Home » Posts tagged 'EU referendum'
Tag Archives: EU referendum
Freedom of Movement – I
“People voted”, declared a Tory MP during one of the interminable Brexit debates recently, “to end uncontrolled immigration” from the EU. Some people may have done, but if they did, what they were voting to end was nothing more than a figment of, say, Nigel Farage’s imagination. Freedom of movement within the EU was never uncontrolled. But slogans can become powerful tools. We need, said the various Leave campaigns – and later, after a rapid conversion, Theresa May – to “take back control of our borders”. The truth is that we never lost control of them.
The European Parliament’s Fact Sheet on the freedom of movement of workers certainly confirms that “every EU citizen has the right to reside in the territory of another EU country with no conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport.”[1] But that’s only for the first three months. After that, the country to which the EU citizen has moved has the right to take control: the host member state has the right to “require a citizen to register his or her presence within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.”[2] Then the rules get tougher, as, “for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance.”[3] Moreover, EU citizens have no right of permanent residence in another EU country until they have completed “five years of uninterrupted legal residence”.[4]
But can’t they come and live off “our benefits” for as long as they like? No. Indeed, the European Court of Justice
recently rejected the right to benefits of an inactive EU citizen who had entered the host Member State solely for the purpose of claiming benefits (Case C-333/13 Dano): it held that the right to equal treatment, which would include access to benefits, presupposes legal residence … which the claimant did not have owing to a lack of sufficient financial means.[5]
One puzzled writer to The Guardian’s Letters page in 2017, Paul Whitaker, summed up the situation:
Since 2004, European Union law has allowed governments to control movements of European citizens as follows: allow EU citizens to freely circulate only for three months and then require them (should they want to stay longer) to show they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have sufficient resources (pension, savings) to support themselves and comprehensive sickness insurance, e.g. a valid European health insurance card enabling the NHS to claim back the cost of treatment or have private health insurance. The UK is one of the few governments that has not implemented this.[6]
He then asks a pertinent question:
For six years, Theresa May was in charge of the Home Office responsible for immigration, yet did nothing to adopt these conditions. One wonders why not and why immigration was allowed to dominate the referendum and is still being paraded as a big problem. Yet another failure of our own government and the Home Office under Theresa May is being blamed on the EU. The remedy was always in the UK’s hands.[7]
But Paul Whitaker hasn’t quite got it right here at the end. For surely there was nothing to remedy, since freedom of movement was doing a lot of good to this host member state. Growing numbers of its citizens were also making the journey in the opposite direction, taking up opportunities to work or retire in other EU countries. What’s to remedy? But then came the riot of fantasy that was the EU referendum, and the panic that followed.
[1] European Parliament Fact Sheet, “Free Movement of Workers: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “EU rules already offer a solution on freedom of movement”, Letters, The Guardian, 8 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/08/eu-rules-already-offer-a-solution-on-freedom-of-movement
[7] Ibid.
From tee-shirt to suit and tie – but is it worth all this air time?
Am I alone in being unimpressed? So salespeople and advertisers and propagandists try to hoodwink us into buying their goods, voting for their candidates and their programmes, and donating to their bogus charities. In the 1960s, I read a book about all that called The Hidden Persuaders by, I think, somebody called Vance Packard. He explained the tricks, the psychological ploys, the whole lot. Sixty years on and they’re still at it. The tricks are trickier, I suppose, and more pervasive, but the insulting assumption is the same: we are infinitely manipulable, we easily fall for their tricks, they can read our minds and control our behaviour, make us buy what we don’t really want, get us to vote in the way they want us to, persuade us that our refugee next-door neighbours are a threat to our way of life, and that our disabled neighbours are getting benefits under false pretences. They make fat profits and accumulate power out of this stuff.
One claim that annoys me is the idea that, because of Cambridge Analytica’s trickery, we ought to revisit the EU referendum result because millions of people were hoodwinked into believing clever lies so we didn’t know what we were doing when we cast our vote (I voted Remain, by the way). The argument reminded me of a member of my local Constituency Labour Party who argued in a meeting after Corbyn had won the 2015 leadership election that we needed another one because, after the 2015 general election defeat, we had been traumatised and we – yes – didn’t know what we were doing. I had only just rejoined the party at that point and I wondered if this low level of argument was all I should expect from the Labour Party. To my relief it wasn’t. Anyway, this particular member got his wish. Unfortunately for him, when Corbyn was forced to face a second election in 2016 he won even better.
Another example: Tony Benn liked to point out that people didn’t always fall for the politics of the Tory tabloid newspapers. At one election (I forget which), he said The Sun newspaper sent all the details about him to a psychiatrist in America for examination (an attempt at psychological profiling, I suppose). The results came back and they published them on election day: the front-page headline shouted, “Benn is stark, staring bonkers – official!” “When the results came in the next day,” said Benn, “I found I had increased my majority! So, you see, people don’t necessarily …”
Anyway, I’ve had my gripe. I see that the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica story is turning into a soap opera: An over-excited Kylie Morris announced to Channel 4 News viewers tonight, as Zuckerberg sat in Congress waiting for his grilling: “Mark Zuckerberg is pouring himself a glass of water.” Talk about blow by blow. But Jon Snow went just a little bit too far, signing off with the words, “On this momentous day in Washington, that’s Channel 4 News”! Could he really mean these hearings? Earlier the FBI had raided Trump’s lawyer’s offices and home. People had hinted earlier that that could be momentous, but C4News peremptorily cut short an interview on that after about 30 seconds, and with no apology. Why? In order to cut seamlessly back to Congress and Mark’s now-half-empty glass of water. For the boy had begun to speak. What could be more momentous than that?
Conflicting objectives?
Alan Johnson, my local MP, who ran Labour’s Remain campaign, blames Jeremy Corbyn for the Brexit vote. He says that Jeremy, or his “office”, “worked against the rest of the Party”, had “conflicting objectives” and had “undermined” the campaign. He offers no evidence. I replied on the Hull Daily Mail’s website today as follows:
“It would be useful to hear some analysis of the way the media marginalised the Labour case for staying. Jeremy was ignored by the mainstream media most of the time, as was Alan Johnson. Just the odd clip or specific comment, almost never a whole speech or extended quotes from their speeches. While the Boris Johnson/Gove v. Cameron show got full coverage, as did Farage’s every move. So the impression was that Labour wasn’t saying much, or was ‘lacklustre’. As for Jeremy’s office ‘working against the rest of the Party’, having ‘conflicting objectives’ and seeking to ‘undermine’ the campaign, you need to give examples, Alan, and say how, why and who. The consequences of just making and repeating accusations are disastrous. Especially when they make no sense.”
Here’s the original article:
On the eve of a referendum …
Several friends have told me that they are voting Remain in the EU referendum – but with a heavy heart.
I’m voting Remain too, in spite of France tear-gassing protesting workers who are resisting their government’s, and the EU’s, plans to ditch their rights (Jeremy, don’t imagine the EU is on your side here) and tear-gassing (again by France) of refugees in Calais (ditto, Jeremy) and its refusal to allow aid through to Calais. I’m voting Remain because I don’t want Johnsonism and Goveism to have the whip hand in government and I also want to save Jeremy from the Blairites and the assorted Gawd-knows-whatites waiting to get rid of him if there’s a No vote. It’s not the right time to vote Leave.
If we get a Labour government committed to rolling back NHS privatisation, rejecting TTIP, bringing the rail network and the energy companies into public ownership, restoring the trade union rights that have been eroded since Thatcher and getting rid, amongst other noxious things, of zero-hour contracts, that would be several major steps forward. A Corbyn-led government could do that, and it could reaffirm the principles of the Refugee Convention rather than bolster the profits of the tear-gas manufacturers. The EU would certainly oppose such a Labour programme, since much of it would break EU rules, laws and protocols. Then we could oppose the EU, and then, if change proves impossible, vote to leave – and defend policies worth defending.
Will any of that happen?
Don’t know.
But if we vote Leave now, we are playing into the hands of the Right, including the very nasty Right.
EU 2: You will be voting against migrants whichever way you vote
How to vote in the referendum if you support a humane response to the current migration crisis? Many in the No camp sound like they just want to “secure our borders” and keep the migrants out. But if we want a humane response what do we do?
In 2014, when rickety boats filled with people fleeing war and persecution began to sink, dragging their passengers to the bottom of the Mediterranean, or their bodies got washed up on the nearest shore, there were some who shouted, “Close the borders”. The Tory-led coalition (really the Tories dragging the pathetic so-called Liberal Democrats behind them) said, in effect, “Let them drown” and withdrew its support for the Italian-led rescue operations. Under pressure after this common Tory gut reaction Cameron said they would take in a tiny number of refugees – but not from the Mediterranean. They would take them from the refugee camps in Lebanon and elsewhere. Because, you see, people contemplating a journey across the Mediterranean had to learn a lesson: “Don’t set out in the first place.” So when, predictably, the drowning continued, presumably the Tories thought, “Don’t come whining to us – it’s your own fault.” By April 2015 there were fifteen times more deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean that year than in the whole of 2014.
More recently, during the crisis in Calais, in the camp called “the Jungle”, Cameron seems to have been forced (through actual or threatened legal action in the courts) to concede that at least some children there, with family in the UK, have the right to come here. But he’s done bugger all about it and most of them are still in Calais.
It’s arguable that if we vote to leave the EU we will be turning our backs on desperate people and putting their fate in the hands of a politician (whether Cameron or Boris Johnson) who would let migrants drown, let them rot in the garbage of Calais or send them packing back to where they came from.
So what would we be doing if we voted to stay in the EU? Other EU states seemed at first to be different. Germany took large numbers of refugees and there was talk of sharing responsibility across the EU states. But many were reluctant from the start, they couldn’t agree how this might be done and they began to squabble amongst themselves. So there was deadlock and some of them began to close their borders – those borders which, under the Schengen Convention, were the pride and joy of the EU, open borders within the Union. Another cry went up: “Schengen is finished.”
For those who don’t like the EU because they don’t like foreigners this is good news. For them the EU is finished, and good riddance. For those who hoped that the EU would provide a humanitarian solution it is bad news. So how to vote? Jeremy Corbyn is still optimistic as, on behalf of the Labour Party, he argues to vote Yes to the EU:
“‘There has to be an agreement all across Europe that [the EU states] all take a proportion of [the refugees],’ he said. ‘The problem is that the degree of inward-looking politics that’s going on has meant that Greece is making a huge effort, Italy is making a huge effort and Germany is making a huge effort. Every other country is putting barbed wire entanglements along their borders to keep desperate people out … Surely in the 21st century the least we can do is reach out and try to help these people in some way; by the political solution in Syria; by the support for what the Greek government is trying to do and take a proportion all across Europe.’”[1]
That, presumably, would be the policy if there was a Labour government. But yesterday the French began to bulldoze the people in Calais out of their makeshift homes. The French had originally said that the process of moving people would be done by gentle persuasion over many weeks, not with force or violence, not with bulldozers. The French Minister of the Interior spelt this out only last week: the government’s plan, he said, was not “to carry out a brutal evacuation of the camp by using bulldozers, this is not how we operate.” But yesterday the bulldozers appeared and the destruction began.
On Channel 4 News last night Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked Sylvie Bermann, the French ambassador to the UK: “Why did you say ‘no bulldozers’ and then use them?”
Bermann: I think we are using bulldozers to clear the camp, not to force all these migrants to go.
Guru-Murthy: But you said you wouldn’t.
Bermann: Well, our ministers said we wouldn’t force people to go, but at the same time what I cannot understand is – well, your reporter said it was filthy, stinking conditions. So how could you consider it better to live in these squalid conditions than to be relocated in accommodations [sic] where you have water, heating, electricity?
Guru-Murthy: But you don’t have enough space. There are thousands living there and there aren’t enough spaces in the shipping containers. They’re not flats, are they, they’re shipping containers, where you’re suggesting they go and live in?
Bermann: They are temporary accommodations, that’s true, but some of them will be relocated in other camps in France.
Guru-Murthy: Can you guarantee every one of them a comfortable roof over their heads?
Bermann: They will be relocated, but conditions will be far much better [sic] than it was in the Jungle.[2]
At the end of all this ducking and diving, there was no answer to the question, “Why use bulldozers when you said ‘no bulldozers’?” But then Sylvie is a diplomat.
So referendum voters who want a humanitarian solution to the migration crisis aren’t going to get one, in or out of the EU. The Tories will close the UK’s borders either way; the EU states will do the same; and France, our nearest neighbour, will bring out the bulldozers at the drop of a hat despite its much-vaunted pride in being the home of human rights.
How to vote? With some difficulty.
[1] The Guardian, 29 February 2016.
[2] Channel 4 News, 29 February 2016.
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
Bob Mouncer's blog 