alliance for green in or out? - agstest.org.uk · the ags is a political alliance seeking to build...

Green Socialist no 76 Summer 2016 page 1

Alliance for Green

AG

SocialistSocialistSocialistSocialist

GreenGreenGreenGreen

Issue No 76 Summer 2016 ISSN 1741-5497 £1.00

Journal of the Alliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green Socialism www.greensocialist.org.uk

In or Out?

plus

No third Runway Ella Gilbert

Fundamentalism Farook Tariq

Alliance for Green Socialism

AGS


Issue No. 76 - Summer 2016

Articles in this journal do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Alliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green Socialism unless specifically stated.

Green Socialist is published by the

Alliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green SocialismAlliance for Green Socialism

Editor John Sillett

Editorial correspondence to:

The Editor, Green Socialist, Freepost AGS

email: [email protected] www.greensocialist.org.uk/ facebook: Green Socialist

.

The AGSAGSAGSAGS is a political alliance seeking to build a future based on the twin

principles of socialism and environmental sustainability - we see these two things as being inextricably linked, each being impossible without the other.

If you share our concerns and our principles, if you care about the survival of our civilization on this planet and about social justice for all who live on it, then why not join us? Membership details are on page 11.

Next Issue : Housing

The next issue will have as a theme : Housing!

Adequate housing is a basic necessity for all,

yet capitalism is unable to fulfil this need.

The cost of buying a home has far exceeded

what many can now afford . Private renting

is usually expensive, often has restrictive

agreements and can be for very short terms.

Council housing has been sold off and

Councils are extremely restricted on new

build. Yet property lies empty that could house

one million people!

Tell us what you think !

Editorial John Sillett 3

We need a better Europe

AGS 4

EU: Stay in to Change Felicity Dowing 6

Schengen John Sillett 7

EU: for a Left Exit Tom Barker 8

The birth of the EU John Sillett 10

Rebel Rebel John Sillett 11

No Third Runway Ella Gilbert 12

Climate Notes Bryn Glover 13

Religious Fundamentalism

Farooq Tariq 14

Organic Lea Pete Relph 15


Editorial John Sillett

Panama Papers The revelations contained in the Panama Papers have opened a small chink of light into the murky world of tax evasion and avoidance. Funds which could provide better public services, welfare and lower the Tax bill for ordinary people are being hidden by a small elite who, by simply having ownership of this wealth, exert enormous power over society.

The leaked documents, it is said, have been analysed by hundreds of journalists from over a hundred media organisations before the first stories ran. The leak, apparently sustained by email hack-ing, exposed the dirty dealings of a Panamanian Law firm, Mossack Fonseca, which was involved in the setting up of these “offshore” accounts.

Panama became a tax haven soon after it was established as an independent country in 1903. Previously a region of Columba, the United States fostered discontent and backed a breakaway move-ment, all as a pretext for establishing a puppet regime with whom they could rely on for protecting the Canal, a vital piece of infrastructure for Ameri-can capitalism, completed in 1914. US ship owners began registering vessels there to avoid paying proper rates of pay to seafarers and to avoid taxes.

Some 200,000 secret accounts are said to have been set up with the help of Mossack Fonseca, with one client being the late father of PM David Cameron. Dodgy Dave attempted to evade all the questions concerning his and his families monetary gains from shielding their wealth in Panama but in the end had to confess his deceit.

As the media picked over the Panama Papers, news broke of British Home Stores entering admini-stration. No tax refuge could hide the greed of previous owner Sir Philip Green. Eleven thousand jobs are at risk at BHS and it has a pension deficit of £571 million. Green took out £414 million in dividends and famously paid his tax exile wife a staggering £1200 million in 2005 from his other re-tailing interests. BHS also paid companies owned by Green £393 million in rent and management fees. He needs the money: his new yacht is costing £100 million !

The scandal of the stolen money has had one Tory MP call Green “the unacceptable face of capitalism” - a title first given by Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath to Roland “Tiny” Rowland in 1973 for his dodgy business dealings when exposed in the courts as fellow directors attempted to oust him from the company he ran, called Lonrho.

Local Elections : Corbyn survives…..for now Labour, under Corbyn’s leadership, did well in England and Wales for the local election’s (5th May) despite a concerted attempt by some MP’s on the Blairite right, in alliance with the Tory media, to sabotage the campaign. The furore over anti-semitism in Labour was a smokescreen, from behind which a smear campaign was waged, aimed at undermining Corbyn’s leadership. It’s possible that the choice of words by Corbyn ally, Ken Living-stone, could have been better couched, but his hounding by Blairite MP, John Mann, eagerly broadcast by the media, was a complete disgrace.

Incredibly, it was Livingstone who was disciplined, not Mann. Although given the entrenched strength of the right wing machine within Labour, maybe not so surprising.

Scotland saw a different picture, with Labour being pegged back even further, as the SNP continues its duplicity, opposed to austerity in rhetoric, implementing it in practice.

The Green Party were squeezed by a revived Corbynite Labour Party south of the border, losing several councillors.

The AGS welcomed the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, even although we do not see this party, as currently constituted, as able to bring about either socialism or environmental sustainability.

Right wing Labour MP’s , in alliance with the

Tory media, take aim at Corbyn and his allies.

Will he survive four more years ? The member-

ship overwhelmingly support him, but on every

issue he becomes a target for the Blairites.


We Need a Better Europe !

Alliance for Green Socialism

based on recent AGS leaflets, manifestos and conference motions.

The existing EU is pretty dreadful. It is undemo-cratic, has a poor environmental record and lacks a fair internationalist approach. Of course Britain has a fairly lousy record on these too !

The EU parliament is powerless. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Our European Union must be genuinely democratic with an executive answerable to its parliament. Transparent and accountable democracy must run from parish council level to European.

The current system where trans-national corpora-tions get privileged access to EU policy making, while the people get none, must go. It must be replaced by a social Europe run for the benefit of the people.

Deals like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that give corporations the power to sue democratically elected governments for protecting their citizens, must be stopped.

The EU we have now is a rich capitalists club. Any future European Union must pursue the good of all the people, not booster the wealth of a tiny minority. Promoting gross inequality is no good for anyone.

Europe must reject the dominance of finance capital. Those who become wealthy by shuffling money put us all at risk while doing nothing for society. We need a social Europe, with a presump-tion that public services are best provided publicly, not the current drive to privatize for profit.

Any European central bank must be democratically accountable. We need controls on the movement of capital in Europe. The existing budgetary straight-jacket of Maastricht must go. Excessive public debts, such as in the case of Greece must be repu-diated or restructured. The whole system of interna-tional finance must be reformed.

Europe must aim to pass on a viable ecosystem to our children. It must recognize the importance and urgency of stopping global warming - with actions, not words. We must recognize that the rich parts of the world caused the problem.

Our European Union must stop basing its economic policy on endless growth; it must prevent life-threatening pollution; and it must stop the decimation of plant and animal species.

Capitalist greed is destroying the world in which we live, through global warming and environmental destruction. Even on their own terms the capitalists have failed - they have had to go cap in hand to

governments around the world to bail them out at our expense.

The Alliance for Green Socialism stands for a complete restructuring of our economy and society. We must stop the chase after unlimited growth and huge profits which drives us to environmental destruction and a grossly unequal society. We need an economy based on fairness and coopera-tion, with common ownership of utilities and what are now ultra-big businesses.

We see democracy as essential for social change. Governments must be accountable to

The main institutions of the EU are :

1/ Council of the European Union,

which represents the governments of the

individual member countries. The Presidency of

the Council is shared by the member states on a

rotating basis. It sets the overall EU political

direction and meets about four times a year

2/ European Commission,

acts as the EU executive and is responsible for

proposing legislation, implementing decisions,

upholding the EU Treaties and managing the

day-to-day business of the EU. All members

are appointed by the EU Council

3/ European Parliament,

represents the EU’s citizens and is directly

elected by them (although often less than fifty

percent actually vote). The Parliament has

little power and cannot propose legislation.

4/ European Central Bank (ECB)

is the central bank for the euro and administers

monetary policy of the Eurozone. It is owned

by the central banks of the Eurozone countries.

It’s constitution forbids any democratic

accountability to the Parliament.

5/ European Court of Justice.

Ensures the application and interpretation of the

Treaties of the EU are carried out. Judges are

appointed by the governments of the member

states.


the people they govern. We must progress towards an ecological and socialist society in a democratic way, with the support of the people.

Democracy

The “first past the post” voting system must be replaced by a system which encourages people to vote for the candidate they genuinely prefer. The whole community must be involved in decision making that affects them. Local authorities must be funded to meet the needs of their people.

We want an open, free and truly democratic society that recognizes and upholds human rights and freedoms. Society is all the richer when it comprises a variety of cultures, races and beliefs. People are all different and should have equal rights and opportunities, plus any necessary support, regard-less of race, gender, belief, sexual orientation, disability and age.

We want a society that enables people to access the basics of life and be free from poverty.

International relations must be based on fairness and international law, not commercial exploitation and military force. We believe that high military spending is unacceptable and only reinforces a militaristic approach to problems rather than their peaceful resolution.

Economy

A Green Socialist economy will be about production for need, not production for profit. It will aim to support our real quality of life, not increase “Gross National Product”. Meaningful, useful and fairly paid employment should be available for everyone who is able and wants to work. Wherever possible, jobs should be satisfying and rewarding. Workers should be fairly paid in recognition that the economy depends on them. Very large scale enterprises will be publicly owned and democratically accountable. Local production will be encouraged and unneces-sary transport discouraged.

The global power of money must be countered at national and international levels. This will need real democracy with real power, including the creation of new democratically controlled institutions. We must ensure that the needs of ordinary people are put ahead of those of the global financial elite. Democ-racy must always come before corporate power. The media should be open and objective

Climate and Energy

At long last most world leaders accept what scientists have known for ages : that there is global warming and it is caused by human activity. Our power generation and industries, along with transport and farming, give out gases which cause changes in our climate. Global warming results in droughts, floods, hurricanes and rising sea levels as polar ice caps melt. We must stop global warming quickly if we are to survive.

The AGS aims for a society which uses far less energy and uses it more efficiently. We must get our energy from sources that are renewable and that produce far less greenhouse gas.

Food & Sustainability

A Green Socialist society would produce food more naturally and produce it - wherever possible - locally to those who eat it. It would provide healthier food, not foodstuffs you must wash to remove poisons before you eat it. It would rely on safe methods of crop improvement, not genetic modification. We should use our countryside in a way that feeds us, provides a decent living for those working there, provides leisure opportunities, and sustains the environment and the diversity of life that surrounds us.

1951 Treaty of Paris signed by the Six (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,

Luxembourg, Netherlands), establishing the European

Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

1957 Treaties of Rome establish the European Economic Community (EEC)

and the European Atomic Energy Community

(Euratom).

1973 Britain joins the EEC under a Tory Government.

1975 British referendum shows 67.2 per cent in favour of UK remaining in

the Community.

1992 Maastricht Treaty on the European Union is signed, leading to the

creation of the euro.

1998 European Central Bank. (ECB)

established as not democratcally accountable.

2007 Lisbon Treaty ,

the establishment of completion rules preventing

member states supporting essential strategic industries.

Rail workers protest at EU regulations preventing

support for key national industries — and at EU

forced privatisation.


We have no illusions in the organisations of the EU,

or in the role that they have played in damaging

living standards and promoting war. We have no

illusions either in the neo liberal policies of two

decades of UK government. We have huge hope and

political investment in the social and political movements

that have swept across the world and across Europe in

recent years. The issue of the EU is wide ranging and

complex.

The forces of socialism, of the workers movement, of

environmentalism, of rights for women and rights for

children are puny as yet in confronting the masters of

our era; yet they are our field of work.

The oldest section of the population, in part at least,

regards the EU as a success because there has not been

war in Western Europe since 1945. Attitudes of other

sectors of the population vary. Many construction

workers have worked in Europe, many young people

have worked in Europe, particularly in summer jobs,

and huge numbers have travelled there on holidays.

Universities have links across Europe and many young

people have participated in study exchanges through the

Erasmus program. At least a million Britons live in the

EU, more than half of them in Spain.

The EU has been the butt of much negative publicity,

much of it through anti-migrant and xenophobic propa-

ganda. The picture of ridiculous EU regulations has

been pushed by the tabloid press and accepted by many

as true, unless challenged by their own experience. Most

people have had little reason to doubt these myths and

they have become part of the political landscape;

The rise of right wing anti-Europe feeling as expressed

by right wing Tories and UKIP is a factor in Britain.

Fifty two Conservative MPs are organised within the

Conservative party to fight to leave the EU. However, the

neo-liberals in the Conservative and Labour parties are

wedded to the EU project. In recent years they have been

able to implement robbery from the poor perfectly well

in this political environment, and have more pragmatic

nationalist attitudes. Behind the nationalism in the UK is

the history of Empire, a yearning for a “glorious” past

and a hankering for links across the Atlantic rather than

across the channel.

However, in Scotland this isn’t the case. The referen-

dum “yes” vote was seen as synonymous with support for

staying in Europe and a more socially democratic country

free of Tory Rule.

The ‘No to the EU’ project recruited important sections

of the left to the idea of the UK leaving the EU; many

people have an almost knee jerk response on this. Our

distaste for the EU policies is no less strong, but we have

a traditionally socialist internationalist approach.

The debate on the EU will again highlight the issue of migration. We must recognise a responsibility

to support the rights of migrant workers and refugees.

All of our work on the EU should oppose racism, xeno-

phobia and Islamaphobia. This is a moral position for

many, but also one that goes to the potential strength of

the unity of the working class.

The debate in Greece about how to respond to the EU blackmail over austerity included debates about

“Grexit”, or Greece leaving the Euro or even the EU.

The political case was based on the appalling policies of

the EU leadership in imposing such a deal. There was

also debate (likely to continue) about leaving the Euro

and establishing a central bank which could create money

as all central banks do. The Bank of England and the US

central bank, the Fed, and the Japanese central bank,

created huge amounts of money through “quantitative

easing” to mitigate the effects of the crisis. This was not

available to the Eurozone countries which had no

independent national banks.

Why is Britain in the EU? It helps the very rich become even richer. A “common sense” approach to the

UK leads us to picture a second rate bumbling power, not

able to afford to give its people much, with old industry,

and bravely battling away. In reality it is one of the

richest countries in the world, with one of the most

unequal societies. Trade Unions are legally and socially

constrained. The financial sector is totally dominant and

EU Debate : Stay to Change by Felicity Dowling

Felicity, from Left Unity, has been a long standing campaigner for socialism and women’s rights and was one of the Liverpool 47 Labour councillors, who in the 1980’s, led a valiant struggle against the Tory Government for more homes, jobs and better services.


impacts far less on day to day life of ordinary workers. It

operates almost in a different world. The UK plays host

economically and literally to the oligarchs that rule much

of the world. These oligarchs play monopoly with the

streets of London.

There is talk by the supporters of Brexit of a 1.6%

improvement in GDP if Britain gains a reasonably

favourable settlement and “whilst pursuing large-scale

deregulation at home”. Such deregulation would be at the

expense of workers, the environment and democracy. We

know this. Our ruling class has form !

Globalisation has seen the rule of the huge multi-national corporations. There is no hiding place

from global corporate capitalism. Even in Latin America

where social movements have given some recent protec-

tion to their populations, they too face the rule of the big

corporations, free trade organisations and agreements.

Intervention has happened there too.

There is no haven outside the EU, no progressive form

of capitalism and no chance of a Tory government

leading Britain out of Europe to a positive, just and

equal society respecting the rights of workers, rights of

migrants, rights of women, of people with disabilities

TTIP and worse will face the UK in or out of Europe.

It is possible that the anti-EU campaign could develop

into a populist campaign to give Cameron a bloody nose. Economically there is nothing to gain for working

people in leaving the EU. Much would be put at risk.

Nationalism in this form will weaken the organisation

and social cohesion of working class communities. Trade

unions will be further damaged. The right wing will gain

credibility. Politically and socially there is nothing to

gain by making common cause with the Conservatives

and right wing labour

Why should we not abstain? That way we avoid linking

with the racists and anti migrants and we avoid being

associated with neo conservative big business and right

wing Labour? Well, we must stand with the hardest hit.

Migrants of every kind would be at greater risk in this

referendum. Neither can we be neutral if workers’ rights

are at risk.

Climate change and the environment are also key issues.

Outside of the EU the UK could again emulate the US in

its disregard of environmental issues. Volkswagen has

made an idiot of EU regulations and it was not the EU

that revealed the scandal but the USA. The fracking

scandals in the USA show how we need to maintain EU

rather than USA style regulations. Asbestos too is a

problem as is mega agriculture. In the USA excess pig

faeces is known to be sprayed over local homes.

Women across Europe are all facing the same attacks

on the post war gains. We have more in common with

abortion rights campaigners in Spain and Poland than

with right wing misogynists in the UK. We have more in

common with Ada Colau Ballano the mayor of Barcelona

fighting against evictions, than with Boris Johnson

entertaining privateers and making London too expensive

to live in. More in common with Zoi Konstantopoulou,

ex-speaker of the Greek parliament than with John

Bercow, speaker of the UK parliament,

The potential is there for a cross Europe movement for

a better world. It’s our job to try and build it, not to cut

ourselves off from it.

#change Europe, a better Europe is possible!

Schengen John Sillett The Schengen Agreement was signed on 14 June 1985 by five of the ten EEC member states in the town of Schengen, Luxembourg. The Schengen Area was established separately from the then European Economic Community. Within the area, passport and border controls have been abolished. Schengen has since been incorporated into the EU and currently covers 26 countries, Four of which are not in the EU. Britain and Ireland have never signed up to Schengen. The migrant crisis, caused extensively by western Imperialism’s wars in the middle east, repression of the Arab Spring democracy movement and impoverishment throughout Africa, have led to the breaking down of this agreement resulting in borders between some EU countries being re-established, reflecting both a crisis within the EU and the rise of nationalism. The EU have recently brokered a deal between Greece and Turkey so that migrants who get into Greece - many often using the seaborne smuggling route from Turkey, can now (against international law) be deported back to Turkey.


Since the announcement of the date for Britain’s in-out

EU referendum (June 23), the media has been flooded

with misinformation about what would happen if we

were to leave. We are told that a Brexit would mean

massive job losses, the closure of factories, and the

collapse of the country as we know it. Unfortunately,

under pressure from right wing of his party, Jeremy

Corbyn has come out in support of the “In” campaign.

One of the consequences of this U-turn has been to allow

Tory Eurosceptics and the far right UKIP to dominate

the “Out” campaign.

Although the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

(TUSC) have taken an anti-EU stance, many of the

other smaller “left” parties have succumbed to the

“better together” logic, trumpeted by the Tory and

Labour leaderships. Even parties which exist to promote

localism and the devolution of power, such as the

Greens, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru, have fallen in with

the pro EU group – despite the fact that the EU serves

to centralise power.

The reason, it seems, is an assumed association between

the EU and ideas of internationalism. But for socialists,

membership in the EU is not judged according to

romantic ideas of unity, but on whether it concretely

furthers the interests of the international working class

Free Movement For Workers?

Open borders have undoubtedly benefitted certain groups

of workers. It has also contributed greatly to the enrich-

ment and diversification of European cultures. We should

not, however, be fooled by such idealised images. After

all, the EU exists to promote the interests of capitalism.

A good illustration of this can be seen in the Posted

Workers Directive. This directive is one of the principal

tools which allows workers to float from country to

country. Although in theory this looks like a positive

contribution to internationalism, in reality it has played a

pernicious role in undermining pay and conditions for

existing workforces and in fueling racism.

In Rotherham, South Yorkshire, for instance, there is

an ongoing dispute between construction workers and a

Croatian firm who were subcontracted to build a biomass

power station. Using the Posted Workers Directive, the

firm has been able to avoid paying industry rates to

workers (£16 to £64 per hour) by utilizing a foreign

labour force which they are only required to pay at

minimum wage in the host country (roughly £7 per hour).

Far from benefitting workers, legislation like the Posted

Workers Directive actively encourages racism within the

workforce. Far right groups such as UKIP, Golden Dawn,

and the Front National are direct consequences of EU

austerity and ongoing attempts to use migrant labour to

sow fictitious divisions within our communities. The idea

of internationalism is something that socialists should

endorse whole-heartedly, but not on the EU’s terms.

Or Free Movement For Capitalists?

According to a series of YouGov polls, in 2013, 68%

of the British public believe energy companies should

be nationalised; 66% believe Royal Mail should be taken

back into democratic control; and 66% demand the

re-establishment of British Rail.

Any future government hoping to make good on these

demands, therefore, would do well to consider the

EU’s unwavering commitment to liberalisation and

competition. In 2013, for instance, the Rail, Maritime,

and Transport (RMT) Union described the EU Fourth

Rail Package as a “set of regulations… that aims to

impose privatisation on domestic rail passenger services

in every EU member state.” Under the auspices of this

package, we have already seen East Coast Rail, one of

the most profitable nationalised rail lines in the country,

being sold off to a consortium including Virgin. Similar

occurrences can be seen in the privatization of Royal

Mail, which was carried through with the backing of EU

Directive 2008/6/EC. Although there are safeguards

(Public Procurement regulations) to ensure that contracts

are awarded on the basis of social criteria such as

commitment to living wages and energy efficiency,

these are routinely ignored. For instance, last year it

was revealed that Volkswagen had fraudulently fitted

eleven million diesel engines with “defeat devices” to

rig pollution tests … with the full knowledge of the EU

regulators! This has caused nearly one million tonnes of

lethal air pollution a year – equal to the UK’s combined

emissions for all power stations, vehicles, agriculture

and industry. So much for safeguarding!

TTIP

One of the biggest threats to publicly owned industry in

Britain and Europe, however, is the Transatlantic Trade

and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Probably the most

dangerous aspect of the TTIP is the investor-state dispute

settlement (ISDS) which enables corporations to bring

claims against states whenever they feel that their busi-

ness interests have been affected by national laws or

policies. Although some on the left have argued correctly

that the Tories could independently broker such a deal if

we were to come out of the EU, the lack of democracy

within the EU means that it would be far more difficult

to fight TTIP should we choose to remain.

The EU and Workers’ Rights

On the related issue of how the EU treats workers,

Jeremy Corbyn has tweeted: “EU gave us rights to paid

annual holiday, paid maternity/paternity leave, equal pay

EU Debate: Left Exit The socialist case for Britain to leave the EU

by Tom Barker who is a member of the Socialist Party and Unite the Union. He lives in Leicester.


The Birth of the EU by John Sillett

Capitalism developed the unified nation state to provide a framework of law for private property, markets for goods and a standing armed force to defend the national interest of the rising capitalist class.

In the race to conquer as much of the world as possible, European nation states fought each other all over the globe. It led to the age of imperialism whereby eventually states lined up either on the side of Britain and France or on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary leading to the First World War. The armistice of 1918 solved nothing and led to the Second World War which completely devastated much of mainland Europe, reducing large cities to nothing but ashes and rubble.

The victorious Soviet army took control of a large part of Eastern Europe. In the western part, Marshall Aid money from the USA, rebuilt the infrastructure and made sure the governing institutions recognised private property and the capitalist economic system. Western labour leaders were absorbed into the “parliamentary game”

It was against this backdrop that in 1951, the European Coal and Steel community was set up to manage trade between Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxemburg so that conflict, as seen in the two world wars, could be avoided. At the same time, social democracy in the Labour movement was promoting a partnership between Capital and Labour

and anti-discrimination laws.” This is, at best, misleading

– at worst, utterly irresponsible. The Equal Pay Act in the

UK has its roots in a 1968 industrial dispute between

women sewing machinists and the management of

Ford Dagenham, and the Holidays with Pay Act was

introduced in 1938 as a result of massive pressure from

trade unions. Suggesting that the EU is responsible for

workers’ rights only serves to further reconcile the

working class to their own sense of powerlessness.

Moreover, to argue that the EU works to the benefit

of the working class when Greek, Spanish, Irish, and

Italian workers have seen their living standards smashed

mercilessly since the onset of the 2008 recession is

absurd. Far from protecting workers, the EU, with the

unelected European Commission, European Central Bank

and International Monetary Fund, has played a leading

role in ensuring that austerity policies are implemented.

But Can’t We Reform the EU?

There has been a lot of talk about reforming the EU, to

build a so-called “social Europe.” This is a line that has

recently received the support of Greece’s former Minister

of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis. But of those who argue for

staying within the EU, none have put forward a viable

strategy for carrying out reforms. This is because, as the

late Tony Benn pointed out, the key positions within the

EU are appointed, not elected. Those campaigning for

reforms need to ask themselves why the lead political

representatives of the 28 capitalist nation states in the

European Council would wish to cede power. If the

demand for more effective power in the European

to avoid class conflict. By the 1950’s, capitalism was in what turned out to be a long boom.

Social Democracy has the agenda of gaining small incremental advances from capitalism to improve the conditions for the majority, a now failed concept. Socialists, by contrast, press for a radical and speedy transformation of society, appalled at the inequality, privilege and power of capitalism.

The European integration project suited social democ-racy very well. Big business increasingly saw the need for a trading block to compete worldwide with the USA and the then emerging powerhouse of Japan. It was different in Britain due to the legacy of empire. Britain’s political leaders, whether Tory or right wing Labour, thought they could do without any European integration, until, as one colony gained independence after another, it was clear where future trading relations were heading. By then Britain had to beg to get entry in 1973. The Left in Britain opposed the common market (EEC) because it was formed to be in the interests of big business. It would make the introduction of socialist policies such as indus-trial democracy and social ownership much more difficult.

The last referendum took place in 1975. When Labour were elected the previous year, they renegotiated the terms and Harold Wilson declared that he was satisfied with membership. The Labour cabinet were split, with mainly the left against, whilst the right were for member-ship, but loss of sovereignty united some prominent cabinet ministers with the left. Sixty Seven percent of those who voted in the referendum voted to remain in.

parliament is to have any meaning at all, especially if

it is used to defend workers’ interests, then it must be

undergirded by a popular progressive mass movement

across all the EU countries. How else would it be

possible to put sufficient pressure on the unelected com-

mission? But the possibility of such a movement is ruled

out by the likes of Varoufakis, who has arrogantly stated

that he campaigns “on an agenda founded on the assump-

tion that the Left was, and remains, squarely defeated.”

If this is the case, then whatever hopes we have of

reforming the EU are projected onto the shoulders of

heroic individuals – a paternalistic sentiment very much

in keeping with the belief that workers’ rights are won

and protected by the EU and not the workers themselves.

Vote Out the Tories

The referendum on 23 June is not just about the EU,

however, but is also an opportunity to pass a verdict on

the Tories. An “Out” vote would strike a mortal blow to

the government, as well as the EU. It could lead to the

calling of a general election and the removal of the

detested Tories from power. But whilst calling for an

“out” vote, socialists recognise that for ordinary people,

Britain being inside or outside the EU is no solution

either way. The same is true for the rest of Europe.

Only international workers’ solidarity with each other’s

struggles and demands for a democratic socialist

confederation of the continent can create the conditions

necessary to transform the lives of the overwhelming

majority of people.


To the Editor

The Easter Rising GS75

Yes, Ireland was Britain’s first colony; but it is at least arguable that the 1916 Easter Rising was counterproduc-tive. If the Irish MPs had remained at Westminster to make common cause with Labour in the 1920’s, the Tories would have lost their influence over both isles !

Frank McManus, Todmorden

Germany

The old barracks where I was working with refugees is 10 miles away and the children who I had in my art group have all been deported back to “safe counties” – like Bosnia, Serbia and Romania. I had gypsy children in the group and if you are a gypsy there are no safe countries. So now I am going to create a new art group for refugee children nearer to where I am living.

Listening to the radio I learnt that in France the far right were leading in the first round of the regional elections. I had expected this. Europe is moving to the right again. With its terrible attacks in France ISIS is trying to divide Europe. I fear they will succeed.

In 1909 a British businessman, William Knox D’Arcy, founded the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The British navy switched from coal to oil in 1912. After that the whole of the Middle East was up for colonial grabs. Since then western politics in the Middle East are foot-notes to hypocrisy.

Steve Davis, Nickenich, Germany

EU Referendum

This is not a letter about which way to vote in the refer-endum - most people have made up their minds anyway.

The arguments on the left for leaving remain the same as they were a generation ago, the arguments to stay are based on any legislative benefits that Europe has brought. But why are we now seeing an upsurge of opinion on the Tory right to leave the rich man's club which they have hitherto so staunchly defended.

Austerity - the great policy on which this government pinned all its chances of success, has clearly failed.

This is the reality facing all those right wing Tory grandees. Their wonderful pet panacea for saving the nation is in tatters and they have no alternatives to offer which are in the least bit palatable to them.

The Tory right have perceived the complete failure of all they have enacted over the past 6 years - they don't want to admit it is all their fault - they seek to blame others, and the 'others' they have chosen are the rest of Europe.

My vote to stay will be cast not because I am a great enthusiast for the EU - I see many disadvantages to remaining. It is, after all, still the rich man's club that it always was. But it will be cast because the balance of outcomes lies probably in the direction of remaining. I certainly believe that the cause of tackling climate change would be severely detrimented by national fragmentation.

Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, Ripon

Votes at 16

David Cameron has stated that the referendum on

staying in Europe or leaving will be limited to over-18

voters despite the recent referendum on Scottish

independence being open to sixteen year olds. Surely one

could argue that breaking up the United Kingdom is more

important than us being in the EU and what sort of

message does this send to our sixteen olds. It has the

hallmark of double dealing.

At sixteen you can marry have children, pay taxes, which

should give you the right to have some say in how your

children are treated and your taxes are spent. You can

join the army - perhaps you will not be on active service

but the dangers are still many. For instance the soldiers

that died on the Brecon Beacons from exhaustion.

Some of our members were involved with the campaign

to win the vote at 18. No one looks back and says that

was wrong

This is a just demand and the AGS has put its support

behind the campaign. The Votes at 16 motion was

adopted at the recent Alliance for Green Socialism

conference. We urge people to sign the petition on the

internet just put in Votes at Sixteen or contact them on

020 7 250 8377. AGS Badges are available from Eddie

Adams, 42, St Lawrence Terrace, London, W10 cost

£1 including postage.

Eddie Adams. North London AGS

Letters and

e-mails


To: Alliance for Green Socialism

Freepost AGS

The world needs more Green Socialists and Green Socialism needs more advocates.

Why not subscribe to this journal, or better still, why not join us (and get the journal free)?

I would like to subscribe to Green Socialist I would like to join the AGS

Name .....................................................………………………….........................................................…….................................

Address …….....................................………………........................................................…………………...........…...................

…….……………………………………………………………………….…...............................................................................

…….……………………………………………………………………….…...............................................................................

Telephone ..................................................... E-mail .................................................……………................................................

Subscription to Green Socialist alone costs £7 for 4 issues. AGS membership is: £30 a year or £2.50 a month (full income),

£18 a year of £1.50 a month (low income), £7 a year or 58p a month (negligible income or students).

Cheques payable to: Alliance for Green Socialism.

You can join online at www.greensocialist.org.uk/

You can donate online at www.greensocialist.org.uk/

Any non-member donating £7 (or more) will be sent the next four issues of Green Socialist.

The discount for low-waged, unwaged and student members is subsidised by those who pay the full-rate so please feel free to

make a donation according to your pocket.

If you really want to assist the AGS then a Standing Order (even for a small monthly amount) would be immensely helpful.

Tick the box if you want us to send you a Standing Order form

Rebel Rebel

He had contempt for politicians with their hypocrisy and

corruption. He also said that his fascination for Nazi

memorabilia and weaponry meant nothing politically, he

just had the funds to buy this stuff which were part of

history. His anti war ballad “1916”, has been sung by our

own Jim Radford, with Lemmy’s approval.

An SS knife shown to Keith Emerson when Lemmy was

his Roadie, inspired the use of knifes in the flamboyant

keyboard man’s stage act, to stab between the keys of

synthesisers, pianos and organs, so that the sound pro-

duced by the embedded knife would be a continuous

backing noise whilst he played on, all to dramatic

effect, with Emerson often somersaulting over the

keyboards as well !

Paul Kantner, was rhythm guitarist and a songwriter for

archetypal hippy band Jefferson Airplane. One of my

favourite songs of JA is “Have you seen the Saucers” -

with its space-themed, environmental and anti-

establishment lyrics.

Singer and actor, David Bowie (David Robert Jones)

was a wannabe star, who made it, and who constantly

changed his style. I liked the Ziggy phase best. He was

often controversial, deliberately so, flirted with fascism,

but later said that it was when he was ill, and he then

campaigned on anti racism and anti fascism.

Prince (Prince Rogers Nelson) mastered many musical

styles; pop, rock, funk, soul and psychedelia. His

backing band was called the Revolution. Some of

his material contained explicitly sexual lyrics. He

remembered his roots, supported charities and funded

the Green for All project.

John Sillett

Several notable contributors to rock music have died

recently Lemmy, Keith Emerson, Paul Kantner, David

Bowie, and Prince. They have all left a cultural mark on

society and were pioneers in their chosen field.

Lemmy, aka Ian Kilminster, came to prominence when,

in the early 70’s, he joined space rock band Hawkwind

as a bass player. Hawkwind grew out of the London

counterculture scene, part of the hippy movement, where

peace and love would change the world, helped some-

times by mind enhancing substances. It was to watch a

Hawkwind gig at Stonehenge at the solstice 1985 when

a convoy of travellers were ambushed by police, fresh

from attacking striking miners, at the famous “Battle of

the Beanfield” The Thatcher Government were deter-

mined that not only would they destroy the organised

working class, they would also destroy the vestiges of a

counterculture that grew from joblessness and homeless-

ness. Lemmy set up his own band Motorhead in 1975

which successful toured and recorded right up to his

death in December 2015. Lemmy was an iconic figure

within Rock music, adored by his many fans, his outlook

on life was simple: enjoy yourself because life is short.


No Third Runway ! By Ella Gilbert

Ella is a climate scientist and long time environmental activist. She has been particularly involved

in campaigns around energy and transport, most recently as a member of the “Heathrow 13”

In July last year, myself and 12 others entered the north-

ern runway at Heathrow and locked ourselves together,

erecting a tripod and heras fencing cage to resemble an

iceberg. We wanted to show that we came in peace, and

to underline the link between aviation and climate

change, by evoking that classic and clichéd trope of the

polar bear sat atop a disintegrating ice floe. We occupied

the runway for six hours, causing 25 flights to be

cancelled, and in so doing saving hundreds, if not

thousands, of tonnes of CO2 (and other greenhouse

gases) from being emitted.

Heathrow airport is – or at least was in 2012 – the most

highly polluting airport in the world. It is responsible for

half of the UK’s emissions from

aviation (i.e. it emits the same

amount of greenhouse gases as all

other UK airports put together).

Aviation is responsible for 6% of

the UK’s CO2 emissions, but this

figure is misleading because the

pollutants are emitted at altitude,

where they have a more signifi-

cant climate effect – the figure is

therefore usually cited as being

2.7 times larger. That makes avia-

tion responsible for somewhere in

the region of 15% of UK emissions, and Heathrow

responsible for half of that. After from the notorious

Drax coal-fired power station, Heathrow is the largest

single point emitter of CO2 in the country.

A recent study also found that within a 32 km radius of

Heathrow, 31 deaths each year were directly attributable

to emissions of NOx from aircraft. This term is shorthand

for Nitric oxides (NO and NO2), which are implicated in

respiratory illnesses like asthma, and whose deadly

concentrations Greenpeace highlighted in another direct

action last week.

In short, Heathrow airport is killing people – both locally

through air pollution and globally from climate change.

However, it operates in a legislative vacuum – because a

company that contributes £7 billion to the UK economy

(apparently) doesn’t have to abide by the same rules as

the rest of us. Aircraft fuel is exempt from VAT, and

aviation has not been included in any national or interna-

tional climate change legislation, essentially because

no one can agree on how to do it. The EU Emissions

Trading Scheme (EU ETS) recently included aviation in

its mechanism, but only flights that originate and arrive

in the EU are accounted for: that’s just 11% of global

aviation emissions. Heathrow airport regularly violates

legal air quality limits for NOx and ozone particularly –

in 2013 illegal levels of ozone were recorded at

Harmondsworth monitoring station (the only monitoring

station in the area) on eleven occasions. Heathrow is

permitted ten breaches per year.

In her judgement, the judge lingered on the effects to

passengers and the UK economy. This is unsurprising –

the legal system is not equipped to deal with the

unchartered territory that climate change presents.

Besides, the legal and judicial systems are set up to

protect property and profit over people and planet.

Aviation is just one more industry

that regularly exploits people and

the environment through its

operations. Although it would

have you believe otherwise,

Heathrow, and the aviation

industry more broadly, is not

listening to local people. The

advertising standards agency last

week banned an advert from

pro-Heathrow lobbying group

‘Back Heathrow’ for claiming that

“most local people support Heath-

row”, based on their selective use of data. The govern-

ment too has created the illusion of consultation by

setting up the Davies Commission, which is supposedly

objective. However, the reality of expansion is a

foregone conclusion – nobody was asking whether

airport expansion should happen at all, rather, just where.

The links that the panel of experts themselves have to the

aviation industry also smacks of the kind of corruption

revealed by the Panama Papers this month. Just as

George Osborne stands to profit from lax tax avoidance

legislation due to his shares in his family company,

Sir Howard Davies stands to profit from the expansion

of Heathrow by virtue of his ties to companies like

Prudential and GIC Private.

Following a hastily shortened trial, in February we were

found guilty of aggravated trespass and being ‘unlawfully

airside’ and told that it was “almost inevitable that you

will all receive immediate custodial sentences”. Given

the threat to the elitist status quo that widespread opposi-

tion presents, this was entirely on-message for the

establishment. Harsh sentencing is typical of the shift

in attitude towards political protest, whereby the Tory


government and institutions have begun to take a more

hardline stance against dissent.

This ties in with the atmosphere of austerity and conser-

vative ideology, which prioritises private profit over

public goods and services – something also seen in the

imposition of new contracts on junior doctors, the assault

on the NHS, and the recent attempt to make all schools

into academies.

Ultimately, we were given jail terms, but they were

suspended for 12 months. This reveals what we can learn

from the Heathrow 13 campaign. It shows that public

pressure can make a difference – those “inevitable”

immediate jail terms were never imposed, and although

we still all got custodial sentences, a suspended sentence

is still better than prison because we are at liberty, and

able to continue campaigning. Even so, the sentences

were still harsh. There is no legal precedent for sending

peaceful protesters to jail, and all the case law points to

conditional discharges, light fines or community service

being the most appropriate response. Perhaps more

importantly, suspended sentences act as a greater check

on our activism: all 13 of us now must be mindful of

what we engage in to escape the threat of prison, in

addition to the thousands in prosecution costs and long

hours of community service that we have had imposed.

Moreover, the movement as a whole is still threatened

with prison – that will be hanging over us for many years

to come, particularly with the change in government

approach to protest. The climate movement will need

people to go to jail to defend the climate and the environ-

ment. While it might not be us, it will be someone. Sadly,

real change only happens when some people are willing

to make sacrifices, and that includes our freedom.

Thankfully, Plane Stupid is in it for the long haul. As

long as airport expansion is on the table, anywhere,

we’ll be there. On Tuesday, three activists who blocked

the Heathrow tunnel last November were convicted of

obstruction of the highway and handed down significant

fines by the same judge. It will take more people like

them taking more direct action to slow down the speed-

ing juggernaut of climate change, and it needs to happen

before we go plummeting off a seriously steep cliff.

Climate Notes by Bryn Glover

Although the Paris talks reached some notional agree-ment over limiting carbon emissions from power generation, land transport and deforestation, the glaring omissions were those from shipping and aircraft. Left unchecked, these could rise to alarming levels with one estimate for aviation increasing four-fold by 2040. However, talks have finally been initiated (April 2016) which may eventually lead to some agree-ment over capping these emissions. Such possibilities as improved engine efficiency, a change to biofuels or reforestation are all being bandied about. Those of us who have heard such talk for years are well aware of their deficiencies - all that can be said is that these two highly polluting industries are at last beginning to discuss their obligations.

It used to be a basic tenet of climate change deniers such as the botanist David Bellamy that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a good thing. Bellamy argued that plants would benefit from the rise, they would produce more and bigger crops, and humanity would be the better for it. He was partly correct.

Unfortunately, recent work has shown that plants do make bigger corn, wheat, rice and other grains, but that these contain more pure carbohydrate at the expense of many essential minerals and proteins. This is a serious matter for nations whose people depend on plants such as rice for their basic essentials, but is causing waves of consternation in the White House, of all places. An official report from the US Global Change Research Program has highlighted the problem in terms of the possible adverse effects it may have for that most obese of nations.

In short, the increased carbon dioxide environment in which crop plants grow induces them to deliver more starch but less calcium, potassium, magnesium and zinc, and significantly less protein per unit weight of grain, ie, per unit weight of burger bun. The report - rather appropriately - describes elevated carbon dioxide levels as “junk food” for plants.

As this edition of GS goes to press, the promised date - April 22nd - for both China and the US to sign last December’s Paris agreement and to publish their plans for tackling climate change will have passed. Together the two countries account for 38% of global carbon emissions. Whether or not they managed to meet their declared target will now be known, but in any case, they were beaten to it by Papua New Guinea who became the first nation to meet their Paris obligations on March 19th, when they declared their plans for carbon reduction. OK, not much of big deal, but at least they led the way. Join or support activists opposing new runways or

airport expansion. Find out more from Plane Stupid. www.planestupid.com also facebook and twitter


Religious fundamentalism in Muslim countries : part 2 (part 3, to conclude, in next issue)

by Farook Tariq, General Secretary of the Awami Workers Party, Pakistan

Religious fundamentalist groups in various Muslim countries are using all sorts of medieval terrorist acts to frighten their opponents. The barbarian acts of burning prisoners alive by pouring oil on them; killing prisoners by shooting and releasing their videos have shaken the world tremendously.

The first religious fundamentalist government in a Muslim country was in Iran. Since 1979, it has s tabilized its basis initially by physically killing all opposition groups and later by forced enforcement of so called “Islamic laws” mainly against women, democracy and the working class. The Iranian regime has helped fanatic Shia groups around the globe against Sunni and Wahabi Muslims.

In Afghanistan, the nine years power period of reli-gious fanatics from 1992 to 2001 played a decisive role in promoting religious fundamentalism not only in Muslim countries but also across the globe. It introduced “Jihad” as the main weapon of spreading fanaticism. It turned Islam into “political Islam”. Osama Bin Laden used Afghanistan as his base camp to plan and carry out all terrorist activities. Pakistan became a refuge for him in his later years of life.

In Pakistan, the 16 December 2014 was the most deadly attack on any school by religious fanatics. 146 were killed in a Peshawar Army Public School, including 136 children, ages ranging from 10 to 17 years. They asked the children to recite Kalma and then fired at them. It was an attack on Muslim children by Muslim fanatics. Almost 11 percent of the total children enrolled in the school were killed within 15 minutes of their occupation of the school.

Such was the devastating effect on children across Pakistan that my son aged 14 asked his mum what should he do in case they come to his school, “line up or run”. The day shocked Pakistan and the world. The news of the killing of the innocent children was flashed all over the world as the main story of the day. There was a great anger and shock.

The Pakistani state failed miserably to curb the rise of religious fundamentalism. There is always a soft spot for them. For a long time, they were encouraged by the state as a second line of security. The security paradigm meant an anti-India enmity was the core purpose of state patronage.

Pakistan is situated in a region where fundamentalism has been posed, of late, as one of the most threaten-ing questions. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan really began in the 1980s. On the one hand, the military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, was using religion to justify his rule and was Islamizing laws and

society. On the other hand, Pakistan had become a base camp for the forces opposing the Afghan revolu-tion. After the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Zia allied with US, used Islam to consolidate his power passes pro-Islamic legislation, and created many madrasahs. His policies created a “culture of jihad” within Pakistan that continues until the present day.

Recently Islamic fundamentalism has risen as an alternative political phenomenon not only in Pakistan but also in the entire Muslim world. Islamic fundamen-talism in Pakistan is partly a link of this international phenomenon and partly caused by specific local reasons. When analyzing Islamic fundamentalism, one must understand that the religion of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism are not one and the same thing.

Islamic fundamentalism is now a reactionary, non-scientific movement aimed at returning society to a

centuries-old social set-up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheel of history. Fundamentalism finds its roots in the backwardness of society, social deprivation, a low level of conscious-ness, poverty, and ignorance.

Let us go back to the example of Pakistan. Apart from creating and sup-porting Jihadist groups, for decades, the state and military with the financial and

political assistance of imperial powers, has indoctri-nated millions with conservative Islamic ideology for the purpose of safeguarding its strategic interests.

The three decades since 1980 are seen as the years of madrassas, over 20,000 at present providing home ground for recruitment for suicidal attackers. Supported mainly by Saudi Arabia and many million Muslim immigrants, they have become the alternative to the regular school system. Most of the terrorist activities carried out in Pakistan and elsewhere are linked to the organizational and political support of these madrassas.

After 9/11, the state’s close relationship with the fundamentalists has changed to some extent but not broken in real terms. The banned terrorist groups change their name and carry out activities on a regular basis. They hold meetings and public rallies, collect funds and publish their literature without any state intervention.

Pakistan has become more conservative, more Islamic and more right wing resulting in the growth of the extreme Islamist’s ideas. Blasphemy laws are frequently used for settling personal and ideological scores. Religious minorities, women and children are the easy targets. These soft targets are paying the greatest price for this decisive right wing turn.


I’m leaving Epping and walking across the forest and

heading southwest, crossing the River Ching, and strike

with a sense of hope across Chingford Plain. The Plain

used to be known as Fairmead on old maps, but the local

wags described this expanse of grassland as Fair

Maiden’s Bottom presumably because these flowery

meadows were considered a rather romantic, trysting

place by local courting couples. It was enclosed and put

under the plough in the mid-nineteenth century, but

thankfully is now back for public use and is still a

wonderfully open space that is popular with the public

and is grazed by long horn cattle. I am hiking over

plain and hill in order to visit ‘Organic Lea’, the derelict

former nursery run by Waltham Forest Council, which

has now a new lease of life.

At Hawkwood, Organic Lea has established a community

run Plant Nursery on strictly

organic lines. On the last

Sunday of every month it

organises a Visitors Day

where supporters can visit,

be educated, be introduced to

the whole pro-active scene,

enticed to enlist in this

largely voluntary project and

of course to buy plants and

veg from the stalls. But

(always the but) I realise that

nuclei of young and highly

motivated idealists have

worked exceedingly hard to

organise this project on sound eco-friendly terms that

do not compromise their organic mission.

Ru, a leading member of The Friends of Epping Forest

has engineered my visit as I am, for my sins, author of

Four Forest Years, the biography (of sorts) of esteemed

poet John Clare, the peasant poet. Organic Lea has

adopted Clare as a symbolic and spiritual figurehead.

They admire his views as expressed in his poems regard-

ing rural life and his support for the Commons and

Commoners which embraced his love for an unspoilt

countryside. They have ordained a Poets Corner with

marvellous images of Clare carved in ancient oak.

I’m to say a few words.

Ru, one of the original ten person co-operative, summa-

rises their visionary mission thus: ‘Organic Lea is a

community food project based on the Lea Valley in

North East London. We produce and distribute food and

plants locally and inspire and support others to do the

same. With a workers co-operative as our core we bring

people together to take action towards a more just and

sustainable society.’

I’m impressed with the scene before my eyes. Probably

sixty or so people are enjoying their visit, and having

healthy snacks and drinks, purchasing plants and vegeta-

bles and generally wandering around this quite extensive

12 acre site. They keep to a strict rotation system that

should keep the dreaded bugs at bay e.g. like the carrot

fly. The answer is not to plant the same crop on the

same ground two years running. No pesticides allowed!

Crop’s being grown include tomatoes, runner beans,

chilli’s and peppers under glass. I’m impressed too with

the newly planted vineyard on the hillside slope above

the vegetable plots. Some tall trees provide some shade

so I’m a little concerned the vines won’t get their full

ration of the sunshine and warmth they desire. I like to

worry. I’ve ordered five bottles of wine from their

Christmas 2016 vintage.

Organic Lea is a lot more than this Hawkwood nursery

and has developed a network with other organic suppliers

e.g. local gardeners and allotment holders. It has a distri-

bution network which includes the Hornbeam Café/

Centre which is in Hoe Street, Walthamstow which also

acts as a cultural and alternative political centre. They

also organise a weekly delivered

box scheme, and a produce stall

in Leytonstone in partnership

with Transition, a green project.

And, also distribute to local

restaurants – and much more!

Do not hesitate: visit Hawkwood

Nursery and also buy Ru’s book.

But, most importantly, if you

have the opportunity, work with

others of like mind and support

co-operative ventures and help

plan for a very necessary eco-

sustainable and healthy ethical

future. I end this account by

quoting a gem from Ru’s introduction.

‘And this is what it’s about too – about people

taking back control of their communities, their

spaces, their basic human needs, their lives – as a

necessary precursor to any ‘system change’ and

also to create the ‘new world in the shell of the

old’ to build the kind of systems, structures and

ways of working that we can safely, graciously fall

back on, if and when the corrupt old order really

starts to crumble.’

Contact www.organiclea.org.uk if you desire a copy or further information.

Pete Relph, Chair of Epping Forest Green and Democratic Left, dons his hiking boots to visit:

Organic Lea


Green SocialistGreen SocialistGreen SocialistGreen Socialist is published by the Alliance for Green Socialism, Freepost AGS

and printed by LS1 Print, Goodman St, Leeds, LS10 1NZ

alliance for green in or out? - agstest.org.uk · the ags is a political alliance seeking to build...

Documents