justify the amount of money that *has* to be paid to corporates regardless of what UK government there is under the existing arrangements and the amount of chains that parliament places itself under. All of which prevents it from checking corporations as much as it should be able to if it was on the side of the working people.
David Cameron’s extreme capitalist position to invite a family over here at the whim of some employer, and then then throw them on the scrap heap just because the employer gets bored with them. It’s the worst sort of Victorian tied labour.
PQE is legal and gets round all those issues
And keeps employment protection
True Richard but it doesn’t get us beyond having to go via the dodgy bond ‘market makers’ who syphon off billions off the back of public services-there must be plenty of other ways for businesses/corporations to save without creating an unecessary layer of ‘corporate welfare, in the process. Also, the bond market gives the public the illusion that money comes form the private sector which allows myths to be propagated for the sake of vested interests.
That bond market is essential to the functioning of the pension and banking sectors
If you think we need neither get rid of it
But remember you’ll trash the economy
Richard,
“That bond market is essential to the functioning of the pension (sector)”
The private pension industry is incapable of managing the risk profile of pensions on its own within the private sector. It requires permanent government assistance to do so. The question then is what is the purpose of the private pension industry if it can’t deliver the outcome that is required?
A simple pension savings plan at National Savings, along the lines of the Guaranteed Income Bonds and Indexed Linked Savings Certificates, would solve the problem permanently, would be limited to individuals, and would allow them to manage their risk profile as they approach retirement (they would sell out of risky assets and transfer the money to National Savings).
Since it would be only available to individuals and there is no need to pay middlemen, it is clearly far more efficient than the current Gilt issuing system.
“banking sector”
I have been quite clear of the reforms I feel are needed.
The *only* reason we should pay bankers to do anything is if they can demonstrate the skill of underwriting capital projects against a prospective income stream.
In simple terms this means somebody going into a bank with a proposal that requires a certain amount of money. The bank staff considers whether the prospective income stream proposed to repay that money is adequate to repay the loan and pay the wages and costs of the bank – including a reasonable return to whatever risk capital underpins the bank.
Note that there is no asset collateral involved in this process.
This underwriting process is of great benefit to all of us as it helps to ensure that we all have jobs and output. And that is why the state stands behind the banking business – helping to make sure that the cost of lending is low – in the hope of promoting that process.
The *only* banks we need are the ones that can lend development capital effectively and stick to doing just that. If we are to have private lending banks, then they need to be able to make a decent profit doing development capital lending.
The way I would narrow banks is to offer them an incentive – an unlimited cost free overdraft at the Bank of England. 0% funding costs. In return they must drop all the side businesses and just do capital development lending on an uncollateralised basis – probably in the form of simple overdrafts. In other words they become an agency businesses delivering state money to those that require it.
A capital buffer probably isn’t required here. Losing your lending licence if your underwriting isn’t that good should be sufficient incentive to run a tight ship. Backing off the entire thing to the central bank reduces the barriers to entry in lending – making self-employed, highly dispersed and, importantly, locally focussed underwriters a possibility.
Any lending businesses that doesn’t want to take the oath, then has to fully fund their lending on a maturity matched basis Zopa style. No deposit insurance, no access to the Bank of England, and losses absorbed by those doing the lending. This then becomes the fate of the shadow banking system – the building societies and money funds.
I share your concern on pensions
BUT don’t you realise national savings is just another form of gilt?
And I am sorry – but your view of banking is just wrong. How do we fund mortgages and consumer credit on that basis? And please don’t deny those who need it access to capital
I am willing to be radical
But please, if you want to be radical stick to reality and what is needed because otherwise you’re just not credible
“But remember you’ll trash the economy”
The government can increase spending and cut taxes so the economy isn’t trashed.
I’m sorry, but I prefer to live in the real world and if you think repo and so overnight lending could exist without gilts you are wrong
And I happen to think that for all its faults a functioning banking system, which does pretty much depend on overnight lending, is of use
So let’s not go down the Positive Money route, because that’s where fairies are to be found
“And I happen to think that for all its faults a functioning banking system, which does pretty much depend on overnight lending, is of use”
Overnight lending could easily be replaced with permanent overdrafts at the Central bank. That is the MMT proposal, which also gives the central bank – by virtue of its stake in the banks – increased regulatory control. It’s not the same as Positive Money.
Prior to the financial collapse overnight lending between banks was collateral free. And now it requires collateral. Why? Because the banks suddenly don’t trust each other. That’s a completely unnecessary risk cost that has been inserted by the banks.
One of the functions of a central bank is to eliminate that risk. So simply disintermediate the interbank market. It serves no purpose anyway.
Buy that requires nationalisation in effect
Is that what you are saying?
I am very disappointed with the EU. The political project has been a success; but the economic project is a complete and utter disaster.
I too would rather stay – but with gritted teeth I assure you.
I share those gritted teeth
I hate what the ECB does, for example
It has become a disaster following the Financial crisis but the reason is the architecture of the euro being designed by bankers and the commission has been captured by corporate interests. I don’t see it as a clash of nationalities -them and us. There are new and growing forces on the Continent that reject the neo-liberal approach. We should ally ourselves with them across national boundaries; not destroy the EU. That would encourage the growth of reactionary nationalistic forces.
I’ve been convinced for a while now that our position in Europe has benefitted the Tories in a similar way that the presence of the Lib Dems did in the Coallition.
One of the reasons why they remain electable is that they’re restrained from imposing their more destructive neoliberal fantasies on us. Let off the leash I think their rapaciousness would become very much more obvious.
The worry, of course, would be that the damage caused would be terminal, but set against an EU of increasingly captured-bought-and-paid-for regulation, secret TTIP negotiations and relentless, self-destructive austerity, I’m still very much undecided.
Rees-Mogg has cultivated an effective and efficient pantomime villain persona which helps to produce more fog than light.
The key point about any legislation, including employment rights, is their effective implementation and people like Rees-Mogg paint a deliberately false caricature where, if it existed as stated by such people, they would not be sitting in TV studios pretending to get upset, they would be surreptitiously sounding out retired Brigadier’s in the home counties in a rerun of what was happening when Wilson was PM in the 70’s. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Take one aspect such as the Working Time Directive as an example. The picture painted is one in which the EC through its institutional processes writes and passes legislation which is then adopted, as written, verbatim into the national state law of member states and subsequently, again as written, verbatim into the processes of all companies and employers within the jurisdiction of the member state. From there the letter and spirit of that law, as written, is then applied.
The reality is more nuanced and subtle because, as the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance notes, there is a very sharp knife at work here. So sharp you do not see it at work.
In many cases the process of transfer and application of legislation written at EC level into national member state law and into the processes of employers is very much like Chinese whispers. What starts off as “send reinforcements, we’re going to advance” often turns into “send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance.”
In reality the EC legislation does not get adopted verbatim as written. It’s passage through a member state Parliament introduces subtle interpretations and changes of emphasis, which is what you would expect from lawyers if you stop and think about it. The next step of writing what is eventually adopted as national member state law into the processes of individual employers and groups of employers undergoes a similar process. The point being that what you end up with is not always what you started with.
It is possible to see this if one compares the original with the member state interpretation and the company processes, as I once did with what is referred to as the EC Six Pack Health and Safety legislation.
For sure, their will be degrees of non congruence depending on which member state one might choose to look at. A member state which has, shall we say, always been reluctant to fully commit and join in and which is always complaining about the rules, structure and processes of the club will, like as not, tend to try and water down to the point of effective meaninglessness anything it does not like.
And the issue of effective implementation has not yet been considered; there being many existing laws which are honoured more in the breach as it were. And employment law is no different. If it were as people like Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail et al pretend to whinge about there would certainly be more congruence in the actual practice and outcomes of EC employment legislation between member states than currently exist on the ground. One only has to compare hours worked between the UK and say France or Germany to see this is so.
As it is, the Working Time Directive has been diluted away from its original purpose in a number of ways, including the so called “right” of employees to opt out. Having administered this process for a period in my own employment the falsity of the picture painted by the Rees-Mogg’s of this world is obvious. Opt outs, averages, movement or fixture of time boundaries etc etc mean that the room for manoeuvre enjoyed by employers is a lot greater than those like Rees-Mogg like to pretend.
Which is why one of my household, on a zero hours contract, left the house in my car at 10:00 am the other day to a pick up point and with a number of co-workers, one of whom had to do the driving in a company vehicle, travelled sixty odd miles to York, finished at just before 05:00 am the following morning, travelled back, and did not get home until 06:30 am and was back out of the house for 14:00 hours for another shift in Derby returning at 01:30 am this morning. This is unlikely to be anywhere near the worst example in everyday practice of the dilution of EC employment legislation.
What is of concern here is that things are so desperate in the UK that there appears to be a tendancy to view membership of the EC as some kind of brake on the madness. There may or may not be some within Greek society who might well take issue with such a rosy clinging to any lifeboat in site view. The point being fires and frying pans spring to mind.
Whatever issue is brought up in any forum in the coming EC in/out referendum debate a realistic and convincing story and narrative has to be slammed on the table in plain view as to why remaining in an EC which is likely to adopt the investor protection protocols of the TTIP, with the secret courts filled with corporate lawyers, lobbyists and final arbiters, will offer any kind of protection whatsoever to employment and other rights.
Because you can safely bet whatever money you have left in your pocket that a UK which, whilst being a current member of the EC; pursues sweetheart tax deals with global corporates; and which, regardless of political party, will bail out too big to fail banks and ensure no effective regulation of said banks to keep them headquartered here; and will water down and dilute EC employment protection legislation (the recent historical record showing once again regardless of political party), will move in the opposite direction on these TTIP provisions when it comes to employment and other similar social legislation.
That is, rather than dilute TTIP as has been the case with employment and other similar social legislation coming from the EC, those like Rees-Mogg will seek to extend it even further and ensure more effective implementation and adherence to every dot and comma than has been the case with the Working Time Directive and similar. If a convincing and workable narrative cannot be be argued that continuing membership of the EC will not produce such a result than the argument for staying in is just pissing into the wind.
The obvious counter argument to that is that the same or similar (and I would genuinelly like to hear a narrative that is worse) will occur if the UK leaves the EC. Because that is the point, the Rees-Moggs of this world have an each way bet here in which they cannot lose. It’s all smoke and mirrors in which, as with New Labour and the Orange Book Lib Dems all the allowed bases and so called (ersatz) choices are covered and there really needs to be a plan C.
You are right Dave-neo-liberalism has all the exit tunnels covered result: Almost HObson’s Choice.
I thought this Indie letter summed it up quite well:
David Cameron says the world would be a more dangerous place if Britain voted to leave the European Union. When we remember that the referendum was Cameron’s idea in the first place, and that he came up with the notion because of pressure and agitation within his own party, it follows that the Tory party itself is an existential threat to the peace and stability of the British nation.
What does Cameron propose to do about this threat?
Martin London
Henllan, Denbighshire
🙂
Well spotted, Carol. Excellent stuff.
But as we hit late afternoon on Thursday I think it obvious that Cameron is not going to get the deal he needs – though No.10 PR will be spinning like crazy that he has, whatever the outcome – and consequently there will be open warfare in the Tory party by next Monday. And the briefing and counter briefing over the weekend may well be vicious.
Could make splits in Labour look like matters of some insignificance
And I can’t see the wounds healing
Not for a very long time
We won’t leave the EU. Even if we officially cease to be part of it, we will still have to have formal treaties (which will take years) or join another organisation which already has agreements, such as EFTA. In which case freedom of movement will still exist (one door closes, another opens: Business as usual).
As for TTIP….that is not an EU/USA agreement, it is a transatlantic trade agreement, and will be signed-off either by the EU and apply to all states, or by the EU and UK separately. Either way, sign or no business. (I should care)
In all these there is one central problem: The instigators are not elected and not accountable. A problem that is only going to get larger. The elephant in the corner is getting bigger.
Precisely why there is a need for a plan/option C along with the need for some serious consideration as to:
a) Whether or not one of the two options currently on the table (in/out) offers more wriggle room for escaping the neo liberal straitjacket than the other?
and
b) If so, which one is it?
In: We carry-on as usual
Out: We carry on as usual after a small delay.
Totally out with no treaties/agreements we pay import duties to our export buyers country, or to the EU.
Of course, the usual villains are busy saying “no working time directive, we can work what we want/force them to work what we want them to”
In the genuine world of work, most have signed the “opt-out”.
Even if they have not, they still do not have to work only 48 max. Since holidays are not counted, they can go up to 54 max. And that’s averaged over 17 weeks. By agreement it can be averaged over 52 weeks. Night workers have no opt-out. their work time is 48 per week (no more than 8hrs average in a 24 hour period)….but creative shifts can mess about with that (the NHS is good at creativity).
The average working time for UK workers is 43.6 hours per week…..hmmm
So if I worked for 8 weeks at 40 hours per week, with no opt-out, I could do the next 9 weeks at 55 hours a week…ain’t life hard. And, of course, since the enforcing agency is the de-staffed HSE there are very few prosecutions. If any. In any case, the only hours recorded are those of the ones who fail to opt-out !
That’s probably as accurate a description of how the WTD is actually operated in practice within the British State as it’s possible to get.
However, I have to conceed that at present I’m struggling to convince myself of the merits of the case that there is more wriggle room inside in the current context.
The concern, as I understand it, with a failure by Cameron to get what he wants out of renegotiating the deal is that this may well trip a refurendum result into a British State exit from the EU. The flip side of this concern is that the chances of the British State staying in by winning a refurendum are increased by a successful negotiation, whatever the definition of success might be and for a given value of success.
And this is where you start to encounter real problems. Apart from the issue on the front pages of the fifth column which still pretends it is the fourth estate about stopping benefits for EC member state nationals (which is so small a number as to be not worth the fuss) Cameron’s real big issue in these negotiations is prevention of regulation of banking and finance where he wants a veto for the British State in an area in which at present has qualified majority voting.
I’m not entirely sure as to how such a veto actually operates in terms of it applying EC wide or just simply an effective opt out for the British State at the behest of the City of London Casino. Either way a “success” on this point would mean no effective regulation of parasitic banking and finance operations in at the very least the geographical space that makes up the British State, if not EU wide. Operations which apparently tie up some 70% of all existing money in derivatives.
As a consequence, in terms of employment rights, environmental protection, health and safety, banking and finance regulation, social security etc it’s difficult to see what all the fuss is about because the outcomes effectively look the same for both options.
The argument and debate seems totally to boil down to a single wafer thin thread about wriggle room, which I guess a great number of people in member states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would probably have little patience for given their efforts to find some of this legendary and fabled wriggle room have produced little, if anything, in the way of tangible results.
Frying pan or fire is not a reasonable set of options bearing in mind the observation that all progress depends on people being unreasonable.
Although, it must be said, the sheeple of the UK would only notice the elephant if it defecated on their sofa during corrie/’stenders/etc.
I blame the supine, treacherous, tax-avoiding, billionaire, foreign-residing owned press…
John,
That is fine, as far as it goes. However, I suggest that people are, rightfully, angry about the lack of ability to implement needed change. Most people I know are furious about how low they are taxed and have no, credible, avenue in which they can, justfiably, contribute more, even on a voluntary basis.
James
Three years ago, my brother and I visited our grandfather’s grave in Pond Farm Cemetery in Belgium. For the first two years of my life I spent most nights sleeping in an air raid shelter while Belfast was bombed flat.
When people argue that the bomb has kept the peace for the last 50 years, I suspect it has a lot more to do with the European Union, for all its faults.
When flag-wavers argue about loss of sovereignty, how do they expect to live in a continent of 40 countries without compromise or bowing to the wishes of others.
The EU benefit is, indeed, peace
All these points have credence, but is it not also true that if we remain in the EU, our General Elections will become even more piontless as we are ceeding more and more control to greater numbers of others.
And I would go as far to suggest that increasingly it will not be the international conflicts that will concern, it will more likely be national ones brought about through complete lack of representation.
OK Rees Mogg is not everones cup of tea (he’s certainly not mine) but at a national level he can be removed.
Agree with most of the doubters on here – particularly John’s “better to opt to stay in the neo-liberal torture chamber and see if we can somehow tweak the torturers so it doesn’t hurt as much.”
But I think in the end EU membership has to be looked at on an emotional basis. We know that two world wars started in Europe, so it should be better to have more European talking-shops rather than fewer.
And if Britain’s exit ended up as the precursor to a more widespread breakup of the EU, I think that, from a Britain looking on from the sidelines, any rejoicing would be rather limited.
I really don’t believe that the existence of the EU has prevented a war in Europe anymore than nuclear weapons kept the Cold War cold. Where are the latent conflicts within the EU obscured by the conflagrations raging in the Middle East and North Africa? Isn’t the EU tied with Nato playing a most dangerous game in Ukraine? It may be true that mutually advantageous trade keeps the peace, but we would be trading without the EU. I think that this pudding has been over-egged.
Is Rees-Mogg not the embodiment of a High-Tory new-feudalist :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory
Always mention 1792 France to such types.
A farce is being played out before the electorate. Does Cameron really think we are stupid enough to believe that he’ll win worthwhile concessions from Europe?
I’m afraid to say that Nigel Farage is correct in his assessment!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645557/Nigel-Farage-compares-chicken-David-Cameron-Oliver-Twist-PM-shameful-EU-deal