Below is an article by Pete McLaren, who stood as a 'No2EU, Yes to Democracy' candidate in the 2009 MEP election. Pete takes issue with the article I posted yesterday and raises some interesting points and castigates me for failing to mention them in my piece.
----------------------------------
I am really surprised by your article. (http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/11/with-its-anti-eu-stance-no2eu-allowed.html) I usually agree with much of what you write because it is well researched and therefore a good read. However, suggesting the Euro election Campaign of No2U-YestoDemocracy was ‘reactionary’ and close to Cameron is absurd and quite insulting.
No2U-YestoDemocracy was historic – the first ever trade union based challenge to New Labour, well overdue. It also contained a coalition of left organizations not seen since the heyday of the Socialist Alliance. Do you really think that Dave Nellist (SP), Mike Davies (AGS) or myself (SA) would have stood on a reactionary, nationalist programme?
You failed to specify that the full title of the Coalition was ‘No2U-YestoDemocracy’ – a significant error. No2U-YestoDemocracy NEVER called for withdrawal from the EU. It, quite rightly, opposed the EU as presently constituted, including the undemocratic nature of the EU with its unelected Council of Ministers having more power than elected representatives. It opposed the imposition of EU ‘laws’ which had never been democratically agreed, like the Lisbon treaty. But it was not anti EU. It opposed the Posted Workers Directive, whereby employers can use EU dictates to move workers around the EU to undermine negotiated trade union pay rates and conditions, enabling companies to sack ‘more expensive’ employed workers and replace them by low paid agency staff from poorer counties who are prepared to work for lower rates because that is more than they would get paid at home. That puts worker against worker, and undermines collective bargaining. Surely, all workers should get paid the negotiated rate for the job and work under the negotiated conditions?
Yes, there were some overtly nationalistic aspects to the campaign at the very start, before most of the left got on board, and unfortunately put on a web site that was subsequently not amended when it should have been. Such sentiments came from the CPB. I made it clear at the time that the awful phrase “social dumping”, for example, was dropped very early on – in my region (West Midlands) the decision was unanimous, including the CPB. The Coalition adopted the slogan ‘No to racism and fascism, Yes to international solidarity of working people’ as one of its ten key demands, used on leaflets and put on the web site. Hardly nationalism. In any case, although many aspects of nationalism could be bordering on reactionary politics (such as British jobs for British workers), what about Irish nationalism? Does Scottish nationalism not somehow fit with Scottish socialism? Nationalism is not always to be opposed, even by internationalists like myself.
In addition, the Coalition clearly and openly opposed racism and the BNP – indeed it was the only ‘party’ to devote much of its national TV broadcast to explain why the BNP needed to be opposed.
The Lyndsay dispute earlier this year sums it all up for me. To begin with, sections of the left were taken in by the ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ slogans that appeared in the right wing press for the first couple of days of the dispute. It was never about that, as soon became apparent. It was about the same pay and conditions for all workers, not sacking the more expensive ones to replace them with cheap labour. The Portuguese and Italian workers brought over to Lyndsay were housed in compounds or barges, kept away from other Lyndsay workers, and paid a lower rate. The strike victory has meant that all workers – agency and permanent employees, now have the same pay and conditions – and, what is more, all can (and have) join the trade union.
The point I am making is that just because there were some dodgy slogans around at the start of the dispute, does not make the dispute reactionary as some on the left claimed. Most now agree it was a dispute to support. In the same way, No2U-YestoDemocracy may have had the odd dodgy slogan to begin with. But in the end, it was a left/TU challenge to the capitalist parties which, worts and all, certainly does not deserve to be put in the same bed as Cameron or worse. It is worth remembering that the official policies of No2U-YestoDemocracy included defending Public services and that they should be democratically controlled; renationalizing the railways, developing sustainable industries; standing up for workers rights.
In the general election, the EU will hardly be an issue. The Coalition for the General election, which has now been launched largely out of No2U-YestoDemocracy, will hopefully have a raft of socialist and green socialist. It will almost certainly not be perfect. But it will not be reactionary or right wing, any more than the actual policies of No2U-YestoDemocracy were. Indeed. local publicity in June went a lot further – in the West midlands we called for a socialist federation of Europe, for example, under the slogan ‘No to a bosses Europe’. Now, that would have been a better, more class based title to stand under. But we can not have everything, especially as we build in the short term. W e must judge the developing GE Coalition in the same light
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment