26.05.2004

Our Europe or theirs

Over 100 representatives from across Europe gathered in Rome on May 22-23 to begin a discussion on the left's response to the draft constitution of the European Union. Although it is the main political organisation controlling the preparation for this year's European Social Forum in London, the Socialist Workers Party was nowhere to be seen. Tina Becker reports

For those like myself who have attended every single international ESF preparatory meeting of the last three years, this latest gathering came as something of a shock, albeit a pleasant one. It was inspirational to meet our European comrades in an overtly political context, without the usual discussion of dry, technical and often boring detail that arises with the organisation of an annual festival of 50,000 people.

Under the title 'Approaching the social forum in London: assembly on the constituent process', the meeting discussed various aspects relating to the proposed constitution. We also elaborated on how our discussions could feed not just into the European Social Forum (October 14-17), but how we could build longer-lasting structures that could develop our ideas on the EU and organise joint activities across Europe.

There were representatives from Italy (mainly members of Rifondazione Comunista), France, Turkey, Denmark, the Basque country and Romania. The Greek party Synapsismos was officially present, as was the German Party of Democratic Socialism and Attac Hungary. Although the next European Social Forum will take place in London, the low turnout from Britain reflected the fact that the left here is not really into the whole 'Europe thing': apart from our own two CPGB delegates and a comrade from the Scottish section of Rifondazione, only Kate Hudson from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (and the Communist Party of Britain) made the trip to Rome.

One would have thought that the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action would have had the courtesy to send at least an observer. They are, after all, the two organisations that are controlling the London ESF process. It might have been a nice gesture if they had at least pretended to be interested in the issue of Europe - and not just in building a festival that might get them some new recruits (in the case of the SWP) or strengthen mayor Ken Livingstone's leftwing credentials (in the case of SA).

The meeting was organised by the Italian Forum for European Constitutional Democracy Working Group and chaired by comrade Franco Russo, a leading member of Rifondazione. As the first gathering of this kind, the conference must be seen as merely the long overdue starting point for the long journey we have ahead of us. And a difficult one it will be, too. It is not so much the fact that many organisations on the European left have different analyses of the European Union in its present form or the future they envisage for Europe. No, the most disturbing part of the weekend was probably the realisation that we lack a common vocabulary to even talk about our different viewpoints properly - or the things we seem to agree on.

This is a very sad reflection indeed of the current lack of cooperation between left forces in the different countries. The left has been desperately unorganised, while our ruling classes have been busy preparing a new superstate, through which to exploit us more efficiently. Particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union there have been few attempts to overcome this division that exists along national lines: indeed several organisations of the left advocate withdrawing from the European Union altogether - among them, of course, Kate Hudson's CPB (not surprisingly, the comrade did not elaborate on this particular loony policy in Rome).

The European Left Party and the ESF have seen the hesitant beginnings of a new kind of cooperation, though both are desperately limited in their remit: while the former merely organises existing leftwing representatives in the European parliament, the latter has been kept clinically cleansed of political parties - on paper, anyway. While the former organises the 'politicians', the latter assembles the 'anti-capitalists'. In truth, of course, it is always the same people who come together every few weeks - but wearing different hats.

And now the 'Assembly on the constituent process'. Again, I recognised almost everybody in attendance - apart from a dozen or so comrades who represented smaller trends and organisations in Italy. Our task at hand is incomparably bigger than in the ESF. The British-favoured idiotic '80-20 formula' simply will not do here. In the Socialist Alliance, Respect and even the Scottish Socialist Party this formula has been quoted ad nauseum to encourage us 'forget about the 20% where we disagree and concentrate on the 80% where we agree'. A useless formulation that does not lead to political clarification, but simply glosses over important differences and pretends they do not exist.

Fortunately, our comrades in Europe seem to prefer a process of open debate and illumination. Various delegates stressed that "we need to talk more about our differences and even the things we think we agree on - we might find that we have used the same word to describe very different ideas", as comrade Pierre Barge from the Ligue pour les Droits des Hommes put it.

While all representatives certainly agreed on the need to challenge the current draft constitution, there was a lack of clarity as to how to do this. The two main papers put forward on this issue are not necessarily in contradiction to each other, but their main focus is on different aspects. Franco Russo presented a four-page critique of the draft, with quite a few amendments and ideas on how to reform the present structures. Pierre Barge, on the other hand, put forward the document Declaration for a democratic and social Europe, which is more of an alternative charter of social rights and a shopping list of rather minimalist demands. This was not so much a conscious expression of the need to cover both these areas, but a reflection of the different work the political groups in the different countries have been doing on the question.

CPGB representatives argued that we should actually do both things - consciously: work out a joint position on the draft, as well as formulate our own 'programme for Europe'. Especially in those countries where a referendum will be held, a joint European left position would be very helpful indeed. It would strengthen the left forces that do not wish to simply vote either 'yes' or 'no', argued CPGB member Anne Mc Shane. "It would show that there is an alternative across Europe," she said. Most comrades present seemed to agree with such an approach and CPGB comrades were very well received in Rome (we distributed over 40 copies of the Weekly Worker and half a dozen copies of our Draft programme).

Nobody put forward the daft view that we should ignore the constitution and simply leave it to our ruling classes to discuss such "boring non-issues", as the SWP's Chris Nineham has put it at numerous ESF meetings. Luciano Muhlbauer, for example, Italy's main representative at ESF meetings, argued that it would be "an impossibility for us not to talk about Europe at the European Social Forum in October. We need to put proposals forward that show what kind of Europe we want." Everybody seemed to support the view that united pressure from the European left and social movements could actually make a real difference in what might finally be adopted. And even if our deliberations were totally ignored, we would still have achieved a greater level of coordination across Europe - and laid the groundwork for further joint activities.

There was too little time to go into the real issues and we could only touch on some of the divisions that exist. The Italian proposal, for example, argues that Europe should adopt a "federal structure": they argue for a second parliamentary chamber of the EU, which would be made up of local and regional representatives. Clearly, this proposal reflects the political situation in Italy, where the left has been able to gain positions of influence in local government structures. Generally, of course, second chambers exist to block democratic change and thwart the will of the people - it is much easier for those below to exercise pressure on directly elected representatives in a single chamber. In Germany, for example, the regionally compiled Bundesrat regularly blocks proposal from the Bundestag. Ditto the House of Lords in Britain.

However, this proposal was actually contradicted by another comrade from Italy, Vittorio Agnoletto, who argued that "the European parliament should be the only sovereign power". The Italian proposal also envisages retaining the council of ministers and reforming the unelected European Commission and the European Central Bank. Others, like ourselves, would argue for the abolition of the former and placing the latter under democratic control.

There were other written proposals, some of which were adopted after having been amended in one of the six smaller workshops that took place on Saturday afternoon. Useful though these are, they all deal only with parts of the constitution or are a partial expression of the Europe we are fighting for. For example, a workshop on 'new economic policy' argued for the abolition of the stability pact and put forward demands for the right to strike and other such important questions. Comrade Benzi from the Italian trade union federation, CGIL, argued that our movement should fight for a provision that would enable amendments to the constitution. None of these points could be clarified or fully resolved.

The one concrete demand everybody agreed on wholeheartedly was the question of a 'European citizenship of residence'. According to this concept, national citizenship should be done away with. Everybody who comes to live in the EU should have the right to work wherever they want - and should enjoy all the rights and benefits of current EU citizens. Of course, had the SWP attended the meeting under its Respect banner, they would not have been able to support this demand - having cynically voted it down at the launch in January. This puts the main revolutionary organisation in Britain to the right of many of the reformist forces who attended the meeting in Rome.

The other thing most comrades agreed on was the rather bizarre assertion that the EU draft is not "a real constitution - merely an intergovernmental treaty", as comrade Russo put it. This was repeated by many French and Italian speakers - with the reasoning that the draft is currently being tossed about and amended by the heads of our governments and not the European parliament.

Does that make the German or Italian constitutions 'unreal', seeing as they were written by American occupiers after World War II? Sure, constitutions are not set in stone and reflect real class struggles. They are subject to pressure from below and the ruling classes in many countries often have to allow changes and amendments. However, even if it is put together without any input from below, it would still be a 'real' constitution - it would describe a real situation, a real balance of class power, brought about by the struggle of the main classes in society.

And, of course, the EU draft constitution has in fact been subject to constant pressure from below. Last week, chancellor Gordon Brown had to assure the British Chamber of Commerce that the Blair government would veto the social charter of the draft, which would give workers in Britain more rights than they enjoy at the moment. This is of course a reflection of the qualitatively higher level of class struggle in countries such as Italy, France and Germany. By stepping up and coordinating the class struggle across Europe we can undoubtedly force a withdraw of that veto.

After two days of very fruitful - if sometimes confused - discussions, the meeting finally agreed that we should come together again during the next ESF preparatory assembly in Berlin (June 19-20). Most comrades - though not everybody - seemed to agree that we should aim to prepare ajoint declaration on the draft constitution. It is unclear if this will focus on our criticisms of the current draft, formulate our alternative or do both things at the same time. The immediate aim would be to present and discuss this text at various seminars and the assembly of social movements at the London ESF in October. However, we would also look into the possibility of establishing a more permanent discussion forum on this issue. All interested organisations are encouraged to submit working papers on the issue to the organisers who will put up all relevant material on the websitewww.atraeuropa.org.

Of course, if we really want to be able to unite in theory and action on this issue, we need to move up a few gears. But this meeting has certainly been a crucially important first step on the way to build our own, European-wide structures from below.