27.06.2001

Europe and the left

The rejection by Irish voters of the Nice treaty caused a few raised eyebrows in several European capitals. Ireland - a jewel in the Europhile crown - had, according to some, rather ungratefully bitten the hand that had fed it around ?18 billion through various investment programmes, grants, etc. The ?No to Nice? campaign brought together politically diverse trends and parties, from Sinn F?in through the greens to the sister organisations of the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party.

Though the likelihood of a referendum on British participation in the euro project is receding to the mid-term of this parliament - not least due to the result of the Irish referendum - Europe is an issue that occupies a pivotal place in bourgeois politics. It is an integral part of the globalisation process and the drive for the ?structural reform? of eastern Europe, absorbing it and opening up its markets to capital.

The stance taken by our Socialist Alliance partners in relation to the Nice treaty is therefore of interest. Commenting on the result in Socialist Worker, Alex Callinicos argued that the referendum, along with events in Gothenburg and the decision of the Danes last autumn not to participate in the euro, ?illustrate that there is a strong socialist and internationalist case against the EU? (June 16). Comrade Callinicos?s article is helpful in that it not only explains why the SWP?s Irish comrades found themselves in the ?no? camp. It also points to the likely stance that the SWP would advocate for the alliance during a referendum on euro entry in Britain. The policy conference of the SA, held in March, agreed the principled position of ?Neither the pound nor the euro? - a slogan that in the event of a referendum would need concretising and further fleshing out.

Comrade Callinicos, in describing the ?No to Nice? camp, conspicuously fails to mention some elements of the rag-bag coalition with whom the Socialist Workers Party in Ireland was allied. They included hard-line orthodox catholics who were agonising over a potential challenge to the ?integrity? of Ireland?s reactionary anti-abortion laws in the shape of the treaty?s human rights provisions. Seemingly anxious to establish the ?progressive? credentials of this campaign, comrade Callinicos mentioned only the left parties, Sinn F?in and the greens.

A more balanced picture of the campaign can be gleaned from various reports in the bourgeois press. For example, The Observer, describing the ?no? victory celebrations, notes that when ?the anti-abortion faction let out a whoop for television cameras, a socialist ally winced? (June 10). A moment which serves to illustrate the unprincipled nature of the political alliance into which the Irish SWP had entered.

Scoring a victory against the incumbent government was obviously a major attraction for those on the left aligned with the ?no? camp. According to comrade Callinicos, ?The establishment was united in favour of the Nice treaty? and almost by definition those opposing it must be conducting a progressive struggle that merits assistance from revolutionaries.

It is of course a huge exaggeration, even in Ireland, to claim that the ruling class is as one over the question of European integration and a single currency, and Callinicos concedes that this is certainly not the case in Britain. In these questions, however, our primary goal must be the assertion of an independent working class voice. Bringing working class politics onto the agenda is the main goal - not how best to inflict embarrassment on the incumbent government or the EU bureaucrats.

In fact the referendum saw opposition from a section of capital which feared that EU expansion would be achieved at Ireland?s expense. There was a distinctly crude petty bourgeois ?small equals good, big equals bad? mentality. And Ireland?s treasured neutrality - linked to the issue of sovereignty and the defence of the rights of small states - was also used as a reason for rejection. Sinn F?in expressed the fear that the extension of qualified majority voting would ?relegate us to the second division of a two-tier Europe? (Referendum manifesto).

It is fair to conclude that, as Socialist Outlook acknowledged, ?By and large the working class were not to the fore in this campaign? (June 2001). The Irish left was drowned in a sea of voices queuing up to defend the bourgeois Irish state.

The main beneficiary, on the plane of Irish politics at least, was quickly revealed to be Sinn F?in. Having gained two seats in the Westminster general election the same week, SF was able to demonstrate that its influence and support was growing on both sides of the border and that in the next Irish general election it will be a highly significant political force. Sinn F?in, while calling for a Europe that would ?act collectively to promote equality?, is nevertheless well placed to capitalise on nationalist sentiment arising in opposition to European integration.

In his article comrade Callinicos sought constantly to distance himself from the Tories? noxious Euroscepticism. His own brand looked to the demonstrators in Gothenburg, whose ?opposition to the EU is just another front in the war against global capital? (Socialist Worker June 16). Spontaneous opposition to the establishment - whether from anti-abortion catholics or anarchists on the street of Gothenburg - must presumably always be supported.

The SWP seems totally unconcerned that it found itself on the same side as political forces far to its right. For The Daily Telegraph the selfsame ?no? voters represented ?a rising level of anger against a powerful, rich, distant elite of bureaucrats and politicians who are seen to arrange the affairs of the continent for their own convenience? (my emphasis, editorial, June 25). The distance for the Telegraph is a product of the downplaying of national identity, not alienation based on class that arises from the capitalist system. Recognising a spontaneous and programmatically incoherent movement, the Telegraph is more than willing to channel anger through the conduit of its chauvinistic and bigoted opposition to the expansion of the EU and the euro.

Of course the absence of democracy, used by the nationalists to oppose the EU, is not a figment of their imagination. So it is a pity that comrade Callinicos merely calls in his article for a concentration on the ?negative economic consequences?. Where is his programme for democracy? Arthur Scargill?s Socialist Labour Party goes further, drawing up a dubious balance sheet of the billions Britain would ?save? through complete withdrawal. And the UK Independence Party?s so-called ?independence dividend? would be spent on ?the low paid, pensioners, education and health services? (UKIP election leaflet, ?Let the people decide?).

The challenge facing the left in Britain is posed in this way: how do we articulate the distinct interests of the working class, capitalising on the divisions between the pro- and anti-EU wings of the ruling class? And how do we avoid unwittingly pursuing the agenda of one section?

Moves towards further integration on a capitalist basis from above have their corresponding reaction below. Further integration and enlargement of the EU presents the opportunity for the unification of the working class. However, the spontaneous reaction could just as easily take the form of divisive nationalism.

Rather than base ourselves on spontaneity, we must address the movement with a programme that relates to the process above and starts to shape events in our own interests. Outright opposition to the enlargement of the EU is the wrong approach. Instead we must demand democratisation as a means of mobilising and uniting the European working class.

Peter Taaffe?s Committee for a Workers? International also avoids this central question.

Immediately after the conclusion of the Nice summit the CWI declared: ?The EU cannot be reformed to serve the interests of the working people. The alternative is to step up the struggle for another Europe - a workers? Europe. For all-European campaigns and actions for jobs, social welfare, free education, a living wage and shorter week on the conditions set by the workers!? (Statement on Nice, December 18 2000).

Having ruled out democratic reforms, the CWI proceeds to offer a list of (economic) reforms in the name of socialism, but actually within capitalist social relations, as the basis for the struggle for an ?alternative? Europe! As a result we are left with typically economistic propaganda slogans, while the vital question of the form that the EU should take is left untouched.

It is not enough to formulate policies on the basis of ?What is bad for my enemy is good for me?. Comrade Callinicos is, however, afflicted by precisely this malady when he states with seeming glee that, ?Losing a referendum on the euro would finish Blair as prime minister and probably wreck the Labour government.? What the comrade neglects to mention is that the Tories would probably emerge from the wreckage with a swingeing programme of attacks on the working class.

A programme for the working class, united in the struggle for democracy from below, is the answer. In any referendum we should refuse to side with either the ?yes? or ?no? camps. Our demand must remain, ?Neither the euro nor the pound?. We must seek to organise the working class around, for example, the call for a constituent assembly of the European Union and other such demands.

Down with the bureaucratised institutions and impotent parliament! For workers? unity across the EU in the fight for extreme democracy.

Darrell Goodliffe