BNP vs. no2eu in Carlisle (literally)

[Holden Caulfield]

No2EU:Yes to Democracy supporters clashed on saturday with members of the BNP in Carlisle as they were out campaigning for for RMT-backed left-wing coalition which is contesting seats across the UK in next months Euro elections on June 4.

Police were called after the BNP reacted with hostility to No2EU campaigners handing out leaflets in close proximity to the regular BNP street stall in Carlisle . In an hour long standoff RMT/No2EU campaigners refused to be moved on by the BNP.

Shoppers told the No2 EU campaigners that they were delighted that at last someone had had the courage to stand up to the BNP on the streets of Carlisle .

ASLEF activist and No2EU candidate John Metcalfe said:

"The BNP have been leafletting Carlisle City Centre for months and obviously didn't take kindly to being exposed for the fascists that they are by our campaign. They were openly agressive and hostile and it didn't take long before the mask slipped and they started shouting fascist slogans."

Craig Johnson, from the RMT Executive and another member of the No2EU slate, added:

"I have lived and worked in and loved the city of Carlisle for 45 years. No one is going to intimidate and harass me off the streets of my home town."

Bob Crow, RMT general secretary and convenor of No2EU, said:

"RMT members and No2EU supporters will not bow to intimidation from the BNP in Carlisle or anywhere else in the country. What today's incident proves is that the BNP are worried about the socialist message of No2EU and it's appeal to voters who are sick of the political elite in the UK and in the EU. No2EU is the only left-wing group challenging the BNP on the streets for the votes of the angry and the disaffected on June 4th.

"We will be stepping up our campaign in the coming weeks and offering voters a socialist alternative to the poison and hatred of the far right," he said.

--------------------------
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v3750/122/86/870925516/a870925516_6656041_7725934.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6656041&op=1&view=all&subj=81637191508&aid=-1&oid=81637191508&id=870925516)

[Pogue]

Good to see they didnt back down to the fascist thugs. I hope this group wipes the floor with the BNP.

[Holden Caulfield]

Good to see they didnt back down to the fascist thugs. I hope this group wipes the floor with the BNP.

Dreaming big is always a good thing, but we must face facts, we will not 'wipe the floor' with the BNP, the BNP are a well funded and established party who get thousands of pounds worth of free publicity, where as no2eu are not.

It is a stride in the right direction, but we must remember to keep our feet on the ground so as not to create dillusions about the campaign.

[Devrim]

Ironically the BNP are also opposed to the EU:


EUROPE - back to British independence! We are opposed to the Single European Currency, and support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.
At the same time, we are for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours and believe that the nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial, though without being forced into a political and economic straitjacket - political unification.
Accordingly, we stand for British withdrawal from the European Union. In place of the EU, we intend to aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and to work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.
Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.


Devrim

[Pogue]

Dreaming big is always a good thing, but we must face facts, we will not 'wipe the floor' with the BNP, the BNP are a well funded and established party who get thousands of pounds worth of free publicity, where as no2eu are not.

It is a stride in the right direction, but we must remember to keep our feet on the ground so as not to create dillusions about the campaign.

yeh sure. I'm not into electoralism anyway but I hope you guys manage to do them some damage and raise the profile of left wing alternatives to the BNP.

[Pogue]

Ironically the BNP are also opposed to the EU:



Devrim

Yeh, thats the point. Its not really that suprising and its why a left wing anti-EU group needs to be present when looking at this election.

[Holden Caulfield]

Ironically the BNP are also opposed to the EU:



Devrim

Because they are nationalists and opportunists is why, we reject the EU as it takes power even further away from the workers and assaults the work of unions with legal weapons such as charges of 'hampering trade' and such lark.

anybody who has studied the EU (something i have had the misfortune of doing this year) can see it is a barrier to the class struggle, and the struggle for workers rights.

[Devrim]

Because they are nationalists and opportunists is why
I hardly think that you can accuse nationalists of being opportunists for having nationalist politics.


we reject the EU as it takes power even further away from the workers
Is this as opposed to a pre-EU Britain where the working class was in power?
What does 'further away' mean in this context? I tsounds like the worse sort of hippy anarchism.
Isn't the really question not how 'far away' or 'near', whatever these words mean in this context, power is to the working class but which class is in power?

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

Is this as opposed to a pre-EU Britain where the working class was in power?
What does 'further away' mean in this context? I tsounds like the worse sort of hippy anarchism.
Isn't the really question not how 'far away' or 'near', whatever these words mean in this context, power is to the working class but which class is in power?

No of course not, but the working class fought hard for gains in the work place such as a union agreed minumum wage, in the EU this is not legally binding as to place this universally would be 'hampering trade'.
The EU forces IMF economies on states, is a tool for forcing free trade and neo-liberalism.
The EU was agreed on by the national governments, as it strengthens thier class control, this is the reason the main capitalist powers support it, and this is why we oppose it.

[Forward Union]

Is this as opposed to a pre-EU Britain where the working class was in power?


No but it's much harder for workers to pressure concessions from a government based n Brussels. So effectively you could say the workers have more leaverage when the UK is/was sovereign.

[Devrim]

Holden, you didn't answer my questions.


No of course not, but the working class fought hard for gains in the work place such as a union agreed minumum wage, in the EU this is not legally binding as to place this universally would be 'hampering trade'.
The working class keeps or loses it 'gains' through class struggle. Things that are enshrined in legislation can be overturned as easy as things that are not.


The EU forces IMF economies on states, is a tool for forcing free trade and neo-liberalism.
I am not sure what you mean by 'IMF economies', but what it sounds like here is that the evil EU is forcing 'something' onto these poor little independent states. In reality the EU is a creation of the states and a method for the ruling class to consolidate its power.


The EU was agreed on by the national governments, as it strengthens thier class control, this is the reason the main capitalist powers support it, and this is why we oppose it.

But you are opposing it with to the very national governments that are a part of it.


No but it's much harder for workers to pressure concessions from a government based n Brussels. So effectively you could say the workers have more leaverage when the UK is/was sovereign.

The logical extension of this position is to argue for further decentralisation, a 'Europe of a hundred flags'. Where have we heard that before?

Fortunately in reality your argument doesn't apply.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm sorry if my points were disperate or not well made but you said yourself:


In reality the EU is a creation of the states and a method for the ruling class to consolidate its power.


therefore removing this is a positive step for the working class who are struggling for their rights and for power.

The EU is not some evil overlord that capitalist press offices and politicans make out, it is made and governed by the capitalist states themselves, and its role is to remove the organs of control out of the reach of most working movments, EU laws hinder union activity, EU laws strengthen capitalist systems.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The EU is not some evil overlord that capitalist press offices and politicans make out, it is made and governed by the capitalist states themselves

True.

Why then does NO2EU say that “Nation states … and their governments are the only institutions that can control the movement of big capital and clip the wings of the trans-national corporations and banks.”

I always thought we called on the working class to initiate this?

I just don't get SPEW involvement with this, it's a wholly Stalinist initiative.

- Reformist
- Nationalist
- Isolationist
- Protectionist

It makes me laugh that NO2EU call the EU undemocratic. The whole project was pushed through the back door of the RMT and thrown upon SPEW and CPB grassroots members. There was absolutely no consultation with RMT members about this and initiation meetings where by 'invitation only'

I can't for the life of me fathom why Stalinists have managed to gather some tailing Trotskysts. :closedeyes:

[Holden Caulfield]

We say...


Reject the Lisbon Treaty (the Lisbon Treaty means that national governments will make it even harder for working class iniatives to affect politics)
No to EU directives that privatise our public services (The EU issues a decree stating all states should 'liberalise' industry and remove services from the public sector
Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain (pretty obvious)<
Repeal anti-trade union ECJ rulings and EU rules promoting social dumping (pretty obvious)<
No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people (We want a socialist Europe, not a Europe where one section of the working class is used to undermine another, or where one is used to opress another)<
No to EU militarisation (The Lisbon Treaty ensures NATO dominance of Europe, and wishes to create an imperialist european army)
Repatriate democratic powers to EU member states (This is by no means perfect, democracy before EU wasn't what we wanted but both myself and FU have adressed this point before)
Replace unequal EU trade deals with fair trade that benefits developing nations (Stop unfair exploitation, IMF policy, neo-liberalist expansion etc)
Scrap EU rules designed to stop member states from implementing independent economic policies (Stop the EU from acting as a safeguard for neo-liberalism)
Keep Britain out of the eurozone (pretty obvious)
The no2eu campaign is not a socialist platform, it is not the NWP the SP strive for, it is by no means perfect. However it is (in a way) a united front against fascist expansion, a class based alternative, and a viable left wing option (something that has been long absent from British politics).

The RMT & the CPB I cannot speak for, however the SP voted upon this at conference, something all members were welcome to (and asked to) attend. The motion for support was passed almost unanimously.



I just don't get SPEW involvement with this, it's a wholly Stalinist initiative.


The SP is one of very few parties trying to push for left wing/working class unity, we need to stop *****ing and get into the fight for the working class in a big way, the BNP is capitalising on a lack of a left wing alternative, and we are one of few trying to create one. We would not and will not disolve ourselves into such coalitions, or think they are anything more than they are, but they are a progressive step, and a much needed one at that. I do not see any other party or federation making such an effort (financially or otherwise) to fight for issues that effect the working class or that they working class care about.


- Reformist
You are an anarchist, you think pretty much everything that socialists do is reformist, so i find it hard to meet this point without going off at tangents.

- Nationalist
- Isolationist
- Protectionist
It is none of these things.

[Forward Union]

The logical extension of this position is to argue for further decentralisation, a 'Europe of a hundred flags'. Where have we heard that before?

Fortunately in reality your argument doesn't apply.

Devrim

A broken up ruling class is easier to defeat than a unifed super state. As long as we can build a labour international.
We've had this debate before and I think the ultra left view on it is incredibly detached from reality.

I think the NO2EU campaign is potentially very good.

[Devrim]

I think the NO2EU campaign is potentially very good.

Why doesn't it surprise me at all to see these sort of 'anarchists' seeing potential in electoral alliances.


A broken up ruling class is easier to defeat than a unifed super state. As long as we can build a labour international.
We've had this debate before and I think the ultra left view on it is incredibly detached from reality.

So you are arguing for a 'Europe of a hundred flags' then? Let's just ignore the fact that campaigns of this nature appeal to the most reactionary backward nationalist ideas within the working class, and look at what you are actually suggesting here, which is taking the side of one faction of the bourgeoisie against the other.

In the present period the idea of national independence is absurd. To think that states can step outside of the imperialist world system is absolutely detached from reality. For the United Kingdom there are two choices, one favoured by the majority of the bourgeoisie is the EU. The other, which is favoured by a much smaller minority is a path that would lead Britain closer to America.

These are the only two choices whatever nonsense these sort of campaigns may spout about a 'Europe of independent, democratic states'. The fact that, along with the BNP, these sort of social-democrats are too blind to see this changes nothing.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The EU is not some evil overlord that capitalist press offices and politicans make out, it is made and governed by the capitalist states themselves, and its role is to remove the organs of control out of the reach of most working movments, EU laws hinder union activity, EU laws strengthen capitalist systems.

This still sort of implies that the 'organs of control' were within reach of the working class before the EU. They weren't.

On the subject of EU laws hindering union activity, which laws are you actually referring to? Is it article 11 perhaps:


Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prescribed_by_law&action=edit&redlink=1) and are necessary in a democratic society (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necessary_in_a_democratic_society&action=edit&redlink=1) in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.


It looks pretty similar to the way things stand in the UK. In fact this was the law rectently used by the British trade union ASLEF against the UK government in the case about expelling BNP members. It has also been used to defend a school teacher dismissed from her job because of membership of the DKP, and to censure Turkey for declaring the People's Labour Party illegal.


If however you are referring to the Social Chapter and things like the working time directive, it should be remembered that the UK under John Major opted out of this section. Do you think perhaps that the EU should be more centralised and force its members to abide by its laws?



Now, I think that there are much deeper issues here about the way that communists approach the whole concept of bourgeois rights and law. The working class can only protect itself through its own power, and not by means of the state.


However, within your own terms your argument here sounds a bit like a left-wing version of a Sun article telling us that the EU wants to regulate the curvature of bananas, i.e. it has little base in reality whatsoever.


Devrim

[Devrim]

- Nationalist
- Isolationist
- Protectionist
It is none of these things.


Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in Britain (pretty obvious)<

What is this if not protectionism?

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

This still sort of implies that the 'organs of control' were within reach of the working class before the EU. They weren't.

I do not think have have given that illusion, the popular perception is that the EU is something that national governments have to deal with and in return they get things like farming subsidies etc. However this is bullshit, the capitalist class perpetuate anti-EU feeling so that national governments can blame their own anti-working class policy on the EU to deflect criticism away from them. To help this they make sure meeting are in secret.

The National governments (and the capitalist class due to in the involvement of industrialists in talks) have supreme power in the EU, and they use the EU to assault the working class and persue neo-liberalist policy both in their own nations and in 'weaker' eastern european nations (imposing IMF approved economic plans etc), this is a form of economic imperialism.

The EU strengthens the capitalist class, and the national governments, and weakend the working class and our organisations. Therefore it is necessary to remove it. We do not want a fractured Europe, we want a united Europe, but a socialist united Europe.


On the subject of EU laws hindering union activity, which laws are you actually referring to? Is it article 11 perhapsWell in my copy of "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" that is article 12, I draw your attention to this to point out that Article 11 states freedom of speech all across Europe regardless of borders yet this obviously isn't stuck to as Eastern European nations 'crack down' on communism (Stalinist or otherwise), and the UK keep out many people. The EU does what it wants the Treaty's, Charters, and all the rest are constantly changed and layed out in technocratic language to make sure nobody complains about it, as they cannot understand it.

But that article (12) has been interpreted (or perhaps they have gotten a new law, or it is used in tandem with current laws) to state that union agreed wages in one nation can be legally undermined, and any appeal against this would be a hampering of trade, labelled as racist, a obstacle to liberalisation and would prevent "prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions", the imposition of laws and restrictions made by the EU and away from the power of the unions.

It has happened several times, in Europe, i do not have the examples at hand but I assure you it has, and i can find them if necessary to prove my point.



Do you think perhaps that the EU should be more centralised and force its members to abide by its laws?
Not at all, I am stating that the EU is simply a tool of the capitalist class, it will be used when necessary, and it will be ignored when necessary.


Now, I think that there are much deeper issues here about the way that communists approach the whole concept of bourgeois rights and law. The working class can only protect itself through its own power, and not by means of the state.
Again I agree with you, and the EU is a tool of the state that opresses us.


However, within your own terms your argument here sounds a bit like a left-wing version of a Sun article telling us that the EU wants to regulate the curvature of bananas, i.e. it has little base in reality whatsoever.I disagree, I have spent this last year studying the European Union, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what it is used for, and I understand why there is such bullshit around it (so governments can claims 'progressive' things as thier changed to win public support and to use as concessions and can blame some distant thing called 'Brussels' for unpopular repressive changes).



What is this if not protectionism?
To defend the jobs of workers who have fought hard for their conditions and wages over years of union activity. Visteon Workers, Lindsey Workers, Stead McAlpine Workers and workers from other places to experience protest (either occupation, strike, picket, or whatever) support our campaign, I suppose they are nationalist, protectionist, isolationists for wanting to protect their jobs/conditions/terms.

no2eu is not perfect by any means but some of the criticism you have thrown at it are simply not true.

[Devrim]

This still sort of implies that the 'organs of control' were within reach of the working class before the EU. They weren't. I do not think have have given that illusion,
Of course it gives that illusion. Let's just see what has been said again:


The EU is not some evil overlord that capitalist press offices and politicans make out, it is made and governed by the capitalist states themselves, and its role is to remove the organs of control out of the reach of most working movments, EU laws hinder union activity, EU laws strengthen capitalist systems.


we reject the EU as it takes power even further away from the workers

To me if you 'remove the organs of control out of the reach',it suggests that previously they were within the reach, and to 'take power even further away' suggests that it was previously nearer.

So yes, I think that it is fair to say that you are suggesting that there is some sort of change here.


]Well in my copy of "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" that is article 12,

Yes, but it is not from there. It is from the European Convention on Human Rights. "The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" has this as article 12:


Article 12. Freedom of assembly and of association


Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly) at all levels, in particular in political, trade union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union) and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.
Political parties at Union level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party) contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.

Notice the one that I quoted is different to the one you did, more detailed and also has legal predominance.


I draw your attention to this to point out that Article 11 states freedom of speech all across Europe regardless of borders yet this obviously isn't stuck to as Eastern European nations 'crack down' on communism (Stalinist or otherwise),

The vast majority of nations have some restrictions on freedom of speech. In the UK, I believe that laws covering incitement to racial hatred are in force. In our country it is illegal to advocate ethnic separatism, Islamic law, or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

On could say "so what", but even within your own terms, these are not articles of EU law, but a case of EU law, not being enforced. Personally, I don't have that much faith in bourgeois legality anyway.


The EU does what it wants the Treaty's, Charters, and all the rest are constantly changed and layed out in technocratic language to make sure nobody complains about it, as they cannot understand it.


Whereas every other set of laws avoid legalise and are written in nice user friendly language that is easy for people to understand. Of course an even better model of clear laws would be the UK where there is no constitution at all and laws are based on Judges interpretation of obscure precedent.

I take it that you are not advancing this as a serious argument.


But that article (12) has been interpreted (or perhaps they have gotten a new law, or it is used in tandem with current laws) to state that union agreed wages in one nation can be legally undermined, and any appeal against this would be a hampering of trade, labelled as racist, a obstacle to liberalisation and would prevent "prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions", the imposition of laws and restrictions made by the EU and away from the power of the unions.

It has happened several times, in Europe, i do not have the examples at hand but I assure you it has, and i can find them if necessary to prove my point.

Well yes, I would like to see examples. To be honest I can't see how that article could be interpreted that way. The article you refer to doesn't include the phrase you quote. I feel I need more than your assurance.



What is this if not protectionism? To defend the jobs of workers who have fought hard for their conditions and wages over years of union activity. Visteon Workers, Lindsey Workers, Stead McAlpine Workers and workers from other places to experience protest (either occupation, strike, picket, or whatever) support our campaign, I suppose they are nationalist, protectionist, isolationists for wanting to protect their jobs/conditions/terms.

That is just pure distortion. At no point did I suggest that workers struggling to defend their jobs or living standards were in any way reactionaries, or that those struggles are reactionary, or 'nationalist, protectionist, isolationist'.

The fact that some of these workers may support you shows nothing except perhaps the influence of nationalist ideas within the class, and the tendency of so-called socialist to try to appeal to them. Despite that, it still doesn't mean that these struggles are reactionary. I have stood on picket lines besides workers of all kinds of politics from left communist to fascist. The ideas of these workers, however 'right' or reactionary, does not make a struggle so.

But the statement is pure protectionism:


Defend and develop manufacturing, agriculture and fishing industries in BritainWhere does it talk about 'defend[ing] the jobs of workers who have fought hard for their conditions and wages over years'? It doesn't at all. It talks about defending and developing British business.


no2eu is not perfect by any means but some of the criticism you have thrown at it are simply not true.

Which ones pray tell?

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

Perhaps I do not share your gift for words, allow me to explain my "out of reach comments":

This is the ruling class simply protecting themselves more, this is them picking up another weapon to use against the organized working class, to destroy the capitalist system we must fight their tools, by that I mean fascism and things the EU which strengthen the capitalist class' position of control.



On could say "so what", but even within your own terms, these are not articles of EU law, but a case of EU law, not being enforced.

The EU is a tool not an independant body with rules to enforce, if those who created it put some flower-y clauses in it to make it seem like a good thing then good for them, but "so what". It is the agressive anti-worker laws & clauses that they also included in it that I worry about.

For example the clause stating member states should 'liberalise' public sector services, including the NHS. I cannot afford to lose the NHS, or to sit back while the capitalists erode my classes living standards.



Well yes, I would like to see examples. To be honest I can't see how that article could be interpreted that way. The article you refer to doesn't include the phrase you quote. I feel I need more than your assurance.

The 'lindsey oil refinery' strikes.

The RMT were involved in a struggle when North East sea farers were fired (men who were on a union agreed wage) and foreign [sic] cheaper labour was brought in to undercut. The unions could do nothing against this as it would stop 'the free labour market' and would hamper european trade.

When BA moved some operations in Europe(i think it was BA) and their workers were paid a lower wage than the union equivilant of the same job in the UK, the unions appealed against this but again it was seen as a 'block to trade'.

There are countless other examples. Most of these struggles are slandered by the bourgeois press as either racist or nationalist, are criticised by bourgeois politicians as illegal, and are defeated at European wide (capitalist) level.

[Devrim]

This is the ruling class simply protecting themselves more, this is them picking up another weapon to use against the organized working class, to destroy the capitalist system we must fight their tools, by that I mean fascism and things the EU which strengthen the capitalist class' position of control.

I don't think that you can fight the domination of the capitalist class from within its own machine. What actually happens is that the working class gets dragged into bourgeois politics, and becomes tied to different bourgeois factions.

What are they opposing to the EU? The idea of an independent national state. It has nothing to offer the working class either.


Well yes, I would like to see examples. To be honest I can't see how that article could be interpreted that way. The article you refer to doesn't include the phrase you quote. I feel I need more than your assurance.
The 'lindsey oil refinery' strikes.

But this wasn't done under any particular EU law. A company is quite entitled to change its subcontractor when a contract finishes under UK law. The new firm could have equally come from Middlesbrough for example and employed mostly Geordies.


The RMT were involved in a struggle when North East sea farers were fired (men who were on a union agreed wage) and foreign [sic] cheaper labour was brought in to undercut. The unions could do nothing against this as it would stop 'the free labour market' and would hamper european trade.

When BA moved some operations in Europe(i think it was BA) and their workers were paid a lower wage than the union equivilant of the same job in the UK, the unions appealed against this but again it was seen as a 'block to trade'.

The examples are all rather vague. I really doubt they have much to do with EU law. I think we need a bit more proof than that.

Devrim