EU 1: Thinking aloud about some of the questions: workers’ rights
I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote in the EU referendum. If I vote to leave I will be joining a ramshackle bunch of characters including Michael Gove, Nigel Farage and George Galloway. Shouting with them from the sidelines, as Andrew Raunsley points out in today’s Observer (see link (1) below), are Marine le Pen and Vladimir Putin. And if the No camp wins we might even end up with Boris Johnson as prime minister.
All that is nearly enough to send me into the Yes camp!
But I’m also horrified by the supporters of continued membership who, one way or another, have got us where we are today. Raunsley’s list includes
“the chancellor, foreign secretary and home secretary, most of the rest of the cabinet, the great majority of senior figures from the opposition parties, the bulk of big business and the trade unions, the governor of the Bank of England, the president of the United States and the leader of every European country that anyone might conceivably have heard of.”
That’s almost enough to send me into the No camp!
However, it’s not about lists of clowns, bankers, politicians, or other Very Important People. It is, as Tony Benn always insisted, about “the issues”. Take, for instance, the question of workers’ rights. Would it be better for workers’ rights if we stayed in or if we left?
Let me suggest one argument for staying in. Many unions are saying that workers’ rights will be better protected if we stay in. But I notice the biggest French union, the CGT, says that the latest “reforms” of the Code du Travail announced by the French government will take France back to the 19th century (see link (2) below). And this in a France firmly entrenched in the EU. This game of “reforms” is the game all governments want to play, and no country’s workers are safe, and this suggests that there are no automatic guarantees of workers’ rights in the EU and that whether we’re in or out we’ll have to defend the rights we fought for. M. Martinez is calling on French trade unionists to do that now in France. So the argument for staying in to protect workers’ rights doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong one.
Unless, of course, we add M. Martinez’s element of workers taking action to defend their rights. Then, if we stayed in, it would be easier to join them and any others across the EU doing the same. Wouldn’t Brexit leave British workers weaker against Cameron, and other workers in Europe weaker against their own governments? I think solidarity is better than isolation. And perhaps solidarity across the EU could change it to the advantage of workers beyond the wildest dreams that Cameron has of changing it to the advantage of his rich, arrogant, corporate buddies.
That’s my first thought, anyway. More to come as the campaigning goes on.
(1) Andrew Raunsley’s article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/eu-refendum-tory-party-uk-at-stake
(2) Article in Libération: http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/02/19/martinez-le-nouveau-code-du-travail-un-retour-au-xixe-siecle_1434633
On responsibility
David Cameron clearly can’t break the habit of a lifetime: he’s going to play the race card again. He seems to have set in motion a nice little scare story. An agreement made some years ago between the UK and France allows UK border control officials to police the borders between France and the UK on the French side in order to stop asylum seekers from ever arriving on British soil. This is a local version of the wider system of Airport Liaison Officers (ALOs) who since the 1990s have been sent to a number of what are called “refugee-producing countries” – that is, persecuting countries – in order to help them stop their terrified citizens from fleeing their borders and applying for asylum here.
Now Cameron is suggesting that if the EU referendum results in the UK leaving the EU France may renege on that agreement, resulting in uncontrolled migration to our shores and migrant camps on the beach at Dover instead of Calais. So the message is vote to stay in the EU and we’ll keep the barbarians out.
Well, I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote. But however I vote it won’t be based on some imagined need to keep refugees out. This refugee crisis, perhaps more than any other, is of our own making. “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war”, said Churchill (of all people!). But the US chose war in Afghanistan as revenge for the Twin Towers and to get rid of the Taliban and al-Quaida. It failed and, with our help, left the country in a mess with the Taliban still alive and kicking today; we chose war in Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction which we knew it didn’t have, left it hopelessly divided and paved the way for the rise of ISIS. We intervened in Libya to save it from Gaddafi and, yes, you’ve guessed it, left it in a mess – arguably, as in the case of Iraq, in a worse mess than it was in under the regime we were so eager to get rid of. Now we’ve agreed to join the airstrikes in Syria, and there’s talk of further military action in Libya (its “peace talks”, like those on Syria, having broken down). All of these interventions have produced innocent victims and, despite claims of “smart bombs” (not again, please), there will be more innocent victims. All these interventions have produced refugees and will continue to do so.
So I’m for the UK taking responsibility for the refugees it has helped to create, in line with its obligations under the Refugee Convention which it has signed. I’m for peace talks, diplomacy, all sorts of jaw-jaw. Whether we are in the EU or out, I’m against Airport Liaison Officers or anybody else preventing people fleeing unmentionable horrors from finding shelter here. And if the EU states are incapable of finding ways to share responsibility for refugees among themselves, perhaps the club is not worth belonging to after all.
I don’t like ending on what feels like a negative note, but it’s all I can manage tonight. Here’s the Cameron story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35519210
Bob Mouncer's blog 