19.03.2009

Far left banned from Crow's campaign

Whether a slate of British chauvinist or internationalist demands, communists should intervene, writes Peter Manson

More information has come to light about the ‘No to the EU, Yes to Democracy’ slate for the June 4 European elections ahead of the campaign’s official launch on March 19.

An internal circular sent out to members of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain by national organiser Andy Goodall reveals that “ultra-left groups” are not “considered eligible” for participation in the left nationalist anti-EU campaign fronted by Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union (March 16).

This circular reports on the decisions taken by the March 14 meeting of the CPB’s executive committee in relation to ‘No to the EU’, which are covered briefly in the Morning Star. The paper informs readers that CPB national chair Anita Halpin, addressing the EC, “welcomed the prospect” of the ‘No to the EU’ campaign, which she referred to as a “trade union and left-led broad alliance” (my emphasis, March 17). The Star reports that the executive “unanimously endorsed full participation in the Euro election platform and decided to launch a £15,000 appeal towards campaign costs”.

Comrade Goodall spells out the nature of the CPB’s “full participation” in a little more detail: “This means that Communist Party members, along with a wide range of others from other parties and none, including some prominent national trades unionists, will be amongst No2EU’s candidates in these elections.” In addition, however, there is “separate affiliation” for Unity for Peace and Socialism, the CPB front set up for the May 2008 London assembly elections. Apparently the Association of Indian Communists (Marxists) is “keen to play a role” as part of UPS.

But, however central the CPB has been in initiating the campaign, it is clear that it will be much more than a larger ‘official communist’ front. Respect and the Socialist Labour Party are said to be “considering their position” (Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity is not mentioned), while the Alliance for Green Socialism has already signed up, says Goodall. However, according to Mike Davies of the AGS, writing on a left discussion email list, “To take part in the … initiative we would need some modification of the electoral description so that, while strongly and clearly opposing the current nature of the EU, it did not imply withdrawal from the EU. One possible example might be ‘Democracy yes, EU constitution no’.”

What of the far left? Goodall gives the CPB line, which he claims is the official position of ‘No to the EU’: “Whilst this is a very broad campaign, SWP, AWL, Weekly Worker and other ultra-left groups have not been considered eligible, these having sharply criticised the Lindsey strike movement. A leading figure within that strike will be one of the East Midlands candidates. The Socialist Party, which has a number of members who have played a positive role in the electrical contracting rank and file strike movement, is to participate in No2EU, strictly on the agreed platform.”

Leaving aside the grossly inaccurate lumping together of the Socialist Workers Party, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and CPGB (unlike the other two, we gave the Lindsey strikers critical support), it is interesting that the popular frontist SWP, with whom the CPB (or at least one wing of it) has worked closely in the Stop to War Coalition, is considered part of the “ultra-left”, while the SP is not.

It is also interesting that the SP is to participate “strictly on the agreed platform”. In the 2001 general election campaign, for instance, the SP would only allow its comrades to stand as Socialist Alliance candidates under its own electoral name and programme. Not to do so would be to imply support for a ‘premature’ move to a single left party, it was claimed.

Mind you, if we are to believe comrade Goodall and the CPB, ‘No to the EU’ has no partyist pretensions: “This is not a permanent electoral alliance, nor a new political party, but a platform.” So perhaps the SP is reassured. However, I would be surprised if its comrades - rumour has it that Dave Nellist is to head the campaign’s list in the West Midlands - did not find a way to put out their own propaganda.

The SP has been trying to broaden out the campaign platform through the inclusion of more trade-union-type demands and watering down its anti-EU British nationalism. Perhaps it has had some marginal effect, for I spotted two minor changes to the ‘No to the EU’ bullet points in the version that appears in the CPB circular.

Firstly, reference to the European Court of Justice has been removed from “Repeal ECJ anti-trade union rulings and social dumping laws.” So is it now OK to oppose anti-trade union rulings that were ‘made in Britain’ too?

Secondly, the phrase, “yes to international solidarity”, has been added to the bullet point, “No to racism and fascism”. However, the rest of the platform - including “Defend and develop British manufacturing” and “Restore democracy to EU member-states” - remains intact.

It must be stressed, though, that nothing is set in stone. On the one hand, it is not only the SP and AGS that have expressed disquiet with the British chauvinism dominating the platform. So too has Solidarity (admittedly from a Scottish nationalist perspective) and some members and branches of the RMT itself. It is certainly correct to intervene in the campaign with internationalist, pro-party demands.

On the other hand, while the CPB is adamant that there will be no “new political party” emerging from the campaign, Bob Crow, for one, has other ideas. While he has hardly embraced with enthusiasm the SP’s Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, he has pretty similar ideas to those of the CNWP on the need for a Labour Party mark two. It seems he now regards the SP as people he could trust as foot soldiers in any new party led by ‘responsible’ trade union leaders like himself.

Just as the CPGB has intervened in the CNWP, so we would intervene in any new leftwing party or pro-party formation that came out of the EU election campaign. That is why the headline and conclusion of my article last week was too categorical and therefore wrong (‘No support for Bob Crow’s stunt’, March 12). Meeting on March 15, the CPGB Provisional Central Committee, while wholeheartedly accepting my condemnation of the “reactionary chauvinist bilge” contained in the ‘No to the EU’ bullet points, rejected the implication that we should refuse to engage with the campaign. We may well recommend (extremely) critical support for its EU electoral lists.