Somerset Shop Threatened Over Cuban Products

by jv Mon Jun 30, 2008 15:00

Hello Emma,

As a Lloyds TSB customer I've been looking more into this. I visited my bank today, with the article, and none of members of staff, or even the manager, were aware of this boycott. I then phoned up the main helpline number. Everyone there was as much in the dark, and knew nothing about it either. So, I went back onto the Guardian website looking for updates, and it now seems clear why everyone working at Lloyds TSB is mystified by this.

Quoting the Guardian: "Leading British banks have been accused of operating a covert embargo of Cuba out of deference to the US."

It seems that Lloyds TSB have no desire for this to be widely publicised, right down to the level of declining to brief both staff and management. Unfortunately, this boycott now appears to have spread to all the main banks.

"Although none of the major banks are prepared to go on record over their policy towards Cuba, the Guardian has learned that Lloyds TSB, Barclays Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC are all complying with the US blockade of the island that was condemned in the UN earlier this year by a vote of 184 to four."

So, the main U.K banks are all making a political decision to side with U.S policy which even the U.N condemns. However, if any fairness is due, it does seem to be the case that this is a result of political pressure, where their businesses in the U.S will be prosecuted if they do not comply. But, to be equally fair, all of these banks could equally the decide to resist this political pressure, and bury it in legal proceedings for the next few years.

Either they risk the wrath of a backlash from the U.S administration, or a backlash from the public here in the U.K, and with the current Bush administration being the most far-right, and globally despised in U.S history, the risk of a public backlash seems a very real possibility.

"Only the Co-operative Bank appeared to indicate that it would process money to Cuban companies."

So, unless this changes, and the Co-op follows suit, the Co-op could well benefit hugely from an exodus from the mainstream banks, along with other minor players (who I have no information on at this stage). As with most people, i'm reluctant to change my account, but will do so in due course if this covert boycott isn't challenged or rescinded.

In the meantime, helping to make this situation more public, is the first step, and the main banks may well blink first, and decide to put this through the U.S courts instead. If that fails, a reciprocating boycott of some form, of the main banks will almost certainly follow.

Latest Guardian Article - UK banks accused of boycotting Cuba - June 23, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/23/cuba.usfore...olicy

by anarchist tom Mon Jun 30, 2008 18:16

i think that anybody who holds an account with any of those banks is a part of the problem.
its hardly any wonder that the 'left' is in such a mess when so-called activists cannot even work out the basics of the economic system and reject it.
how an earth can anybody even think they are a part of the solution when they have accounts with the banks?
or am I missing something?

by jv Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:16

Hello anarchist tom,

Yes, you are right in a lot of ways, but not everyone believes that the starting point of a solution is to make the mistake of thinking other banks are fundamentally different, they are all still capitalist, and part of the system, thinking that they are different is usually called reformisn, and never anti-capitalism.

But, boycotts are useful.

And consumer activism has it's uses.

And, yes, really I hate my bank, but being on sickness benefits (yes I am really ill, so a feck off to the 'dole sconger' trolls in advance, although you can have one jab for free!) getting an account elswhere is difficult to impossible. I joined TSB orginially (a sort of underdog back then for those who wanted their dead-end-consumer-activism fix, and then got eaten up by Lloyds, who I never wanted to be with.)

So there you have it.

I agree with you in some ways, and yes, it's about bloody time I at least I looked to see if anyone else, with a better wash of capitalism consumer ethics, will take my crappy scraps of dole scrounger cash.

And I'm sure they'll love to have me more if I ever become rich enough to cherry pick who I join.

So yes, I also think you've missed some pretty fundamental issues.

by jv Mon Jun 30, 2008 20:33

PS: Or you might really mean 'all banks' anarchist tom, in which case I really don't think you've grasped the issues at all, and how simply opting out of the system, rarely changes anything.

90% of the time I would say that it s the kind of naive response of a middle class student with romantised images of poverty, which they never actually hold to for more than a few months, or maybe a year.

Not saying this is you though.

Because 10% of the time it's a real and massive social event, such as with the traveller movement of the 80's, many of whom I know, and am very good friends with, and which was also, a very real response to mass repossession and homelessness.

It may need to be repeated soon, out of desperation more than anything.

It's just I don't think that's you, but I may be wrong.

I just don't think you'd be using up all your back up batteries on site, inverting your 12v car batteries to 240 volts to be online as much as you maybe seem to be.

by anarchist tom Mon Jun 30, 2008 21:12

trouble is that given the scale of the problem and the time-frame available to change 'things' the way the need to be changed, thinking small and disconnected as you do only makes things worse.
when we have people with some education and awareness but insufficeient perceptive powers, we end up with the blind leading the blind down mental cul-de-sacs at a time when there is no time for that kind of shit.
think bigger and wider and deeper and connected.

by anarchist tok Mon Jun 30, 2008 21:34

and it would be much more helpfull if you assumed a lot less, I know that as one gets older, gains experience, hopefully gets wiser, or arrogant even, it becomes usual to assume one knows better than others, never ever is that a good thing to do in a medium like this when working for unity towards change.
in fact it could be argued that assumptions generally are always counter-productive, unless of course that is your intention?

by lisa simpson Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:52

Isn't that soundbite taken from a David Cameron speech? Or was it from an SWP mission statement, about how green they are now? They can sound good. They can be used to make anarchists feel better about themselves too, without needing to ever expand, clarify, or justify what these sweeping soundbites ever really mean. They get in the way, and disguise the analytical emptiness of those who use them.