03.03.2005

No to their constitution, yes to a social Europe

Easily the most positive part of the weekend were two gatherings on Friday afternoon, when those organisations interested in the question of Europe got together. Indeed, compared to some of the semi-anarchic preparatory meetings, with ceaseless interventions that contributed little or nothing to the future of the ESF, the meetings of the two networks provided a good opportunity for discussion, and some forward steps were taken - if only in the form of various pledges rather than concrete proposals. It is a pity that the almost identical group of people had to sit through two separate meetings that discussed pretty much the same thing: There is the REDDS network (For a Democratic Europe and Social Rights) and the No to the European Constitution network. The reason for the split is that a couple of organisations involved in REDDS do not want to take a formal position on the question of the EU constitution or the forthcoming referenda. Gianfranco Benzi from the Italian union CGIL, for example, explained that there are unions that support the European constitution while at the same time they want to take part in the campaigns for a social Europe and support some of their aims (the European Trade Union Congress too supports the constitution, while some of the smaller, more independent unions are against it). But, as comrade Antonis Matanakis from the Greek soft left party, Synapsismos, put it, "It is impossible to divide these two issues. If organisations are serious about the need for a social Europe, they cannot be in favour of the EU constitution." He is right. The two things are inexorably linked. A Europe based on the needs of capital will neither empower the European working classes democratically, nor will it provide the fundamental rights necessary to live a civilised life. This can only be won from below by an organised mass movement - a movement that through political leadership can wrench the 'no' campaign from the hegemony of the forces of reaction. The objective necessity for such a joint campaign is, however, not helped by the extremely loose structures of our network and the hesitation of our French comrades. In particular, the REDDS network, founded at the last ESF assembly in Paris in December, suffers from almost total inaction. In truth, it is a non-campaigning campaign. REDDS coordinator Michel Rousseau (a member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire) not only blocked the attempt to combine the two campaigns. He also 'ruled' that the network could not accept the proposal by Franco Russo of Rifondazione Comunista to affiliate to the Citizenship by Residence campaign. This fights for the free movement of all people, against Europe's internal and external borders and for full citizenship rights for everybody living on EU territory - wherever they were born. It is attempting to collect one million signatures, which would mean it would have to be discussed by the EU commission. Clearly, this is a very good campaign that should be taken on by the working class across Europe as a way to combat nationalism and chauvinism (as an aside, in its current incarnation as Respect, the SWP would not be able to support the campaign, having now voted down the demand for open borders a number of times - thereby placing itself firmly to the right of many organisations involved in the ESF). Comrade Manatakis went on to criticise the somewhat insular position of the French, who are struggling to accept the need for a real, European-wide campaign. At the moment, they are chiefly interested in "getting help from other countries to win the 'no' vote in France" - as comrade Elisabeth Gaultier, a member of the Communist Party of France (who officially represents 'Espace Marx'), put it: "It is not useful for us to work on a European level at the moment." This hesitant approach was rejected by many, in particular by comrades from Italy, Greece and Britain. Comrade Ben Lewis of the CPGB backed up Franco Russo who proposed the organisation of a conference of the group prior to the French referendum. This would help to cohere our forces and should lead to the drawing up of some joint criticisms of the constitution, as well as proposals for our own vision of a social Europe. Other comrades too were keen on the question of international campaigns and joint materials against the constitution - some drawing upon the analysis of a comrade from Catalonia, who described the sheer alienation of the Spanish from the decision-making process, with only around 30% of the entire Spanish electorate actually voting in favour of the constitution. A united European-wide campaign could possibly have converted this profound apathy into a defeat for the Spanish government. Despite these shortcomings of fixing specific joint action, the meeting proved useful in terms of the reports we heard from different countries. Naturally, the forthcoming French referendum was at the centre of our discussion. Elisabeth Gaultier highlighted how the Chirac government seems to be settling on May 9 as the likely date for the referendum (a day after the anniversary of the liberation of France from Nazism). It seems the plan is to drown French dissent in a sea of patriotic mythology in the hope that the 'yes' comes sailing out. Comrades in Britain should also brace themselves for such a propaganda campaign, as the Blair government will do whatever is necessary to attain its desired result - there are rumours that trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt will, after the expected Labour third-term victory, be honoured with the exciting-sounding "minister for referenda" title (Financial Times February 24). According to comrade Gaultier's analysis, a clear majority of French unions are opposed to the constitution. In addition to this, the French Communist Party is for a 'no' vote and, although the Greens and the Socialist Party will both be campaigning for a 'yes', these decisions were made by extremely close margins - with 45% and 40% vote of their respective memberships dissenting. Thus, there is a good chance that the French will be able to use the referendum in order to throw a spanner in the bureaucratic works of Chirac's agenda. Such a left 'no' vote would be based on qualitatively different ideological grounds from the current 'no' campaign in Britain, which is of course under the hegemony of the reactionary, national chauvinist agenda of the Tories and the UK Independence Party. Unfortunately, much of the British left, too, is echoing these anti-European sentiments: The Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain very openly advocates a British withdrawal from the European Union, while the SWP all but comes to the same conclusion. Most of the left in Britain cannot manage a positive vision of a social Europe. Because of their deeply rooted economism, they view the question of Europe as "boring" and "a non-issue", as the SWP's Chris Nineham puts it. No wonder there is very little by way of a leftwing 'no' campaign in Britain. No doubt the SWP will call for a 'no' when the time comes in Britain, and no doubt numerous other left groups will do the same. This is, however, of no use to the long-term interests of the European working class. Only by building a pro-active democratic, social alternative from below (the kind of alternative such bureaucratic centralist sects are so afraid of) can the constitution be defeated in a positive, and not in a national chauvinist, manner. Clearly a defeat in the European referenda will be huge blow to the legitimacy of the European Union's neoliberal project - particularly if it can be given a working class, democratic content. Despite the hard work and best intentions of comrades within this network, it is obvious that the absence of key democratic organisational structures and - crucially, the political will of some sections - risks killing off a united European 'no' before it has even got off the ground. Ben Lewis/Tina Becker