20.10.2004

Missed opportunity

It is a pity that our ESF did not manage to launch a united 'No' campaign in response to the EU constitutional treaty, says Peter Manson

The opportunity presented by the ESF to launch a united working class campaign against theEuropean Union constitution was unfortunately missed. While most sections of the European left are committed to a referendum ‘no’, for the SWP, the largest component of the revolutionary left in Britain, the whole question is a “non-issue”.

So the Friday morning Alexandra Palace seminar, ‘The new EU constitution and our responses’, was attended largely by some 400 comrades from the continental mainland, with only a small minority from Britain. The SWP was nowhere to be seen. Whereas for seminars on other topics people with similar ideas had come together to thrash out a common approach, here several organisations with a variety of views - both for and against the proposed constitution - had been forced to share a single seminar.

Of course, a structured debate between opposing views can serve to clarify ideas, but in this case we had the worst of both worlds: there were so many speakers (nine in a truncated two-hour session) that only the barest exchange was possible between people with quite contradictory positions.

Brendan Donnelly of the Federal Union, Titto di Salvo of the Italian CGIL union and Peter Szigeti of Attac Hungary all gave a variation on the reformist ‘yes’ viewpoint. While the EU constitution might not be all that we wanted, they argued, it was the best we could get right now (“Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good,” said Donnelly). The constitution did talk about workers’ rights and protection of the environment and it did help to consolidate the EU as a counterbalance to the real danger - US imperialism.

While Martin Rocholl of Friends of the Earth Europe sat on the fence, there was at least some measure of agreement amongst the remaining five speakers: yes, we needed to oppose this constitution, but we had to put forward our own, positive alternative too. Bernard Cassen (Attac France) based his ‘no’ on the need for “participatory democracy”, as opposed to neoliberalism, while Francis Wurtz, a Parti Communiste Français MEP, stated that the proposed constitution championed free movement for capital irrespective of the social cost in terms of public services and workers’ rights. Andy Storey (Action for Peace, Ireland) pointed out that the EU was just as much a threat as the US.

The viewpoints of Frank Slegers (Belgian Social Forum and Fourth International) and Jack Conrad (CPGB) were to some extent complementary (although, of course, with more time to develop their arguments, no doubt clearer differences would have emerged). Comrade Slegers said we needed to put forward concrete demands as a bridge between the present and the Europe we want - even if the fight for those demands provoked a crisis.

Jack Conrad - in a comment aimed at the British left in particular - said it was easy to point to what we were against in the constitution, but it was essential to spell out what we were for when it came to the EU. Europe must have the stamp of the working class put on it: a parliament with real powers, as susceptible as possible to pressure from below; the abolition of standing armies, to be replaced by people’s militia; free abortion on demand and substantive equality between men and women. It would not be a counterbalancing, imperialist Europe designed to rival the US for world domination.

Despite the efforts of the CPGB’s Tina Becker in the chair, only a handful of people were able to intervene from the floor in the time available. The absence of much in the way of developed argument, combined with the noise from the adjacent plenary on Palestine (throughout the ESF the West Hall, with its two simultaneous meetings side by side, produced varying degrees of cacophony), meant that this and other seminars were often frustrating experiences.

A more fruitful discussion took place an hour later at the plenary on ‘Privatisation, social movements and political parties’. Despite the misleading title (a welcome discussion on the role of parties vis-à-vis the “social movement” did not really get off the ground), this proved a useful session, in particular for the strongly expressed views of both Piero Bernocchi (Cobas) and Pierre Khalfa (Attac France).

Everyone on the platform was united in condemning the drive to privatisation across the EU. But comrade Bernocchi went further: “We say what we oppose, but we seem incapable of staging one single demonstration on social issues. We need common action between working class parties and the left on a European level.” He referred specifically to the end-of-ESF demo “against the occupation of Iraq and for Palestine”. But what about a “demo against European neoliberal policies”? He wondered what the situation would be at the Athens ESF in 2006. Unless we take some concrete steps, “this movement will sink in boredom. We spend a lot of time talking, but we need to do something.”

Comrade Khalfa concurred: “We need a change of ideology on the European level, not just words. I agree with Piero.” He too called for a common European demonstrations. Absolutely correct, of course, but in fact we need to go further. We also need to take steps towards common political organisation.
LCR presidential candidate Olivier Besancenot, was less controversial. He, like Anastasia Theo-dorokopoulou of the Greek Social Forum, was content to denounce the evils of privatisation - like the final speaker, the Communist Party of Britain’s part-time general secretary Rob Griffiths.

I am not aware of any linguistic talents that comrade Griffiths may have, but he seemed able to understand speeches in Italian, French and Greek without the need of an interpretation headset. Or perhaps he was, after all, oblivious to their content, since he proceeded to offer the European comrades pearls of CPB wisdom on what privatisation was all about: “We can tell you about our experience here in Britain. This is what you have in store for you, thanks to EU directives. Those who still have illusions that the EU is somehow progressive are now seeing the truth.”

Comrade Griffiths did not respond to the calls for common action across Europe - as a national socialist, how could he - even if he had bothered to listen in the first place?