“British Jobs for British Workers” – but he’s trying to say he meant something else entirely…..


….like British jobs for anybody who can get them, from Italy, Portugal, or wherever.

David Davis

But Janet Daley says it better than I. (She’d probably be described as a vulgar libertarian….all she’s pointing out is that the European oligarchico-Gramscians have been deliberately planning this sort of inability to resist, for some time.)

He’s trying to say that when he said it at first, he was trying to get “British Votes from British Voters”. OK so fair enough….. But, now he’s given up trying to get British Votes, but us going for the Charlemagne Prize instead for throttling poor blameless Iceland into the EU and soon.

It’s not what he can’t say ….. it’s the way in which he can’t say it.

He can’t say that the EU prevents him from preventing Italian contractors from bringing in as many Italian workers as they want to, to build whatever it is: he’s signed Lisbon, trying to hide while so doing, and his predecessors have signed all the other stuff too, that we all know about.

Nigel Farage said it for him anyway. You just have to read the whole transcript and laugh.

About these ads

9 responses to ““British Jobs for British Workers” – but he’s trying to say he meant something else entirely…..

  1. Dave:

    This entire story is hopelessly confused.

    I shall await Sean’s observations as to whether an Italian-incorporated corporation trading in Britain can lawfully exclude workers of British nationality from employment on construction projects in Britain.

    Best,

    Tony

  2. Yes of course it can Tony.

    You know in your heart that this is so.

    I am not complaining. I am merely stating that EU laws (to which we have been subscribed while we slept) are in force.

    There is nothing to be done about this. It is fact. it is entirely legal for Italian (or any other EU based firms) to do thins if they want.

    it is entirely legal for, say, JCB, to employ only British workers on a site in, say, Spain or France, of they want. But they won’t. Because they don’t really get what the Reich-game is about. They are still free.

  3. Further:

    “The Race Relations Act 1976 was established by the British Parliament to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race.

    Items that are covered include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, education and public functions.

    The Act also established the Commission for Racial Equality with a view to review the legislation.

    The Act incorporates the earlier Race Relations Act 1965 and Race Relations Act 1968 and was later amended by the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, notably including a statutory duty on public bodies to promote race equality, and to demonstrate that procedures to prevent race discrimination are effective.

    In 2003 additional regulations made certain forms of discrimination due to religious belief illegal also.

    [edit]
    See also
    CRE page relating to race relations legislation
    BBC report on the introduction of the race relations Acts
    CRE pages outlining the 1965, 1968 and 1976 Race Relations Acts[show]”

    The bizarre thing is, that Vulgar-Libertarians would _defend_ “wildcat strikes” AND a corporation operating anywhere deliberately discriminating in hiring (or anything else, for that matter).

    This one will run and run…

    Best,

    Tony

  4. I don’t defend “vulgar libertarians” – they sound bad – what are they, Tony?

  5. and Tony old fella,

    …I will automatcally assume you are not one of them, unless you state otherwise…!

  6. Dave:

    On free markets

    “Kevin Carson defines his economic perspective as a form of free market anti-capitalism and socialism. He devotes much of his blog to the critique of other writers who identify themselves as pro-market. Carson credits himself with coining the pejorative term “vulgar libertarianism,” a phrase that describes the use of a free market ideology in defense of economic inequality. According to Carson, the term is derived from the phrase “vulgar political economy”, which Karl Marx described as an economic order that “deliberately becomes increasingly apologetic and makes strenuous attempts to talk out of existence the ideas which contain the contradictions [existing in economic life].”[3]

    In Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Carson asserts that,

    The ideal ‘free market’ society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society ‘reformed’ by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Plato.

    Economists and organizations accused of vulgar libertarianism include Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Madsen Pirie, Radley Balko and the Adam Smith Institute. The term is most frequently employed by libertarians and anarchists who favour a free market focus on popular equality, but reject corporate capitalism.[citation needed]

    [edit]
    On capitalism
    See also: Anarchism and capitalism

    Unlike some other market anarchists, Carson defines capitalism in historical terms, emphasizing the history of state intervention in market economies. He says “[i]t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market.”[4] He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense, but says that when he talks about “capitalism” he is referring to what he calls “actually existing capitalism.” He believes that “laissez-faire capitalism, historically speaking, is an oxymoron” but has no quarrel with anarcho-capitalists who use the term and distinguish it from “actually existing capitalism.” In response to claims that he uses the term “capitalism” incorrectly, Carson says he is deliberately chosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term in order to “make a point.” He claims that “the term “capitalism,” as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf.”[5] Carson holds that “actually existing capitalism” is founded on “an act of robbery as massive as feudalism.” Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire system, the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible.[6] Carson argues the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy is due to state intervention to protect the ruling class, by using a money monopoly, granting patents and subsidies to corporations, imposing discriminatory taxation, and intervening militarily to gain access to international markets. Carson’s thesis is that under an authentic free market economy, the separation of labour from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital would be impossible, bringing a class-less society where people could easily choose between working as a freelancer, working for a fair wage, taking part of a cooperative, or being an entrepreneur (see The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand).

    Carson has written sympathetically about several anarcho-capitalists, arguing that they use the word “capitalism” in a different sense than he does and that they represent a legitimate strain of anarchism. He says “most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard’s Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value.” However, with the release of his book, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, he hopes to revive “mutualism.” In his book he attempts to synthesize Austrian economics with the labor theory of value, or “Austrianize” it, by incorporating both subjectivism and time preference.[7]

    [edit]

    Best,

    Tony

  7. Dave:

    More detail, from the Beeb:

    “What is the dispute about?

    The dispute reflects union alarm that work on key infrastructure projects, such as power stations, has been subcontracted to foreign workers, and that UK workers are being denied the right to carry out the work.

    It centres on a contract to extend the diesel refining capacity at a refinery owned by oil giant Total in Lincolnshire.

    The contract to complete the work was awarded to the California-based engineering group Jacobs in June 2006 with a completion date of 2009.

    They then subcontracted to an Italian firm, IREM, after a tender process in which five UK and two European contractors responded.

    It is understood that the terms of the contract specified that IREM would be using its existing permanent Italian and Portuguese workforce for the job.

    During a recession the sight of foreign workers carrying out such work is proving inflammatory to some, especially when they believe that suitably qualified unemployed UK contractors are available.

    So have any UK workers lost their jobs?

    Total has said that there will be no direct redundancies as a result of this contract being awarded to IREM.

    It has also said that all IREM staff will be paid the same as the existing contractors working on the project.

    It is understood that there are 100 foreign workers on the new project, with a further 300 to come.

    But Total says that up to 1,000 workers, employed from the local community, have already been working on the project for 18 months.

    Why were the jobs given to foreign workers?

    We can’t be sure without seeing the contracts, which are confidential.”

    Best,

    Tony

  8. What I was really getting at was encapsulated in “It’s not what he can’t say – it’s the way he can’t say it”…..

    I was marvelling and pissing myself at the verbal contortions of the government.

  9. Dave:

    I just think that he wanted people here to have jobs. The ‘secret agenda’ of the Treasury is to gather in the entire GDP in taxes, whilst paying out nothing whatsoever for services, benefits etc.

    “No British people in jobs” = “No Taxes”

    Ask Robert Mugabe….

    Best,

    Tony