 |
|
|
|
|
| Ken's
Turned The following three statements show how Ken Livingstone has changed. Europe and the Bankers now pull his strings as leader of the Parish Council of London. No power, No authority and totally dependent of handouts from the centre. The real Ken 1992 (our Ken looking for votes) Turning 1996 (our Ken paying his membership fees) Fully turned 3/7/2000 (our Ken has to pay his bribe to get back into the fold) Fully turned 3/7/2000 Livingstone to call for early euro entry London Mayor Ken Livingstone is to use one of his first major speeches since his election to call for early entry into the European single currency. Mr Livingstone will warn a business conference held by the London First group next month that jobs and influence will be lost from the capital unless the Government commits to the euro. "Britain's entry into European economic and monetary union is among the crucial political issues facing us today," he said. "I have chosen to speak on this topic to London First's members because I simply do not believe that our capital can remain the financial centre of Europe unless we adopt the single currency. "It is an essential part of my job as Mayor to seek to influence the government in issues of such importance to London." Chief executive of London First, Stephen O'Brien, said: "Given Ken's influential position as our first directly-elected Mayor, it is important that we know his views on the euro - whether we support them or not. "We are happy, therefore, to facilitate what I am sure will be a frank exchange of views between Ken and our business membership and to welcome him as our guest of honour at our annual summer event." Mr Livingstone will speak at the event on July 11. Turning 1996 Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : The current confusion in Britain arises partly from the fact that, for the best part of the past four years, the anti-European factions in British politics have made all the running. As the opinion polls have started to shift against the European project--the latest polls show a 50:50 split on the issue of remaining in Europe--those politicians who favour European union have kept their heads down rather than risk alienating marginal voters. From the beginning, the European project was treated as the creation of a federal Europe--a united states of Europe. Its motive in the late 1940s and early 1950s was the desire to avoid another great European war. However, by the mid-1960s, that desire was no longer at the forefront of political thinking. Most people who now pursue the dream of a federal Europe--and I am one--see that as the only way in which Europe can defend its economic interests against the vast economic empire of the United States of America, which has created its own free trade association whereby it uses the mineral resources of Canada and the cheap labour pool of Mexico, and a much looser arrangement whereby Japan works with a succession of south-east Asian nations using their cheap labour. We cannot avoid the fact that the rest of Europe will create a united states of Europe--although it may take a generation. The simple issue before the British people and the House is whether we wish to be part of it or whether we shall stand outside it. The creation of a united states of Europe is not a German plot: it is led by economic forces. We must create an economic bloc that is capable of fighting for markets and of challenging American interests around the globe. That desire is not fuelled simply by nationalism. The world economy has developed in such a way as to necessitate economic blocs the size of North America or Europe in order to generate the economic strength to operate in the global market. For example, we can no longer choose between half a dozen competing car firms within one nation. With the technologies of the future, it will be hard to sustain more than one or two major competitors in any area. At present there is room in the world for only one microprocessor producer, the Intel Corporation. The Microsoft company predominates in the personal computer operating systems industry. The world is able to sustain only two large civilian aircraft producers: Boeing and European airbus. Economic forces are driving Europe to create a genuine economic bloc, and they will ensure that the process of European union goes ahead, whether we like it or not. The British people have been lied to by successive British Governments, who have told them that European union was just about trade and not about creating a united states of Europe. They claimed that the reasons were simply economic, whereas European statesmen and women from the left and the right talked openly from the beginning about creating a united states of Europe. Britain faces a choice: there is no future for an advanced capitalist society such as ours outside the great trading blocs. If we are not part of the European bloc--where we could be equal leaders with France and Germany--we will have to play a completely subordinate role in a relationship with the United States of America or Japan, which is even less likely. That is why the Conservative party is torn apart--it is not a question of the Conservatives not liking Germans. Running through the Conservative party is a strong commitment to a global leadership alliance with the United States, the origins of which date back to the second world war and to the alliance between Churchill and Roosevelt. A smaller split of that nature exists on the Labour Benches. I am struck by those Labour Members of Parliament who genuinely resist the European Movement--as opposed to those who have some doubts about the Maastricht treaty or the timing of monetary union. It is hard to find any Labour Members under the age of 60 who are anti the European project, but there is a small handful of Labour Members whose thinking was shaped by the second world war and events of that period. I cannot think of one hon. Member elected to the Labour Benches in the last three intakes who is genuinely anti-Europe. I do not wish to smear anyone or cast aspersions: that is the reality. At Question Time on Tuesday the Prime Minister claimed that there were equal divisions on both sides of the House, but that is not so. I voted against the Maastricht treaty. I am in favour of a common currency, but I want to ensure that we get the timing right. The debate within the Labour party is about getting the timing right and not repeating the mistake made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, who took us into the exchange rate mechanism at a grossly overvalued level and precipitated the worst recession since the 1930s, which wiped out 10 per cent. of our manufacturing industry. They are vital issues: we must get the timing and the exchange rate level right and so on. I think that the Bundesbank established a series of economic policies and constrictions that had appalling consequences across Europe. It did not do so deliberately: it is not wicked. The ideologies that fuel the Bundesbank are the fear of inflation and the terror of recreating the circumstances of Weimar. That society saw the collapse of its financial policies open the way to Nazism, and I can understand how that has a strong effect on the formulation of fiscal and monetary policies. The problem is that the tight economic policies that the Bundesbank imposes on Germany and which set the standard for the rest of Europe are creating long-standing resentment and social upheaval. We have seen unrest erupt on the streets of France and a pro-fascist party receive 25 per cent. of votes in Austrian elections. Europe should say to the Bundesbank, "Your policies are making the prospect of monetary union difficult and unworkable". Anyone who travels by train--when it is running--to Paris, walks into the first cafe and orders a coffee and a croissant which costs the equivalent of £5, will realise that the franc is grossly over-valued. Monetary union must be based on realistic policies rather than over-inflated exchange rates. The franc is locked into the same nonsense that we were locked into on the exchange rate mechanism. It is causing high unemployment. I am concerned that the ham-fisted and bureaucratic way in which the Bundesbank has led Europe towards monetary union runs the risk of derailing the project and setting it back years. It is nonsense to talk about monetary union based on a fusion of the franc at its present level with the deutschmark. The franc must be devalued, and perhaps the project should be put back to 2002. Britain will certainly need that extra time, as the shambles that we shall inherit next year will not be turned around in 18 months. By the end of a Labour Government's first term, the British economy could have reached the levels of investment and competitiveness that would allow us to be part of a monetary union without suffering dire consequences. That is the debate that we are having on this side of the House: it will not tear us apart, and it will not cause a split in the Labour party. It is a debate about technical issues. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that there is a split that runs through the parties, and this is of an equivalent nature. I remember that, at the age of about 16--when I was not at all terribly interested in politics; I was trying to rake up newts from the pond most the time--the first political idea that ever appealed to me was when Macmillan applied to take Britain into the Common Market, as it then was. I remember being excited about that, because I do not feel anti-European. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) say that this is not about a unity of peoples but a unity of laws. That is not the case for my generation. I feel happy when I meet people in Madrid or Munich. I feel at home with Europeans of my generation. I do not feel that there is something that makes me different or sets me apart from them. I look forward to the day when we get a proper united states of Europe. I hope that we see it in my lifetime, but there is no way for Britain-- The real Ken 1992 Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : Many hon. Members have said that their decision on how to vote is motivated by high principle and that other hon. Members who will cast their vote in a contrary way are engaged in some venal calculation. I am in a fortunate position. My principles and venal calculations lead me to the same conclusion : I shall vote against the Government tonight because I do not believe that hundreds of years of struggle to achieve basic democratic rights have now reached their apex in Europe and that we should pass many of those most vital and important powers to a committee of unelected bankers to take decisions that effectively govern and control our economy. My venal motive is simple : to remove that shower on the Benches opposite as rapidly as possible. I do not care if there is only a one-in-a-million chance of the Government being brought down--I will take it. My duty is to my constituents, who are being thrown out of work, who are losing their homes and who are seeing their basic services devastated by Government cuts and by cuts imposed on local authorities. The sooner that lot opposite are thrown out of office, the better. The way in which they have conducted the Maastricht debate alone shows that they no longer deserve to lead this nation. We are trying to come to terms with a Government policy as though it were in the middle of a great grey blancmange--one dives in, feels something in one's hands but it slips through like mush. What does the Prime Minister believe? What does the Tory party want? Are they committed to a move towards a united Europe? Are they committed to hanging back? If they are committed to the latter, they should vote against Maastricht, which is the logical second stage from the ERM and which leads inevitably to monetary union and a common central bank. If hon. Members do not want that, they should vote against the motion, because it will be no good whingeing in 10 years' time, "I didn't mean that when I voted to support Maastricht." That is what Maastricht is all about, and it has been the drift of the European Community for the past 15 years. The first stage was the move towards the creation of a genuine common market--a complete barrier-free Europe--and then a common currency and central bank. The weakness is that there is no common democracy to control those great central institutions. If the Government and the pro-Europeans were saying, "We are going full speed towards a genuine, united, democratic union of Europe", we could debate that, but they are not. I find myself very much in agreement with the nationalist parties and Liberal Democrats about creating a genuine democratic Europe, but that is not what is on offer to the people of Europe. Maastricht is about winding down our democratic rights. It is about a major shift of power from ordinary people to great and unaccountable financial institutions. We shall be reduced to a body of no more relevance than the average county council subject to rate capping. That is not what I came into power-- [Laughter.] one day, we shall get some power as well--into politics, to see. My opposition to the motion is not personal. I think that the Prime Minister is a nice guy. If he were a family's neighbour, he would feed their cat and water their roses when they were away on holiday, but he does not have a clue where the British economy is going, so I shall take every opportunity to bring this painful period for the British people to an end as rapidly as possible. The Liberal Democrats have made a crass mistake by allowing the Government to set the terms of the debate. I am pro-Europe but against that lot over there and I have not the slightest problem about going into the Lobby to reject a fatally flawed treaty. I have not debated with any Liberal Democrat at public meetings or on radio or television programmes without hearing that person say, "This is a flawed treaty. It is not the treaty that we want. We are really unhappy with this. We would have created something better." Why accept this inadequate treaty that is damaging for the British people ? They should throw it out and fight for what they believe in, as those of us who are genuine European federalists are prepared to do. The peoples of Europe will be soured against European co- operation when they see unemployment worsening and their social wages being ratcheted down under the structure created by the treaty. Only a few Opposition Members have debated the issue tonight. Which Conservative Members have honestly told us what they would do if the Maastricht treaty were in operation in Britain today and the Commission and Council of Ministers instructed the Government to reduce their borrowing requirement to comply with Maastricht law? Where would they make the tens of billions of pounds of cuts if the treaty were in power, because that is what the treaty says? Would they make them in the military sector or in social security? Would they savage further capital works? Why ratify a treaty that they cannot live with now, hoping that somehow the British economy will be better in five or six years' time? The truth is that for Britain, one of the weakest European nations economically, to lock itself into this situation until it has created a growing and dynamic industrial economy--the modern economy of which the Leader of the Opposition spoke--is disastrous. Maastricht creates an economic unit, with all the benefits for the successful and large corporations and the most dynamic economies, but are we creating a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth, which is effectively what the nation state is? How would Britain have survived if we had redistributed only 2 per cent. of GDP by central Government activity? Britain would have fractured long ago, and that is the flaw of the treaty. If we were creating a Europe that was going to take vast amounts of wealth from the most wealthy parts of the European Community and use them for the poorest parts, we would be creating a mechanism that could function, but that is not what is on offer. The small amount of funds, in relative terms, which is available may assist Greece, Portugal and Ireland--nations with relatively small economies--but Britain stands to suffer most in the move towards European integration unless its economy is re-energised and there is manufacturing growth. There will not be enough wealth from Brussels to save our people from the pain of this treaty. In a sense, this debate has many of the echoes of the debate when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Prime Minister, took us into the exchange rate mechanism. What were we told then? There was an overwhelming majority in favour, a huge consensus. Sadly, most of my party went along with the consensus. It was the biggest consensus in British politics since the consensus to appease Hitler, and it was as devastatingly bad. We have lost two years of our life as a nation. We have seen 1 million people added to the unemployment figures, as those who criticised the level at which we joined the ERM accurately predicted. We are now seeing stage 2. We are in an incredible mess. I hope to God that enough Conservative Members will put their nation and constituents before their loyalty to propping up a broken- backed Government who are locking us into a treaty that will devastate their constituencies, as it will devastate ours. Top |
