Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU
The EU Anti-Labour Laws

In its constitution the EU describes itself as built upon
4 "pillars". They are the freedom of movement of the
essentials of capitalism;

1 The Free Movement of Goods,
2 Free Movement of Capital,
3 Free Movement of Services,
4 Free Movement of People.

EU law allows for the free movement of workers between
countries, and makes restrictions illegal (except those
allowed by EU law).  The EU law is explicit;
workers
have the right to reside and be employed and
unemployed in any member state of their choice
under the same conditions as those enjoyed by
citizens of that country
(except where EU law allows
for them to be paid less, see below). Free movement of
labour across a territory with such differences in
standards of pay creates perfect conditions of employment
for employers, and they have availed themselves of this
and other EU legislation to get the most out of their
workers for the minimum possible. The EU is an
employers' charter.
One of the purposes of the EU is to provide a  
pool of cheap labour, of unprecedented size.
How the EU pushes wages down;

A company can bring their own workers with them, and
the EU can be used as extra legal muscle against union
action, as  British oil workers found out in 2009 at the
Lindsay oil refinery. British workers who hadn't even been
allowed to apply for the jobs there, were branded racists
and xenophobes for.....wanting jobs (To see how the Tory
press uses the "racist" slur against workers defending their
right to jobs see Denis MacShane,
The Guardian 2nd Feb
2009, Mary Riddel,
The Daily Telegraph 4th Feb 2009. For
a different view see Labour MP John Cruddas also in
The
Guardian
31st Jan 2009). The workers were protesting
that jobs in Britain were given to workers from abroad
(these weren’t immigrants, but temporary workers
brought by the company). The British Labour Prime
Minister himself was forced to backtrack after piping up
vainly for "British jobs" finding that he had fallen foul of
EU law, having forgotten that the EU was designed
specifically to allow employers to employ workers from
wherever they want, wherever they want.
Recently the EU allowed a restriction on the immigration
of Romanian workers, which has now expired. The
restriction was allowed (not only in "xenophobic" Britain,
as middle class commentators loved to call it, but also in
"xenophobic" Spain, France, Austria, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Germany. Obviously the sudden influx
of some of the EU's poorest workers would have given the
game away. Now however, that influx can be expected, and
we are used to the idea. We ought to be in no doubt that in
the long run, significant movements of peoples are
expected. Nor should we doubt what the purpose of it is.
As
The Daily Telegraph put it; "the native population (of
Lincolnshire) had no inclination to harvest cabbages" (at
the rates paid to the migrant workers) "who worked for
£25  per day...and paid £80 per week rent to live 20 people
in a room... We should be grateful to them for our
prosperity" (for the prosperity of the gang masters and  
Tesco higher up the food chain). Low Pay Britain is a
proud asset for the Europhile middle classes.
People should be under no illusions about this, the EU law
is categorical about it;
there can be no legal limit to EU
immigration
. Any government that attempts to limit it
will be in breach of EU law, and will be fined heavily by the
EU courts. Recent manifesto pledges, including that of the
Labour Party, to restrict benefits to immigrants, is illegal.

It is shocking too that the labour party resorted to
punishing defenceless migrants in this way; the proposed
policy would result in Romanian children starving in shop
doorways in Dover, and surely goes against everything the
Labour movement stands for.

The Labour leadership preferred to resort to cruel
"deterrents" against migrants, rather than being honest
with the electorate about the legal position in the EU, that
unlimited immigration really does mean precisely
that.

Starving immigrants of benefits is anyway in breach of
explicit EU law and would result in fines.
What does "freedom of movement mean to the
working classes of Europe?
It means they are "free" in the Norman Tebbit sense of the
word, to get on their bikes and search for work a thousand
miles away from their homes and families, and suffer all
the attendant hardships thereof. It means the working
classes of Europe are to be moved about to wherever there
is a need for cheap labour. When the Tories made it clear
they wanted to return to this pre-war approach to the
labour market, to the demands of classical capitalism, the
left was stirred to a strong reaction. Now when the same
thing is arranged on a huge scale, involving a population of
450 million, and using the full force of EU law, backed up
by fines of £billions against any nation that resists it, even
through union action, then the left has so far had nothing
to say. The middle class dominated Labour party has
willingly supported Britain's membership of the EU, and
has made no resistance to these draconian, retrograde
capitalist measures. It is time for the left to stand up for
workers, not just in Britain, but all around Europe, by
rejecting the EU project.
The taboo surrounding the word "immigration" has
been used to silence criticism of the capitalist
employers' charter that is the EU law
It is no accident that it is the middle class controlled
media who police and enforce the taboo surrounding the
question of immigration, and who are the ones to operate
the ultimate sanction, to brand the working classes as
"racist" for questioning the use of cheap labour to drive
down working class wages, across the whole of Europe.
The best weapon against that
divide and rule tactic is
solidarity between workers of all nations, and to resist the
EU migrant labour policy.
Left Against the EU, Union members protesting against the use of non-union labour at Lindsey
Union workers Lindsey oil refinery,jobs, British, migrants, Left wing against EU
An oil refinery worker being told to get on his bike,left against the EU
Police being used to quell protests at Lindsey, left against the EU
Migrants sleeping rough,This is where you sleep when Milliband's Labour or Cameron's Tories cut off your benefits to deter other immigrants
This is where you sleep when
Milliband's Labour or Cameron's
Tories cut off your benefits to deter
other immigrants
An oil refinery worker being told to
get on his bike
Police being used to quell protests at
Lindsey
Union members protesting against the
use of non-union labour at Lindsey
left against the EU,A migrant worker camp near Wisbech (BBC)Is this  the future the EU has planned for the lower working classes?
left against the EU,migrant camp wisbech,EU policy on
A migrant worker camp
near Wisbech (BBC)
Is this  the future the EU
has planned for the lower
working classes?
A man who earned 3p in
his wage packet (BBC)
The reality of the EU
policy on "freedom" of
movement
Left

Against

The

EU









Left

Against

The

EU





Left

Against

The

EU














Left

Against

The

EU
In Sweden, where the trade unions have ensured high
wages for the working classes, which is the reason why
there is no poverty in Sweden of the kind we have to
endure here,  the EU courts were used to sweep aside
collective bargaining. In the case of Laval Un Partneri v
Svenska Byggnadsarbetar förbundet (The Swedish
Building Workers' Union), a Romanian company was able
to make imported workers work for less than Swedish
workers, despite the efforts of the Swedish Union; a
strike was ruled illegal and the union fined. There was a
similar judgement in Luxembourg, and another in
Finland.
The EU Posted Workers' Directive has meant that
workers can be moved into a country by a company which
only has to pay the wages they might have received in
their country of origin. The only stipulation is that it
meets
minimum wage laws of the new country. In other
words, the working classes can only defend the
minimum
wage
against the EU, no other wages. This Directive is
aimed against trade unions. If we cannot leave the EU,
then this is another reason why we had better make sure
that we have a high National Minimum Wage. If we have
a low one, that is the one immigration will be used to
push us down to. Logically it can mean that they can flood
the labour market with low paid European workers until
we are
all on £6 per hour. (It is even harder for newly
arrived immigrants to survive on £6 per hour than it is
with British workers with family networks and a certain
degree of support and familiarity with their surroundings.
Imagine living in an alien environment on so little
as the minimum wage,
and getting established. How do
you find the deposit for a rental, for example? But if they
are used to worse, they accept it).
And that is the whole thinking behind the EU; it is a
capitalist organisation to ensure a plentiful supply of
cheap labour where and when it is needed in order to
drive down the wages of the working classes.

The working classes of course include each
successive wave of immigrants
who, once they have
become acclimatised and eventually settled in Britain, if
they can manage that, also want to be paid a decent wage,
and not have their wages driven down by a new wave of
immigrants. It is at that point that they lose the
sympathy of the left wing middle classes.
The future for the working classes of Europe is to be
herded around and used as migratory labour, in barges
and camps, as they were at the Lindsay oil refinery, and
as they are all across Norfolk for example in gangers'
sheds and barracks, used as cheap labour in one country
then another, always to drive each other's wages down.

The EU is a menace facing the low paid and better paid
workers alike,  across Europe.
To be anti EU is not to be anti-immigration

The EU's policy on immigration is itself blatantly
racist if the word means to discriminate between
nationalities;
European governments, flooded with EU
immigration, try to appease their overwhelmed
electorates with promises to limit non-EU immigration.
In Britain this means that we have the curious spectacle
of a middle class left using the "racist" slur to support a
curb on non-white immigration, in favour of white
European immigration. Even when British Muslims from
India are candidates for UKIP to oppose it , they are still
called racists, such is the success of the EU propaganda
against its opponents. When 50 ethnic minority UKIP
supporters stood on a stage denying the racist accusations
against their party, 100 white so called anti fascists were
outside calling them racists. An Orwellian twist of logic
and use of words.

Is Controlling Immigration Racist? And do UKIP
Labour and Conservative differ?
There is an intense establishment determination to paint
that party as racist which probably has no more racists in
it than Labour and Conservative; even to question the
presumption risks incurring the slur. When you compare
the 3 parties' actual policies on immigration it is quite
plain to see that the real reason they want to call UKIP
racist is that it is anti-EU; because UKIP policy is barely
any more anti-immigration than those of Labour and
Conservative, and in fact seems to favour non-European
immigration more than the other two parties.

The left should look for example, at
Labour's  policy on
immigration
, and see beyond the rhetoric to the policy of
denying benefits to immigrants for two years, as a
deterrent to others, and to encourage immigrants that
are here to return to their country of origin, to find a
policy more likely to have come from the National Front
in the 1970s than the Labour Party that is supposed to
represent the interests of the poor and the oppressed.
The Conservatives have a similar policy, they deny
benefits for 4 years, so do UKIP who deny them for 5
years.   Taken as a whole, if you examine the other
aspects of their immigration policies these 3 parties are
almost identical; one of them is called racist.

Why do Labour, Conservative and UKIP have harsh
policies to deny benefits to immigrants?
The reason they have these policies is that they wish to
prevent unlimited EU immigration without being able to
directly challenge it. They cannot challenge it for 2
reasons; 1 It is a central policy of the EU.
2 They don't want to draw attention to this fact about the
EU. (this 2nd reason doesn't of course apply to UKIP,
who do).
The Conservatives say they will renegotiate Britain's
terms of membership to enable them to limit EU
immigration, UKIP aim to achieve it by Britain leaving
the EU, Labour make no mention of how it intends to
enable Britain to go against current EU law, except the
deliberately vague; "We will help to introduce sensible
measures at an EU level to protect the rights of British
workers, and we remain committed to fighting to protect
these measures."

Humanitarian immigration;
There is room for thinking that we would like to help
people in countries poorer than our own  by allowing
some of them to come here to live, but maybe we might
want to help the starving first, rather than the merely
less well off in Europe? Surely we in Britain have a first
duty to accept economic migrants from former colonies,
rather than Europeans?
But Labour say that
low skill immigration is too high,
and  that they will curb it. This casts some doubt on any
claim that immigration is still a kind of humanitarian
kindness.
High skill immigration drains doctors, and
engineers and other much needed people, from the
poorer nations they come from. The sole beneficiary is
Britain, poorer nations lose out badly, fatally. With that
in mind it might be reasonable to call high skill
immigration vicious.

What is the effect of EU migration on the poorest
countries?

Young doctors and dentists from the poorer countries of
Europe are leaving to come to the richer countries, where
they are paid 8 times the salaries they could earn at
home. This leaves their own health services bereft of
doctors. The health service of Bulgaria for example is
being drained of  doctors and money; first they pay for
the training of doctors and dentists, then they lose them
to the richer countries. This means there are not enough
doctors left to treat patients; Bulgarians suffer, Britain
benefits (by saving money on training health service staff)
"Bulgaria has the lowest wages in the EU and doctors'
salaries are no exception. Dr Balezdrov earns around
£800 a month (950 Euros). If he worked in the same field
in the UK, he would earn £60-70,000 a year" (BBC 20th
November 2013).
Home
EU in Norman Tebbit style,  tells migrants to get on their bikes
Page 2 of 6