Green MEP raises alarm about UK ‘joining front of the queue on dodgy trade deals’

Deals beyond TTIP

A Green MEP, who has long campaigned against the controversial TTIP trade deal between the EU and US, has warned that with the deal looking increasingly fragile, the UK may seek to enter into its own even more damaging agreement with the US. TTIP was cited by some on the Left as a good reason to leave the EU, but it now looks likely that Germany’s coalition government will veto the deal.

Molly Scott Cato, the Green MEP for the South West, argued before the referendum that the EU was the right place to fight TTIP and that the Tories would readily create alternative trade deals with the US and other nations if we left. She said:

I always said that a UK outside the EU, governed by the Tories, would lead to even further trade liberalisation, even more damaging trade deals and a deregulated corporate free-for-all. That is exactly what we are now in danger of witnessing. Obama famously said that were Britain to leave the EU it would go to the ‘back of the queue' on trade deals. With TTIP in free fall, the post Brexit reality is that Tory minsters are desperately trying to move us to the front of the queue. There is now a real danger this will result in a race to the bottom on workers’ rights, consumer protection and environmental and animal welfare standards.

Molly Scott Cato is also keen to highlight the huge costs involved in negotiating trade deals. The costs of TTIP to date amount to over €2.5 million. The figures were unearthed following a question she put to the EU Commission about the costs of the TTIP negotiations. She said:

We should not be under any illusion that leaving the negotiation processes of the EU will save us money. Any trade negotiations with the US or any other nation will be less efficient than 28 nations sharing the costs and will be a huge drain on the public purse.

No Brent Council ban on glyphosate but use to be kept under review

The commonest brand containing glyphosate

Cllr Southwood responded to a question on the use of the the herbicide glyphosate from Cllr Colacicco with the following written answer (as printed on order paper with no closure of quotation mark).  Wembley Matters raised concerns about the issue HERE

The Council uses Amenity Glyphosate for weed control across its sites, and has no current plans to ban its use. However, I appreciate that there are public concerns about this and will continue to keep this policy under review. Whilst studies have concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for it to pose a health risk to humans, I’m aware of more recent work that links contact with humans to a type of cancer. Clearly, this is to b taken very seriously.

Proper application techniques are vital for keeping people working with it free from harm. Our contract with Veolia includes an ongoing commitment from them to review herbicide application in accordance with EU recommendations and our own environmental policies. This will be achieved by constantly seeking new and improved herbicides and more efficient methods of application whenever these might become available. We work closely with them to ensure that all latest guidance in terms of safe working practices is being followed and have reiterated the importance of this to them in light of public concerns.

Headteachers call for government to reassure EU children in UK of their right to stay

 I have been hearing reports of children from EU countries crying in school the morning after the Referendum fearing that they would be forced to leave the UK. This initiative by the National Association of Headteachers is welcome.

Today (Wednesday 29 June) school leaders’ union NAHT published an open letter to David Cameron calling for assurances to be given to EU pupils. The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Prime Minister,

The vote to leave the European Union has brought uncertainty to many areas of life in Britain, including education.

School leaders are reporting to us that some of their young students are worrying about their future.

Pupils are worried about being forced to leave Britain. They are fearful of a potential rise in racism and community conflict. They are concerned about their prospects in an uncertain and isolated Britain.

It is not just the economic markets that need calming. Our young people need a statement from the government to address their fears.

NAHT strongly urges the Government to give pupils from the EU better assurance that they will be able to complete their school education without interruption; that they and their families remain welcome and valued members of the communities they call home.

Our schools are the places in which we shape our future as a nation. Our teachers and school leaders can help young people make sense of dramatic changes and build their own plans. To do this, we need clarity, swiftly. Please do not ignore the impact of the EU referendum result on the next generation.

Sincerely,

Russell Hobby
General Secretary

Natalie Bennett calls for General Election to deliver a people's government

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has called for a General Election in November to select a Government to lead Britain into a decision on its future relationship with the European Union. The leader of the Green Party, who campaigned for Britain to remain a member of the EU, is calling for a period of calm and reflection.

Bennett said:

“What we need is calm and time for reflection, not knee-jerk reactions. Despite the imperative of the half-hour Twitter news cycle, and the pressure to take definitive steps, what we really need is time for what’s happened to sink in, then sober consideration of what comes next.

“It is critically important that we resist pressure to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, from European states and institutions and the financial markets. This is something we must not be bounced into. It is legally our decision, and one we can put off until the people’s wishes are clearer, until we’ve cleaned up our democracy.

“Before negotiations start, we need to know what we’re asking for.

“That has to mean a General Election – that’s the only way we can reach a mandate on a way forward. We’d have a minimum period of months (the earliest practical date would be early November) to debate, discuss, inform voters, who’ll then be able to weigh up the offers by various parties.

“Dissatisfaction with the status quo in this election is clearly closely related to the failures of our current electoral system, which disenfranchises the majority, who don’t get the representation they want.

“We need an election to deliver a way forward for Britain – and a fair voting system to deliver a government that truly reflects, and delivers on, the will of the people. That’s why progressives must now consider working together for our best chance of success in any coming election. Any sort of pact must be based on an agreement to implement a fairer voting system.

“What we need above all is for a chance for the people to decide, after a full, honest, open debate. To deliver that, we need a people’s government, not the tottering 19th-century structure we have now.

Barry Gardiner seeks constituents' views on Referendum - Public Meeting on Monday

From Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North)

Public Meeting on EU Referendum

On Thursday, 23rd June 2017 the British public have the opportunity to determine the future of the United Kingdom and whether or not we play a part in the future of Europe. This may well be the most important vote that many of us will face in our lifetime and will, undoubtedly, have a profound impact on future generations.

Many of my constituents will not yet have decided how they intend to vote or may not have had an opportunity to consider the arguments for and against remaining in the European Union. With this in mind, I will be holding a public meeting to allow residents of Brent North1 to question me and so that I can listen to their views before any such vote.

The meeting will take place as follows:

Time: 7:30pm
Date: Monday, 20th June 2016
Venue: St Cuthbert’s Church2, 214 Carlton Avenue West, North Wembley, Middlesex HA0 3QY (just off the Watford Road)
 

Remain for change: Building European solidarity for a democratic alternative - June 15th

I, like I am sure many readers, have felt manipulated by the EU Referendum debate: manipulated into taking sides into what is basically a dispute within the Conservative Party (and a leadership contest), and within British neoliberalism.  The manipulation of the media by the two main camps has meant that the left alternatives for Remain and for Exit have been scarcely heard. In the process the debate has licensed the expression of openly racist views seldom heard since the 60s and 70s - albeit directed against Eastern Europeans rather than East African Asians or people from the Caribbean.

Economists for Rational Economic Policies sum up the problem in the introduction to their new report due to be discussed at a launch on June 15th.   I think the report makes an important contribution to the debate so have posted it at the end of the article.

The economic arguments over the UK’s EU Referendum have generally followed the Conservative government’s own philosophical lines of deregulation and freedom for globalised finance, in which the only true imperatives are the removal of all barriers to trade and capital flows, and the weakening of social and employment protection. This has been the main thrust of the economic arguments put forward by the Conservative “Remain” campaign, in particular the Treasury’s two reports on the long-term and immediate impacts of Brexit

Since much of the leadership of the “Leave” campaign shares the same economic philosophy, but wishes to deregulate still further (save on the issue of immigration), the choice often resembles that between tweedledum and tweedledee. In consequence, many who believe in a more managed economy which looks after the interests of working people and offers decent social protection, and who instinctively consider themselves to be European and internationalist, have felt excluded from the debate.

And alas, the European Union itself has in recent years adopted disastrous economic policies, in particular in relation to the single currency and Eurozone, which have severely damaged working people across much of the continent. Unemployment in the Eurozone has been above 10% since mid-2009, save for one solitary month. Worse, these policies are legally embedded in the EU’s Treaties, making democratic choice for change extremely difficult.

So the natural supporters of the European Union from a politically progressive perspective find themselves faced with a difficult dilemma, notably in relation to economic policy.

Economists for Rational Economic Policies (EREP) has therefore put together this series of articles which, in different ways and from differing perspectives, unite in arguing that for the UK to vote to leave the EU would be a serious mistake – both in economic and political terms. It would tend strengthen right-wing forces both in the UK and across Europe, and weaken the rights of working people. It risks a fragmentation of Europe along nationalist grounds which could even ultimately threaten the peaceful cooperation we have enjoyed across most of our continent for 70 years.

We need a strong EU for the future on a wide range of issues – not least climate change. But we also need to work in solidarity with all those across Europe who can see that Europe has to change the basis of its economic ideology and strategy if it is to fulfil its Treaty commitment to the peoples of Europe to work for “full employment and social progress.. a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”.

I have posted the full report below:

The free launch event takes place at the University of Greenwich on June 15th. Follow this LINK for speaker details and to book your free tickets.

Should Brent follow Hammersmith & Fulham and replace glyphosate

I am well aware that dangers to public health are often under-estimated or dismissed only to be cited decades later as the cause of illness and perhaps early death. As an NUT representative at a school in Fulham in the early 70s I discovered asbestos, claimed to have been safely removed over the summer holidays, stuffed behind classroom radiators.  The borough Medical Officer of Health at the time was  not particularly sympathetic. Now the effects of exposure to even small amounts of asbestos dust  is well documented.

Currently concerns over the weed killer glyphosate are being similarly down-played.  When I informed Brent Council about the TUC's concerns about safety concerns for workers who use the spray LINK

The TUC report said:

There is no question that weed killers containing glyphosate are dangerous. If it gets on the skin it can cause irritation and dermatitis. It can also cause oral and throat discomfort if it is breathed in. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. If swallowed it may cause corrosion of the throat and can lead to kidney or liver failure.

It is also believed that it can cause cancer. In March 2015 the International Agency on research into Carcinogens (IARC) announced that glyphosate probably caused a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This was based on a study of agricultural workers who were exposed to the chemical, although it was backed up by tests on animals. However it is not known whether the cancer is being caused by contact through the skin or through breathing it, or both. It is therefore necessary to try to prevent any workers coming into contact with glyphosate.

It advocated action to protect workers:

Given that the risks to the skin, lung and eyes have been known about for many years, employers should already have been taking action to prevent any contact to glyphosate, even before there was evidence it causes cancer

Now that there is new evidence that glyphosate is likely to cause cancer, all employers must review their risk assessments, including their COSHH assessments. Where possible they should consider alternatives to the use of herbicides, but if that is not possible they must investigate whether there are safer alternatives. If there are alternatives then they should be introduced, regardless of whether they are more expensive. However they should not rush into substituting another herbicide for glyphosate without ensuring that they know the risk from the substitute. All herbicides are likely to have some dangers to humans.

If they are going to continue to use glyphosate then they should look at whether there are alternatives to how it is used now. Often it is sprayed from backpacks (which often leak) and are filled in an enclosed space. The employer must consider alternative ways of applying it and also look at how containers are filled, cleaned and the chemical stored and disposed of. They also need to provide training and information to the workers about the risk.

If, after that, any workers are still likely to come into contact with glyphosate, they must provide protective clothing. That may include gloves, masks and protective overalls. This must be done free of charge, and arrangements need to be made for them to be stored and cleaned. The safety representatives should be involved in any discussion on the best protective equipment.

Employers should also be monitoring the health of all those who use glyphosate (or any pesticide).

 In my email to Brent Council I said:

 I would like to draw your attention to the latest advice from the TUC re Health and Safety and the use of glyphosate  based weed killers which was issued last month.

With many schools out-sourcing grounds maintenance I wonder if a warning could be issued to them as well as clarifying the situation with Veolia.

Samantha Haines replied for Brent Council:

I have spoken to our contractor and the public realm department here at Brent and they have told me that our contractor are aware and adhere to these practices.

This did not address the issue regarding school contractors and of course some schools may have their own premises staff using the chemicals.   Apart from the danger posed to the workers concerned there is also that of exposing children to the herbicide.

Last week Hammersmith and Fulham Council responded to a 38 Degrees petition on the use of  glyphosate.   Wesley Harcourt, the cabinet member for environment, said:

As is the case at almost all local authorities, glyphosate-based herbicides are currently  used by Hammersmith and Fulham council contractors, Quadron-Serco.

However we have been working with contractors for some time to replace these with chemical  alternatives, such as hot foam and steam.

In May a group of 48 MEPs volunteered for a test to detect levels of glyphosate in their urine. The average was more than 17 times the safe limit and the lowest double the limit. at 0.17ng/ml LINK

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee whose personal test results show a glyphosate contamination level of 0.67 ng/ml, said:

It is genuinely frightening that glyphosate is everywhere in our everyday lives. These test results show that no matter where we live, what we eat, or our age we cannot escape exposure to this toxic substance. With glyphosate widely used in cities, in urban parks and public spaces, on streets and pavements, the European Commission must bow to public pressure and put the safety of people and the environment ahead of the profits of chemical industry giants.

The general public using herbicides in their gardens, need to be aware that popular weedkiller Roundup, on sale in garden centres and other outlets, contains glyphosate.  Manufacturer Monsanto is fighting a public relations battle against critics of its product LINK

In May campaigners claimed a minor victory when the EU decided to delay re-approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU.  The Monsanto backed Glyphosate Task Force  complained about ' acute politicisation of the regulatory procedure' while Pekka Pesonen of the main European Farmers' Union deplored the fact that a ban on glyphosate ban would put them at a 'competitive disadvantage'.

The battle continues.

 The 38 degrees petition can be modified for any local authority and can be found HERE

Barnet Green Party EU Debate Tonight with Syriza speaker

TTIP: The Death of Democracy

As the EU Referendum debate gets under way and TTIP (Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership) begins to get some mentions it is worth watching this video in which David Malone reveals the inner workings of TTIP and its repercussions for democracy.

It is a long video, recorded a year ago, but I think deserves wider viewing.

REVEALED: IKEA''s tax avoidance - more complicated than its flat-pack instructions?

A new report commissioned by the Greens in the European Parliament has revealed that furniture multinational IKEA has dodged €1 billion in taxes over the last 6 years using onshore European tax havens.

IKEA is using a series of tax loopholes in different European countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, to avoid paying taxes. Molly Scott Cato MEP, a member of the European Parliament’s special committee on tax, said:

Just like its flat-pack furniture, assembling a tax dodge is simple if you know the right tricks. And it’s easy to tuck away out of site where tax administrations will barely notice it. This report deconstructs the massive scale of IKEA’s tax avoidance practices. 

Ikea Bremt Park

This is a company which is held in some affection by British people, so what is revealed will come as a shock to many and risks damaging IKEA’s reputation with UK customers. It is time that corporations such as IKEA realised that being an ethical company goes beyond checking the credentials of suppliers and treating your staff well. Complex tax avoidance schemes are unethical and British people expect companies to pay a fair share of tax to fund the services they rely on.

Scott Cato  has joined other Green MEPs in signing a letter to the EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, and tax commissioner, Pierre Moscovici, presenting the report as evidence and urging the Commission to carry out a further investigation to verify possible infringement of EU law. Molly said:

This cynical ‘tax hopping’ is reprehensible and we want the European Commission to fully investigate if and how it infringes on EU law, and take action to address this. EU finance ministers, for their part, should work immediately on trying to recoup the tax revenues, which have been denied to them.

Greens also say that a Corporate Tax Package published by the European Commission at the end of January will not go far enough in preventing IKEA using its different tax loopholes. Molly concluded:

There is an urgent need to change the regulatory framework which facilitates corporate tax avoidance in Europe. We badly need public country-by-country reporting rules for all sectors to provide transparency and ensure the tax strategies of corporations can be properly scrutinised. 

We also need a minimum corporate tax rate to end the race to the bottom of tax dumping in Europe. Such measures require the active cooperation of EU governments and most have so far shown no enthusiasm for truly tackling corporate tax avoidance.

Green's Lucas and Jones take opposing positions on EU Referendum

It was announced yesterday that Green MP Caroline Lucas is joining the board of the EU 'In' campaign. This came shortly after it was reported on Friday that  Green peer and retiring London Assembly member Jenny Jones was supporting the 'Leave' campaign.  Jones' position is not new as she wrote an article on the case for withdrawal back in July LINK

The Green Party's current official position is the 'Three Yeses' : Yes to a referendum, yes to reform, yes to staying in the EU with more detail in an Emergency Motion passed at Autumn Conference (added at end of article). The crux of the matter for some Green Party members is whether a failure to reform (or a worsening of the social benefits after Cameron's negotiations) should convert into a 'No to the EU'.  The treatment of Greece, TTIP and perceived failures over the refugee issue are key elements in the current debate.

As with the last EU referendum and the Scottish referendum people on either side of the debate can find themselves with some strange bedfellows - agreeing the ultimate aim of staying in or withdrawal but for very different reasons.

This is an extract from Jones' article in the Ecologist:

A pro-TTIP European Union, eager to impose the imperatives of capital against people, determined to evacuate democracy in Greece and other member states of its meaning, is not an EU we should wish to be part of.

Just in case you hadn't noticed: something is rotten in the state of Europe.

The EU is becoming a dictatorial imposer of austerity and deregulation, uncaring about its impacts on the wellbeing of people and planet, and determined to derail any elected government that dares dissent from its neoliberal ideology.

I write as a Green who has stood for the European Parliament on a mission of EU reform. I acknowledge that the EU can be and has been a powerful force for good - for example, in keeping the peace among member states, and in its impressive role in social and environmental regulation - now tragically at risk from the drive to 'deregulate'.

But I believe that the general support of the EU by the Green Party, and the Left, and bien-pensant intellectuals, and 'progressives', needs to come to an end, to be replaced by a more honest willingness to face up to the very serious flaws besetting the EU.

The two key events of the last few days that have made starkly clear that something is rotten at the top of our continent are first, the EU moving a big step closer to backing TTIP, the starkly anti-democratic and pro-corporatocratic 'TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership'.

And second, last night's imposition on Athens of a programme for privatisation and savage cuts even worse than that rejected by the Greek people in the referendum last week onto Greece with its decisive 'NO' vote.

Secret corporate lobbying over the heads of the people

The TTIP is the EU-US 'free trade' agreement currently being negotiated, to which the European Parliament, tragically, gave its provisional approval last week.

The Green Party is united against TTIP. And the Green Party argues strongly in favour of the EU. Is there any tension between these two facts? We think that there is. The TTIP

• enables the democratic will of the people to be struck down by big business;
• is in its very essence a project of secretive lobbying;
• is about gigantic corporations being able to break open and gobble up public procurement and public services.

My case is simple: this should not be viewed as some kind of aberration from EU standard practice. It is EU standard practice.

The EU has been from the beginning (but also increasingly, the key examples here being the Lisbon Treaty and the 'Stability and Growth pact') a pro-business front, a vehicle for organisations such as the European Roundtable of Industrialists to get their way.

There is far too little democracy in the EU: for example, the Council of Ministers operates almost entirely in secrecy and holds the whip hand over the Parliament on most issues; Brussels is dominated by corporate lobbyists who outnumber NGO lobbyists by about 15:1, while wielding immense powers of hospitality and patronage. EU rules would make it very difficult for (e.g.) the railways to be brought back into full public ownership in this country.

It is an illusion to think that TTIP is anything other than a natural extension of the logic of the EU as it is currently. Greens, being serious about our outright opposition to TTIP, need to be serious also about radically reforming the EU.

Anything less than truly radical reform - democratisation, an end to the culture of lobbying and secrecy, prioritisation of public service over private profit, prioritisation of one-planet ecological sanity over business profit - would leave the EU more of a hindrance than a help to Green objectives.

Greece - you call this 'negotiation'?

The imposition on Greece of harsh and unwanted measures that eliminate its sovereignty and strip the people of the democratic power they exercised last week in the referendum is not a departure from business as usual for the EU.

It is, on the contrary, a manifestation of the EU's long-standing disrespect for democracy and the sovereignty of its member states, and the determination among EU elites to impose a business-friendly vision onto any recalcitrant government and people.

This deal forced onto Athens - on pain of a forced crash out of the Euro - is a massive wake-up call to democrats everywhere. It is increasingly clear that the EU, far from standing up for Europe's people against overweening corporate power, are doing the exact opposite: ganging up with corporate and finance capital to suppress democracy and popular aspirations.

Above all, the huge power of business lobbyists in the EU - who can usually get what they want, unless the European public puts its foot down (as happened, thankfully, over ACTA -  but that is a very rare event) - simply must end.

Moreover, systemic problems are caused by the 'four freedoms' that are at the core of the Treaty of Rome: the freedom to move capital, products, services and labour all over the EU. The four freedoms add up to a 'bosses charter' giving capital one great supranational freedom - that to exploit labour anywhere in Europe on the most favourable possible terms. There is no Leftist case for an unreformed EU.

That referendum - in or out?

There are tremendous structural difficulties in the way of reforming the EU to address these problems and recreate it in a Green image. But unless they can be achieved we may have to support withdrawal in the UK's 'in or out' EU referendum.

Just as Syriza's negotiating position has been fatally undermined by its refusal (in my view deeply mistaken) to countenance leaving the Euro, so we - Green and progressive voters - will lack any leverage so long as we tolerate a bad EU, for fear of something even worse.

Meanwhile we have to contend with David Cameron's own campaign to 'reform' the EU, backed by other right-wing governments like Poland's: for them, the EU's main problem is that it is not pro-business enough, and imposes intolerable shackles on the pursuit of corporate profit as a result of its social and environmental legislation.

Leave the reform agenda to Cameron and friends, and the EU will only become an even more anti-democratic, anti-ecological, pro-growth, pro-big business centralising organisation than it already is. We must be forceful in opposing and denouncing that dystopian vision of a corporate Europe.

And make no mistake: a pro-TTIP European Union, eager to impose the imperatives of capital against people, determined to evacuate democracy in Greece and other member states of its meaning, is not an EU we should wish to be part of.

As if to underline the point about strange bedfellows despite Jones' stricture on the 'pro business front' the  'Vote Leave' campaign she is supporting is also supported by 'Business for Britain' , former Chairman of Dixons Lord Kalms, former Channel 4 Chairman Luke Johnson and millionaire donors to the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP LINK

Caroline Lucas made the case for staying in the EU strongly at the recent Green Party conference and released the following statement yesterday on her website about her decision to join the board of the 'In' Campaign:

I’ve joined the board of the ‘In’ campaign because I believe we are stronger when we work across borders on the challenges we face.

In particular I want to give young people a reason to engage with a referendum that will shape their futures, both in terms of protecting our shared environment and our basic rights, and by helping define the kind of country we want to be. 

Britain in the EU is open and forward looking. It's about our identity: confident, vibrant, inquiring, open minded. A community that welcomes opportunity, celebrates diversity and is passionate about the power of collective action."

Though I don’t see eye to eye with every member on the board on every issue we all share a commitment to Britain remaining in the EU. I will make a truly progressive case for a more democratic and accountable European Union. 

A different kind of EU is possible: one where power is held locally whenever it can be, where citizens have a real say in decisions made in Brussels and where corporate lobbyists are banished from the halls of power.

This referendum campaign is a chance to reimagine what democracy looks like, reshape what having a say really means and reinvigorate our politics. 

I look forward to working with people across the political spectrum and across our communities to make a positive case for our continued membership of the European Union.

As the debate develops inside the Green Party and on the left it is clear that the issue of the party's position may need to be revisited at the 2016 Spring Conference.  The Emergency Motion called for a 'run a distinct Green campaign in favour of the EU in addition to cross-party campaigning.' Whatever positions leading members take on the EU it is the members who eventually decide. There may well be arguments put forward that a vote at conference is not enough as people's attendance is limited, by both time and money, and that a vote of the whole membership is needed. There is also a difficulty that the Green Party has a two year limit on discussion of motions that have been passed or lost at Conference if the new motion reverses principles of the original. A motion modifying the Green Party's position could be ruled out of order on that basis so would need to be subtly worded.

Watch this space. 

AUTUMN 2015 EMERGENCY MOTION TEXT

-->

Emergency motion on Green EU campaign

Conference notes:

·      That the Queen's Speech in May announced that a Referendum will take place by the end of 2017.

·      That the EU Referendum Bill is currently being debated in Parliament.

·      The Green Party has a long standing policy of wanting a referendum on EU membership, remaining in the EU, and pushing for major reforms.

·      The European Union is in urgent need of reform to make it more democratic, sustainable and accountable.  

·      The Green Party is an internationalist party. We believe in working across borders to solve the shared challenges we face.

·      The recent members survey stated that 78% of members consider the UK’s membership of the EU ‘a good thing’ while only 6% think it ‘a bad thing’.

·      That Green MEPS use their position in the European Parliament to make EU institutions more democratic and accountable – and to vote against damaging policies which harm workers and the environment.

·      That the Green Party has been at the forefront of the fight against damaging free trade deals – including TTIP.

Conference instructs:

·      The Green Party to run a distinct Green campaign in favour of the EU in addition to cross-party campaigning. The Green campaign should highlight our support for an EU which, among other things, helps protect workers’ rights, tackles climate change and promotes peace.

·      GPEX and elected representatives to use the referendum campaign to highlight the major reforms we need to the EU, and to bring about a better understanding and engagement among members of the public of how the EU works and how they can influence it, including through the election of MEPs

·      GPEX and elected representatives to work together with Green Parties in other EU countries and other partners to build the campaign for real reform in the EU both during the referendum campaign and after.

·      GPEX and elected representatives to look at forming campaigning partnerships with grassroots organisations, like-minded politicians and others.

 

After Greece where should the Greens stand on the EU and the Referendum?

Events in Greece have led to a discussion in the Green Party, particularly amongst Green Left, about the party's position on the EU in general and the referendum in particular.  The Green Party's official position is what has been called the 'Three Yeses': Yes to a referendum, Yes to major EU reform, and Yes to staying in a reformed Europe.

The benefits of EU social policy are now being weighed against the neoliberal assumptions and anti-democratic tendencies revealed in what Caroline Lucas has termed 'a coup'.

The Green's Autumn Conference takes place in September and will offer a forum to discuss these issues which could contribute to a change of position.

Below is a video of Romayne Phoenix of the Green Party and Green left speaking at the demonstration which took place outside the German Embassy in London last night and a guest blog by Haroon Saad of London Green Party and  Green Left which was first published on the London Green Left blog LINK.

The European dream is being destroyed by those who claim to act in defence of that dream. The dream was already beginning to fade but the front of screen and back of screen machinations that have accompanied the “Greek tragedy” played out over the last six months and the eventual   “treaty of reparations” –or otherwise known as the “deal” – has killed the dream for me.

It’s salutary to go back to the beginning. As hardly anyone knows, the current EC grew out what was called the European Coal and Steel Community. It’s here that one can locate the European Dream.

Again as hardly anyone knows, 9 May is known as Europe Day. 9 of May is Europe Day because it was on that date in 1950 that what is known as the Schuman Declaration was launched and which laid out the key features of the European dream. A revisit to this is illuminating in terms of “progress to date”.

• It would mark the birth of a united Europe.

An element of the dream that no longer relates to reality. In treating Greece as an “outsider” we have seen the reemergence of an imperial and colonial mindset. It may yet come to German style “stormtroopers” being the response that explodes in Greece. It’s not just Greece, however, the EU may be united but it is unequal. It’s an EU dominated by Germany with several smaller states simply being vassals. The problem goes even deeper when you consider the impact of EU funds and how they have widened disparity between regions in the EU.

• It would make war between member states impossible.

If you ignore the Balkans and Srebrenica, then this has held up well in terms of old style warfare. However, the Troika, the replacement of the elected government in Italy with an appointed technocratic boss, the bulldozing away of the Greek prime minister when he had the nerve to suggest that it might be appropriate to check out what the Greek people thought about the terms of the bailout being stuffed down the throats of the Greeks by France and Germany, the contempt with which the Cypriots were treated etc has just been warfare through financial markets and financial institutions like the ECB.   

• It would encourage world peace.

It's salutatory to remember that “black lives are worth less”- more African, Asian, Latin American, and Arab, people have died through conflict  since the Second World War than those  who died in the second world war. Europe in fact has exported war and the EU has financed state terror. Follow the money as they say and voila you will find that the EU arms industry is doing very well.

• It would transform Europe in a 'step by step' process leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the “Iron Curtain”

There is a huge democratic deficit if the European Institutional framework that has been established. Everyone goes round pointing out what important work the EP undertakes and how it is directly elected by citizens. The EP for its first 30 years simply rubber stamped 83% of what the European Council decided. The EC is the place where our elected leaders wine and dine and talk and make decisions without any accountability. Sure there is “cloak of accountability” provided by the phase “some decisions of the EC have to be ratified by national parliaments”. However, this just conveniently ignores the fact that the EC sits on top of a largely broken and corporate dominated party political system.

There is no democratic accountability for the European Commission. Incredible given the fact that it has the power to initiate legislation. That it has the power to deal with trade and investment matters.

With Nato trashing the 1997 agreements with Russia regarding expansion of Nato and the “soviet bloc”, need I say more given the fact the phrase “cold war” has suddenly come back out of hibernation.

• It would create the world's first supranational institution.

If you ignore the UN then this element of the dream may just hold up. The problem is that over 60% of European citizens have no trust in the supra national institutions that have been created.

• It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency.

This has turned out to be the exact opposite. The EU has institutionalised corporate democracy. Big business interest rule in Brussels, there is a revolving door mechanism from and to big business and the EU institutions. The expert groups that “advise” the EU institutions are dominated by corporate interests. Key texts produced by the Commission turn out to be just cut and paste versions of submissions made by vested interest groups.

• It would create a common market across the Community.

In terms of capital and goods one could say that the dream has been largely realized but when it comes to labour then it’s a nightmare scenario with deportations now taking place regularly  between member states(e.g. Belgium is routinely deporting EU citizens without work). With the coming restrictions on access to welfare benefits for EU citizens, the free movement of labour will be reduced to one for those who can afford it.

• It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes.

Steel production has declined. A renaissance in coal is underway with Germany and Poland (or coal land as it is referred to in environmental circles), but this will be very short lived as China moves off coal usage. Growth for the past 15 years has been anemic and globally the EU is in decline with its share of the shrinking global trade set to decline further in the coming decades.  We have rising poverty in Europe. A whole new category of “in work poverty” has been created. We have had youth unemployment levels running at over 14% since 2000. Long term unemployment is growing. Indeed, given the current stagnation the EU has created structural unemployment as feature of the economy.   

• It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa.

Far from improving the situation in Africa, it has initiated a new rape of continents like Africa through dumping of subsidized farm goods, through displacement of rural labour by the introduction of agri-business style agriculture which produces food for anyone but the Africans. It has fermented civil war through arms sales and bribes. It has participated in destroying countries like Libya and Syria through its so called “wars for democracy”. The saga of the migrants in the Med is just a visible sign of how much damage has been inflicted upon Africa.

So the dream is dead. What will we be voting for next year in our referendum? The issue is no longer just about whether or not any more power can be ceded to the EU institutions. Nor is the issue about what powers need to be repatriated.  It’s not about being pro- or anti-Europe. We need to dismantle what we currently have and re-establish the European project with a new dream. For that we need new dreamers of which there is simply a dearth at this moment in time.

Written by Haroon Saad who is a member of the London Green Party and a supporter of Green Left