subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label referendums. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendums. Show all posts
Monday, 8 September 2014
Westminster panics as pro independence campaign gains ground
With little over 2 weeks until the referendum in Scotland which could be one of the biggest referendum yet in terms of its potential impact will take place.
Scotland will vote on whether it is to go it alone or stay with the UK.
Of course it isn’t as simple as that for much the pro independence campaign has won significant concessions and although devolution max was not on the ballot paper it’s highly likely that will pretty much be what they get even if a No vote wins I suspect.
For me who doesn’t live in Scotland watching this from afar hasn’t been easy to grasp the issues but if I had a vote to ditch the Tories forever that would tempt me too.
The polls make interesting reading for sure with the pro independence campaign pulling an ahead 51 to 48 in one of the polls that is least favorable to them so something is afoot.
A YouGov poll for the Sunday Times over the weekend was the first mainstream study to put Yes Scotland narrowly ahead.
The poll of 1,084 people, carried out between 2 and 5 September, suggested that, of those who have made up their mind, 51% planned to back independence, while 49% intended to vote no.
The cross-party Better Together campaign had previously retained a lead in polls, often reaching double digits.
The fact that many who the polls have missed those who don’t normally vote are messing with the polling figures is making for some very worried politicians.
Even the Queen today who isn’t known for making political statements has come out today in the papers in support of Britain remaining a union of nations.
Better Together campaign has denied plans to set out a timetable for giving more powers to Scotland were a sign of panic.
Alistair Darling was speaking after a poll suggested the pro-UK campaign had lost its lead.
Chancellor George Osborne has promised to unveil a timetable for further devolution if voters in Scotland reject independence.
The SNP has dismissed the proposal as a last-minute "bribe".
Mr. Osborne said on Sunday that a "plan of action" would be set out in the next few days to give "more powers to Scotland; more tax powers, more spending powers, more powers over the welfare state".
BBC Scotland's political correspondent Glenn Campbell has reported that a new body will also be set up to hammer out more powers for Holyrood if there is a "No" vote on 18 September.
'Already announced'
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr. Darling acknowledged that the referendum race was "clearly very tight" but said there was no panic.
He added: "We are in a position now where every voter in Scotland could potentially tip the balance in the referendum.
"But I am confident we will win because we do have a very strong, positive vision of what Scotland can be, both in terms of the opportunities and the security that come from being part of the UK, a strengthened Scottish Parliament, with more powers which is what people want and you can do that without having to break up the country to do it."
FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT; ALT=line"
Analysis: Glenn Campbell, BBC Scotland political correspondent
Whether it's a committee, a commission or a conference - the pro-union parties plan to create a new body to agree extra powers in the event of a 'No' vote.
It would be expected to report before the 2015 general election. The chancellor promised more detail in the next few days. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, will tell the TUC today that the process should begin right after the referendum.
It's understood a prominent person has already been identified to convene the group. It would consider the blueprints for the further devolution of income tax and some welfare measures produced by the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats and be open to ideas from wider Scottish society.
The SNP would also be asked to contribute. The first minister, Alex Salmond, said the proposal was a "panicky" attempt to "bribe" Scots as opinion polls tighten, with one suggesting the Yes campaign may have edged ahead.
Whatever the result on 18 September there has been a political earthquake people in Scotland are talking about their country their future and the type of society they want. This feeling is not going away anytime soon. It’s hilarious to watch the Westminster clowns running around like headless chickens worried about their own legacy if Scotland does indeed decide to go it alone.
The ramifications are huge.
I'm not saying the Yes campaign will win but the better together campaign has failed hugely and has ran a negative fear mongering campaign from the start.
Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney told the BBC that it was a fair assessment of the polls to say the Yes campaign remained behind in general, but said his experience was that undecided voters were moving to yes by a factor of two to one.
He added: "The movement is in our favor and the campaign is exciting an enormous amount of interest and activity and participation on the ground across Scotland. I think it is the formidable strength of the 'Yes' campaign that is motivating that."
Referring to Mr. Osborne's announcement, Mr. Swinney said: "There is nothing new being offered this week. We may well get a timetable but the substance, the actual powers, the things that matter, Alistair Darling made absolutely crystal clear yesterday in contradicting George Osborne, that on the substance there will be absolutely nothing new.
"The second point is that in 1979 Scotland was told vote 'No' in the referendum and you'll get a stronger parliament and what we got was a Conservative government for 18 years that we never voted for, industrial devastation and no parliament.
"So I think the moral of the story of recent history in Scotland is if you want a guarantee of strong powers for the Scottish Parliament you have to vote 'Yes' in the referendum a week on Thursday."
BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said the outcome of the referendum now looked "utterly uncertain".
All to play for then chaps. The next week and a bit will be very interesting indeed.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Say no to austerity vote No this Thursday in Ireland
The 'austerity' treaty referendum is the dominant issue in Ireland's news media. The treaty which involves 25 out of the 27 EU members (Britain and the Czech Republic opted out) is the latest response by the European political establishment to the sovereign debt crisis.
The background to the referendum is the growing unpopularity of the government. Opinion polls show dissatisfaction with the government has swelled to 65%. The Financial Times reports that senior government ministers have faced verbal abuse on the campaign trail. The deputy finance minister was called "a waste of space" and "just a yes man".
But as Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins explains the establishment parties are "now holding an economic and political weapon to the heads of the Irish people to coerce them into voting 'Yes' to their austerity Treaty on 31 May."
Their arguments in favor of this treaty involve a re-writing of recent economic history. Apparently, the crisis we face is at root a crisis of public spending and governments, particularly in the 'peripheral' countries by not having balanced budgets.
The reality of course is that this is a crisis of capitalism and the particular form in which it began was in the banking and property sectors where the lending practices of banks across Europe fuelled property bubbles particularly in countries such as Ireland and Spain.
However both Ireland and Spain had 'balanced budgets' before this crisis began. That has since changed because of the scale of private banking debt that has been taken on by governments.
The other side of the crisis is the collapse of private sector investment, a strike of capital which in Ireland has seen fixed capital formation decline by 65% since the crisis began raising unemployment in Ireland to 500,000 or 14% of the active population.
In the referendum in 2009 the 'Yes' side (which apart from the government principally includes the Fianna Fáil 'opposition' and the employers' organisation IBEC) is again using a combination of carrot and stick with the electorate.
Vague promises of growth, stability and jobs are promised if a yes vote is achieved. This does not wash with the public. The Socialist Party and the United Left Alliance, which the SP is part of, has pointed out that over 100,000 fewer people are at work now compared to the time of the Lisbon Treaty. The figure would be higher but for emigration.
Figures from the Central Statistics office show that more than 3,000 Irish people are leaving the country each month, the highest number since the Famine in the mid-19th century.
The absence of convincing positive reasons is acknowledged by a host of right wing economists and some opposition right wing TDs (MPs) who instead rely on the 'stick' argument. They say that without passing this treaty Ireland will be denied access to the only source of emergency funding available to it (the European Stabilization Mechanism) in the event of a second bailout being required - which everybody apart from the government thinks is a near certainty.
Therefore, we are told that Ireland and the other member states who are party to this treaty must (as required by articles three and four of the treaty) implement savage additional cuts in the years ahead to bring our structural deficit to GDP ratio to 0.5%.
Ireland's estimated structural deficit for 2013 is 3.7% necessitating an additional €6 billion in cuts according to the Unite trade union. The corresponding total scale of additional cuts across Europe to meet these targets is estimated to be some €161 billion.
Articles five and seven empower the unelected European Commission and European Council to automatically place countries in effective administration if deficit targets are exceeded. Taken together the treaty essentially seeks to enshrine austerity in the law and constitutions of the signatory countries and preclude for example any expansionary budgetary policy of government borrowing to fund job creating public works projects and reverse the economic decline.
As Socialist Party MEP Paul Murphy points out, this is a bankers' and bondholders' treaty. It is about putting the working people and unemployed of Europe on rations so that as much bank debt as possible is paid on the back of destroying public services, wages and working conditions.
One of the biggest ploys used by the 'yes' camp is to paint a picture that if the treaty is rejected then Ireland will be left isolated in Europe.
However, the rejection of austerity by working class voters in recent weeks in Greece, Italy, Germany and Britain, and the collapse of the Dutch government because of its inability to process €16 billion of austerity, demonstrate to working class people in Ireland that their rejection of the fiscal compact will be welcomed by tens of millions of their brothers and sisters across Europe.
The broadcasting rules during the referendum campaign have forced the media to give 50% of time to the 'no' side which in the main is the Socialist Party/United Left Alliance and Sinn Féin.
Our representatives, unlike Sinn Féin, have dealt with the question of Ireland's borrowing requirements and funding needs in 2013 and beyond by calling for a cancellation of debt servicing, implementing wealth taxes and by raising the slogan of a socialist Europe as the only means of overcoming this crisis of capitalism.
The latest opinion poll claims the 'yes' side is on 37%, 'no' 24% and 'don't know' 37%. This is remarkable given the scale of scaremongering by the 'yes' side and the fact that they outspend the 'no' side by a factor of tens.
The FT accompanied Socialist Party MEP Paul Murphy as he campaigned in Dublin city centre and reported that "it is clear that working class voters are more likely to vote No than the middle classes".
Regardless of the outcome, the experience of the household tax shows that it is one thing to pass a law or effect a constitutional change on the basis of lies, fear and deception but it is another thing entirely too actually implement the cuts. We can look forward to stiff, active and sustained resistance to austerity in Ireland and across the continent in the months and years ahead.
With extracts taken from the Irish socialist party part of the CWI
The background to the referendum is the growing unpopularity of the government. Opinion polls show dissatisfaction with the government has swelled to 65%. The Financial Times reports that senior government ministers have faced verbal abuse on the campaign trail. The deputy finance minister was called "a waste of space" and "just a yes man".
But as Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins explains the establishment parties are "now holding an economic and political weapon to the heads of the Irish people to coerce them into voting 'Yes' to their austerity Treaty on 31 May."
Their arguments in favor of this treaty involve a re-writing of recent economic history. Apparently, the crisis we face is at root a crisis of public spending and governments, particularly in the 'peripheral' countries by not having balanced budgets.
The reality of course is that this is a crisis of capitalism and the particular form in which it began was in the banking and property sectors where the lending practices of banks across Europe fuelled property bubbles particularly in countries such as Ireland and Spain.
However both Ireland and Spain had 'balanced budgets' before this crisis began. That has since changed because of the scale of private banking debt that has been taken on by governments.
The other side of the crisis is the collapse of private sector investment, a strike of capital which in Ireland has seen fixed capital formation decline by 65% since the crisis began raising unemployment in Ireland to 500,000 or 14% of the active population.
In the referendum in 2009 the 'Yes' side (which apart from the government principally includes the Fianna Fáil 'opposition' and the employers' organisation IBEC) is again using a combination of carrot and stick with the electorate.
Vague promises of growth, stability and jobs are promised if a yes vote is achieved. This does not wash with the public. The Socialist Party and the United Left Alliance, which the SP is part of, has pointed out that over 100,000 fewer people are at work now compared to the time of the Lisbon Treaty. The figure would be higher but for emigration.
Figures from the Central Statistics office show that more than 3,000 Irish people are leaving the country each month, the highest number since the Famine in the mid-19th century.
The absence of convincing positive reasons is acknowledged by a host of right wing economists and some opposition right wing TDs (MPs) who instead rely on the 'stick' argument. They say that without passing this treaty Ireland will be denied access to the only source of emergency funding available to it (the European Stabilization Mechanism) in the event of a second bailout being required - which everybody apart from the government thinks is a near certainty.
Therefore, we are told that Ireland and the other member states who are party to this treaty must (as required by articles three and four of the treaty) implement savage additional cuts in the years ahead to bring our structural deficit to GDP ratio to 0.5%.
Ireland's estimated structural deficit for 2013 is 3.7% necessitating an additional €6 billion in cuts according to the Unite trade union. The corresponding total scale of additional cuts across Europe to meet these targets is estimated to be some €161 billion.
Articles five and seven empower the unelected European Commission and European Council to automatically place countries in effective administration if deficit targets are exceeded. Taken together the treaty essentially seeks to enshrine austerity in the law and constitutions of the signatory countries and preclude for example any expansionary budgetary policy of government borrowing to fund job creating public works projects and reverse the economic decline.
As Socialist Party MEP Paul Murphy points out, this is a bankers' and bondholders' treaty. It is about putting the working people and unemployed of Europe on rations so that as much bank debt as possible is paid on the back of destroying public services, wages and working conditions.
One of the biggest ploys used by the 'yes' camp is to paint a picture that if the treaty is rejected then Ireland will be left isolated in Europe.
However, the rejection of austerity by working class voters in recent weeks in Greece, Italy, Germany and Britain, and the collapse of the Dutch government because of its inability to process €16 billion of austerity, demonstrate to working class people in Ireland that their rejection of the fiscal compact will be welcomed by tens of millions of their brothers and sisters across Europe.
The broadcasting rules during the referendum campaign have forced the media to give 50% of time to the 'no' side which in the main is the Socialist Party/United Left Alliance and Sinn Féin.
Our representatives, unlike Sinn Féin, have dealt with the question of Ireland's borrowing requirements and funding needs in 2013 and beyond by calling for a cancellation of debt servicing, implementing wealth taxes and by raising the slogan of a socialist Europe as the only means of overcoming this crisis of capitalism.
The latest opinion poll claims the 'yes' side is on 37%, 'no' 24% and 'don't know' 37%. This is remarkable given the scale of scaremongering by the 'yes' side and the fact that they outspend the 'no' side by a factor of tens.
The FT accompanied Socialist Party MEP Paul Murphy as he campaigned in Dublin city centre and reported that "it is clear that working class voters are more likely to vote No than the middle classes".
Regardless of the outcome, the experience of the household tax shows that it is one thing to pass a law or effect a constitutional change on the basis of lies, fear and deception but it is another thing entirely too actually implement the cuts. We can look forward to stiff, active and sustained resistance to austerity in Ireland and across the continent in the months and years ahead.
With extracts taken from the Irish socialist party part of the CWI
Friday, 13 April 2012
On the national question in Scotland
As socialists in the Marxist tradition we believe in every nation’s right to self determination. This is no different when it comes to Scotland and the question of independence. We support the right for Scottish people to decide their own future. To not be dictated to by capitalist politicians from Scotland and Westminster.
As Lenin writes in his fantastic book on a nations right to self determination http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm
“, the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal, and, therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.
Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. “
So as a result it is wrong we felt for David Cameron to weigh into the debate dictating how the referendum now planned for 2014 was to be held. It is not up to him.
In a country where the Tories are largely hated and have as many giant panda’s in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MP’s we feel this is very disrespectful of Tories to start calling the shots on a referendum of independence.
The UK Westminster government attempted to force the hand of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish administration into holding a referendum within the next 18 months, rather than SNP First Minister Alex Salmond's preferred option of late 2014.
Crucially, the Con-Dems have insisted that a single 'yes or no' question on the issue of Scottish independence form the basis of the referendum. This is also counter to the SNP's current desire for a multi-option poll including a choice of "devolution max".
The Con-Dems also oppose the idea that 16- and 17-year olds be given a vote in the referendum, which the SNP government support. Ironically, the Lib Dem's official policy is for votes for 16- and 17-year olds.
These three sticks, or "strings" as Salmond has described them, were wrapped up in the carrot of allowing the Scottish government to carry out a "legally binding" independence referendum, rather than the consultative one that the current devolution arrangements permit.
The SNP leadership lost no time in describing Cameron's intervention as being "Thatcher-esque". The Tories were operating in a "London knows best fashion, trying to dictate the rules for a referendum for which they have no mandate".
Cameron and his Lib Dem Scottish secretary Michael Moore quickly dropped the insistence that a referendum had to be held within 18 months, but by then the damage, from their point of view, had been done.
In fact Moore's statement to the Westminster parliament described the SNP's proposals as "unlawful" and still leaves open the possibility that the Westminster government could organise an independence referendum over the heads of the Scottish parliament. Such a 'nuclear option' would result in a ratcheting-up of national tensions as well as a likely boycott of such a poll.
As it is, the crass intervention by the Con-Dems has boosted the standing of Salmond and the SNP and probably support for independence as well.
Burned deep into the Scottish national consciousness, and particularly among the working class, is the memory of the brutal anti-working class Thatcher regime. This included that government's refusal to recognise the rights of the Scottish people to self-determination and devolution, never mind independence.
As a consequence the Tories' electoral base was obliterated. Today the Tories have only one MP in Scotland, outnumbered by the two Giant Pandas currently residing in Edinburgh zoo!
The Con-Dem attempts to dictate the terms and rules for the referendum have been a gift for the nationalists in Scotland, who will have gained at least temporary credit for 'standing up' to the Tories.
Of course Salmond's refusal to bow to the pressure over the referendum does not extend to refusing to implement the Con-Dem cuts in Scotland. To a penny, all £3.7 billion of Tory/Liberal cuts have been inflicted on the people of Scotland by the self-proclaimed "Scotland's party". It's also an indication of the role the SNP will play in any future independent Scotland in defending the interests of big business.
Salmond and the SNP also understand that with independence currently supported by around one-third of the Scottish people, it is better to delay a referendum until late 2014.
They hope that the impact of the economic crisis and the savage cuts can be blamed on the Con-Dems and the lack of powers for the Scottish parliament, bolstering public support for more decisive constitutional change.
It is for this reason that the SNP are still holding out for the prospect of a multi-option referendum. In fact they are the only party in Scotland who support a question being asked on extended devolution.
They believe that even if independence was defeated, the current overwhelming public support (68% in the most recent poll) for a major extension of powers over tax, benefits, the minimum wage etc would see them in a win-win situation. "Devolution max" is a safety net for the SNP which they would claim as another step towards independence at a future stage.
Ironically, despite the insistence of Cameron, Miliband et al on a single question on independence, "devolution max" also could be a way out for the British ruling class as well. It could avoid the instability and loss of prestige that the break-up of the UK would mean for British capitalism.
If the run-up to 2014 saw a significant rise in support for independence even the Westminster parties could back a third option, to act as a lightning conductor, in an effort to avoid a majority for independence.
The SNP leadership, pro-capitalist to the core, have long accepted a 'gradualist' path to independence. They would happily settle for a form of extreme autonomy, within a newly designed federal UK state.
Salmond has already made clear that an independent Scotland would maintain the Queen as head of state and keep the pound as the Scottish currency, effectively keeping monetary policy in the hands of the Bank of England. They would also use powers over corporation tax to reduce the "burden" on big business and encourage a low tax haven for inward investment. Their vision of an independent Scotland would be a nightmare for the majority of working class people and their families.
It is essential that a working class alternative is urgently built to the capitalist and cuts consensus among Scotland's political elite, including the SNP. Any attempt to block the democratic rights of the Scottish people should be opposed, if necessary using the full power of the trade union and labour movement as witnessed on 30 November. A multi-option referendum is a genuine democratic right which the Socialist Party Scotland fully supports.
While supporting a parliament with full powers over the economy, benefits, the minimum wage etc we also need a socialist Scotland and to build a mass party of the working class to fight for it.
Central to this task is the need to stand implacably for the maximum unity of the working class across Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. We fight for a voluntary and democratic socialist federation of these states as a step to a socialist Europe. Only a socialist society can end the nightmare of austerity, cuts and capitalism once and for all.
As Lenin writes in his fantastic book on a nations right to self determination http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm
“, the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal, and, therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.
Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. “
So as a result it is wrong we felt for David Cameron to weigh into the debate dictating how the referendum now planned for 2014 was to be held. It is not up to him.
In a country where the Tories are largely hated and have as many giant panda’s in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MP’s we feel this is very disrespectful of Tories to start calling the shots on a referendum of independence.
The UK Westminster government attempted to force the hand of the Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish administration into holding a referendum within the next 18 months, rather than SNP First Minister Alex Salmond's preferred option of late 2014.
Crucially, the Con-Dems have insisted that a single 'yes or no' question on the issue of Scottish independence form the basis of the referendum. This is also counter to the SNP's current desire for a multi-option poll including a choice of "devolution max".
The Con-Dems also oppose the idea that 16- and 17-year olds be given a vote in the referendum, which the SNP government support. Ironically, the Lib Dem's official policy is for votes for 16- and 17-year olds.
These three sticks, or "strings" as Salmond has described them, were wrapped up in the carrot of allowing the Scottish government to carry out a "legally binding" independence referendum, rather than the consultative one that the current devolution arrangements permit.
The SNP leadership lost no time in describing Cameron's intervention as being "Thatcher-esque". The Tories were operating in a "London knows best fashion, trying to dictate the rules for a referendum for which they have no mandate".
Cameron and his Lib Dem Scottish secretary Michael Moore quickly dropped the insistence that a referendum had to be held within 18 months, but by then the damage, from their point of view, had been done.
In fact Moore's statement to the Westminster parliament described the SNP's proposals as "unlawful" and still leaves open the possibility that the Westminster government could organise an independence referendum over the heads of the Scottish parliament. Such a 'nuclear option' would result in a ratcheting-up of national tensions as well as a likely boycott of such a poll.
As it is, the crass intervention by the Con-Dems has boosted the standing of Salmond and the SNP and probably support for independence as well.
Burned deep into the Scottish national consciousness, and particularly among the working class, is the memory of the brutal anti-working class Thatcher regime. This included that government's refusal to recognise the rights of the Scottish people to self-determination and devolution, never mind independence.
As a consequence the Tories' electoral base was obliterated. Today the Tories have only one MP in Scotland, outnumbered by the two Giant Pandas currently residing in Edinburgh zoo!
The Con-Dem attempts to dictate the terms and rules for the referendum have been a gift for the nationalists in Scotland, who will have gained at least temporary credit for 'standing up' to the Tories.
Of course Salmond's refusal to bow to the pressure over the referendum does not extend to refusing to implement the Con-Dem cuts in Scotland. To a penny, all £3.7 billion of Tory/Liberal cuts have been inflicted on the people of Scotland by the self-proclaimed "Scotland's party". It's also an indication of the role the SNP will play in any future independent Scotland in defending the interests of big business.
Salmond and the SNP also understand that with independence currently supported by around one-third of the Scottish people, it is better to delay a referendum until late 2014.
They hope that the impact of the economic crisis and the savage cuts can be blamed on the Con-Dems and the lack of powers for the Scottish parliament, bolstering public support for more decisive constitutional change.
It is for this reason that the SNP are still holding out for the prospect of a multi-option referendum. In fact they are the only party in Scotland who support a question being asked on extended devolution.
They believe that even if independence was defeated, the current overwhelming public support (68% in the most recent poll) for a major extension of powers over tax, benefits, the minimum wage etc would see them in a win-win situation. "Devolution max" is a safety net for the SNP which they would claim as another step towards independence at a future stage.
Ironically, despite the insistence of Cameron, Miliband et al on a single question on independence, "devolution max" also could be a way out for the British ruling class as well. It could avoid the instability and loss of prestige that the break-up of the UK would mean for British capitalism.
If the run-up to 2014 saw a significant rise in support for independence even the Westminster parties could back a third option, to act as a lightning conductor, in an effort to avoid a majority for independence.
The SNP leadership, pro-capitalist to the core, have long accepted a 'gradualist' path to independence. They would happily settle for a form of extreme autonomy, within a newly designed federal UK state.
Salmond has already made clear that an independent Scotland would maintain the Queen as head of state and keep the pound as the Scottish currency, effectively keeping monetary policy in the hands of the Bank of England. They would also use powers over corporation tax to reduce the "burden" on big business and encourage a low tax haven for inward investment. Their vision of an independent Scotland would be a nightmare for the majority of working class people and their families.
It is essential that a working class alternative is urgently built to the capitalist and cuts consensus among Scotland's political elite, including the SNP. Any attempt to block the democratic rights of the Scottish people should be opposed, if necessary using the full power of the trade union and labour movement as witnessed on 30 November. A multi-option referendum is a genuine democratic right which the Socialist Party Scotland fully supports.
While supporting a parliament with full powers over the economy, benefits, the minimum wage etc we also need a socialist Scotland and to build a mass party of the working class to fight for it.
Central to this task is the need to stand implacably for the maximum unity of the working class across Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. We fight for a voluntary and democratic socialist federation of these states as a step to a socialist Europe. Only a socialist society can end the nightmare of austerity, cuts and capitalism once and for all.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Ireland : turn EU treaty into treat over austerity and vote no !
As the date for the EU referendum is set to be announced the people of Ireland are left with a big decision and the ULA and the socialist party our sister organization in Ireland is calling for a no vote to reject austerity and fight for an alternative to the crippiling cuts agenda the government is forcing on ordinary working families.
This Treaty is designed to ensure countries service their debt, including private bank debt that has been taken on as sovereign debt – irrespective of the social consequences. The financial crisis caused by bank speculation has led to a collapse in the real economy and a rise in debt relative to output. But the German and French governments, and the ECB, are demanding that the big banks of Europe be protected. They insist that social spending and state investment in the real economy be cut in order to guarantee that the banks get paid.
Paul Murphy MEP said:
The household tax is the first of a raft of taxes that this government will attempt to impose to meet its budget targets for the coming years: €7.2 billion cuts and taxes up to 2015 – followed by up to €5.7 billion if the rules of the Austerity Treaty were imposed in Ireland under current circumstances. We reject this austerity drive: cuts and taxes being imposed on our people in order to support the gambling debts of the banks – debts which are being taken on as sovereign debt. This is not our debt and we call for an end to the payment to all such bank-related debt.
Clare Daly said:
Contrary to the assertions of government ministers, this Treaty would lead to more economic instability. There has been a collapse of private investment in the Irish economy – €32 billion of profits were uninvested in 2010. In the face of this, the Treaty would force Irish governments into more cuts and tax increases, further reducing economic activity and reducing the capacity of the state to service debts. The choice being made is to support the banks, while continuing to drive down living standards and abandoning our people to unemployment, poverty, and declining services.
Joan Collins said:
The Treaty would turn elections into a total sham. It demands that austerity – deficit and debt reduction – be set into our legislative framework with ‘binding force’ and ‘permanent character’. It would be for the European Commission and the European Court of Justice to decide if a country was implementing the Treaty. So no matter what government was elected, or what mass protest movements demanded, budgetary policy would be in the hands of these unelected EU institutions. We reject this denial of democracy – in which a government would be forced to protect the interests of a tiny elite at the expense of the welfare of millions.
Seamus Healy said:
The scaremongering of the government and its supporters – that rejecting of the treaty will lead to us being kicked out of the EU or eurozone – is a lie. Ireland will remain part of the EU and eurozone, but will not support the austerity drive. Nor will Ireland be isolated. A “no’ vote would be a vote for an alternative to the EU policy of protection of the millionaires at the expense of the millions – a vote to link up with people all over Europe who want a decent future and sustainable development.
The ULA calls for a full public debate on the Austerity Treaty. We also hope that the trade union movement will facilitate a full debate amongst their members, who will be adversely effected by the continued austerity required under this Treaty. We will work to maximise a ‘no’ vote and to mobilise for a socially progressive, sustainable alternative to the politics of the Austerity Treaty.
Joe Higgins said:
The government’s only argument to support the Treaty is the Blackmail Clause. This says that Ireland won’t get money for a second ‘bailout’ from the ESM fund if we don’t approve the Austerity Treaty. Fine Gael and Labour agreed to put this Blackmail Clause into the ESM Treaty and the Austerity Treaty. But they also have the power to get it out, because Ireland has a veto over the amendment to the Lisbon Treaty required to bring the ESM into being. If they want a free and honest debate on the Austerity Treaty, they could veto the amendment to Lisbon required for the ESM until the Blackmail Clause is removed. At a minimum, we call for decisions on the ESM Treaty to be put back until after the referendum on the Austerity Treaty.
This Treaty is designed to ensure countries service their debt, including private bank debt that has been taken on as sovereign debt – irrespective of the social consequences. The financial crisis caused by bank speculation has led to a collapse in the real economy and a rise in debt relative to output. But the German and French governments, and the ECB, are demanding that the big banks of Europe be protected. They insist that social spending and state investment in the real economy be cut in order to guarantee that the banks get paid.
Paul Murphy MEP said:
The household tax is the first of a raft of taxes that this government will attempt to impose to meet its budget targets for the coming years: €7.2 billion cuts and taxes up to 2015 – followed by up to €5.7 billion if the rules of the Austerity Treaty were imposed in Ireland under current circumstances. We reject this austerity drive: cuts and taxes being imposed on our people in order to support the gambling debts of the banks – debts which are being taken on as sovereign debt. This is not our debt and we call for an end to the payment to all such bank-related debt.
Clare Daly said:
Contrary to the assertions of government ministers, this Treaty would lead to more economic instability. There has been a collapse of private investment in the Irish economy – €32 billion of profits were uninvested in 2010. In the face of this, the Treaty would force Irish governments into more cuts and tax increases, further reducing economic activity and reducing the capacity of the state to service debts. The choice being made is to support the banks, while continuing to drive down living standards and abandoning our people to unemployment, poverty, and declining services.
Joan Collins said:
The Treaty would turn elections into a total sham. It demands that austerity – deficit and debt reduction – be set into our legislative framework with ‘binding force’ and ‘permanent character’. It would be for the European Commission and the European Court of Justice to decide if a country was implementing the Treaty. So no matter what government was elected, or what mass protest movements demanded, budgetary policy would be in the hands of these unelected EU institutions. We reject this denial of democracy – in which a government would be forced to protect the interests of a tiny elite at the expense of the welfare of millions.
Seamus Healy said:
The scaremongering of the government and its supporters – that rejecting of the treaty will lead to us being kicked out of the EU or eurozone – is a lie. Ireland will remain part of the EU and eurozone, but will not support the austerity drive. Nor will Ireland be isolated. A “no’ vote would be a vote for an alternative to the EU policy of protection of the millionaires at the expense of the millions – a vote to link up with people all over Europe who want a decent future and sustainable development.
The ULA calls for a full public debate on the Austerity Treaty. We also hope that the trade union movement will facilitate a full debate amongst their members, who will be adversely effected by the continued austerity required under this Treaty. We will work to maximise a ‘no’ vote and to mobilise for a socially progressive, sustainable alternative to the politics of the Austerity Treaty.
Joe Higgins said:
The government’s only argument to support the Treaty is the Blackmail Clause. This says that Ireland won’t get money for a second ‘bailout’ from the ESM fund if we don’t approve the Austerity Treaty. Fine Gael and Labour agreed to put this Blackmail Clause into the ESM Treaty and the Austerity Treaty. But they also have the power to get it out, because Ireland has a veto over the amendment to the Lisbon Treaty required to bring the ESM into being. If they want a free and honest debate on the Austerity Treaty, they could veto the amendment to Lisbon required for the ESM until the Blackmail Clause is removed. At a minimum, we call for decisions on the ESM Treaty to be put back until after the referendum on the Austerity Treaty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)