11.06.2008
Left plays nationalist card
Campaigning around the June 12 Lisbon treaty referendum focused on the loss of sovereignty and defence of Irish neutrality, writes Anne McShane
Ireland is the only state within Europe to have voted on the Lisbon treaty. This is because its adoption is deemed to require an amendment to the constitution, which necessitates a referendum.
This has represented a glitch in the otherwise smooth process of European Union ratification by member-states. Prime ministers, presidents and EU bureaucrats have learned from the failures of the 2005 referendums on the ‘European constitution’ in France and Holland. Lisbon was to be a way of ensuring closer political and military integration while avoiding a repeat.
Since the treaty was signed on December 13 2007, things have moved on rapidly. Fifteen out of 27 EU states have already ratified and the hope is that all will have done so by January 2009. But with the strong showing for a ‘no’ in the run-up to June 12, there has been talk of the whole process unravelling if Ireland delivers the ‘wrong’ result.
There is a degree of scaremongering going on here. Certainly a ‘no’ vote would be an important setback and at the very least delay ratification. But Ireland is not France. And even the French rejection did not mean the end of the unification process. A new round of negotiations would be entered into, most likely with all manner of opt-outs for states that could stymie the process. So an Irish ‘no’ vote would certainly not mean the end of the road for European capitalist integration.
The objective dynamics and complexities behind the attempts at convergence undertaken by the European bourgeoisie are discussed in detail by Jack Conrad in his book Remaking Europe. Those attempts are part of an historical process that has its roots in the cold war, while its current momentum stems in particular from the need of European capital to create an alternative pole in a world still dominated by the US superpower, but where that superpower is in serious decline.
Mike Macnair has argued that because of its decline the US is stepping up the “pressure to increase the tribute paid to US finance capital, not only by the broad masses, but by other capitals. This means that other states and capitals which have hitherto accepted a basically subordinate position in exchange for a share of the spoils are forced to attempt a higher level of organisation for their own defence” (Weekly Worker January 31). The pressure for unity will therefore intensify rather than abate.
What both Conrad and Macnair emphasise is the need for an articulate third camp - for the working class to organise its own forces to take advantage of the objective circumstances so as to create its own, social, Europe. Nationalism and attempts to build socialism in one country all but destroyed our movement in the 20th century. So we need to put forward immediate demands in the here and now to help rebuild that unity, to engage in the struggle for an alternative solution, not simply automatically object to everything the bourgeoisie does.
The possibility of such unity, of European trade unions and working class parties coming together organisationally, is by no means an abstract question. In its own way the European Social Forum was an attempt to provide some kind of alternative to a Europe of capital. That it failed says more about the dreadful politics and undemocratic methods of the ESF leadership than about objective possibilities.
The response of the left in Ireland to the Lisbon treaty has, however, illustrated just how far we have to go. It has shown how steeped it is in national reformism. Rather than taking up the question of working class unity and a workers’ Europe, It has in the main focused on defending ‘our’ rights from the threat of EU integration.
The Socialist Workers Party has been perhaps the main protagonist of this kind of opportunism. One of its central planks in opposition to the treaty has been the defence of “Irish neutrality”.
Article 29(1) of the Irish constitution affirms its people’s “devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly cooperation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.” Article 29(2) asserts Ireland’s “adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination”. As a result, goes the SWP line, the Irish state has not openly participated in imperialist wars.
But this has not stopped Ireland from fully cooperating with imperialism to ensure the success of various military adventures and invasions. Nor from taking part in various ‘peace-keeping’ missions from the Congo, to Afghanistan, to present-day Chad. It proved to be a useful ally, as British imperialism strove to maintain its occupation of the Six Counties. As a very junior but loyal member of the imperialist club, the Irish state put Shannon airport at the disposal of US troops en route to Iraq as well, not to mention the more shadowy ‘rendition’ flights. So much for Irish “neutrality”.
Yes, it is evident that the Lisbon treaty seeks to strengthen EU militarism. It commits member-states to an “ever-increasing degree of convergence” in military terms (article 11). Joint military forces will be used to bolster “international security in accordance with the principles of United Nations charter”. Members will have an obligation to aid and assist any state which “is the victim of armed aggression on its territory” - although this will not “prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy” of individual member-states. There is an obligation on EU countries “progressively to improve their military capabilities”, and there can be permanent, structured cooperation between self-selecting member states (article 28). The main underpinning imperative is solidarity in military action, along with an increase in armed capability.
Those in the ‘yes’ camp point to the opt-out in article 28. They argue that Ireland will therefore be in exactly the same situation as it is in at present. No doubt there will be more pressures to support military action by member-states. But the Irish government already has shown itself more than willing to support its allies in wartime.
By making an issue out of bourgeois “neutrality” the SWP is helping to maintain illusions in the so-called pacifism of the Irish state. It is also buying into notions of nationalism. The issue is not that of a peaceful Ireland being engulfed by a warlike EU - we need to fight imperialism nationally and internationally. Irish so-called neutrality is a diversion. It will have little or no bearing on an armed EU.
Rather than focus on narrow national concerns we should be raising the pressing need for European-wide working class organisation against this militarised EU state. But the SWP does not even nod in the direction of workers’ unity across Europe. It would rather defend the romantic nationalism of Eamon de Valera than take up the cudgels of proletarian internationalism.
Another idea that is espoused by the majority of the left is that a ‘no’ vote would result in a victory for the working class in Europe. The Socialist Party states that “defeat for the Lisbon treaty on June 12 would represent an important blow against the attacks on the rights of working people being pursued not just in Ireland but across the whole of Europe”. It “should be the start of a fightback”. But we should learn from experience. The ‘no’ victory in France and Holland in 2005 did not produce such a result.
As Mike Macnair points out in his January 31 article, the French left-led ‘no’ campaign did not leave any residue of militancy or even unity among its component parts on the left: “In fact, in France in 2005, as in Britain in 1975, the effect of such a united campaign is to reinforce nationalism and hence the right - including the neoliberal right.”
This does not automatically mean it was wrong to vote ‘no’ on June 12. But what it does illustrate is the risk of opposing particular EU unification schemes in a way that strengthens the pull of nationalism. Especially as we do not get to choose the question. Having read and listened, and taken part in the debate around the Lisbon treaty, my view is that it would have been better for the left to campaign for a spoilt vote - for instance, by writing ‘For a workers’ Europe’ on the ballot paper.
Although this might not have affected the ultimate result, it would have allowed the left to distinguish itself from nationalist forces and put forward a ‘third camp’ perspective. It would have allowed the politics of working class unity to be fought for in a much clearer way. And in this period propaganda is vitally important. We need to win the working class across Europe to the perspective of a Communist Party of the EU. And it is very difficult to do that while campaigning for a ‘no’ vote.
The fact that the left do not seem to have considered this approach speaks volumes. The argument is that we must first defeat Lisbon and then can go on to create a social or socialist Europe. The need for a ‘no’ vote comes first, with the other issues a long way down the agenda. So in effect the left uncritically allied itself with Sinn Féin in the Campaign against the EU Constitution/No to the Lisbon Treaty. Sinn Féin itself called for “a better deal in Europe” and demanded the treaty be renegotiated with that in mind. As the only mainstream party against the treaty, it dominated the ‘no’ campaign top to bottom. In fact its profile has been greatly strengthened.
Much like in Britain in the 1974 referendum, the left was virtually indistinguishable from the right in the anti-Lisbon campaign. There were no doubt plenty who decided to vote ‘no’ because of fears that the EU will force abortion onto Ireland or that there will be another influx of migration from eastern Europe - many of those ‘no’ voters, like the SWP, would also have been fierce defenders of Irish “neutrality”.
There are plenty of other criticisms to be made of the main left organisations - for example, that they focused so much on defending ‘our’ jobs and services against the EU when the Irish government is itself hell-bent on privatisation in the midst of an economic slump; that they portrayed the removal of the national veto as a danger to democracy when in fact the veto itself is the opposite of democratic.
But that is not our concern. We on the left, those who consider themselves socialists and communists must put a perspective beyond simply saying ‘no’. Our class needs to become the ruling class, not the perpetual class of opposition. We have to put forward a call in the here and now for a united, European-wide workers’ movement. For united European campaigns, for united European trade unions - and, of course, for a Communist Party of the European Union. Anything else is utopia.
