the sooner Britain leaves Europe the better.The scaremongerers have had their way for far to long. Britain will be still exporting goods to them and the British worker will fill the jobs they should have had in the first place.

It’s not a question of whether or not the UK leaves the EU, its a matter of looking at how various parts of EU and often national legislation in EU countries is being abused by various sharp operators. I for one am extremely pleased that IREM has not been allowed to get on with whatever it was planning to do on the quiet. I also noted on images of this morning’s news that the strikers had put up posters in Italian (and I suppose Portuguese) inviting the Italian workers to join the strike.
The outcome is not perfect from the strikers viewpoint but at least an area of shady practice has been highlighted if only partially. I won’t bore readers with what I know of employment practices in Calabria, often financed by EU money, but I can assure you that I often want to take every EU flag flapping outside a public building there and spit on it because the people inside those buildings are busy pissing on it. And ordinary people pay the cost trying to eke out an existence on barely subsistence wages which are carefully hidden away behind false official declarations.

The Left have played the race card on this dispute. I watched 3 different BBC (there’s a surprise) commentators/presenters help propagate the lie that the dispute is xenophobic, the protests are led by the BNP and the workers are anti-foreigner. This comes from the Govt and their supporters in the Media. Its an attempt to rally support amongst the Left against the protests. They know that most of the “useful idiots” in the Left will blindly follow and attack anyone slandered with a hint of racism. The protesters have gone out of their way to state they are not anti-foreign workers. They have said they see the value of using foreign workers when there is a shortage of skilled labour. However, this is clearly not what is happening and hence, their protests. And, besides, what is gained by slandering working-class people who the white middle-class left already seek to portray as racist?

The unions have been badly exposed by this dispute. Workers at last now realise that union leaders have joined the middle-class left elite, abandoning the people they are paid to represent. Several union leaders toed the Govt line and branded the protesters as protectionist and inferred an anti-foreigner sentiment. Surprised by the ground swell of opinion, they are now back hijacking the movement.

I reckon we are reaching a critical point for the Left. The current protests are forcing the Left to face some hard choices. Support the down-trodden worker, the unemployed and the exploited and risk the accusation (albeit unwarranted) of nationalism or support fundamental free-marketism, corporate business, globalisation and the exploitation of the poor.

“commentators/presenters help propagate the lie that the dispute is xenophobic”

The argument, on a political level, is xenophobic and jingoistic. There is no getting away from that fact. That doesn’t make the workers that are striking racist, but it does make them hypocritical given the number of British working abroad perfectly happily with the local residents.

I think its only Peter Mandleson and the Hairy Placemats who ever thought this dispute was about race.

Oh, and Lee – who still hasn’t bought a fucking dictionary.

I just said it wasn’t about race. It is about British people not getting preference over foreigners (see the agreements) so on employment terms this is very xenophobic.

They know that most of the “useful idiots” in the Left will blindly follow and attack anyone slandered with a hint of racism

I hate bursting your bubble chavscum since it clear you live in an alternative reality, but most on the left (going by the blogosphere) have supported these strikes. I’ve said it already plenty of times. But since you do live in fantasy land I expect nothing less.

the sooner Britain leaves Europe the better.The scaremongerers have had their way for far to long

Mmm… this strikes me as an extreme argument. Are you for or against movement of people’s, and on what basis?

I think it shows the detachment from reality of parts of the Left that they want to deal with the working class as a theoretical construct rather than working with the working class we actually have.

These people are up in arms because a company is trying to use another set of workers to undercut them. It’s not because they are foreign, so it’s not xenophobic. In my article that didn’t get posted here I pointed to immigrant workers in Dublin marching alongside Irish workers in a similar situation – and I imagine if these Italians and Poles could be organised they’d do the same thing.

After that, the protest could hardly be called xenophobic. Which just goes to show that the categorization of xenophobia is tendentious, since the nature of the dispute would be unchanged and yet it would no longer be branded ‘xenophobic’.

I suggest, Lee, you watch the video above and the innumerable others doing the rounds on the web; once you actually get more than ten seconds of conversation with an individual it becomes clear that these workers don’t care who they’re up against, they simply want a decent wage for a good day’s work. If that’s demanding special rights, then ALL workers should have special rights.

Dave S: there are some parts of the Left (not all) which remind me of Brecht’s comment about dissolving the people and electing another.

Lee: you keep dodging the word ‘racist’ but employ the word ‘jingoistic’, which is racism backed up with military force. Frankly, its more offensive and even less credible in this context. And how do you distinguish between ‘xenophobia’ and straight forward racism?

Its like calling someone misogynistic and gynophobic but not necessarily sexist.

I generally try to avoid UK political web sites because they get so depressing these days, but all this immigration stuff gets my goat. I’m a Brit living and working overseas (in Japan) and I wonder:

Should 23,000 Brits in Japan be sent home?
Should 200,000 Brits in France be sent home?
Should 8,000 Brits in Argentina be sent home?
Should 30,000 Brits in Kenya be sent home?
Should 700,000 Brits in the USA be sent home?
Should 650,000 Brits in Canada be sent home?
Should 50,000 Brits in Thailand be sent home?
Should 15,000 Brits in Brazil be sent home?
Should 300,000 Brits in Ireland be sent home?
Should 25,000 Brits in Saudi Arabia be sent home?
Should 30,000 Brits in India be sent home?
Should 50,000 Brits in Pakistan be sent home?
Should 35,000 Brits in China be sent home?
Should 200,000 Brits in South Africa be sent home?
Should 750,000 Brits in Spain be sent home?
Should 60,000 Brits in the UAE be sent home?
Should 30,000 Brits in Jamaica be sent home?
Should 1,300,000 Brits in Australia be sent home?
Should 200,000 Brits in New Zealand be sent home?

Will “British jobs for British workers” cover the repatriation and job-finding of all the five million or so expat Brits who, like me, are currently leeching jobs off companies in foreign countries?

@ Shatterface…I wouldn’t go that far – but I know the comment. Can’t beat Brecht for irony. It’s only certain parts of the Left, by the way. I’m just surprised to see Lee lining up beside the SWP when it’s clear that the workers at Lindsey don’t fear foreigners, they fear their jobs being taken away. Indeed listening to some of the comments coming out (if anyone is interested, check out the latest on Charlie Marks’ Rebellion Sucks blog) these workers want the Poles and Italians on their side. That’s heartening – and it’s the proof of Left wing internationalism.

@dotdash…yeah, yeah, we get it. British Jobs 4 British Workers is a bad slogan. Not much to be done about it now.

When considering jobs one aspect which is not being considered is whether the skills are available in the country or have to be imported . dotdash is correct, but many of the Britons work in these countries because the the native population lack the skills.James Lovelock was employed by NASA because he was an incredibly good analystical chemist who had skills which noone else could provide.

@13, Dave S: “I’m just surprised to see Lee lining up beside the SWP when it’s clear that the workers at Lindsey don’t fear foreigners, they fear their jobs being taken away.”

UK jobs are not being taken away, because it is a new project: no UK sub-contractors were previously employed so no UK citizens have lost their job.

There is an argument that the contract was defined in terms that denied employment of sub-contractors, but that argument is unproven.

I thought that the unions conducted themselves very well in this dispute and trod a reasonable line, one which I am reasonably happy with and support, to quote Unite’s statement;

“The government is beginning to grasp the fundamental issues. The problem is not workers from other European countries working in the UK, nor is it about foreign contractors winning contracts in the UK. The problem is that employers are excluding UK workers from even applying for work on these contracts.

“The flexible labour market is a one way street that only benefits the employers. We have seen the backlash as the recession bites. The government must act to level the playing field for UK workers.

“No European worker should be barred from applying for a British job and absolutely no British worker should be barred from applying for a British job.”

Does that constitute protectionism, jingoism (I didn’t notice any jingoistic phrases banded about, but if Lee insists) or xenophobia? I don’t believe so and what we saw at the Lindsey Oil Refinery was a direct challenge to the way the contracts and the system works, not to the other workers. This is not a case of a free market v. protectionism or even of globalisation v. labour, it is a direct challenge to the way in which these matters are handled. Isn’t that precisely what the labour movement exists to do?

It is a poor reflection on prevailing attitudes where we automatically assume that any protest about working conditions involving foreign labour and working class people must be irrevocably linked to racism/xenophobia/jingoism/protectionism.

I am slightly suspicious about the sympathy strikes though.

Perhaps those who have been shrieking about xenophobia and similar feelings should remember that the idea of nationhood has always been completely contrary to the fundamental philosophy of the left (something which the people who claim that Communism is fascism should be reminded of); it is “Workers of the world, unite!” not “Workers of selected and pre-designated nations, unite against those who are not from aforementioned nations!”

And I think that is Newmania’s cue to inform us about the Fabian/Orwellian/Middle-Class/Left-Liberal godless rulers of this country are responsible in an elaborate elitist plot against white working families. Begin the pantomime.

“I’m just surprised to see Lee lining up beside the SWP when it’s clear that the workers at Lindsey don’t fear foreigners, they fear their jobs being taken away.”

BUT NOT BY OTHER BRITISH PEOPLE. How clear does this point have to be made, they would not be striking if they, living locally, had to watch a bunch of lads from Kent, or Cornwall, or wherever-the-hell upon whatsit rock up on their housing barges and do their jobs for them because their boss contractor negotiated a better end deal with the refinery.

So…tell me now, how does xenophobia, in a more holistic and not country or individual specific manner, not exist here?

Also, what Charliman said, jobs aren’t taken here. Opportunities are and for that I feel for the workers, I have family struggling to get jobs as much as many of you are, and the feeling they have of despair when they get passed over is gut wrenching and no-one should have to feel that sense of hopelessness or being lost, out of control.

But I am not a nationalist, I don’t cry for our British workers not finding work in what is clearly not an open ended market any more or less than I would cry for the Italians that would still be searching for a job if a British contractor had got the job. This is a much larger global issue, and being nationalistic and psuedo-protectionist isn’t the way forward; striking workers said they didn’t want to stop Italians or Portuguese people working, however this is in hypocritical reflection to the fact their action has just ensured that foreign workers will not be able to get a certain percentage of new jobs at the refinery even if they are better at doing the job.

“Does that constitute protectionism, jingoism (I didn’t notice any jingoistic phrases banded about, but if Lee insists)”

We may not be talking about taking up arms here, but we are talking about forcing foreign workers out of their European rights by taking illegal strike action to force their employers to guarantee them a percentage of all new jobs. Far from “equal opportunities” that has been cried by these workers from the beginning, it is actually “better opportunities for British” and “tough luck” for the foreigners, all in an effort of protecting “local lads”

It may not be the most perfect fit for the terminology of jinogism, but it’s perfectly applicable to my mind. But I don’t intend for this debate to get in to nit-picking of meanings and interpretations of these kinds of words, if you don’t believe this strike action to have currents of jingoism or xenophobia in them then fine, I don’t really care, as long as you’re not blind to the realities of the hypocrisy present in the words and actions of the striking workers.

If workers from Cornwall were bused in and locals were denied even the opportunity to apply, then they WOULD be upset. I’ve dealt with many unemployed builders in Liverpool distressed that local contracts were given to workers from Manchester – are they xenophobic?

The left has accepted that it is necessary on occasion to rebalance sexual and racial inequalities by actively encouraging women and ethnic minorities to apply for certain positions so why is it not acceptable to guarantee a percentage of jobs go to locals? Compensating for market failure is precisely what governments are for.

And ‘jingoism’ might mean something different in your head but the rest of us don’t live there: words are only meaningful within a particular speech community. They do not change their meaning just on your say-so particularly when they are so value-laden.

@13: Dave S.: “yeah, yeah, we get it. British Jobs 4 British Workers is a bad slogan. Not much to be done about it now.”

I’m not complaining about the slogan; my problem is the way the debate is always couched in terms of the effect of foreigners on the UK economy, as if there aren’t literally millions of Brits living and working in other countries. Force foreign workers out of the UK jobs market and you should be prepared to accept reciprocal action from other countries with the attendant responsibilities for those British workers who would then be forced to return home.

In any case, I think Lee is saying pretty much everything I want to say on this issue.

“If workers from Cornwall were bused in and locals were denied even the opportunity to apply, then they WOULD be upset. I’ve dealt with many unemployed builders in Liverpool distressed that local contracts were given to workers from Manchester – are they xenophobic?”

Are they striking over it? The fact is that these workers are disgruntled when they get passed up for the job, but if they’re passed up and it’s for foreigners suddenly it’s a striking issue.

“The left has accepted that it is necessary on occasion to rebalance sexual and racial inequalities by actively encouraging women and ethnic minorities to apply for certain positions so why is it not acceptable to guarantee a percentage of jobs go to locals?”

The left is also wrong on this occasion, see the many times I’ve kicked up a stink about positive discrimination (as have other mainly Liberal members).

“Compensating for market failure is precisely what governments are for.”

The market hasn’t failed.

“And ‘jingoism’ might mean something different in your head but the rest of us don’t live there: words are only meaningful within a particular speech community. They do not change their meaning just on your say-so particularly when they are so value-laden.”

I’ve not changed it’s meaning, I’ve just applied it to a context outside of the normal, but like I said…if you want to bury your head in the sand over it that’s cool by me.

You just won’t give up on your irrelevant Cornwall comparison, will you? Wages in the UK are not varied enough for your scenario to be valid. Can you give me an example where a company has transported and housed 500 skilled workers from one part of the UK to another to undercut local wages? It does not and will not happen. I know of skilled tradesman from the Northern towns that come to do jobs in London. The lack of tradesman in London, due to a displaced working-class, educational apartheid and 3rd World immigration, meant that prices became high and provincial tradesman could offer more competitive prices.
This is how the market works.

However, are you offering a universalist view, where there are no borders, where every Govt should treat workers around the World in exactly the same way and where a worker from Cornwall should be viewed as no different from someone from Portugal, India or Tahiti? If so, this situation does not exist. The EU are attempting something like this by stealth and without the approval of the UK population. If you take this view as an ideology then you are offering an opinion that is based on an ideological view of society that does not exist.

The strike has highlighted issues relating to the ideology of the free market. The use of inflammatory language aims to divert from these issues. As I said, the xenophobic angle has been used as a tactic, on this and many other occasions, to 1) offer a rebuttal for lazy left-wingers, 2) close down debate and 3) rally support amongst a wavering Left.

There are 2m people unemployed in the UK. There are more than 5m people of working age on benefits. These figures are rapidly increasing. Does anyone believe it’s a good situation to import skilled foreign workers whilst local skilled British workers are unemployed and society has to bear the cost of their worklessness?

Some people argue that it’s the EU rules and workers should just accept what the Govt has signed up to. That’s a defeatist attitude and I’m glad the protesters have the balls to get out there and make their point. They are hardworking people prepared to stand up to what they believe to be wrong, not just a bunch of middle-class students hijacking the latest fashionable cause.

The protectionist accusation is the politics of fear. Its an attempt to appeal to our ingrained fear of reprisal. “Don’t stand up to the kid kicking you because he will only kick you harder”. Its simply bullying. Its also inaccurate. The British workers abroad are not undercutting local people, they are not some company’s rent-a-cheap workforce, they are not displacing local people onto their State’s debilitating benefits system. They are fulfilling a skills deficit. Why would, say Italy, send home British engineers on a project because exploited Italian workers were barred from being used as cheap labour in Britain, other than to “bite their nose off to spite their face”? The fear of irresponsible reprisals is appeasement of stupidity. Australia, for example, want specific skilled workers. They also give preferential treatment to their own workers where there are surpluses. Wholly sensible.

Dotdash: What job do you do in Japan? Could you easily be replaced by an unemployed local. Are you living, to all sense and purposes, in a prison ship moored off Osaka? Do you have your airfares, subsistence and accommodation deducted from your pay? I suspect you are not a welder, but a member of the educated middle-class who are the beneficiaries of our skewed labour markets and the mass immigration policies of our so-called liberal rulers.

Someone give me some examples of British workers undercutting unemployed skilled locals who want to do the work elsewhere in the World. Find me some and I’ll argue that they should be chosen after the locals. How is that Xenophobic or anti-foreigner?

“You just won’t give up on your irrelevant Cornwall comparison, will you?”

Given you’re unable to show me why it is irrelevant, no.

“Can you give me an example where a company has transported and housed 500 skilled workers from one part of the UK to another to undercut local wages?”

It’s not about examples, it’s about the theory. Let’s take Cornwall out of it completely, are these workers as concerned when someone takes the job lives in a street geographically further from the plant than them, as when the workers come from Italy?

Can you understand that my point is distance from the workplace is irrelevant, you either get the job or you don’t, if these workers had been ursurped by a British company that brought in it’s own british workforce and housed them on barges from outside the locality, do you believe they would have gone on strike like they did?

“The EU are attempting something like this by stealth and without the approval of the UK population”

Since when has anything passed in this country been done with the approval of the UK population?

“As I said, the xenophobic angle has been used as a tactic,”

it’s used because it’s the truth, though at least in your case at least you admit to prefering nationalism to take place in other countries too at the expense of British people abroad.

“There are 2m people unemployed in the UK. There are more than 5m people of working age on benefits. These figures are rapidly increasing. Does anyone believe it’s a good situation to import skilled foreign workers whilst local skilled British workers are unemployed and society has to bear the cost of their worklessness?”

Well here is where we agree to disagree…you’re a nationalist, and I am not. It’s pretty much that simple isn’t it?

“you’re a nationalist, and I am not”

You are a national socialist?

What’s your definition of a nationalist?

‘Its not about examples, its about theory’

That about sums up the 6th form style of your ‘arguement’: lets ignore the reality (and the people who live in it), deal in abstract fantasies of Cornish invaders and call anyone you disagree with a xenophobe and a jingoist even if you can’t be arsed Googling what those words mean.

Any theory worth a damn is tested, revised or rejected by specific examples otherwise its not a theory, its dogma.

“What’s your definition of a nationalist?”

Quite simply that you only care about the outcomes of events if they make British lives better (and seemingly accept that other countries should feel the same about their country, without seeing the irony), and sod anyone else…since they’re not British.

“That about sums up the 6th form style of your ‘arguement’: lets ignore the reality (and the people who live in it), deal in abstract fantasies of Cornish invaders and call anyone you disagree with a xenophobe and a jingoist even if you can’t be arsed Googling what those words mean.”

Yes yes yes, let’s get through the motions. “6th form” here, “student politics” there, next up will be “strawman”. You’re still, however much you want to duck and weave, avoiding the issue. Why does the argument about the distance that workers come from to take a job only begin at our national borders instead of our county borders? Instead of our town borders? Instead of a 1 mile radius from the entrance of the factory?

It’s interesting you say I’m ignoring reality…yet reality is proving my point. Only my examples are theoretical extensions of this reality. People are staying unemployed all around this country not only because immigrants are getting jobs, but also because British people are undercutting british rivals through better experience or skills. No-one is striking about that. The reality is that the xenophobic and jingoistic distinction has been made, it’s only when foreigners come in that they can be arsed to get out there and complain about the jobs situation through strike action, not before.