CHARTISTFor democratic socialism September/October 2013 #264 £2

ISSN - 0968 7866 ISSUE

www.chartist.org.uk

Franziska Brantner MEPand Greg BarnesEU futuresLinda Kaucher, Philip Whyman andMark BaimbridgeSocial Europe FolliesFrank LeeStatisticsAndy GreggImmigrationMary SouthcottTurkey

Britain’s Eurosclerosis

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 3

4 OBITUARYIn memory on Clarence Chrysostom

4 OUR HISTORY 50Kier Hardie - From Serfdom toSocialism 1907

5 EDITORIALRe-engage

6 POINTS AND CROSSINGSPaul Salveson on radical clubs

7 RIGHTS WATCHAmy William’s first of a new columnon human rights politics

25 MARGINAL NOTESKeith Savage on the geo-politics ofHS2

26 BOOK REVIEWS Nigel Watt on South Africa, RoryO’Kelly on the welfare state, Patriciad’Ardenne on Lincoln, Jon Taylor onthe apocalypse, James Grayson on thewest and development, Pam Morris onmorals and markets, Frank Lee onradical theory and Duncan Bowie onRussia.

32 YOUTH VIEW Dermot Neligan on cafeteria politics

CHARTISTFOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISMNumber 264 September/October 2013

FEATURES

REGULARS

Cover�cartoon�by�Martin�Rowson

Cooking the books: economics andstatistics on page 22

Debating EU futures: pages 9 to 18are dedicated to the EU

Turkey: page 19

CONTENTS

Editorial PolicyThe editorial policy of CHARTIST is topromote debate amongst people active inradical politics about the contemporaryrelevance of democratic socialism acrossthe spec t rum of po l i t i cs , economics ,science, philosophy, art, interpersonalrelations – in short, the whole realm ofsocial life.

Our concern is with both democracy andsocialism. The history of the last centuryhas made i t abundant ly c lear that themass of the population of the advancedcapitalist countries will have no interestin any form of social ism which is notthoroughly democratic in its principles,its practices, its morality and its ideals.Yet the consequences of this deep attach-ment to democracy – one of the greatestadvances o f our epoch – a re se ldomreflected in the discussion and debatesamongst active socialists.

CHARTIST is not a party publication. Itbrings together people who are interestedin socialism, some of whom are active theLabour Party and the trade union move-men t . I t i s conce rned to deepen andextend a dialogue with all other socialistsand with activists from other movementsinvolved in the struggle to find democrat-ic alternatives to the oppression, exploita-tion and injustices of capitalism and class society

Editorial BoardCHARTIST is published six times a yearby the Chartist Collective. This issue wasproduced by an Editorial Board consistingof Brendan Bird, Duncan Bowie (Reviews),Peter Chalk, Mike Davis (Editor), DavidFloyd, Don Flynn, Roger Gi l lham, IanJohnson, Peter Kenyon (Treasurer), FrankLee , Dave L i s t e r , Andy Mor ton(Production Editor), Mary Southcott, CatSmith, Rosamund Stock, James Grayson,Patricia d’Ardenne and Rebecca Korbet-Wootton.

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the EB

Published byChartist PublicationsPO Box 52751 London EC2P 2XF

Printed by People For Print Ltd, Unit 10, Riverside Park,Sheaf Gardens, Sheffield S2 4BB – Tel 0114 272 0915. Email: juma@btconnect.com

Website: www.chartist.org.ukBlog: www.chartistmagazine.org.uk Email: editor@chartist.org.ukTwitter: @Chartist48Newsletter online: to join, email news@chartistmagazine.org.uk

CHARTISTPamphlet Series

Order with £2 cheque fromChartist PO Box 52751 London EC2P 2XF

OR - view online at www.chartist.org.uk/about/pamphletsSent free to CHARTIST subscribers

*Pamphlet Four*Socialising Transport

by Paul Salveson

Foreword by Maria Eagle MP

Also

available:

pamphlets

1 to 3 on

Europe,

Housing and

the

Big Society

Follow us on Twitter at@Chartist48

Contributions and letters deadline for CHARTIST #26510 October 2013

Chartist welcomes articles, of 800 or 1500 words, and letters in electronic format only to:editor@chartist.org.uk

Receive Chartist’s online newsletter: send your email address to news@chartistmagazine.org.uk

Chartist Advert Rates:

Back cover £300 Full page £200; 1/2 page £125; 1/4 page £75; 1/8 page £40; 1/16 page £25; small box 5x2cm £15 single sheet

insert £50 We are also interested in advert swaps with other publications. To place an advert, please email:

editor@chartist.org.uk

*Available now*

8 EGG ON HIS FACE?Peter Kenyon sees a Labour leader lickingself-inflicted wounds

9 DEFICIT DENIAL OF DIFFERENT KINDAndy Morton dissects the EU’s democraticdeficit and presents options

10 UNSOCIAL EUROPEPhilip Whyman and Mark Baimbridge giveEurophiles food for thought on the EuropeanSocial Model

12 A HOLY UNION?Greg Barnes surveys the meeting pointbetween trade union interests and the EU

14 TRADING ON OUR FUTURE?Linda Kaucher lifts the lid on a dangerous freetrade agenda

16 MORE EUROPE?Franziska Brantner MEP says citizens need a‘better’ rather than ‘more’ Europe

18 ERODING EURO GAINS IN EIRELily Murphy sees the successes of EUmembership eroded by austerity

19 DEMOCRATIC OR AUTOCRATIC?Mary Southcott maps Turkey’s troublesomerelationship with democratic principles

20 SOMALIADan Thea on the continuing problems of awar-torn country

21 BREAKING UP BRITAINSteve Freeman reports on UK nationalisms

22 LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICSFrank Lee looks at the role of crookedstatistics in economic reporting

23 IMMIGRATION MADNESSAndy Gregg takes apart a Goodhartian viewthat is far from progressive

�

4 CHARTIST September/October 2013 September/October 2013 CHARTIST 5

ScepticsandEurophilesalike must,with areferendumlooming,re-engagewith asubject thathas left bothcampslooking outof date

EDITORIAL

In the late 1980s Jacques Delors threatened toimbue the European project with a bonafide‘social dimension’ and with it convincedswathes of the political left to back Europeanintegration. Since the great Frenchman’s

retirement 18 years ago a great deal has changed.The nature of the EU has become increasingly neo-liberal in nature as its impact on national life hasdeepened. This has left parts of both the Europhileand sceptic left views looking rather dated.Although this should not lead to any concession to aConservative sceptic view laced with xenophobia, itdoes make clear that the democratic left needs torenovate its approach to the European project andbefore EU Referendum battle lines can be drawn.Critically, the EU’s neo-liberal turn demands that

the left-Europhile view must now be based uponwhat the EU can do rather than what it currentlydoes. Left eurosceptics on the other hand need tobetter place those positive aspects of EU employ-ment law within their account that emphasises thenegative aspects of ‘the project’. Both camps need tore-engage with this subject and with each others’arguments.This Social Europe

focused issue of Chartistis dedicated to this themeof re-engagement. Inthis vein committed spe-cialists have been invitedto present a range ofviews on the Europeanproject.German Green MEP

Franziska Brantnerprovides a positive butnot uncritical view of theEU’s problems andprospects and the greaterrole the EuropeanParliament can playwithin this. Her pieceillustrates a number ofthe EU’s structural anddemocratic problems. Andy Morton takes up thistheme of the EU’s democratic deficit and seesremedial action to correct it as central to any demo-cratic socialist response. Greg Barnes and LindaKaucher in their pieces use EU trade and procure-ment policy to demonstrate important but subtlelinkages between global and national policy-making:Barnes in highlighting the challenges for the tradeunion movement and Kaucher in exposing the evilsof a global trade and liberalisation agenda to whichthe EU has given more than a helping hand. A similarly critical view is taken by Philip

Whyman and Mark Baimbridge, who view thepotential furthering of the European Social Modelthrough the EU as fanciful at best. Lily Murphyintroduces a necessary note to the perils of austerityand raises EU demands for cuts in Ireland as ademonstration of the risks austerity pose to pastbenefits won through EU membership.This issue of Chartist’s international focus does

not end with Europe. Mary Southcott reviews thedwindling democratic credentials of Turkey’s

government while Dan Thea provides an eye onSomalian developments that few others are report-ing on. Returning to Britain, Labour is tripping over the

immigration issue. Shadow Minister Chris Bryant’srecent effort to set a new course was messy. But asAndy Gregg shows, in his excoriating review ofDirector of Demos David Goodhart’s book on immi-gration, faux liberal views can do more harm thangood to working class unity. This issue also links to Europe and is why UKIP

seeks to make the two issues inseparable. It alsoleads to the damaging ‘Go Home’ poster campaignvans trialled by the government in six boroughs.What Labour needs is a forthright defence ofimmigration on economic and moral terms: that itbuilds the economy, that it is good for developmentand that we have duties and responsibilities toEuropean workers, as argued by Amy Williams inher new column, and to aid asylum seekers andrefugees beyond our own borders.Labour should demand British jobs with a living

wage, incomes that keep pace with inflation. Fireshould be directed at the Coalition for turning

Britain into a low wageeconomy with a casu-alised workforce, whereover a million are onzero hours contracts. AsFrank Lee explainsgovernments aremanipulating jobs andincome statistics toshow unemployment isdown when it is up andpaint a rosy picture ofan economy whereincome and wealth dis-parities are greaterthan at any time forover a hundred years.New figures from theHouse of CommonsLibrary show the real

value of wages has fallen by 5.5% in Britain sincethe recession began—one of the largest falls inEurope.Miliband must now roll up his proverbial sleeves,

demands Peter Kenyon, and make the case for anend to austerity, nail the lie that Gordon Brown cre-ated the mess and lay down some key campaignpolicies. The economy may be moving out of reces-sion but that should not reduce Labour’s attack onthe narrow nationalist politics of Cameron and co.They don’t want Labour to talk about living stan-dards and low wages…so this should be Labour’sline of attack wedded to a defence of Social Europe.As we move into the conference season time is

running out for Miliband to set a new course withsome clear policies: in an international contextwhere we are seen to work with European and tradeunion allies. This could help restore Labour’s wiltingstanding in opinion polls and shift the terms of polit-ical debate on to firmer ground for victory.

Re-engageClarence Chrysostom,one of the founders ofChartist in 1970, hasdied aged 92 after ashort illness. He was

the quiet man of socialist revolu-tionary politics. He wasn’t aleader, a great activist or theo-retician, but his strength lay inwhat he was, a living link withthe Sri Lankan LSSP thatexpelled the Stalinists from theirranks through to his days withthe journal RevolutionaryHistory.He was born in Kandy, Sri

Lanka, 10th January 1921, one ofthree sisters and four brothers. He came to politics early. He

was a member of a revolutionaryminority opposing the coalition ofthe LSSP with capitalist partiesin 1964. Around this time hedecided to move to England.Following a brief period withGerry Healy’s Socialist LabourLeague he soon realized its sec-tarianism was not for him andjoined the International MarxistGroup, befriending AlRichardson, Keith and Val Veness

and others who were leading apro-Labour Party group in 1968-69. This group evolved with oth-ers into Chartist. He was editor ofthe early duplicated Chartist pub-lications which covered a range oftopics from Vietnam to the Mayevents in France 1968, sometimeswriting brief introductions. He was a member of the

Labour Party for most of his timein Britain. He was active inNALGO and participated inmarches and meetings. He was anactive internationalist and anti-racist. He was involved in solidar-ity work against the suppressionof Tamils in Sri Lanka 30 yearsago.He was a loyal friend to Al

Richardson. When Al became dis-illusioned with Chartist in thelate 1970s he helped formSocialist Platform publicationsand then the RevolutionaryHistory project. He was businessmanager of the bi-annual journalwhich adopted the task of map-ping the history of the world-wideTrotskyist and revolutionarymovement.

He also maintained friendshipsin Sri Lanka. One day the SriLanka embassy limosine pulledup outside his flat in SwissCottage: the occasion a visit froman old LSSP friend who was nowa government minister. Besidesleading LSSP members he alsomade good friends with veteransocialists Frank Ridley andTrinidadian revolutionary authorCLR James. Perhaps coming from a period

when Trotskyism was a massorganization and in government,the rest of his life in the UK wasa gradual downhill roadpolitically. He outlived his con-temporaries and was saddened bythe civil war and governmentatrocities in Sri Lanka over thelast decade. He was more san-guine about prospects for work-ers’ power here, but always inter-ested and enquiring about thefate of the left and the prospectsfor socialism. Despite increasingmemory loss he maintained hiswarmth, his openness, his impishchuckle and smiles to the end.

Quiet man of revolutionary politics

The nature of the EU has becomeincreasingly neo-liberal in nature as itsimpact on national life has deepened.This has left parts of both the Europhileand sceptic left views looking ratherdated. Although this should not lead toany concession to a Conservativesceptic view laced with xenophobia, itdoes make clear that the democratic leftneeds to renovate its approach to theEuropean project

OBITUARY

MikeDavis on afounder ofChartist

OUR HISTORY 50Keir Hardie - From Serfdom to Socialism (1907)

Keir Hardie was the first independentsocialist MP elected to parliament, thefirst leader of the Independent LabourParty and the first chair of the parliamen-tary Labour Party. He was a leading mem-

ber of the Socialist International and the leadingBritish socialist of his time. A Scots miner, in 1886 hebecame secretary of the Ayrshire MinersUnion and then of the Scottish MinersFederation. He founded a paper, theMiner, which was renamed the LabourLeader and became the official journal ofthe ILP. In 1886 he unsuccessfully contest-ed the mid Lanark parliamentary seat asan Independent, being successfullyreturned as Labour MP for West Ham in1892. He lost his seat in 1895, before beingreturned for Merthyr Tydfil in 1900. Hewas a vigorous opponent of the Boer war.In 1906 he was elected chairman of thenewly founded Parliamentary LabourParty. Hardie was a suffragist and activelycampaigned against the moves towardswar in 1914.“Socialism is much more than either a political

creed or an economic dogma. It presents to the modernworld a new conception of society and a new basis onwhich to build up the life of the individual and of the

State. … To the Socialist the community represents ahuge family organisation in which the strong shouldemploy their gifts in promoting the weal of all, instead ofusing their strength for their own personal aggrandise-ment. In like manner the community of States whichcompose the world, and making full allowances for thedifference of environment, of tradition and of evolution,

he regards as a great comity which shouldbe co-operating for the elevation of the race.The economic object of Socialism is to

make land and industrial capital commonproperty, and to cease to produce for theprofit of the landlord and the capitalist andto begin to produce for the use of the com-munity. Socialism implies the inherentequality of all human beings… Holdingthis to be true of all individuals, theSocialist applies it also to all races. Only bya full and unqualified recognition of thisclaim, can peace be restored to the world.Socialism implies brotherhood, and broth-erhood implies a living recognition of thefact that the duty of the strong is not to holdthe weak in subjection, but to assist them to

rise higher and ever higher in the scale of humanity, andthat this cannot be done by trampling upon and exploit-ing their weakness but by caring for them and showingthem the better way”

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 76 CHARTIST September/October 2013

P&CS

Some things are self-evident. Vans with ‘gohome or face arrest’ sprawled across themdriving around London boroughs willdivide communities. Legal protection ofhuman rights is a good thing. Not so fast.

Owen Jones has recently suggested that Labour hasa communications problem. The Tories successfullyinstil mantras like ‘we're clearing up Labour's mess’into the national psyche, yet a well-rehearsedLabour retort is lacking. He's got a point. It's nogood dubbing the vans driving round London's eth-nically mixed boroughs 'hate vans', as many on theleft did, without explaining that the message on thevans is clearly for the 'indigenous' audience,designed to pitch sections of society against eachother. Without succumbing to sound bite politics,the left needs to up its communications game. Itneeds to do so fast where human rights are con-cerned.The Conservative

2010 GeneralElection manifestopledged to repealLabour's HumanRights Act (HRA),hailed by Jack Strawas ‘the first bill ofrights this countryhas seen forthree centuries’.C o m f o r t a b l yrestrained by theirLiberal DemocratCoalition partners,who remaincommitted to theHRA, senior Conservative members of the govern-ment have ratcheted up the anti-human rightsrhetoric since. UK withdrawal from Churchill's lega-cy, the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR), to which 46 other countries are signed up,including Turkey and Russia, has been floated as aserious possibility by figures including the PrimeMinister himself. “There's a dogma on the left that ifit says 'human rights', it must be untouchable”Justice Secretary Chris Grayling recently told theSun newspaper. It isn't dogma, our human rightslaws must be untouchable, at least for now. Hereare three reasons to help explain why.First of all, legally enforceable human rights pro-

tection is about providing a check on state power -why it is considered a child of liberal, rather thansocialist, political thought (a fact conveniently for-gotten by the 'small state' Tory critics of this ‘dogmaon the left’)? Statutory regulation of the SecurityServices resulted from a decision of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, for example. The burden ison the state to prove that a person who is mentallyill needs to be detained, rather than on the individu-al to prove he/she should be released, thanks to adecision under the HRA. In our age of party whipsand political patronage, this check against the'tyranny of the majority' is vital. That was certainlythe rationale behind the drafting of the ECHR afterthe horrors of National Socialism, the potential for

those in power to privilege the rights of the manyover the rights of the few remains as real today asthen.But what if the judges get it wrong? The second

key point conveniently not mentioned byConservative critics of the HRA and their allies inthe press, is that under the HRA it is still parlia-ment (in reality the government), and not theunelected judiciary, that has the final say on rights.The HRA was drafted to make sure that politicianscan have the last word. It is true that individuals now have the advan-

tage of being able to challenge the government onhuman rights grounds in court, and judges have amuch greater role in assessing law and policy forhuman rights compatibility; they can read wordsinto statutes, provided they do not fundamentallychange their meaning. Where a judge finds a statute

cannot be read in arights-compatibleway, he or she canmerely declare thisto be the case underthe HRA. This decla-ration has no legaleffect; it does notinvalidate the law inquestion. Of course, the

idea was that follow-ing a judicial findingof incompatibilitythere would be con-siderable politicalpressure on the gov-ernment and parlia-

ment to change the law as required, but the schemeof the HRA provides for parliament to say 'no, wedisagree' to the courts. So in February 2011, whenthe Home Secretary told the House of Commonsthat she was obliged under the HRA to change thelaw to allow sex offenders to appeal their inclusionon the Sex Offenders' Register, this was simply notthe case.Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the HRA

and the ECHR protect everyone in the UK.Prisoners, foreigners, members of 'unpopulargroups' like Gypsies and Travellers and asylumseekers can all claim the rights listed – freedomfrom slavery, freedom from torture, the right to lifeand so on. There isn't a vast catalogue of rights –healthcare and social security are nowhere to beseen for example – and many of the rights, like freeexpression or privacy rights, can be limited on pub-lic interest grounds. It is the universal application ofthese minimal rights that lurks behind much of theopposition to our human rights laws. Echoing the deserving and undeserving welfare

rhetoric, there is a drive to exclude certain people orgroups – Abu Qatada, convicted prisoners, even rel-atives of convicted prisoners – from the scope of the'human' in 'human rights'. This is perhaps thehardest sell. We owe it to our ancestors who werede-humanised, including the subjects of the 'hatevans' of previous generations, at least to try.

The early socialist movement understoodthe importance of having your own place.Whether it was the radical clubs ofLondon or the socialist rooms in the indus-trial North, they were a key part of build-

ing a new politics. It’s one of the great tragedies ofthe modern labour movement that so few clubs sur-vive. Many ‘labour clubs’ long since became nothingmore than cheap drinking dens and most have suc-cumbed to competition from even cheaper boozefrom supermarkets.But all is not lost. What is proba-

bly the oldest surviving socialist clubin Britain, at Milnsbridge in theColne Valley near Huddersfield, is atthe heart of a revival of radical poli-tics in an area where socialist poli-tics struck deep roots, leading to theelection of socialist firebrand VictorGrayson in 1907. MilnsbridgeSocialist Club was once surroundedby a thriving textile industry; thetown had dozens of mills employingthousands of workers, many of whomflocked to the new socialist organisa-tions that sprang up around here inthe 1890s. The club opened in 1892and hosted speakers includingChristabel Pankhurst, KathrynBruce Glasier, Victor Grayson andPhilip Snowden. It even had its ownsocialist brass band which used toperform at trade union and socialist demonstrationsand on the annual May Day procession. A photo-graph of the band still adorns the club’s concertroom. Milnsbridge was one of many socialist clubs inthe Colne Valley. Their programme of social events, regular speak-

ers and discussions and providing a base for Clarioncyclists and choirs pro-vided an essentialinfrastructure for ahugely successful social-ist movement. Britain’sfirst socialist countycouncillor, GeorgeGarside, was elected inColne Valley andGrayson’s 1907 victorysent shock wavesthrough the establish-ment.But heritage on its own is no guarantee of salva-

tion. Milnsbridge Socialist Club faced all the sameproblems that social clubs have had to deal with inthe last few years: changing habits, an inability toappeal to a broader market, rising debts. It closedits doors in June and the future looked bleak.However, a group of local socialists, greens andanarchists have got together to save the club andcreate a new and more inclusive venue for a widerarea, but also attract local community involvement.The club has been re-christened ‘The Red and GreenClub’ and a co-operative has been formed to buy thebuilding from its current owners, which it is rentingto the end of the year. That gives the new co-opera-

tive a breathing space to raise £100,000 to buy thebuilding. That’s no easy task and the co-op will belaunching a fund-raising campaign shortly. It istalking to several national trades unions about get-ting help from them to cover the capital costs of pur-chase and has benefited from free advice from thenational co-operative movement. The first public event that the club is organising

will be an afternoon ‘People’s Party’ on BankHoliday Monday, August 26th. There will be livemusic, free food and general bonhomie.

Part of the club’s ideas is to visitother places that are doing similarthings and have faced the same chal-lenges of funding and finding a newdirection. Not far away is Bradford’s1-in-12 club which has similarlyinclusive radical politics. Just up theline is Hebden Bridge’s highly suc-cessful Trades Club, one of theNorth’s most acclaimed musicvenues. Both are overtly political,without being tied to one partyorganisation. Across the Pennines isBolton Socialist Club, founded in1895 and still going strong as a goodexample of united left activity.Another venerable survivor is themarvellous Clarion House set in mag-nificent countryside on the slopes ofPendle Hill. It was built in 1912 andwas recently featured on Radio 4. It

opens every Sunday and is a haven for cyclists andwalkers, run by a small group of dedicated social-ists.I’d love to hear about other examples of socialist-

inclined clubs around the country. Perhaps there aremore than I think but there doesn’t seem to be anysort of network. The old National Union of Labour

and Socialist Clubs ismore for traditionallabour clubs and does-n’t even have a web-site as far as I can see.Creating a lively,

inclusive and finan-cially viable centre forthe left is no easychallenge. But it isvital if we want torebuild a radical anddemocratic politics.

It’s partly about having somewhere friendly andaccessible to meet. But it’s also about networkingwith people from other political groups and workingtogether and running joint campaigns. A very posi-tive feature about the Red and Green Club has beenthe way that activists from the Labour Party, LeftUnity, Greens and local anarchist groups – as wellas non-aligned socialists - are working together in afriendly and positive way. The next few months willdecide the future of our venture..

Paul Salveson is a Labour councillor on Kirklees Counciland general secretary of the Hannah Mitchell Foundation www.paulsalveson.org.uk

A club of one’s ownPaulSalvesonreviewsradicalclubs inpointsandcrossings

RIGHTS WATCH

AmyWilliamson divisiveTory vans

Making the case forhuman rights

Amy Williams isa researcher onthe HumanRights FuturesProject based atthe LSE.

This is the firstof a new columnon human rights-related issuestoday and writesin a personalcapacity

It’s one of the great tragedies of themodern labour movement that so few clubssurvive. Many ‘labour clubs’ long sincebecame nothing more than cheap drinkingdens and most have succumbed tocompetition from even cheaper booze fromsupermarkets

Taxpayer-funded Tory hate vans

West Yorkshire has a richsocialist traditions that are stillcelebrated today

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 98 CHARTIST September/October 2013

to alter substantively EU law aremet only by piecemeal and lowestcommon denominator outcomes inresponse. Given the powers ofunelected institutions like theCourt and the Commission tomake EU policy and law it isimportant that directly electedbodies can repeal or substantivelyalter these. Currently this is verydifficult at the European leveland completely impossible at thenational. This points to a criticalgenerational aspect to the EU’sdemocratic deficit: Europeanlegislation passed in year onecannot be repealed later at thenational level and, again, isvirtually impossible to substan-tively alter through negotiationwith other member states. It isfundamental to any electoralnotion of democracy that genera-tions are not bound by laws of aprevious generation—a conceptalso fundamental to the Britishconstitutional principle‘Parliament is Sovereign’. Thishas been put into an uncertainposition with regard to EU mem-bership. But whereasConservative sceptics claim anEU exit is the only response, it isworth considering - in the nameof proper engagement theseissues - what other options areavailable.

All Bad? Remedies

Many will correctly point to theEuropean Parliament as a beaconof the EU’s democratic credentialsand buttress to Council andCommission overreaching. Itspowers have risen sharply sinceMaastricht and possess animportant role in the EU’s legisla-tive process. This does not itselfcorrect the top-down nature of theEU, nor can it correct theCommission’s own profoundlegitimacy and accountabilityproblems. Directly electing theCommission or, as FranziskaBrantner on page 16 recom-mends, tying EuropeanParliament elections to itscomposition are importantremedial ideas that should havebeen considered long ago; plus theParliament still needs greaterassent powers.The introduction of national

parliaments in structural terms

into EU governance, courtesy ofthe ‘Yellow Card’ procedure, wasa much vaunted innovation of theLisbon Treaty. Here nationalparliaments can come togetherunder the auspices of theCommittee of the Regions toreject Commission legislative pro-posals. This ‘rejection’ is not bind-ing however and building uponthis new feature in this waywould enhance the democraticcredentials of the EU and partlycorrect its top-down nature. Thisconstitutes a middle way betweenthe current ‘Yellow Card’ proce-dure and the ‘red card’ procedureWilliam Hague favours that pro-poses that a single national par-liament can veto European legis-lation. Hague’s idea would makethe EU’s legislative processunworkable, which if this is thegoal then advocate leaving theEU rather than pretending tomake meaningful suggestions.Introducing a substantive role

for national parliaments raisesthe spectre of subsidiarity—theprinciple in EU law that positsthat the lowest and mostappropriate level must be wherecompetence is assigned. Thisprinciple has nonetheless beengreatly ignored by EUinstitutions, themselves far moreconcerned with the advancinginternal market law. Subsidiaritycan be placed on an equal footingwith internal market law, eitherthrough the creation of a newsubsidiarity court, appeals pro-cess using the Parliament and asa legal basis for all of potentialremedies above.Some of these and other

suggestions need to be consideredif there is any interest in correct-ing the EU’s democratic deficit.Those on the pro-EU left need toacknowledge this and then canexpose the phony credentialsConservative sceptics have onthis issue. Modern Tories are nomore a democrat on this issuethan they were on the poll tax.The reason we know this is that ifthe EU’s democratic deficit werecorrected they would still becomplaining about loss ofsovereignty. More critically,engaging with the problems theEU has is essential for any demo-cratic socialist.

“Socialism and democracy are twosides of the same coin”

With any attempt todefine a ‘SocialEurope’, democrat-ic legitimacy,social rights,

accountability and distribution ofpower must be a fundamentalpart. Social Europe enthusiaststoo often however find themselvesin a muddle when dealing withthe EU’s democratic credentials.Conservative sceptics have seizedownership of a debate concerningthe EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ asthey’ve successfully, albeit partlyerroneously, conflated concerns of‘sovereignty’ and ‘democracy’. Denials of the EU’s democratic

deficit are very hard to sustain.Not only will a bonafide SocialEurope never be formed withoutthe EU’s democracy problemsbeing corrected, but the democrat-ic left will be placed on very dan-gerous territory. It must also beaccepted that there are a numberof potential remedies availablewithin as well as outside the EU.There are some very pertinentquestions as to how viable theseremedies are. In any event, non-engagement with the EU’s pro-nounced democracy problems isno longer an option.

The EU’s democratic deficit

The fleeting and superficialregard the British political classpays to issues of Europeanintegration is part of the reasonwhy the impact of the EU onnational life is not fully grasped.The EU’s considerable powers -for better or for worse - hasn’t yetbeen balanced with sufficientmeans of public and democraticcontrol. Citizens feel an increas-ing disconnect from a complex,opaque and distant EU politicalsystem; a conclusion given validi-ty given that there is no‘European government’ peoplecan throw out, despite the widepowers the EU’s executive - theEuropean Commission - enjoysover national policy and practice. While many celebrate the

intricate negotiation fora at theEuropean level, spearheaded bythe Council of Ministers, seriousproblems emerge when demands

opportunity to capture the publicimagination was lost in stagemanagement that disabled debateand banned votes.There will be frenzied activity

in some Constituency LabourParties committed to democraticsocialism. They are the ones thatsubmit resolutions (or did I meanmotions? Whatever!) for debate atConference. All to little avail. TheConference ArrangementsCommittee, an elected body witha majority of trade unionists, hasrigged the Conference agendawith remarkable aplomb andsaved the Leadership's blushesfor the last 15 years or more.There is no reason to suppose2013 is going to be any different. So it falls to the Leader, in his

keynote speech, and the morerecent innovations of platformQ&A sessions, with invited audi-ences, to project messages to the

electorate via television, and web-casts. Will anyone be listening?Not many, apart from the media,assembled chatteratti and theother political parties campaignstrategists eager to farm the pro-ceedings for gaffes – the feedstockof modern politics.

Simple messages

But these are precious and raremoments to win over potentialLabour voters, enthuse membersand supporters. It just needs thecreation of those simple mes-sages; you were conned by theCoalition, Labour showed growthwas possible, austerity is the poli-tics of despair, Labour councilsare showing the way – paying aliving wage, building councilhouses, creating apprenticeships– despite the Tories and LibDemsbest efforts to prop up privilegesand provide tax-breaks for theirsupporters – the 1%. And so on.It's not difficult if you don't live

Labour's leader is in amuddle. He hasn't gotlong to plot. The 2013Annual Labour PartyConference is his last

chance to seal a deal with theelectorate to improve his party'schances of winning the nextGeneral Election. There has beenno shortage of summery advice –welcome or otherwise.Two themes stick out: nail the

lie – there was no mess whenLabour lost the 2010 election; andsecondly: Ed Miliband needs tospeak human again and set outthe stories people will appreciate.Guardianistas have been draftingmini-manifestoes in desperationof the Leader's apparent silence –simple statements setting outcommon values that could beLabour's.Why the muddle? Just when

the electorate is increasinglyhungry for an anti-Coalitionnarrative, our Ed allows himselfto get embroiled in a typicalBlairite melodrama with theparty's affiliated unions, andchallenges them to a duel. It is adistraction. He is risking bothparty morale and cash. Expectthe issues to be quietly buried toavoid undermining morale amongLabour's core supporters – vitalfor campaigning and getting outthe vote in May 2015. Labournerds will savour the way inwhich this farrago has put LabourFirst, championed by JohnSpellar MP and serial PPC LukeAkehurst, representing theLabour Right into bed with theCampaign for Labour PartyDemocracy, championed byshouty old Labour leftie PeteWillsman.

What does Labour stand for?

None of that will matter a jotwith the voters. They want toknow: what does Labour standfor?On the basis of current showing

– not a lot. Oh, there are thechroniclers of policy initiativesable to list commitments enteredinto by the Labour Front benchsince the 2010 General Election.But no ordinary mortal canremember any of them. Worse,there was a National PolicyForum less than three monthsago at the end of June. But the

The Miliband muddlePeter Kenyon invites Labour's leader to focus on 'kinship', not 'kingship'

in the Westminster bubble. Butthat is Ed Miliband's weakness.He knows little else. His politicalcourage - standing against hisbrother and winning in 2010 isnot in doubt. But for what pur-pose? He sacked Nick Brown MPas chief whip, and stripped theParliamentary Labour Party of itsright to elect members to theshadow cabinet. Not achieve-ments to boast about to democrat-ic socialists. But it demonstratedstrong leadership, his apologistsargued. Fine, if you want to per-petuate ‘kingship’ through theleadership of the Labour Party.But the Labour Party was builton 'kinship', and that's how it willprosper for another 100 years.That's the bit of Labour's historythat Ed has yet to prove heunderstands. Labour's future isnot about individual choice andpersonal prejudice. It is about col-lective action and the commongood.That was what was so absurd

about his ‘personalised’ messageto members after the staged fightwith Unite the Union leader LenMcCluskey. If you really want torevive a mass-membership party,just remember political partiesare collectives, egos have to bemoderated for the common good.As Leader of Her Majesty's LoyalOpposition, please set a goodexample, Ed. There's a good chap.

LABOUR

Pointless duels: Ed’s unneccesary fight with the unionshurts him, the unions and the Labour Party

In an era of deficitsAndy Morton argues that the European Union’s democracy problems are deepening andmust be acknowledged, but not on Tory terms

EUROPEAN UNION

Andy Morton is aPhD researcherspecialising inEU policy, isChartist’sProduction Editorand heads up EUpolicy basedwebsite calledEUropean-responses.com

Why the muddle? Just when theelectorate is increasingly hungry foran anti-Coalition narrative our Edallows himself to get embroiled in atypical Blairite melodrama with theparty's affiliated unions, andchallenges them to a duel

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 11 10 CHARTIST September/October 2013

Over the past decadethe left has increas-ingly embracedEuropean integrationas a bulwark to global-

isation. However, the view thatthe EU provides the potential forrealising a progressive social andeconomic policy is problematic.The creation of a 'Social Europe'is patchy in both coverage andgenerosity, because at least fourvariants of the European SocialModel (ESM) exist. Moreover, theneo-liberal framework associatedwith Economic and MonetaryUnion (EMU) requires theseparate formulation of monetarypolicy by the independentEuropean Central Bank (ECB)from nationally determined fiscalpolicy, itself constrained by theStability and Growth Pact (SGP),leading to a lack of policy coordi-nation prejudicial to the construc-tion of a progressive economicframework. Hence, this approachis the antithesis to traditionaldemocratic socialist objectives.

Neo-liberal drift

Moreover, the recent neo-liber-al drift in strategy espoused bythe European Commissionimplies that, either the Left hasto redouble its efforts in a strug-gle within the EU to realise a fun-damental reform of its institu-tions and policy framework, orelse consider other, more nation-ally-orientated alternatives.However, to facilitate such strate-gies the nature of membershipper se is called into question interms of alternatives that mightproduce more egalitarian results.Consequently, we also outline anumber of these policy optionsand evaluate their potential bene-fits and costs from a broad politi-cal economy framework.One of the main reasons why

social democratic and trade unionconstituencies tend to favourdeeper European integrationderives from their enthusiasticsupport for the espace socialeuropéen. This vision is typicallycounter-poised against a neo-lib-eral, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model, charac-terised by the unfettered opera-

tion of free market forces. In theESM alternative, European citi-zens benefit from comprehensivesocial protection, wage regulationand social partnership.Additionally, trade unions play animportant part in the manage-ment of the labour market, ratherthan being marginalised by thegrowth of individual wageformation. Consequently, manyadherents dream of corporatistsolutions, or Euro-Keynesianmacroeconomic policies, eventhough these have not been real-istic alternatives for two decadesor more. However, given the pre-vailing drift towards more marketsolutions, it is not surprising thatthose with more progressive incli-nations are so attracted by theESM. Unfortunately, it is only amirage.There are a number of reasons

for this conclusion. The firstrelates to the fact that the EUwas founded as an economicorganisation, focused upon pro-moting integration through trade.It approached this through theremoval of internal trade barrierswhilst retaining them against therest of the world. The foundingTreaty of Rome established ‘four

plays lip service to the ESM, butthe emerging ‘Brussels-Frankfurtconsensus’ is profoundly neo-clas-sical in nature. It adopts conceptssuch as pre-commitment to fiscalrules, rather than counter-cyclicaldiscretion and accepts uncriticallytheories such as the neo-liberalexplanation of inflation andunemployment, which placeslabour market (i.e. wage) issuesat the heart of explaining theexistence of unemployment,rather than a lack of effectivedemand in the economy. Thus, ifEurope has a weak competitiveposition, it should create betterallocative efficiencies throughreducing wages or the social wageand promote market solutions. Assuch, there is a fundamental con-flict between the economic infras-tructure and the social super-structure of EU policy.It is against this growth in EU

neo-liberal economic orthodoxythat the ESM is supposed to pro-vide a counterweight. But how?Tax revenues are coming underincreasing pressure, as certainEU economies act as tax havensfor global transnational corpora-tions. Moreover, social policybecomes less a means of decom-modification and more an instru-ment of reinforcing market solu-tions; for example, enshrining thework principle, cutting pensionsand other programmes to main-tain competitiveness. Enshriningtrade union participation in deci-sion-making seems a shallowprize, when this has little impactupon economic orthodoxy at themacroeconomic level. This isunderlined when firms areincreasingly seeking to introduceindividualised payment systemswithin human resource manage-ment systems that offer less scopefor active trade union representa-tion of their members’ interests.Furthermore, the enlargement

of the EU, whilst desirable inmany respects, reinforces thisposition. Since wages in newmember states are so much lowerthan for the EU as a whole, thereis no realistic prospect of trying toequalise wages through regula-tion or trade union supranationalbargaining, nor is the establish-ment of European minimumwages very likely. The unificationof East and West Germanydemonstrated what damage couldbe inflicted upon a less productiveeconomy, when wages wereequalised too quickly.Unsurprisingly, the new memberstates could not sustain this solu-tion. Similarly, many new mem-ber states have under-developed

social and welfare policies. Forthose former communist nations,where a considerable proportionof social support was dealt withvia employing organisations, theshift to capitalism and marketsolutions have stripped-out mostof this former system without, inmany cases, replacing it with asystem of social support compara-ble with more established EUnations. Hence, the suggestionthat harmonisation of social mea-sures could form the basis for anESM is unrealistic. Indeed, recentdevelopments in the social protec-tion systems in a variety of estab-lished EU member states wouldappear to reinforce this.So, where does this leave pro-

gressive opinion? If the ESM isunlikely to be enacted in any kindof meaningful way beyond theminimal welfare base line that for

most EU nations represents arace to the bottom in social terms,where does that leave support forfurther integration and supportfor continual membership of theEU?

Keep the faith?

One option might be to keepthe faith and trust that, if orwhen new member states catch-up with more established EUnations, the potential for equali-sation of social protection andwages can occur. However, thiswill be a long and painful wait formany EU citizens. Moreover, theconcept of convergence is notautomatic, as can be evidenced byobserving the economic develop-ment of Spain, Portugal, Irelandand most obviously, Greece.A second alternative would be

to adopt a ‘trade union’ approachto EU membership and/or supportfor further European integration.In any negotiation, each partyoperates a system of sanctionsand rewards; therefore, progres-sives might wish to considerthreatening to remove their sup-port for integration, unless specif-

ic elements of the ESM pro-gramme were introduced immedi-ately. However, sanctions are notcredible if no-one believes them tobe real. For example, trade unionstrike threats only work if man-agers believe that this has thepotential to disrupt productiveactivity.A third alternative is to con-

clude that the European integra-tion project offers little for ordi-nary working people, as opposedto big business, and opt to developbetter national solutions. Thiswill require the construction ofsufficient electoral support tomake this a reality, but this iswhat left-of-centre political forcesshould be doing in any case.Moreover, to the extent that EUrules and regulations impededeveloping this new approach,creative solutions would need tobe identified.For example, if a more active

industrial policy falls foul of theEU’s competition law, then if thiscannot be changed within EUmembership, or support for cer-tain industries cannot providereal support without appearing tooffer anything looking like a sub-sidy, then EU membership itselfcomes into question. Similarlywith macroeconomic policy; if theEU persists with its currentorthodox approach, and the UK orany other nation wishes to pursuea Keynesian and/or more regula-tory approach, then membershipwill have to be re-examined.The Lisbon process has provid-

ed the ESM with a problem thatmay prove difficult (if not impos-sible) to solve. On the one hand,the EU is committed to develop-ing a more participatory, citizen-friendly form of social and eco-nomic governance, involvingemployees in decision-makingwithin the workplace and creat-ing a form of economics centredupon maintaining a high level ofemployment. However, simulta-neously the EU is committed toan economic agenda seeking toraise productivity through marketdetermination in the social andlabour market spheres. Onevision of the future takes as itsbasis a quasi-Keynesian negotiat-ed economy model, whereas theother has supply-side neo-liberalfoundations. To prevent cognitivedissonance, the EU needs toeither demonstrate how it cansquare this particular circle, orelse decide which approach itwishes to pursue.

Philip B. Whymanis a Professor atthe University ofCentralLancashire &Mark Baimbridgeis a SeniorLecturer at theUniversity ofBradford

The argumentscontained in thisarticle arediscussed atgreater length, inWhyman, P.B.,Baimbridge, M.and Mullen, A.(2012) ThePoliticalEconomy of theEuropean SocialModel,Routledge,Abingdon

Whither Social EuropeThe left needs to respond the neo-liberal reality of the EU and accept that the SocialEurope idea is on its knees argues Philip B. Whyman and Mark Baimbridge

freedoms’, one of which being thefree movement of capital, therebypreventing future governmentsfrom exercising democratic con-trol over capital movements. Thishas proven to be a problematicdecision, not only in preventingmany of the steps that could havebeen taken to prevent the conta-gion experienced during therecent financial crisis, but also forthose advocating an alternativeeconomic policy utilisingKeynesian and/or active industri-al policy instruments.

Little choice

Furthermore, the establish-ment of EMU amongst a majorityof EU member states ties partici-pants to a single monetary policyoperated by the ECB; based inGermany, the EU’s dominanteconomy. Its design means thatparticipants, once they becomeuncompetitive, have little choicebut to deflate their economies bysqueezing wages and/or cut publicspending in an attempt to reduceinternal costs. The LisbonAgenda, adopted by the EU in2000 and intended to enhanceEurope’s competitive position,

SOCIAL EUROPE

Much of the pro-EU left have received their inspiration from a Delorsian ‘European Social Model’,one that is scarcely part of the current European Commission blue print for Europe

Moreover, the recent neo-liberal drift instrategy espoused by the EuropeanCommission implies that, either theLeft has to redouble its efforts in astruggle within the EU to realise afundamental reform of its institutionsand policy framework, or else considerother, more nationally-orientatedalternatives

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 1312 CHARTIST September/October 2013

The European Union isin the process of negoti-ating a new agreementwith the United States.The Transatlantic

Trade and InvestmentPartnership (TTIP) promises tofound a new economic relation-ship with the United States, andlead to prosperity for both. Thisinnovation was lead by the EUand ushers in a new era of‘Western Integration’. In Britain,economic integration with, orthrough the EU is always con-tentious, and the publication ofthe Coalition’s review of EUpowers has brought it front andcenter once more. The review’sconclusion is that EU member-ship has led to a positive impacton the UK economy. The TTIPshould result in further positivegrowth for the UK and makes EUmembership even more attractiveeconomically.In establishing this agreement,

key issues regarding the rightsand movement of workers arise.Will this integration offer an evengreater challenge, and how maythe political left respond to thisnew development? One of the main explanations

for increasing social integrationin the EU is that when theeconomies are more closely inte-grated, subsequent marketfailures and disparities willemerge among member states.These are only resolvable throughfurther close working and harmo-nization. An example of this prin-ciple in practice is the ‘freedom ofmovement of people to work’established in the 1958 Treaty ofRome. The intention was that ifmarket imbalances should occuracross the market, then job seek-ers could move from one state toanother easily to follow these newopportunities. Thus imbalances inthe integrated economy may beresolved. This is also the acceptedlogic behind the ‘Social Chapter’.With the granting of free move-ment of workers in the EU, coher-

ent standards were thereforeneeded to ensure that theseworkers were treated in the samemanner across the participatingarea.There are then two main prob-

lems with the expanded rightsmentioned above in the integrat-ed market.

National trade unions

Firstly, the lack of a coherenttrade union movement across theEU has restricted the ability ofworkers to coalesce preferencesregarding working practices at asupranational level. This isdespite the large number ofcompanies that operate acrossEurope either through nationallybounded subsidiaries, or as partof a single supply chain. Thereare instances where cross borderaction has occurred, with Airbussupply chain in 2007 would beone notable exception, butwidespread and systemic engage-ment has not taken place.But why? Taking the UK as an

example, the political left is popu-

SOCIAL EUROPE

larly defined by two factors.Firstly a humanitarian ideologi-cal perspective derived post-enlightenment. This ideology isprincipally secular in nature, andsought a redress to the imbal-ances of a monarchical andpatronage based society. Later,the trade union movement real-ized some of these principles, butdiffered in others. Having arisenin large industries in the 19thcentury, bargaining was predomi-nantly local, and it took a deal oftime before it could be said tohave developed to transcend localand regional boundaries. Theseunions sought to derive directbenefit for their members throughtheir collective power rather thana more universal, transnationalaspiration. With the developmentof improved communications,acceptance of unionism morewidely, and the foundation of theLabour party, the union move-ment was able to reach beyondthese regional boundaries andbecome national. Similar storiesand processes are found acrossWestern Europe.

Greg Barnes surveys the problems and prospects for trade unions’ relationship with theEuropean Union

A tale of twounions

National union movementshave attempted to use ‘soft’ coor-dination of their groups in theEuropean sphere. It could be saidthat they have been unsuccessfulat real cross border operation.This is a result of the directtransactional relationship with itsmembership and the consequentnational focus. In this sense,trade unionism appears elitist innature. It defines itself, its princi-ples, and the desired results bythat which it is not. So it is theworkers against the management,the members against non-mem-bers and an industry against itscompetition. Trade unionism hasconsequently been linked withprotectionism and a desire toretain Western industrial produc-tion against Far Eastern out-sourcing. The flip side of this discussion

has seen the political left effec-tively use the supranational levelto access power at a systemiclevel. This access has offered aroute to avoid the partisanship ofnational legislatures. Thereforethe political left has had a routeto realize some of their goals –hence some of the protectionsenshrined in the Social Chapterdespite neo-liberal protestations.The challenge is now to lookbeyond national borders toembrace a universal internationallabour and integrate the directpatronage associated with union-ism. The principle of Europeancitizenship offers one route tothis. It has not been widelyaccepted.

Movement of Workers

Secondly, without the ability torebalance employment throughfree movement of workers andreciprocal workers rights, a freetrade area with the US will breakone of the fundamental principlesof the EU. The TTIP in its initialproposed form does not provide

borders, they are unlikely to joinUnions in the new state intowhich they move. In 2004, theGerman based European MigrantWorkers union was formed fromthe Building, Forestry,Agriculture and EnvironmentUnion. Development of suchgroups is of crucial importancewhen considering the furtherextension of global free trade. It iscrucial therefore to determine anon-elitist ideological focus forthe left and unions to allow fortheir national level structures totranscend to the transnationallevel. When seen from this per-spective, an extension of economicintegration to such a scale provid-ed by this new TTIP is a signifi-cant threat to an uncoordinatedEuropean labour force.The political left has a range of

fora available to press theseissues, but none at a high enoughlevel to have leverage. Groupssuch as the International LabourOrganisation (ILO) work on justthese issues, but I would arguethat without either a sense of uni-versality or a direct relationshipto union members any ‘soft’ coor-dination in this way is likely toflounder. This can only beresolved through greater directcoordination through a transna-tional union movement.

for this possibility. The US hasbeen careful to protect its borders,and has stated that the rights ofworkers will not change followingthis agreement. The free movement of workers

in the EU has not been realized inthe manner it was originallyintended either. There areinstances where some states(notably the UK) have seen largenumbers of migrants for unskilledwork, but a mass transnationalemployment market still seemsremote. Language and culturalbarriers conspire to alienate for-eign workers, while the monetarycosts of moving from one countryto another prohibit this practicefor many sectors of society. Otherpractices, such as the need tohave a bank account in the same

state for the payment of wages(particularly prevalent inFrance), construct further techni-cal barriers.

TTIP and international labour

So, even if the TTIP were toinclude these principles, it isunlikely they would be successful,particularly with the geographicaldistance of the US. Therefore, thepossible unemployment caused byaspects of the TTIP such as inagriculture would remain unre-solved. Groups such as theFarmers Alliance have highlight-ed these issues and the erosion ofCAP support that may be includ-ed. Where workers do move across

The partnership between the trade union movement and the European Union is essential for aSocial Europe

In establishing this agreement, keyissues regarding the rights andmovement of workers arise. Will thisintegration offer an even greaterchallenge, and how may the politicalleft respond to this new development?

�

Greg Barnes is aPhD researcherat the Universityof Leeds whoseresearch focuseson EuropeanUnion politicaleconomy-

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 1514 CHARTIST September/October 2013

Trade betrayalThe undemocratic assault from a global trade agenda is bearing poisonous fruit in the formof EU trade and procurement law argues Linda Kaucher

EU TRADE

Linda Kaucherhas reaserchedthe EU'sinternationaltrade agenda for14 years and hasa broadbackground asan educator.She campaignsto take the lid offtrade secrecy

The main business of theEU is its external tradeagreement agenda, yetthis agenda and itsimportance are almost

entirely hidden from the public. Italso dominates internal EU andmember states’ policy-making. Itcontradicts the faux ‘socialEurope’ concept to which many onthe left continue to cling whilstdemocracy is eradicated and cor-porate rights entrenched in inter-national trade law.Its purpose is to permanently

fix corporate-driven neo-liberal-ism, within the EU and interna-tionally, via trade agreements.Any reassertion of democracywithin the EU structure or mem-ber states is prevented by legallybinding international trade law.This agenda is driven and effec-tively controlled by transnationalcorporations, especially transna-tional financial services corpora-tions.Internal EU policy, mirroring

external trade policy, is formulat-ed to fit and facilitate that wideragenda. Member states’ nationalpolicies are similarly formulatedto fit to this model, especially thatof the UK which hosts the majortransnational financial servicescentre and takes the neo-liberallead in the EU.

The bigger picture

In this liberalisation agenda,states’ powers are subordinated totransnational corporate power.Democracy, states’ abilities tocontrol corporations and connec-tions between people and placeare overcome, as are workers’rights. Real women’s rights haveno place except where profitable,so e.g. a sector may be ‘feminised’,to reduce labour costs, untilcheaper male labour is brought infrom overseas, or work sent over-seas.This bigger picture is success-

fully kept from the public bymeans of secrecy, spin and seem-ing trade ‘technicality’. The resultis that the left continues to swirlaround in a mush of wishfulthinking from old ‘Social Europe’promises and ideological frag-ments that fail to address present

realities, thus effectively castrat-ing itself. Dissemination of infor-mation on this agenda is urgentlyneeded to overcome secrecy andinform debate.In 2005 the EU’s trade agree-

ment focus shifted from thestalled multilateral World TradeOrganisation Doha Round tobilateral and regional tradeagreements. The EU has nowcompleted, is negotiating, haslaunched, or is considering tradeagreements with most of theworld. The EU now includes ‘investor

protection’ or Investor StateDispute Settlement (ISDS) in itstrade deals. In addition to state-to-state trade dispute mecha-nisms, corporations will be able tosue governments directly for anyEU, member state or even localgovernment level action that neg-atively affects their future profits.ISDS is a major factor in makingtrade deals irreversible,inevitably chilling the legislativeprocess. David Cameron’s reneging on

legislation for plain cigarettepackaging is indicative evenbefore ISDS kicks in, though theUK press failed to identify theinternational trade context. InAustralia, the High Court ruledagainst tobacco companies’ legalchallenge to the government’s

plain packaging legislation.Immediately, the Ukraine, host-ing a Phillip Morris subsidiary,raised a World TradeOrganisation (WTO) disputeagainst Australia in relation tothe WTO Trade RelatedIntellectual Property (TRIPS)agreement. WTO trade disputeshave to be state-to-state. The UK, unrelentingly ‘free

trade’, could hardly enact ‘anti-free trade’ legislation, and effec-tively support Australia in thisglobally significant dispute, espe-cially while pursuing the massiveUS/EU trade deal. Who remindedCameron of this and their finan-cial interests are important ques-tions, but more significant is thechilling effect of the internationaltrade agenda on this and allfuture UK legislation.

TTIP

Because the Gillard Australiangovernment excluded ISDS fromAustralian trade agreements,challenges have been onlynational and in the state-to-stateWTO. With ISDS included in allnew EU trade deals, the UK willbe financially vulnerable to legalaction by any corporation, in theinternational trade jurisdictionthe corporation chooses, adjudi-cated only on ‘free-trade’ values.

Secrecy allows the TradeCommission to be increasinglyambitious. Now we face thenewly-launched (1) but longplanned US/EU TransatlanticTrade and InvestmentPartnership (TTIP) (2).It is part of the secrecy and

spin to misleadingly emphasisepotential trade-in-goods tariffreductions when US/EU trade-in-goods tariffs are already minimaland most of the EU’s trade is nowin services. Trade-in-services lib-eralisation gives corporationsrights to: operate in a countrywhile reducing the state’s rightsto control how they operate; betreated as well as domestic firms,including access to subsidies (3);while prohibiting the state fromlimiting the number of providersand the range of services theyoffer (4). The US/EU trade deal however

goes beyond the liberalisation oftrade-in-services, central to mosttrade deals, prioritising ‘regulato-ry harmonisation’ between the USand the EU. Insofar as a countryis defined by its legislation andregulation, the US and the EUwill become more similar, withregulations and standards ‘har-monised’ to the lowest levels tobenefit transnational corporationsthat can utilise trade agreements.(Solely domestic firms cannot).Preliminary TTIP documenta-

tion, including the Commission’sleaked mandate, recognises that‘harmonisation’ is most effectivewith new regulation, ensuringthat it is corporate-friendly as it’sbeing formulated.

The NHS under threat

An example is provided by theUK Health and Social Care Actand its regulations that willdefine the future of the NHS. Iteffectively enforces competitivetendering, and thus privatisationand liberalisation i.e. opening totransnational bidders - a shift toUS-style profit-prioritised healthprovision. Even if outcomes ofthe NHS changes are disastrous,ISDS will effectively disallow anyattempts by any future UK gov-ernment, to reverse the changes. The WTO Doha Round stalled

because, in that context, develop-ing countries jointly resisteddemands of corporations made viaWestern governments. Furtherstated TTIP objectives are forother countries to be brought, sin-gularly, into this ‘transatlantic’trade deal as they agree to abideby its corporate-benefit rules, andfor trade ‘rules’ to be established

that can then be incorporated intothe multilateral WTO. Thus, thistrade deal is intended to achievethe global neo-liberalism that theWTO Doha Round has not. There are concurrent negotia-

tions, for the same overall aims,on a Transpacific Partnership(TPP) and an internationalTrade-in-Services Agreement(TISA)(5). Corporate rights to access pub-

lic procurement, that is all gov-ernment spending at all levels, isnow a top ‘trade’ priority, provid-ing on-going ’rent’, as with NHScontracts, when other forms ofinvestment are less reliable. TheGlobal Procurement Agreement(GPA) (6) is another means toachieve this, in addition to bilat-eral trade deals. So this jugger-naut of corporate power is apply-ing pressure at all levels for irre-versible corporate rights, and theEU is a main mechanism for this.

Problems of Procurement

Transnational corporate powerin Brussels is not particularly‘European’. The UK government,acting for London-based transna-tional financial services, financialservices lobbying via theEuropean Services Forum, andthe US Chamber of Commerce allhave major roles in the EU tradeagenda. Firms gain from bothsides’ concessions in trade dealswhile people on both sides lose.Proposed reforms to EU procure-ment regulations will force mem-ber states’ into global biddingprocurement processes sotransnational firms, via the EUmechanism and trade deals, canaccess government spending else-where, quid pro quo. The EU single market prepares

the way for external trade com-mitments made on behalf ofEuropean people in the EU, albeitwithout their knowledge. Abusingdemocracy, the EU now imple-ments trade agreements subse-quent to European Parliamentaryassent but before member stategovernments’ ratification.Supposedly ‘Social Europe’ is

systematically destroying labourrights. Labour rights have alwaysrested on limited labour supply.Moving workers across bordersfrom lower to higher wage coun-

tries destroys labour power but ishighly profitable. The EU doesprovide free movement both ofworkers and services, but this hasbeen used by firms to transferworkers to undercut wages, adevelopment underlined byEuropean Court of Justice(7)interpretations of EU directivesin favour of corporations, overrid-ing workers’ rights.EU internal provision is mir-

rored in secretive Mode 4 provi-sions in all EU trade deals, allow-ing firms, both transnational andfrom the partner state, to movenumerically unlimited, skilled,temporary labour into the EU.These effectively permanent pro-visions discriminate against hostcountry firms but mostly hostcountry workers, disregardingdisplacement or unemployment.Movement of labour is a majorcapitalist strategy hithertounrecognised and unaddressed bymuch of the UK left. The unani-mous 2011 Trade Union Congressvote to publicise and oppose theEU/India free trade agreement,which is largely about cheaplabour movement, was not imple-mented. The EU is not a fixed entity

and it continually expands toinclude low wage countries. TheTTIP will be similarly amor-phous. Its framework will allow itto change, its provisions deepen,and non-‘transatlantic’ countriesto join, even after it is signed.These are urgently needed: publicinformation on the internationaltrade agenda: exemption for theNHS from the TTIP; and recogni-tion that the EU, rather thanbeing ‘social’, is a mechanism forglobal corporate takeover.

Links

1. Launched at the G8 (17 June2013)2. Called the Transatlantic FreeTrade Agreement (TAFTA) in theUS3. National Treatment rule4. Market Access rule5. Between willing countries with-in the WTO, aiming to graduallypull more in, towards an eventualmultilateral agreement.7.Another plurilateral of willingcountries within the WTO, aimedat eventual multilateral coverage.8.Especially Viking, Laval,Rüffert, Luxembourg decisions ofthe European Court of Justice

A Global trade agenda has moved far beyond ships and crates and includes. It now includes subtlebut powerful mechanisms to infiltrate national politics. The EU is a big player in this agenda

Even if outcomes of the NHS changesare disastrous, ISDS will effectivelydisallow any attempts by any future UKgovernment, to reverse the changes

16 CHARTIST September/October 2013

While the UK government'sapproach to Europe seems to followthe notion "less is more", on thecontinent all major political parties– Conservatives, Socialists,

Liberals and Greens – argue that "more Europe"is the answer to the euro crisis. While moreEurope is certainly needed in some areas, pro-Europeans should focus their forces on makingthe EU more responsive to citizens. And theyshould realise that sometimes less can indeed bemore – but combined with a real pro-Europeanheart.Europe is still mired in its deepest economic,

social and political crisis since the Second WorldWar. The global financial meltdown has translat-ed across the European Union into an economicdownturn, social hardship and a growing loss ofpolitical legitimacy and trust. The EU and itsinstitutions and powers have increasingly beenput into the spotlight in the search for ways out ofthe crisis.Maybe surprisingly (especially for British

observers), a broad consensus among decision-makers has emerged across Europe that theanswer to the EU's existential crisis should be"more Europe". European Conservatives (whichdo not include the Tories), Socialists, Liberals andGreens have all voiced their support for more eco-nomic and political integration in order to over-come the EU's dangerous asymmetries: a quasi-federal monetary union without the economic andpolitical pillars to keep it in balance.The situation looks, of course, very different

viewed from the United Kingdom, where the pub-lic debate on Europe is pretty much disconnectedfrom that on the mainland. However, even on thecontinent, pro-Europeans should not contentthemselves with the general lip service paid to"more Europe".First of all, this seeming consensus does not go

far beyond the surface since "moreEurope" can mean very differentthings to different people. Also,rhetorical commitment to deeperintegration often goes hand inhand with stalling tactics when itcomes to its practical implementa-tion. This has been exemplified bythe hypocritical manoeuvring ofChancellor Angela Merkel and her governmentover the past three years.

Positive image

More worrying for pro-Europeans should be thelack of public support for, and trust in, an ever-more powerful Brussels even on the mainland.Today less than a third of EU citizens have a posi-tive image of the European Union. This funda-mental crisis of confidence is "home-made", i.e.the politicians both in national capitals and inBrussels have only themselves to blame. For, gen-erally, Europeans are very open to the Europeanidea. Polls show that not only the majority of EUcitizens define their own identity not only in

EUROPEAN UNION

‘Better’ rather than ‘more Europe’Franziska Brantner MEP sees a pro-European argument that must be more responsive to the EU’s problems as well as its strengths

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 17

national but also European terms. But also dothey support European solutions to concrete prob-lems? For instance, almost 90 per cent of EU citi-zens agree that EU states should cooperate moreclosely to overcome the financial and economiccrisis.How does general support for European cooper-

ation and shrinking confidence in Europe's insti-tution go together? One explanation may be thattwo thirds ofEU citizensbelieve thattheir voice doesnot count in EUaffairs. Simplypromising moreof the sameEurope to thepeople won'thelp addressthis growingd i s e n c h a n t -ment. Peopleare not longingfor more or lessEurope; whatthey ask for is abetter Europe.And they wantthemselves tohave a say inwhat “better”means to them.The proponentsof Europeani n t e g r a t i o n ,especially onthe Continent,have so farfailed torespond to these

sentiments. They have beentoo quickly calling for ever-more Europe while brushingoff valid criticism of actualproblems as anti-European.Before calling for more Europe,pro-Europeans need to explainhow citizens can retain owner-ship of the process. The truly

historic project of genuinely finalising economicand political union will only be successful if thecitizens feel part of the enterprise.

Equal footing

How can this be accomplished? There are someinstitutional fixes to this, largely centring on theEuropean Parliament. The EU Parliament shouldfinally be put on a fully equal footing with the EUCouncil of national governments. In particular, inmonetary and economic matters, which are oftennot of a legislative nature and therefore don'tfully involve MEPs yet, in the future no majordecisions should be taken without Parliament'sfull involvement and approval. As a concrete step,

the 'troika' should be abandoned and replaced bya democratically controlled body. As a result,Europe's response to the euro crisis would becomemuch more transparent and the decision-makersbehind it much more accountable.Also, the link between the European

Commission and the European Parliament needsto be further strengthened. At the same time theEuropean Commission is handed increasingly

more power ino v e r s e e i n gnational fiscaland economicpolicies. TheC o mm i s s i o nPresident needsa strongerd e m o c r a t i cmandate bytying his or hernomination tothe results ofthe elections tothe EuropeanP a r l i a m e n t .Just as the lead-er of the win-ning party orcoalition of theelections to theUK House ofC o m m o n sbecomes PrimeMinister, theleader of thepan-EU PartyAlliance win-ning the elec-tions to theE u r o p e a nParliament will

become Commission President.Despite the fact that these

ideas are not new and today enjoywidespread public support in con-tinental Europe, many nationalgovernments (and their bureau-crats), whilst paying lip service tothe proposals, are reluctant toshare power with MEPs and EU-wide political party leaders inpractice. This includes the United Kingdom,where national in/out referenda seem to beregarded as a much better way to bolster the EU'slegitimacy than enhancing popular participationat EU level.Proponents of European integration should fur-

thermore accept that “more Europe” cannot be theanswer to each and every problem popping up, inmany areas we actually could well live with "lessEurope". Europe as a community certainly needsa firm and lasting legal foundation, which pro-vides citizens and businesses with a unifiedframework, in which common laws are enforcedand common fundamental rights protected.Beyond this firm and lasting foundation, however,

the Union needs to remain flexible enough toevolve.Certain areas such an evolution can lead to

more Europe, in other areas to less Europe.Where we might need more Europe today, wemight need less of it tomorrow. Objective circum-stances and people's convictions change over time,and the division of labour between the Union andits states (as well as regions and municipalities),should adapt to this evolution and always be guid-ed by the principle that competences must belocated at the level at which the given objectivescan best be achieved.

More powers

Brussels certainly needs more powers to stemthe debt and banking crisis, at least as far as theEuro area is concerned. But does it really stillneed to control what a farmer seeds somewhere inSouth East England or whether a restaurantowner in Napoli puts open olive oil jugs on histables?One would certainly have to be fairly naive to

believe that Brussels would voluntarily cede itspowers, such as in the field of agricultural poli-cies, back to the national level. It therefore needsmechanisms to ensure that the division of labouris not set in stone forever. One solution would beto tag EU laws with an expiry date. This wouldensure that every, say, ten or fifteen years therehave to be a fresh public debate on whether aparticular issue is best dealt with in Brussels,London or at regional level. For many people, thiswould probably make it easier to support "moreEurope" where and when it is needed. While the notion of reviewing EU powers might

sound familiar in the UK as of late, it is rarelyheard of among continental advocates ofEuropean integration. It is very unfortunate thatDavid Cameron's ongoing “review” of EU compe-

tences with its ideology-drivenand blatantly unilateral naturewill certainly make it no easierto sell the idea to pro-Europeancircles on mainland Europe.But the proponents of

European integration, both inthe UK and on the continent,should not leave this argumentto the Eurosceptic and

Europhobe camps. Europeans don't simply need“more Europe”. They need a better Europe, whichcan at times mean more powers for Brussels andat times less, but must always mean more owner-ship for the people.

Franziska Brantner an MEP from the Baden-Wurttemburg region in South West Germany and amember of the German Green party Die Grunen and theEuropean Free Alliance bloc in the European Parliament

www.franziska-brantner.eu/en

People are not longing for more orless Europe, what they ask for is abetter Europe. And they wantthemselves to have a say in what"better" means to them

The Berlaymont, the home of the European Commission: power needs to be distributed better amongthe EU’s institutions

Proponents of European integrationshould furthermore accept that “moreEurope” cannot be the answer to eachand every problem

18 CHARTIST September/October 2013 September/October 2013 CHARTIST 19

Ireland joined the EuropeanUnion in 1972, its member-ship has to date been social-ly and economically benefi-cial, but modern day auster-

ity is threatening to erode anyprogress that has been made fromit. The aim of EU membershipwas to turn Ireland into acompetitive economy, but wasalso a social experiment ofmodernisation.The adjustment to EU member-

ship has been a drawn out pro-cess. It would take almost twentyyears before the full benefits ofmembership materialised wheninjections of capital from Brusselshelped build the foundations ofthe Celtic Tiger. EU modernisa-tion also influenced the socialspectrum of Irish life.Irish women in particular have

gained greatly from the EU. As acondition of EU membership,Ireland had to remove the mar-riage ban that mandated marriedwomen could not work in the civilservice. Before entry to the EUIrish women experienced othersocial inequalities such as restric-tions on jobs and pay. With EUmembership women’s rights wererecognised through anti-discrimi-nation legislation and in the 1974Equal Pay Directive gave womenequal pay in the workplace.Irish women in the labour force

rose from 27% to 42%. The con-cept of a one earner householdgradually disappeared. Today thedual-earner household is retreat-ing back to a single-earner house-hold due to high unemploymentamong males that has resulted inclear role reversal for many Irishmen and women.Irish farmers have also benefit-

ted from the EU, becoming thebiggest financial winners fromEU membership through theprice support system supplied bythe Common Agricultural Policy(CAP). Generous CAP paymentshave to date amounted up to 44bnEuro. After the economic turbu-lence of the 1980s Ireland becamethe poster child for EU prosperityin the 1990s when it became oneof the best performing economies

in Europe.In 1994 over 7% of all US

investment in Europe was des-tined for Ireland, this was aresult of Ireland’s attractive loca-tion for foreign investment. Beingin the European Union also gaveIreland access to the CommonMarket, one of the critical ingre-dients in attracting internationalinvestors to Ireland. Financialhelp from EU structural fundsbecame increasingly visual acrossIreland from 1988 onwards whenthe country was designated as anobjective one region for structuralfund money. Those funds alsohelped to improve infrastructure,water treatment plants, ruraldevelopment and heritage sites.Rural Ireland benefited from pro-jects co-funded by the EU, receiv-ing up to 2bn Euro, but thesehave been subject to austerity-driven cut backs.

Austerity

Ireland now sees high rates ofsuicide as austerity measures aremaking it harder for people tomeet basic needs. In particular, asharp rise has been reported inthe amount of young males takingtheir lives. In 2011 of the 525reported suicides in Ireland, 165were men under the age of 30.One such group who have suf-fered from a spike in suicide ratesare junior doctors who haverecently spoken out against thelong working hours, some claim-ing to have worked 71 hours aweek while others told of howthey work 36 hours without abreak.Austerity has also hit the uni-

versity sector. Higher educationinstitutions positively gainedfrom EU membership throughfunded research programmesreceiving in excess of 6bn Eurofrom the European Social Fund.College fees were abolished in themid 90s which made it easier foreveryone to go onto further educa-tion, but in recent recessionarytimes fees are creeping back thusreserving third level education forthe privileged few. The Irish edu-

cation system also benefitedgreatly from EU membership asprojects such as the Erasmus pro-gramme gave EU citizens easyaccess to education acrossboarders.Another benefit of EU member-

ship lay in the accessibility towork without a visa in other EUmember states and this has madeit much easier for many youngIrish to migrate in search of workacross Europe.Youth unemployment has

reached its highest since the1980s prompting ever more tomigrate across Europe but manymore are taking flight for placeslike Canada and Australia. Thenumber of under-25s emigratingin 2004 stood at approximately15,000 but doubled to 30,000 in2009. This is a brain drainIreland can ill afford.In 2010 Ireland accepted an

EU/IMF bailout amounting to 85Billion Euro. Austerity soon fol-lowed resulting in a drop in thestandard of living.Basic minimum income has

been cut which reverses theprogress in equality made since1973. Social welfare has also beencut while higher taxes have beenintroduced.We are told that these austeri-

ty measures are meant to combatrecession but it just seems thatthe cure is much worse than thedisease.

Lily Murphy provides an important Irish view to the benefits of EU membership eroded byrecent Austerity measures

EUROPEAN UNION

The benefit of EU membershiperoded by austerity

Trafalgar, Tahrir,Taksim. Those Squaresand Streets lead us toask questions aboutdemocracy, secularism

and islamification.The West wants to justify its

actions by imposing democracy,often hand in hand with liberaleconomics. As one US ambas-sador to Cyprus put it: “marketsand votes”.Seen through the prism of

Cyprus, Turkey’s claim to be themodel for the Arab Spring, demo-cratic, secular and Muslim,always seemed slightly ironic, butit definitely ran into the groundover the Istanbul conservation-ists’ move to save Gezi Park.

Autocratic

At the end of July, TurkishCypriots held early elections fortheir Assembly. A vote of noconfidence in the main right winggoverning party was precipitatedby the split between supporters ofthe Turkish Cypriot leader, DrDervish Eroglu, President of theunrecognised Turkish Republic ofNorthern Cyprus (TRNC) andRecep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’sincreasingly autocratic primeminister.Turkish Cypriot trade unions

organised ‘human standing’ emu-lating the ‘Man Standing’ inTaksim Square. They protestedagainst Turkish policies ofdemographic change.Islamification and decision mak-ing by Turkey’s military andAmbassador.The liberalisation of the

economy, including selling ofstate assets, as is happening inthe south following the Troikabailout, has an added dimensionin the north where the TurkishCypriot-owned public sector istransferred to Turkey’s privatesector. As the north becomesTurkey most of what Cypriotshad in common is lost.Yet Greek Cypriots focus on

Erdogan’s opening of the GreenLine in 2003, when he becameprime minister, following thesuccessful Cavit An case at theECHR against Turkey who had tocompensate him for preventinghis meeting his Greek Cypriotmedical colleagues. GreekCypriots also credit Erdogan with

dismantling the military throughthe Ergenekon cases which haveresulted in life sentences. Thereis speculation that had the GreekCypriots voted yes in 2004 therewould have then been a coup inTurkey. A new state could be cre-ated with the police force andsympathetic officers in the mili-tary.Erdogan and his Justice and

Development (AK) party seemunassailable. Turkish Cypriotssay the US gets one thing right.Their president has only twoterms! Erdogan benefits from avoting system which has a tenper cent threshold. Thiseffectively rules out representa-tives of the Kurdish Peace andDemocracy Party who have tostand as independents. Whetheror not Turkey’s constitution

changes from parliamentary topresidential, it is doubtful theRepublican People’s Party (CHP)in the Socialist International, canwrest back power from this large-ly compassionate conservativeSunni Muslim party. This lack ofa left alternative is partly theresult of past military coups butmainly a need to recover fromtheir nationalistic stance. In northern, Cyprus the

military supported the late RaufDenktash, as it did in Turkey.His son Serdar leads the demo-crat party, which was the benefi-ciary of a split in the main party. Some explain the initial posi-

tives of Erdogan because he wasa democrat and a Muslim. Heneeded the European democraticframework to protect his partywhich grew out of the outlawedWelfare Party when he was jailedfor reciting a poem, but now findsdemocratic openness a frustra-tion. His support for thePalestinians, although welcomed,is a facet of his Sunni national-

ism. The Gesi Park demonstration

brought together disparategroups which the electoral systemdoes not: Kurds, secularists,Europeanised democrats,environmentalists, students,trade unionists. So it seems thatmuch will depend on develop-ments in the AKP party itself.President Gul was much moreconciliatory to the demonstrators.

The democracy train

Ironically Erdogan got on thedemocracy train to safeguard hisparty’s existence. He seems tohave got off whilst others move onclaiming rights to demonstrateand cover these events.Journalists have lost their jobs, orgone on trial, demonstrators havebeen accused of being terrorists,the train moves on. Democracy isnot a train that you can get offwhen you reach the station youwant. It rolls on.The EU is not going to accept

Turkey any time soon with somany journalists in prison. TheUS is no longer followingErdogan’s advice in Syria – theSunni alternative seems no betterthan Assad. With better coverageof Turkey, the Kurds and north-ern Cyprus, without the US andUK’s uncritical support, it may bein Turkey’s interest to have a set-tlement in Cyprus and that iswhat will save the TurkishCypriot community from extinc-tion.

Turkish democracy rolls onMary Southcott on why you can’t get off the train

Ironically Erdogen got on thedemocracy train to safeguard hisparty’s existence. He seems to havegot off whilst others move on claimingrights to demonstrate and cover theseevents...Democracy is not a train thatyou can get off when you reach thestation you want. It rolls on

Dublin: once the thriving heart of the Celtic Tiger, now thecentre of Ireland’s austerity-driven nightmare

TURKEY

Former democrat, now autocrat, Turkish Prime MinisterRecep Tayyip Erdogan

SOMALIA

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 21

Somalia, the semi-aridcountry occupying theHorn of Africa, withKenya, Ethiopia andDjibouti as neighbours,

was carved out of the territory ofthe nomadic Somali ethnic peopleduring the colonisation of Africaby Europe at the end of the nine-teenth Century. Somalian endedup under five different govern-ments: French, British, Italian,British (again) and Ethiopia.Even when the Independent

Somali Republic was establishedin 1961, the tragic divisionsremained, with those Somali inEthiopia, (4.5 million), Kenya (2.5million), and Djibouti (0.5 million)cut off from their kith and kin inthe new republic. Today, sub-stantial numbers are also foundin Yemen and elsewhere in theMiddle East, Europe and NorthAmerica. This is tragic for theestimated 19 million Somalis. On top of all that, Somalia has,

almost from independence, been a‘failed state’. In 1969 the youngrepublic of 1961 was overthrownby Major General Siad Barre andhis Supreme RevolutionaryCouncil, and the country renamedthe Somali Democratic Republic.

National consciousness

In 1976 the SupremeRevolutionary Council was inturn replaced by the SomaliRevolutionary Socialist Party,whose ideology borrowed heavilyfrom the Chinese ‘CulturalRevolution’, sending students,civil servants and military ‘volun-teers’ to the countryside on litera-cy campaign, combating the tradi-tional clan social system, and pro-moting national consciousnessand unity. Farming co-operativeswere established; infrastructure,including hospitals and roads,were built; while land, business-es, industry and banks werenationalised. Carried away by ambition,

Barre launched his ‘GreaterSomalia’ crusade in 1977, whichwas his biggest and fatal gamble,as he launched a total waragainst Ethiopia and occupiedmuch of its southern Ogadenregion. The Ethiopians foughtback strongly, with Cuba givingvaluable military support. The

invasion ended in 1978 with thevirtual destruction of the previ-ously powerful Somalian army,and marking the beginning ofBarre’s down fall. Internal rivalstook advantage of the militarydisaster, harassed and pursuedhim to Mogadishu. Barre finallyfled the country in 1991, afterabout 21 years in power.Thus the first 30 years of inde-

pendence, mainly under the‘strongman’ Barre, were a partand parcel of the ‘failed state’ sta-tus of Somalia!Similarly, the two decades or

so since have witnessed preciouslittle development, with a virtualabsence of central governmentprevailing. Overall, the tradi-tional clan rule took over acrossthe country, though with fluidboundaries. In the north the for-mer British Somaliland brokeaway, named itself Somalilandand declared independence. Atthe Horn, Puntland declareditself autonomous, while in theMogadishu region the hard-lineUnion of Islamic Courts was infirm control.In frustration, and under the

cover of the UN 1992-95 involve-ment, the US intervened militari-ly in an attempt at regimechange, but the invasion turnedcatastrophic. The Union ofIslamic Courts remained in con-trol of Mogadishu and much ofthe central and southernSomalia. With poor habitat, civil and

external wars, plus lack of bothgovernment and development,Somalia has been a ‘failed state’during most of its existence; withthe people among the poorest inthe poorest continent. The pro-portionately huge Somalian dias-pora reflects this history. Disagreements, squabbles and

infighting within the Union ofIslamic Courts eventually led to asplit, with the radical Youthgroup, (Al-Shabaab), formed in2006 and linked to the Al-Qaida,breaking away and establishingitself in the south of the country,with its base at the southernport-city of Kisimayou. InOctober 2012 a Kenyan contin-gent of the UN-mandated 18,000-strong African Union Mission inSomalia (AMISOM), attackedKisimayou from its own shores

and drove the Al-Shabaab out, aswell as from the nearbyKenyan/Somalian border area.However, Al-Shabaab is stillstrong in the area, although inter-nal strife seems on the increase.Between Barre’s flight in 1991

and 2000 Somalia had no nationalgovernment. The 2000Transitional National govern-ment was replaced by theTransitional Federal Governmentin 2004, which went on to oustthe Islamic Courts Union fromMogadishu. In severe militarydifficulties, however, this govern-ment was forced to move toNairobi, Kenya. Under the 2012Provisional Constitution, theSomali Federation of 18 regionswas proclaimed; followed by theelection of the FederalGovernment of Somalia, headedby a President and a PrimeMinister. Somalian governmen-tal institutions have since leftKenya for Somalia. Colonial legacy of underdevel-

opment, decades of fighting,drought, famine, and indeed theabsence of government haveresulted in huge numbers ofSomalian refugees leaving thecountry, with the world’s biggestrefugee camp at Dadaab in Kenyahosting 600,000 Somalians. (Justimagine the political fall-out andoutcry if this was at, say, Dover!)What is encouraging about the

recent developments in Somalia isthat appreciable progress in gov-ernance is being made; lessonsfrom mis-rule, civil and externalwars seem to have been learned;and the principle of mutual bene-fit of international relationsaccepted.

20 CHARTIST September/October 2013

Dan Thea on a legacy of colonialism and rebirth

Somalia on the mend

On 6th July theRepublican SocialistAlliance organised itsfirst Day School on thetheme of the national

question in the UK with the mainemphasis on England andScotland and how the left couldtake up constitutional issues.Steve Freeman spoke aboutreinventing English identity.Allan Armstrong spoke about cur-rent developments in Scotlandwith the referendum next year.Corrina Lotz outlined the aims ofthe ‘Agreement of the People’campaign. The first session was called

‘Remaking the English workingclass’, a reference to E PThompson’s history of the Englishworking class. The left must‘grasp the nettle’ of the nationalquestion in England. Englandand Scotland are bound togetherin a political and constitutionalunion. The Scottish question (willScotland become an independentstate?) will come to a head in the2014 referendum. The Englishquestion is the other side of thecoin. The national question is a

democratic question and involvesinvention of a new nation bymeans of a mass political,cultural and constitutional strug-gle which may last many years. We have to re-invent England

as a ‘Democracy’ or a ‘Peoples’Republic’ or ‘Social Republic’ or‘Commonwealth’. Before doingthis we need to examine the kindof English identity we alreadyhave. This can be described as theBritish-English, an identityinvented in the 18th century afterthe British revolution finallycame to rest with the Acts ofUnion in 1707. Reinventing England requires

mass struggles and the mobilisa-tion of social forces. It is not theproduct of a few ‘dreamers’. Wehave to think in class terms.Creating a new England requiresthe ‘Remaking the English work-ing class’. Since 1832 Chartismand then Labourism became twogreat mass movements with theirassociated mass parties whichshaped the consciousness of theworking class in England. In

evolutionary terms we shouldpredict that at some pointLabourism will be negated by anew form of Chartism – a moreadvanced or higher form.

Crown Powers

Allan Armstrong, from theRepublican Communist Network(Scotland), and member ofRadical Independence Campaignwelcomed the development of theRepublican Socialist Alliance.Unlike so many on the Left, theRSA appreciates the importanceof the constitutional monarchistnature of the UK state, and theformidable anti-democraticnature of the Crown Powers.These powers cloak theoperations of the British rulingclass’ ‘hidden state’ and the activ-ities of the City of London. Forrepublicans, opposition to theseCrown Powers is of greater signif-icance than opposition to themonarchy, which merely frontsthem. However, there are two other

significant features of the UKstate. First, it retains an estab-lished church, the Church ofEngland, with its bishops in theHouse of Lords. A socialist response must be

based on upholding a consistentsecularism, which breaks the linkbetween the state and religion.Second the UK is a unionist

state. The UK consists ofEngland, Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland (and the wholeof Ireland before 1922). The UKcame about as a result of theEnglish conquest of Wales, thejoint English and Scottishconquest of Ireland, and anEnglish and Scottish ruling classdeal to create a British state inwhich they could benefit fromimperial exploitation.Thus, if republicanism and

secularism are the socialistresponses to the UK’s CrownPowers and state-backedProtestantism, then upholdingthe right of self-determination forIreland, Scotland, Wales, and yes,for England too, is the socialistresponse to the unionism of theUK state.Today, the SNP’s

‘Independence-lite’ proposals (or‘Independence within the Union’),which accept the Union and theCrown Powers, the Bank ofEngland and participation in theBritish High Command andNATO, represents the self-deter-mination of a wannabe Scottishruling class. ‘Independence-lite’represents a continuation of theold Home Rule tradition, but for aworld dominated by the globalcorporations and US imperialism.For socialists, self-determina-

tion in Scotland must reflectworking class interests. Thismeans a complete break with theCrown Powers, with the Bank ofEngland and with NATO. Duringthe nineteenth century Marx andEngels saw Tsarist Russia and itsHapsburg Austrian ally, as thetwo principal upholders ofreaction against democracy inEurope. Today the UK plays therole of ‘Hapsburg Austria’ to theUS’s ‘Tsarist Russia’ in upholdingthe current global corporateorder. The struggle for genuineself-determination is thus direct-ed at the US/UK imperialalliance.The third session was intro-

duced by Corrina Lotz from theAgreement of the Peoplecampaign and the World to Win.She spoke about a proposal for aConstitution for the 21st Centuryput forward by Occupy London’sReal Democracy Working Groupand A World to Win. It is nowsupported by15 organisations. Itis inspired by the Leveller move-ment of the 1640 English revolu-tion.The problem is that the system

is broken - global capitalism is ina worsening crisis. All the mainparties are facilitating the rule ofthe corporations and banks. Voteshardly count. This makes thestate and political system demo-cratic in name only.The campaign aims to develop

a grassroots constitution frombelow and the Agreement is adraft framework for this, open todevelopment. It can be discussedand implemented through a net-work of permanent PeoplesAssemblies. In this way, assem-blies can become the basis for analternative to the existing state.

Politics of reinventionREPUBLICANISM

Major General Siad Barre was at the centre of Somaliantroubles from 1961 to 1991

Steve Freeman reports on the English and Scottish questions found with the RepublicanSocialist movement

22 CHARTIST September/October 2013 September/October 2013 CHARTIST 23

ECONOMY

Damned lies and statisticsOfficial statistics are political constructions with tenuous connections to the real worldwrites Frank Lee

The notion that perma-nent state institutions –e.g., the judiciary, Bankof England and variousstatistical agencies - are

somehow immune from and abovepolitical manipulation is sadlymisguided. Those state departments

charged with collecting and collat-ing politically sensitive data forma new template for contemporarypractise. The compilation of eco-nomics statistics underwent aprofound change when the waythat unemployment was mea-sured in 1982. A re-definition ofunemployment resulted in a fallin unemployment statistics; butthis was not the same as changesin the real level unemployment. Itsimply resulted from the way inwhich unemployment was mea-sured. Most governments arekeen to minimise the appearanceof unemployment, not only forpolitical reasons but also for theeconomic signals it sends out.Over the last 35 years, numerousrevisions to the official definitionof ‘unemployment’ have beenmade, which have almost univer-sally revised it downwards.Labour frequently accused theConservatives during the 1980s ofmoving unemployed people on tosickness benefits - classifyingthem as economically inactiverather than unemployed - as astrategy for cutting the unem-ployment figure.One Tory wet, Sir Iain

Gilmour, then a member of MrsT’s cabinet, made the sarcasticcomment, that ‘now we have suc-ceeded in lowering the unemploy-ment figures perhaps we canmake a start on reducing unem-ployment.’ He was duly sackedfrom his Cabinet position.More recently the definition of

unemployment has, again for rea-sons of political expediency,undergone change. One of thecurrent wheezes of statisticalmanipulation in this area is tocount part-time jobs – even zerocontract hours – as full time jobs.It should be understood thatthere are some 8 million of theseworkers most of whom would likefull-time jobs, but sufficient full-time jobs are not available. Theseworkers belong to the reserve

army of the ‘hidden’ unemployed,along with seasonal and tempo-rary workers, both of which tendto drift in and out of work.Additionally, 2.26 million peopleof the 9 million currently deemed‘economically inactive’ have toldthe Office of National Statisticsthey would like a job, but are notcounted in the official unemploy-ment figures either because theyhave not looked for work in thelast four weeks, or would not beavailable to start work immedi-ately.It is the same with inflation. In

the UK the calculation of inflationchanged with the introduction ofConsumer Price Index (CPI) forthe older measure of Retail PriceIndex (RPI). Predictably thischange, brought in by GordonBrown, led immediately to a fallin the rate of inflation. Withoutgoing into the tedious minutiaewe can summarise as follows: Thebest known coverage difference is

that the CPI excludes most owneroccupier housing costs while theRPI includes mortgage interestpayments and house depreciation.But this is not the only factor.Council tax, vehicle excise duty,TV licences are among elementsexcluded from the CPI which alsoincludes spending by overseasresidents while visiting the UK.

Fraudulent

The result of this, since CPIwas introduced 15 or so years ago,has been a cumulative inflationrate since 1996 is 53.6% (RPI)while that for CPI is 35.6% 2. Anotional private pensioner whoretired in 1996 and whosepension had been uplifted by RPIwould today be 13% better offthan a notional person starting ona similar pension uplifted by CPI.What amounts to an on-goingreduction in the incomes of thoseon pensions, benefits, and nowwages, is exacerbated further by

these income groups’ increasesnot even matching the fraudulentCPI inflation figure. But one characteristic at least

seems fixed: every time a new def-inition is used the inflation fig-ures go down. As with unemploy-ment, inflation is whisked awayby changes in definition. It is notbeyond the wit of these people tochange the definition of inflationwhich excludes all items whichrise in price. This brings us on toGDP growth. GDP growth mea-sures the increase (in expenditureterms) of the level and size of aneconomy over a given period: usu-ally quarterly or annually. Allinvestment and consumptionexpenditures are aggregated intoone figure called GDP. If this fig-ure is larger from one time periodto the next then economic growthhas taken place. Care must be taken, however,

to exclude inflationary increases.Inflationary price increases arenot real growth and have to beexcluded from the calculations.This is carried out by use of adeflator. Growth is thus adjustedfor inflation and the real figurefor growth established. The CPI plays a role in the

determination of the real GDP;therefore, manipulation of theCPI could imply manipulation ofthe GDP because the CPI is usedto deflate some of the nominalGDP components for the effects ofinflation. CPI and GDP have aninverse relationship, so a lowerCPI - and its inverse effect onGDP - could suggest to investorsthat the economy is stronger andhealthier than it really is. Inshort: under-estimated inflationfigures lead to over-estimatedGDP growth figures.This was precisely the method

of statistical compilation used byGOSPLAN, the Soviet economicstatistical service; basically a typeof mass propaganda. But nownominally democratic govern-ments seem to be countenancingthe same approach. And for itspart, the media, with some nobleexceptions, is taking all the offi-cial bullshit figures at face value,and going along with this massdeception.

The British dream – a dangerousconcoction of prejudicesAndy Gregg dissects David Goodhart’s toxic mix of myth and dogma on immigration

Sometimes self-styledliberals can do moredamage than more overt-ly racist commentators.They provide complicit,

dog-whistle politics to the morestrident views espoused by theTory right and UKIP. After all,we all know where we are withthose who express outrightracism and xenophobia. Takingtheir lead, similar views are nowbeing put forward by supposed‘liberal’ commentators alignedwith ‘Blue Labour’ – predictablydressed up as ‘common sense’ and‘what everyone is already think-ing’. David Goodhart is just such a

figure. His recent book, TheBritish Dream: Successes andFailure of Post-War Immigrationfalls into this category - a diatribeagainst recent levels of immigra-tion under New Labour. If thesepositions were based onirrefutable evidence and clear log-ical argument there would belittle that we on the anti-racistleft could do or say about them.However, his approach is riddledwith dubious assumptionscoupled with selective evidence.His entire argument stems fromthe highly questionable (but sel-dom challenged) nostrum that‘more diversity leadsautomatically to less solidarity’.According to Goodhart, less soli-darity leads to a breakdown intrust which in turn leads to suspi-cion of the welfare state and hos-tility to welfare benefits.

The ties of solidarity

He argues that there has beenfar too much immigration intoBritain since 1997 - and that thishas damaged the prospects forintegration, as well as directlythreatening the ties of solidarity:the ‘moral consensus’ that he seesas vital to the welfare state. The basis of Goodhart’s argu-

ment is the assertion that welfarestates only work well in ‘cultural-ly homogeneous’ societies. HasBritish society ever been cultural-ly homogeneous? It is a myth anda fundamentally racialised per-spective. Even so, the link is high-ly questionable.

It is more likely that class dif-ferences and the growing preju-dice that Owen Jones identifiesagainst working class people as awhole are the main factors lead-ing to the decline in support forthe welfare state. The demoniza-tion of ‘benefit scroungers’ (oftencombined with added racismdirected towards black or ethnicminority claimants) is the drivingforce in the public’s loss of sup-port for the welfare state. Suchprejudices are buttressed by theGoodhart approach, rather thanchallenged. It is more likely thatissues of race, ethnicity and cul-ture are rolled out in order toavoid a discussion of power,poverty, discrimination andracism. Most of us, Goodhart asserts,

‘prefer our own kind’. This is puretribalism and it is manifestlyuntrue. The fastest growingminority ethnic group in the UKare the children of mixed heritagerelationships. Indeed, Britain hasone of the highest rates of interra-cial relationships in the westernworld, and the mixed race groupis expected to become the largestsuch group by 2020. One of the consequences of

Goodhart’s ‘muscular liberalism’is that the arguments it proposesactively undermine the solutionsthat it aims to promote. By con-

stantly excoriating recent migra-tion into the UK, these commen-tators actually stoke up the ten-sions that cause division - whichis then used as evidence of theproblem. The cure becomes thecause of the problem.

Unrepresented

Goodhart tries an even morebizarre approach, arguing thatlevels of racism are greatly exag-gerated and that ‘there is littleevidence to suggest that ifnewspapers reported immigrationstories in a more neutral waythat opinion would besignificantly more favourable’.Characteristically, he fails to offerevidence for these conclusions.Even more astonishingly, heappears to argue that a hostilepress actually helps the situation:‘the tabloid press is often blamedfor fanning prejudice but itsbluntness may also have acted asa psychological safety valve forthose who feel unrepresented bythe mainly liberal political class’.Those targeted by the Daily Mailand the Daily Express are unlike-ly to see it this way.There are two further allied

positions that Goodhart and other‘liberal’ commentators have devel-oped. The first is the notion thatthings have changed so much for

IMMIGRATION

“Over the tannoysystem came thelatestannouncementfrom the Ministryof Plenty(miniplenty). Thechocolate rationwas to be raisedfrom 30grammes to 20grammes aweek”

(George Orwell –1984)

Progressives must guard against a dangerous rightward drift on this issue

And for its part, the media, with somenoble exceptions, is taking all theofficial bullshit figures at face value,and going along with this massdeception

24 CHARTIST September/October 2013 September/October 2013 CHARTIST 25

the better in the UK that we arenow living in a largely post-raceand post-racism world where theold struggles for equality andagainst discrimination no longermake sense. The second is the attempt to

drive a wedge between, on the onehand the longer settled Black,Asian and Minority Ethnic com-munities (many from the firstperiod of migration – the‘Windrush generation’ – largelyfrom the ‘New Commonwealth’and their offspring - who settledhere before the late 1990s), andon the other hand recent arrivalsincluding refugees, asylum seek-ers and EU migrants often fromcountries that had no history ofBritish colonial subjection. Goodhart has gone on record in

the Evening Standard as welcom-ing the Government’s recent trav-elling billboard campaign sug-gesting that illegal migrants turnthemselves in: ‘indicating to peo-ple through these billboards thatthe Government is not ignoringthe problem will reassure manymore Londoners than it scares.’But the evidence is that theclamp down has exacerbated ten-sions and has impacted on allblack and minority ethnic com-munities regardless of theirlength of settlement in the UK.Doreen Lawrence in the DailyMail has attested that recentimmigration raids have clearlytargeted ‘people of colour’ and relyon ‘racial profiling’ and it hasprompted outrage across localcommunities. Goodhart frequently makes the

cardinal error of assuming acausal connection when noneexists or confuses cause andeffect. He refuses to engage withevidence showing that migrantsactually make a net contributionto society. They pay more intaxes and take less out in welfareand benefits, rent homes and buygoods which keep businesses run-ning in the meantime. They carefor the older generation whileusing NHS services less thanaverage. Indeed, many EUmigrants return to their countriesfor medical or dental care –despite being labelled ‘healthtourists’. Increasing attempts to control

migration are causing seriousdamage to UK universities, not tomention the ability of public ser-vices to recruit sufficient skilledpersonnel. Food processing, farm-ing and many other labour inten-sive industries would be unviablewithout migrant workers, andthis situation is likely to continue.

Recent figures from the Officefor Budget Responsibility warnedthat Britain needs to continue towelcome hundreds of thousandsof new migrant workers everyyear in order to keep publicfinances stable over the next fiftyyears. ‘Overall migration has apositive impact on the sustain-ability of public finances’ says theOBR, without a hint of qualifica-tion.

Deprivation, not diversity

Recent research by theUniversity of Manchester directlychallenges the view that morediversity means less cohesion andsolidarity. The key finding of theManchester research is that it isdeprivation, not diversity, whichis linked with poor physical andmental health, low social cohesionand race discrimination. Theresearch shows that ethnicallydiverse areas are actually happi-er, healthier and less discrimina-tory. Goodhart makes much ofthe option of ‘white flight’ – how-

ever most of the evidence he putsforward is from the US and is notapplicable to the UK. Diversity is actually associated

with higher social cohesion andgreater tolerance, not the otherway around. The fear of migrantstends to diminish in mixed com-munities where there is real expe-rience of living together, with allits complications. This chimeswith the observation that it is theleast diverse areas are those whoare most hostile – all of whichsuggests an entirely differentapproach. The book also contains the lazy

suggestion that there are suchthings as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrantcommunities. The good ones arethose he claims have had lessproblems integrating and whohave come from more prosperousbackgrounds. The bad ones –Pakistani, Bangladeshi andSomali - are constantly men-tioned in this context: ‘often fromrural areas and with generallylow levels of education and pooror non-existent English’. Theyalso just happen to be Muslimcommunities, which panders toyet another stereotype.

He consistently fails to haveany analysis of the role of depri-vation, poverty and social class.The effects of racism and discrim-ination are edited out of the pic-ture – indeed they are somehowseen as illegitimate attempts byblack and minority ethnic com-munities to claim victimhood. A book that purports to discuss

post-war immigration shouldsurely have something to sayabout the key concept of institu-tional racism, the StephenLawrence case and theMacPherson Inquiry, which hasdominated much of the discoursesince the early 1990s. In 340pages, Goodhart gives these keyissues just a couple of sentences.He fails to address the notion ofinstitutional or structural racismbut caricatures it as ‘a new, moresubjective definition of racism’, bywhich he presumably means thatthe police are now instructed torecord an incident as racist if oneor more of the participants insiststhat it is.

Confuses cause and effect

The book makes much of anextended description of life in themulticultural London Borough ofMerton, where he identifies thatpoor whites ‘are doing the worstof the lot’ as the consequence ofimmigration. For Goodhart, thisclass of people have largely optedout. In fact, as many commenta-tors (including Jonathan Portes)have pointed out, this not onlybears little resemblance to thereality in Merton, but it againconfuses cause and effect. AsPortes says: ‘to put it bluntly, ifyou’re going to be white, Britishand poor, all the statistical evi-dence suggests you’d be better offbeing born in Merton – or any-where else in London, surroundedby immigrants - than in the most-ly white areas where educationoutcomes, in particular, areworse.’Goodhart’s views, leading to

the predictable conclusion thatmigration must be drastically cutby any means necessary, arehighly questionable, misleadingand thin on evidence. The realdanger is that these deficienciesin Goodhart’s argument will beignored by the Labour Party frontbench in the rush to embrace a‘common sense’ justification: asupposedly left version of theright wing mantra that immi-grants are somehow the cause ofthe many problems Britain cur-rently faces.

The proposal for High-Speed 2 (HS2) camefrom Andrew Adonisnear the end of the lastLabour government.

Broadly speaking the plan tospeed up the rail links fromLondon to Birmingham (by 2026)and then to Manchester andLeeds (by 2032) has enjoyedcross-party support inWestminster. Some northern citycouncils – such as Manchester -and the new Labour administra-tion for Derbyshire CountyCouncil (DCC) are amongst thoseto throw their weight behind theproject. As consultation meetings are

scheduled for the autumn andwinter, a recent report to theDCC Cabinet argued: ‘TheGovernment’s proposal for thedevelopment of HS2 is a majornational scheme that is seen asan engine for growth that willhelp to regenerate the economy ofthe north of England. The propos-als are likely to generate a signifi-cant range of economic benefitsfor Derbyshire and its surround-ing cities’.Unsurprisingly some of those

outside the urban, economic cen-tres are less persuaded. Whywould you want someone speed-ing through your garden withoutyou getting any real compensa-tion? As the cost of HS2 is nowestimated at £42.6bn (let’s call it£50bn and be done with it) we areentitled to question the businesscase – and the implications forregional equity - in this proposedspending. Natascha Engel, Labour MP for

North East Derbyshire and seem-ingly at odds with her Countycomrades has put it this way:“The Government has shown acomplete lack of understandingabout people’s lives and communi-ties that were blighted from theday the proposed route was pub-lished. Even though nothing willhappen in North East Derbyshirefor 20 years houses can’t be sold,businesses are affected andregeneration projects such as theChesterfield Canal Trust are fac-ing an uncertain future. It is nota case of not in my backyard butthrough the house and village inwhich people have lived for gener-ations. They do not benefit fromHS2 and the train does not even

stop in Derbyshire.” Part of the case for HS2 is that

it will deal with a coming crisis ofcapacity on the rail network – itis argued, and the argumentseems to prevail, that the net-work can’t cope with the amountof traffic forecast over the nexttwenty years. Maria Eagle speak-ing for Labour nationally evident-ly agrees. In fact much of the railnetwork is, of course, under-utilised. The overall networkcapability, however, is con-strained by a relatively smallnumber of ‘hot-spots’ and theseeffectively dictate the volume oftraffic and the efficient operationof the network as a whole.

These ‘hot-spots’ are well-known in the industry and arehardly new. Some are line junc-tions (that is not stations) likeArdwick Junction, south ofManchester Piccadilly. Some areeffectively passenger junctions –Clapham Junction station insouth London is less of a trackjunction and is more a cusp ofmany parallel lines. Some areboth – like Birmingham NewStreet and Leeds stations. Othersare simply bottlenecks, likeDigswell Viaduct, where the EastCoast Mainline is constrainedfrom four lines down to two.It follows, though, that invest-

ment that addresses these ‘hot-spots’ can have particularly goodreturns in terms of efficiency and

capacity – and capacity (ratherthan speed) is the key to provid-ing frequent and reliable trainservices.The Public Accounts

Committee has now started topoint out the weaknesses of theHS2 business case, and it isbecoming evident that far greatervalue for money could be gainedby investing a smallish fraction ofthe projected £50bn in well-tar-geted enhancements for the exist-ing network. Longer trains canadd capacity to the network with-out stressing timetables – so insome instances platforms wouldneed lengthening.Some stations might be

enhanced by adding offline plat-forms or separate through-lines toreduce platform-blocking andhelp timetable extra trains. Thecapacity of complex junctionscould be increased by installingwider-radius signalling and trainmanagement systems, and insome cases reconfiguring track.Such targeted investment wouldrepresent better value for moneyand allow some of the billions ofcapital spending envisaged for theHS2 project to be spent else-where.The claim that HS2 will be of

benefit to the regions beyondLondon and the south-east isclearly bogus. If, however, HS2goes ahead it will consumeresources that might be used torelieve the known ‘hot-spots’ thatmight make a difference toregional links and capacity. Theexisting strategy focusses verymuch on enhancing travel acrossregions rather than within them –indeed this has been the focus forthe last 50 years or so. Local andregional transport needs invest-ment if it is to do its job – under-investment has resulted in manyregional services that aren’t capa-ble of providing reliable services. At a time when it is forecast

that Network Rail will be manag-ing the interest payments ondebts amounting to £50bn by2020, going ahead with the out-lined investment in HS2 wouldsimply compound the regionaland local issues. The overwhelm-ing majority of investment will bedirected to the south-east, leavingan expensive white elephant thatis not properly integrated into anational transport network.

High-Speed 2 – more capitalspending for the capital?

JohnMcGrotherand KeithSavagefrom BuxtonLabourPartyquestionLabour’sbacking fora £50bn‘whiteelephant’

MARGINAL NOTES

HS2 looks to set to benefit one regionat the expense of others

The real danger is that thesedeficiencies in Goodhart’s argumentwill be ignored by the Labour Partyfront bench in the rush to embrace a‘common sense’ justification

BOOK REVIEWS

26 CHARTIST September/October 2013 September/October 2013 CHARTIST 27

EXTERNAL MISSION: THE ANC IN EXILEStephen Ellis (Hurst, £20)

In 1960, as the apartheidregime tightened its grip, thealready long established

African National Congress (ANC)decided to set up an external mis-sion led by Oliver Tambo whichcould make the case for liberationaway from the risks and suppres-sion of black political activityinside South Africa. Apart fromthe challenge to its very exis-tence, the ANC had to make diffi-cult choices. Nelson Mandela took the deci-

sion to work closely with theSouth African Communist Party(SACP) and the intertwined rela-tionship with ANC influencedthese choices, notably the decisionto create a military wing, MK,and to prepare for armed strug-gle. Most of the leaders of theSACP were from racial minori-ties, many bringing ideas and ide-ology from Europe. The USSRwas the ANC/SACP’s greatestsupporter and role model (thoughSweden donated more money). This book records the internal

quarrels and frustrations withinthe ANC as well as its successesand failures during the 30 yearsof exile. Training camps were setup in several countries: apartfrom ethnic tensions, the youngfighters were keen to go and fightbefore it was wise to do so (and in1967 when a group went intoRhodesia they were butchered).After the Soweto uprising in 1976many young people imbued withthe ideas of Black Consciousnesswanted to join MK. They found ithard to adjust to the ideology anda result of this (and of the gen-uine fear of infiltration) the ANCcreated a ferocious system ofinternal security with help fromthe East German Stasi. Whenmembers tried to raise criticismsthey were ignored, ostracised andsometimes killed.Joe Slovo and Chris Hani were

greatly impressed by the way thepopulation had been mobilised forliberation in Vietnam, but theANC could never really replicatethis. The most successful militaryoperation, Vula, was launchedsecretly in 1987 when at the sametime steps were being takentowards negotiation led by ThaboMbeki. When Vula was exposed,the armed struggle was called off.Things then moved quickly: De

Klerk had replaced P.W.Bothaand in 1990 the ANC wasunbanned and Mandela released. Stephen Ellis’ book provides a

readable, detailed and well-researched account of theseevents, though I would have likedto have his final assessments ofthe role of Oliver Tambo andother leading personaliies. If youread nothing else, I would strong-ly recommend his brilliant finalchapter entitled “Perspectives”.He concludes that in the eventthe struggle was mainly betweenthe apartheid state and the suf-fering majority who knew littleabout the ANC - the media nevermentioned Mandela or the ANCand there was no internet inthose days. The armed struggledid not in the end have muchdirect effect but it providedheroes and martyrs and raisedthe ANC’s profile.The final triumph of the ANC

was more the result of the successof the external mission in con-vincing the outside world that itwas the true voice of the people ofSouth Africa, so that the variousAnti-Apartheid Movements andthe International Defence and AidFund - and many governments -could campaign for Mandela’srelease and learn about the evilsof apartheid – and none of the‘dirty linen’ was revealed. The changes in the global con-

text played a big part: the USSRunder Gorbachev first reducedsupport, then disappeared. This

freed the USA from seeing SouthAfrica as a bulwark against com-munism and it began to put pres-sure on De Klerk. Financial insti-tutions began to disinvest. Theiconic image of Mandela and thewidespread disgust at the conceptof apartheid added to the mix.Once De Klerk had announced

free elections he lost control of thenarrative and Mandela’s releasehelped the ANC position itself tobe seen as the only real liberationmovement and thus easily to winthe 1994 elections. In power it is showing some of

the weaknesses it had in exile. Ittends to be intolerant of criticism.There is corruption (the apartheidregime set a bad example). Itimagines it can stay in power forever - it is true that people criti-cise the government’s failures butstill love it as their own liberationmovement. It gives little credit toothers who struggled hard for lib-eration (UDF, BlackConsciousness, AZAPO, PAC, theAnti-Apartheid movements). The SACP lost influence after

the return from exile and, to theregret of many, the ANC in gov-ernment has to date created avery unequal society, far from itssocialist origins, but democracyand the rule of law seem fairlywell entrenched – we have tothank Mandela, Tambo and otherheroes for the fact that SouthAfrica is a much better place thanit was under apartheid.

Keeping the flame alight in exileNigelWatt onquarrelsandfrustrations

Read TRIBUNE every fortnight

News, interviews, analysis, opinion, features andreviews ─

plus the hottest political gossip in the labour movement

“The strongest pieces of leftist analysis being written at the moment are to be found in Tribune”

– Financial Times Subscribe to Tribune NOW!

It’s just: £19 for 3 months or £38 for 6 months or £75 fora year (UK rates)

Please send cheques to Tribune, 218 Green Lanes,London N4 2HB or pay on to Tribune, Account No.

20274421; code: 086001; reference “subsZ~” and yourname.

RoryO’Kelly onreformingthe welfarestate

Universalism should rule OKTHE CASE FOR UNIVERSALISMMike Danson, Robin McAlpine, PaulSpicker and Willie Sullivan

ABOLISHING WANT IN A SOCIAL STATEKate Bell Centre for Labour and Social Studies(both from CLASS) (Free)

Some goals are only achievedas side-effects from seekingsomething else. Happiness is

the classic example. Anotherwould be efficiency. Organisationsbecome efficient when the peoplein them believe in what they aredoing and try to do it better. Sadexperience in the public sectorshows that efficiency drives andthe quest for ‘efficiency savings’are wholly self-defeating.The relief of poverty is some-

what similar. Tackling poverty byidentifying poor individuals andgiving them money does not work.Such means-tested systems areadministratively complex, proneto error and abuse, stigmatisingand, above all, so unpopular bothwith those who pay for them andthose who receive them that it ispolitically impossible to set pay-ments at a realistic level. By contrast, societies which

address poverty indirectly bypursuing an egalitarian strategy(including progressive taxation)and setting mechanisms in placeto address or compensate for thestructural causes of poverty (oldage, sickness, disability, unem-ployment, large numbers ofchildren etc) reduce poverty. Theevidence for this is so undeniablethat Danson et al struggle to findanything new to say in theirgenerally clear and compellingsummary of the case for univer-salism.The reader gets a sense of frus-

tration that it is still necessary tomake these arguments. Why areour governing classes still so com-mitted to means-testing despiteits manifest failure? It is perhapsa sort of addiction. Like manydrugs, means-testing seems tosolve all your problems when youfirst take it. You then find youneed larger and larger doses toget the same effects until eventu-ally it brings no benefits but youhave to carry on doing it becausethe withdrawal symptoms are sohorrific if you stop.There are a few extra points

which the authors could havemade. They scarcely mentionhousing, though the shift from a

policy of providing housing to apolicy of subsidising rents, andthe destruction of social housing,is perhaps the clearest example inthis country of the disastrousconsequences of the shift fromuniversalism to selectivism. It isdepressing, and scarcely credible,that the Labour leadership is stillsupporting the sale of councilhouses at a discount.They also fail to consider

benefits paid through the tax sys-tem. It is a paradox that while theLiberal Democrats (in particular)turn against universal benefitsthey still favour large increases inthe personal tax allowance. Thisis a benefit which is regressive atthe top and bottom ends of theincome scale but otherwise uni-versal.Increasing tax allowances and

freezing child benefit transfersmoney from families with chil-dren to the childless. If this werea deliberate policy it would bepossible to argue rationally aboutit. It seems however to be happen-ing almost by accident, becausethose responsible have ‘benefits’in one mental box and ‘taxallowances’ in another.Kate Bell’s paper addresses

similar issues from a differentangle. It contains more factualmaterial explaining who is poorand why. It confirms again thatcountries with good social securi-ty systems and an egalitarianethos have less poverty than oth-ers like the UK. There is muchuseful evidence here for peoplewho need to argue the case foruniversalist social security.The paper has its weaknesses.

Its approach is too static.Correctly saying that workless-ness, and particularly unemploy-

ment, is a major cause of povertyit colludes with the idea that thisis a permanent status. From themedia one might think that work-ers and people on benefits are twomutually exclusive groups. It isnecessary to challenge this bypointing out not only that manypeople in work receive benefitsbut also that people move in andout of work constantly.The paper is also curiously apo-

litical. It draws attention to thefact that poverty rose dramatical-ly after 1979 but does not saywhy. In a sense this is obvious,but it is misleading to say thatthe revival of the Beveridge sys-tem in 1975 by extending the cov-erage of benefits and tying themmuch more closely to earnings‘failed’. In fact it succeeded and ifthe system then introduced hadnot been destroyed by theThatcher Government we wouldnot now have the problems thatwe do. We seem to be much better at

rediscovering old problems thanold solutions. When Beveridgewrote the two main obstacles toan insurance-based approach topoverty prevention were familysize and housing costs. The firstproblem was substantiallyaddressed by universal child ben-efit and the second largely solvedby council housing. People seemstrangely surprised that scrap-ping the solutions brings back theproblems.

What you can do

for CHARTISTIf you think this magazine is worthbuying regularly, please subscribe:

6-issues a year

- under 25 - £7.50- ordinary - £15- supporter - £30

- buy copies to sell- write an article, or letter

- join our blog- Ask your local library to stock

CHARTIST

Contact us online at: www.chartist.org.uk

made to his forbears and succes-sors to complete the story.Lincoln's short, tragic but tri-umphant life is painted in a num-ber of retrospective comparisonsbetween himself and his team ofrivals- namely William Seward,Salmon Chase and Edward BatesThe team was neither able to

prevent civil war, nor able toensure a promised speedy resolu-tion of it. But, after two successfulelections, it did (eventually) winthe war, it did achieve the aboli-tion of slavery, but above all else,it prevented the disintegration ofthe United States of America, byintegrating the rebel states backinto the Union, without acrimony,shame or unreasonable punish-ments. Indeed this biographymakes it clear, that Lincoln's pri-mary goal was to preserve theUnion- for without that- all otherpurposes would fall. In this mat-ter, as in all others, he was mas-terful in his political and oratori-cal skills, his pragmatism, hisassiduousness, and his extraordi-nary personal kindness, toler-ance, impartiality and charisma. Goodwin succeeds, as no other

historical author I have read, inzooming from the vast panorama

28 CHARTIST September/October 2013

BOOK REVIEWS

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 29

TEAM OF RIVALS: THE POLITICALGENIUS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLNDoris Kearns Goodwin(Penguin Books, £12.99)

This remarkable book hasbeen re-edited as a 'tie-in' toSteven Spielberg’s film

Lincoln which won the 2013Oscar for Best Film. Lincoln wasmemorable and provided a veryfocussed study of the President inthe fevered weeks prior to thepassing of the ThirteenthAmendment to the USConstitution- abolishing slavery-all in 1865. But Team if Rivals needs no tie

in. It was first published in theUS in 2005, when it won manyliterary, biographical and histori-cal prizes. This scholarly book(200 pages of notes, indices andacknowledgements) towers overthe movie. It uses every literarydevice to show how Lincolngained power and then invited hisRepublican rivals to form a pow-erful cabinet. The text narrativeopens in May 1860 at the start ofthe Republican Party's nomina-tion of Presidential Candidate,and ends with his assassinationin April 1865. But reference is

of 19th century US and Europeanpolitics, the atrocities of war, tothe minutia of uncomfortableclothing and travel, unsanitaryresidences, the constant anxietiesabout money, and the raw person-al grief of losing two sons while inoffice. Lincoln is painted as a manof rare talent, outstanding convic-tion, a devoted sense of duty tohis party and his people, as wellas a warm and attentive familyman. She does not ignore hisfaults- but rather places them intheir fuller context, so that wecan look carefully at this personand admire again his extraordi-nary achievements. She dependson many contemporary sources-notably the ten volume studymade by Lincoln's two privatesecretaries, John Nicolay andJohn Hay, together with manynewspaper accounts and personalcorrespondence. Lincoln wasnothing if not a man of letters.Indeed my abiding impression ofthis account is how carefullyLincoln prepared all his words,his speeches, his addressing of histroops and arguments and howwell he used them to achieve hisHerculean tasks.Strongly recommended.

Fuelling poverty and warJamesGrayson onthe West’srole indevelopment

THE ECONOMICS OF KILLING Vijay Mehta (Pluto Press, £13)

The subtitle is: ‘How theWest Fuels War andPoverty in the Developing

World’. An explanation of therecent international financial cri-sis is offered; much relates totrade between China and theUSA, especially what is not trad-ed.The theme is the lack of devel-

opment brought about by thediversion of resources whichmight be devoted to developmentinto: the adventures of militaryindustrial complexes, espionage,corruption and hidden offshorebank accounts. Mehta calculatesthat in 2010-11 NATO spendingwas 240 times the UN budget.Formed after WWII one can argueit was a deterrent against theWarsaw Pact countries. Once theIron Curtain collapsed what wasthe remaining purpose? Historyrecords adventures in the

Balkans followed by Libya andAfghanistan.There are interesting domestic

considerations; why are so manymining and other extractionenterprises as well as tobaccocompanies based in the UK?Domestic mining has virtuallyceased and I am unaware of anydomestic tobacco crops. The UKis for many an effective tax

haven.Think about the morality and

the expense of renewing Trident.Mehta points out that hadPresident Gadhafi not agreed tosurrender his nuclear weaponssome of the ‘Arab Spring’ out-comes might have been different,although he is certainly not a pro-ponent of a greater spread of glob-al weapons.In a unipolar world the police-

man role has been accepted bythe USA. It assumes that allcountries aspire to become morelike the USA yet the standard ofliving of much of its citizenry hasbeen in decline for decades. Wenoted an unimpressive result inhelping Haiti after the recent dis-aster.Those who aspire to global

peace, prosperity and disarma-ment should study this book.Similar coverage is provided bythe monthly, NewInternationalist.

Making the USAPatriciad’Ardenneon atoweringbiography

ial additions; each is shown tohave its relevance to Simms cen-tral thesis: that the world isknowable; that we do not have totake the crap that politicianschurn out every day; and thatextra growth does notautomatically translate into extrahuman welfare and happiness.Have we become too passive?

Today the charity sector organis-es increasing numbers of foodbanks. In September 1795‘London witnessed nearly a weekof rioting in which the targetswere bakers, food wholesalers andmonopolists’. In E P Thompson’sview, this was not mob rule, but ‘ahighly complex form of directpopular action, disciplined andwith clear objectives’. Perhaps weneed to read and learn fromhistory – though not the sort ofwhich Michael Gove wouldapprove. Do we face apocalypse? I draw

back from the word as it is all tooeasily thrown down as a challengethat proves empty, yet the evi-dence becomes more convincing

CANCEL THE APOCALYPSEAndrew Simms (Little Brown, £13.99)

If you like books that take youon a journey, at speed,through exciting countryside

and with fascinating stops alongthe way, then this is the book foryou. And don’t let the fact that itis about politics, philosophy andeconomics put you off for it isabout far more than that. This isa book about an attitude, ‘a beliefthat while problems are real, notonly can they be solved, but wewill be better for beginning to doso’.This book is an extraordinary

ride through most of the environ-mental and financial problems weface today but analysed with suchflair and enlightenment that youfeel both swept along andinformed at the same time.Simms stops at nothing. DorisLessing and Hawkwind; ColonyCollapse Disorder andAlzheimers; Buffy the Vampireand David Cameron (no, nottogether). And these are not triv-

by the week. Stephen Emmott(Head of the ComputationalScience Laboratory at Cambridge)tells us that the world cannot sus-tain the current increase in popu-lation of one billion every decade.Lester Brown (Head of the EarthPolicy Institute in Washington)warns of a global threat to ourfood supply as water wells dry up.Who amongst our politicians herespeaks for the world?Simms is not out simply to offer

criticism, nor does he limit him-self to the West. He suggestsways in which, for example, thebanking system could be reformedto reflect society’s needs ratherthan the greed of the bankers.But Simms also recognises thatwe need to go far beyond small-scale, local solutions, howevervaluable those may be. ‘I don’twant to proclaim single alterna-tive solutions, but rather to pro-pose that far bolder and moreambitious experimentation isvital for survival’. That makesmuch sense to me.

The new path to prosperityJonTaylor issweptalong

domains as one of the most signif-icant developments of our time.Yet it has been a quiet revolution.We urgently need a public debateabout what role we want marketsto play, Sandel urges, his aim isto provide a philosophical frame-work for such a discussion. Hesucceeds admirably in this: Hisaccount is highly readable; hisstyle both informal and informed. Sandel marshals an impressive

range of evidence, from the comicto the grotesque, to demonstratethe march of markets into publicand private life. He uses theseexamples to question the valuesand principles at stake. Whetherthe issue be queue jumping formoney, replacing motivation withfinancial incentives, or the com-mercialization of education, twofundamental objections apply.The first is that of coercion andunfairness. Although market ide-ology foregrounds freedom ofchoice, there is clearly a starkimbalance in the freedom exer-cised between the purchaser of akidney and the one who sells anorgan due to force of poverty.The second objection is that of

WHAT MONEY CAN’T BUY: THE MORALLIMITS OF MARKETSMichael J.Sandel (Penguin, £8.99)

What are goods? Thisquestion is at the heartof Michael Sandel’s time-

ly examination of how marketforces now dominate large areasof non-economic life. The ShorterOxford Dictionary defines ‘good’as ‘what is beneficial, produceswell-being,’ ‘a desirable object orend,’ and ‘property and posses-sions’. Sandel’s predominantlymoral argument is that the latterunderstanding of goods has cor-rupted the former meanings inthe definition. Goods like health,education, civic responsibility andaltruism have been commodified,offered for sale to those who canbuy them. This transformationis not due to excessive greed,Sandel argues, but to ideology,the triumph of neo-liberal claimsfor the power and efficacy of mar-kets. Sandel, who is Professor of

Government at HarvardUniversity, sees this expansion ofthe market into non-commercial

corruption and degradation;putting a price on a good maydegrade what it is that we valueabout it. What changes in theway we understand the sanctityof life when political asylum isdependent upon a fee, or whencorporations buy insurance ontheir employees for financial gainwhen they die?Sandel’s critique of market tri-

umphalism is persuasive. Lessconvincing is the solution heoffers. Undoubtedly, we needpublic debate as to the properlimits of markets. But whatSandel does not acknowledge isthe extent to which the publicsphere, itself, is already boughtup by those committed to marketorthodoxy. Sandel writes, attimes, as if markets had indepen-dent agency. This is the mythneoliberalism perpetuates. Weneed to accompany Sandel’smoral debate with a politicaldebate that reconnects the ideolo-gy with those who gain from itsascendancy and with those uponwhose inequality market ‘free-doms’ depend.

Calling time on market triumphalismPamMorris onmarketsandmorals

BOLSHEVISM, SYNDICALISM AND THEGENERAL STRIKEKevin Morgan (Lawrence and Wishart,£25)

This is the final volume inMorgan’s trilogy onBolshevism and the British

Left – the previous two volumesreviewed in Chartist. This volumehas been long delayed but it hasbeen worth the wait. The subtitleof the book is ‘the lost interna-tionalist world of A A Purcell’.The previous volumes focused onLansbury and the Webbs respec-tively –Morgan’s approach is totry to weave both a narrative andanalysis of the period around abiographical study. In this volume this has not

been easy as it is not only theinternationalism of the 1920’sthat is largely lost from labourhistory but Purcell himself is aforgotten figure. An organiser ofthe furniture trades union,Purcell was at different times acommunist, a syndicalist, chair ofthe TUC, chair of theInternational Federation of TradeUnions, chair of the organisingcommittee of the General Strikeof 1926, and briefly a Labour MP.He was also an anti-imperialist,actively supporting the develop-ment of a trade union movementin India. In Labour history he has been

obscured by the more weighty fig-ures of Ernest Bevin and WalterCitrine. Morgan is right to focuson Purcell as a key figure as hiscareer reflects the troubled rela-tionship not just between commu-nism, syndicalism and tradeunionism, but the changing rela-

DuncanBowie ondefendingRussia

tionship with the Soviet Union inthe transition from Bolshevism toStalinism. Morgan demonstratesthat Purcell, the long term sup-porter of Soviet Russia lostinfluence, and was ousted fromhis IFTU presidency, as the inter-national labour movementbecame more critical of Russia asit moved to a more social demo-cratic or labourist and less revolu-tionary perspective.Purcell was a member of the

Labour Party Russian delegationsof 1920 and 1924, though unlikemany of the delegation members,he did not turn his memoirs of thevisits into a book. He was activein the Hands off Russia campaignof 1920 and then chairman of theAnglo-Russian Parliamentarycommittee.As in his previous volumes,

Morgan takes us down somefascinating by-ways. He includesa whole chapter on the antiBolshevik campaign of theAmerican anarchist EmmaGoldman, who was based inLondon after her experience of

30 CHARTIST September/October 2013

BOOK REVIEWS

September/October 2013 CHARTIST 31

A lost internationalsmthe revolution when she wroteher classic volume on MyDisillusionment with Russia.There is also a chapter on therelationship of the British labourmovement with American politicsand trade unionism in the 1920’s,a subject generally ignored byBritish labour historians.One of the most interesting

parts of the book is the detailedanalysis of the strategy andtactics of the trade union move-ment during the General Strike.Morgan provides an unusualdepth in his analysis, in which heexamines the different perspec-tives of Purcell, Ernest Bevin,Walter Citrine, Jimmy Clynes,Jimmy Thomas, Robert Williamsand other strike leaders. Morganrelates the strike to syndicalistwriting on the theory of theGeneral Strike, and notes thatmany of the strike leaders sawthe action as more of a protestmovement than an attempt toachieve workers control ofindustry or political power for theworking class. Purcell neverrecovered his role after the failureof the strike, losing both hisnational and international tradeunion roles, and in 1929 hisparliamentary seat returning tohis own grass roots and servingas secretary of the Manchesterand Salford Trades Council, theorganisation in which he had cuthis political teeth before the FirstWorld War. Citrine and Bevinmoved on to higher things andPurcell was lost to history.Morgan must be congratulated onthis impressive study – and onfinally completing his importanttrilogy.

Outside of the boxFrank Leeon paradigmshifts

THE VALUE OF RADICAL THEORYWayne Price (AK Press, £8.95)

Harold Wilson is once reput-ed to have said that heattempted to read Marx’s

Capital, but after coming across afootnote longer than the pageitself, he gave up. The story mayor may not be true, but it certain-ly seems plausible. Philistinism,political and economic illiteracyare self-evidently commonplace inthe Labour movement; and thistendency is on occasion taken tothe point of virtue. ‘The Labour movement has its

roots in Methodism rather thanMarxism’ - yes and that is pre-cisely the problem. If the object ofthe Labour movement is to estab-lish socialism (now very much amoot point) then it must, of neces-sity, look at the world from a dif-ferent perspective than itsexploiters. It must have a differ-ent system of ethics and a philos-ophy quite distinct from and inopposition to those monied inter-ests which effectively rule society.In short it must have a differentideological/political paradigm. AsMarx pointed out: ’The ideas of the ruling class

are in every epoch the rulingideas; that is the class which isthe ruling material force of soci-ety, is at one and the same timeits ruling intellectual force.’ (TheGerman Ideology)Failure to confront bourgeois

society and its ideological legiti-mation inevitably leads to adapta-tion to the received wisdom. Timeafter time Labour has beensucked into the vortex of theprevalent culture and is effective-ly defanged and tamed. This ulti-mately gives rise to abominationslike New Labour. This present slim volume is a

timely reminder of this politicaltruism. It firstly states thatMarxism is not economics, it is,rather as it says on the sub-titleof Capital, – A Critique ofPolitical Economy. AlthoughMarx learnt from the bourgeoispolitical economists of his time –principally Adam Smith andDavid Ricardo – he none the lessstood in uncompromising opposi-tion to them.The author is a self-confessed

anarchist, but he has obviouslytaken the time and trouble toread Marx’s texts, and arguesthat these are not the private

property of people who call them-selves Marxists, but are indis-pensable to any political tendencyin the struggle against capital-ism. The work starts with a very

clear and precise analysis of thecornerstone of Marxism: thelabour theory of value. That is tosay that wealth is a creation oflabour, and the workers receive apayment – wages – for theirlabour time which is necessary fortheir reproduction as labourers,the rest of the wealth is appropri-ated by the capitalist as surplusvalue. From this fundamentalMarxist category of labour-valueand its appropriation, other rami-fications which are necessary fea-tures of thecapitalist sys-tem - alien-a t i o n ,exploitation,chronic insta-bility, the ten-dency of therate of profitto fall, crisesof over-accu-m u l a t i o n ,polarization ofwealth andpoverty –come intoview. (Formore detailedanalysis readCapital vol-umes 1 and 3,Grundrisse.)Massive eco-nomic down-turns whichwe are nowexperiencingare not due topersonalities,

bad policies, or mistakes, but areintrinsic to the system itself.There never has been and neverwill be a crisis free capitalism.This side of the socialist revolu-tion the class struggle pace TonyBlair is here to stay. The Toriesknow this even if New Labourdoesn’t. Price argues that we are in a

period of capitalist decline andthis seems a not unreasonableassumption. But there will be noautomatic transmission to social-ism, as some of the cruder vari-eties of Marxism believe. The out-come will be a matter of politicaland ideological will and struggle. Also examined is the record of

social-democrats, socialists andcommunists when they have actu-ally got their hands on power. Itis not an impressive story and hasusually resulted in hybrid formsof state capitalism, which inmany instances has been worsethan more normal forms of capi-talist exploitation. Here anarchistcritiques of the orthodox left havesome validity. These mistakes, and, it must be

admitted, outright crimes againsthumanity, need to be honestlyadmitted in order not to make thesame mistakes again. This is a well-written, concise

and non-sectarian piece of politi-cal writing.

*Subscription £25 per year - details at www.labourbriefing.org*

*Advertisement for Peace News*

there is an undeniable, potential-ly unstoppable, emergence of abland cross party consensus onfundamental issues. RecentMiliband wrangling with theunions has only further fuelledfears that party politics is rapidlydescending into a centristmonotony. Elections will be wonnot on policies, but on spin alone.For too long the primacy of

tackling fiscal ill health, and thegetting back into the black of UKPlc. has led to constitutionaldebate being hijacked by superfi-cial token gestures like the AVreferendum. Parliamentary wran-gling has long been more con-cerned with Number 11 and theChancellor.

Drift

Even the opposition of late hasdrifted reluctantly towardCoalition fiscal policy, with red-faced backtracking on the fewexisting party distinguishing poli-cies. The failure of the oppositionto clarify their own stance onCoalition cuts affirms this farcicalstate of affairs.Finance aside, puppet liberali-

sation has failed to challenge thestatus quo. Core institutions tothe national identity gounchecked by the political elite,with no party willing to openlychallenge the overtly archaic andoutdated features of the Crownand Commonwealth. The sheerhypocrisy is damning – thereexists a cafeteria approach where,celebrating antiquated ideas ofEmpire, the Establishment simul-taneously acts as a ‘just’ authorityon issues international. Recent wrangling over the rock

of Gibraltar epitomises the hollowdiplomacy characteristic of mod-ern Britain. Flying in the face of

Maybe it was mybeing reared on adiet of the DailyMail that ‘put meoff’ patriotism. The

nauseating plethora of taleschronicling dubious abuses of theHuman Rights Act and the dailylitany of questionable statisticson the implications of immigra-tion, all made pretty dull read-ing. Equally, perhaps myCatholic Irish backgroundcontributed to my aversion todeifying an unelected monarchy.Perhaps being born and bred in adiverse, modern, cosmopolitancity, made it hard to associatewith the archaic sentimentalityof ‘traditional patriots’, who tothis day seek to justify stubborncolonialism (Gibraltar, TheFalklands).A myriad of contradictions

underpins the modern Britishstate. Over recent decadesBritish society has really takento the notion of ‘progressive poli-tics’. Where Blairites quivered atthe labelling of their party withthe tags ‘left wing’ and ‘socialist’,they soon swarmed to this softerumbrella brand that indicated anambition for positive reform, andliberalisation. Although relative-ly ambiguous, the implication ofthe word is positive, and all theWestminster parties have gradu-ally latched onto the notion. Anexample might be found inLabour’s ‘innovation’ of ‘OneNation’ that brings connotationsof a collective responsibility andunity – strikingly similar toCameron’s botched ‘Big Society’.Thus the passing this year of a

gay marriage bill is symbolic ofthis tide of ‘progress’, and con-ducive to the notion of Britainbecoming a bastion of democracyand a champion of its citizens’rights. The offering of asylum tothe Pakistani heroine of women’srights and education, MalalaYousafza, is surely indicative of anoble progressive social agendaat the heart of both govern-ment and society.

Yet this belies a pervad-ing rot at the heart ofBritish politics.Amidst the head-line grabbingpopulist pass-ing of gaymarriage,

Cafeteria approach to politics

all of the pragmatism of 21st cen-tury ‘enlightened’ foreign policy, acultural encoding of the defence(at all diplomatic costs) of HerMajesty’s territories is bothunreasonable and illogical.Bellicose comments from seniorBritish politicians only furtherunderline the shallowness of ourproclaimed progressiveness – nota single (sitting) Westminsterparty would dare to challenge theoutdated British line.The recent birth of the third in

line to the throne, rather thepress reaction to it, was furtherevidence of this systematicdisjointedness. The epitome ofprivilege and antithetical to themeritocracy widely championed ingreater society, the media circussurrounding the heir’s birth wasbittersweet. Whilst column aftercolumn rapidly exhausted anymeaningful information, pressattention was concentrated upona private hospital wing charging£6265 a night. The irony of suchlavish expense, at a time ofunprecedented NHS cuts, whilstavoided by many of the right wingmedia outlets, was surely not loston the British public altogether.Perhaps we can hope that one

party will seize the initiative, andchallenge the ‘yes-man’ politics oftoday. A diverse Britain needs torediscover itself – and this canonly come from a frank re-appraisal of the institutions thatreign over it. Political consensuscan be a tool for progress, yet thedanger lies in a convergence ofpolitical parties that is contraryto the varying opinions that char-acterise democracy. Meaningfuldebate should not be shied awayfrom; it should be embraced.Genuine progress will be found inquestioning the unquestionable.

Subscribe to CHARTIST at

www.chartist.org.uk

YOUTH VIEW

DermotNeliganreviews aneventfulsillyseason

Politics doesn’t always rock: you know its the silly season when Gibraltarhits the Daily Mail’s front pages