EUROPEAN INTEGRATION is not the only reason for an assault on welfare: governments all round the world are seeking to cut back on public spending in order to reduce the tax burden on industry, and drive down costs to meet global competition.
Rather the Maastricht process and the drive towards greater integration and rationalisation of capital is the response of Europe's ruling class to the global war for markets. The Maastricht Treaty itself represents a means to drive forward and speed up the war on workers' rights. Despite the struggles going on across Europe against the implications of the convergence criteria, the debate in the workers' movement lags behind the material process taking place.
This is particularly the case in Britain. Here the anti-Maastricht debate has been dominated by the Tory right, with Labour and TUC leaderships lined up behind European integration. The left, despite important efforts by sections of it to address the issue, has remained marginalised. There were apparently as many as 50 opponents of Maastricht in the Parliamentary Labour Party before the May election, mostly, but not all, on the left. It is positive that some on the left have given support to the Euromarches, particularly Alan Simpson, who has also been active in the People's Europe campaign.
However, with the authoritarian tone of the new government, which made clear its hostility to the minority of hard left MPs long before May 1, few if any Labour MPs seem likely to mount any up-front challenge to Blair on this issue in the immediate post-election period.
Yet European integration is directed primarily against the working class, with the aim of more effectively exploiting its labour power and. maximising profit. The left in Britain has a responsibility "PROFITS to challenge this logic, develop the working class dimension of the debate, and start to rum the tide.
Persuading left MPs and senior trade unionists to speak out clearly is crucial in gaining a wider audience for these ideas. "MY TAKE HOME PAY WON'T TAKE ME HOME!"
THE NEW Labour government will quickly be forced to confront the issue Blair ducked in advance of the election - whether to sign •up for the single European currency, for European Monetary Union (EMU).
There are broad hints that while Blair would like to opt for EMU and take Britain into the first stage in 1999, the government may hold back until the second intake of member However, Gordon Brown's first significant move as Chancellor has been to hand over greater power to the Bank of England and an unelected quango of bankers and "experts" who will now control interest rates. This could be the first step towards a first-stage entry into EMU. which would require Labour to go further and privatise the Bark of England, to pave the way for the imposition of an "independent"
Europcan central bank.
While the technicalities of who fixes interest rates will leave many workers indifferent.
the new government will need to make more and deeper cuts in the already battered welfare state if they intend to reduce government borrowing to 3% of GDP in line with the convergence criteria of the Maastricht Treaty. Already there is speculation that Brown might seek cuts of up to f8 billion in public Biair's insistence that he will not cut other areas of state spending (such as Trident nuclear missiles) or raise taxes leaves Labour with no middie way. A Labour government must either bridge the budget gap - by raising taxes on the wealthy and on industry or by attacking the welfare state - or rejeci Maastricht and undermine Britain's position inside the EU.
The TUC and the Social Chapter The 'New Realist' politics of the 1980s brought a sea-change in the TUC on the question of European integration. 10 years previously the TUC had opposed the EEC. Today the overwhelming majority of union leaders support the EU.
while they were not prepared to do anything themselves to challenge the Tory government, the bosses or the market system, they argued that the EC will extend workers' democratic and social rights. They look towards a 'social Europe' and the Social Chapter. They hanker after the institutionalisation of the unions in Europe. This was eliminated by Thatcher's government in Britain - an anti-union stance which Tony Blair is clearly keen to uphold. Politically the union leaders have pinned their hopes on the illusion that the new bosses' Europe can be reformed to win additional concessions for working people. The 1996 TUC conference strengthened the stance still further, voting for more integration and specifically in favour of EMU. In this they were more forthright, at least in their public position, than the Labour leadership. Despite the TUC vote, only a minority of unions had even discussed this issue, and although UNISON's conference has adopted a policy of opposition to Maastricht, neither its leader Rodney Bickerstaffe nor any other major union leader has been prepared to stand out against the TUC line. Of course the so-called "social Europe" is not about the generosity of Europe's bosses. It is designed as a palliative to persuade the working class and the labour bureaucracy to accept European integration. The Social Chapter - now endorsed by the Blair government - is not a panacea the problems facing the working class. In any case the so-called social Europe' also includes the notorious 1985 Schengen agreement, which ensures that anyone barred from one EU country is barred trom them all. In Britain this racist structure has been complemented by the immigration and Asylum Act, and similarly draconian legislation has been plemented in most other EC countries. Whilst citizens have rights to move the ace of residence within the Community, the Schengen deal erects a wall again. immigrants and asylum seekers from outside. The tragic consequences of such racist laws were graphically illustrated in the death of 280 clandestine immigrants in the Mediterranean on Christmas Day. The Dublin Summit Stabilising profits The Maastricht Treaty obliges member The Maastricht Treaty provided states to avold excessive budget for a full constitutional review of deficits.
its workings, which is now taking Last year's Dublin meeting of heads place This process should be of state adopted a "Stability Pacts concluded at the Amsterdam In- designed to enforce this policy as part ter-Governmental Conference of the process of "convergence. (IGC) in June. The recent Dublin Each member state is required to summit of EU heads of govern- "commit itself to ainm for a ment was a part of this. medium-term budgetary position of a The Dublin meeting discussed a close to balance or surplus" - whatever the impact on jobs or welfare services. new draft treaty - "Maastricht 2" - which will, if agreed in June, The budgets of each state will be scrutinised by the European Council, become the Treaty of Amsterdam. which will have powers to step in if
The entire package of economic and fiscal policies with which Tony Blair's Labour Party went into the British election were in essence a collapse into Tory economic pollcy, implying further reduction in public spending, with the most severe cash limits ever imposed on the NHS, a standstill in the value of benefits, and cuts to come in education and local authority spending. But they are also the policies needed to meet the Maastricht criteria.
they are not satisfied. Sanctions can be imposed, in the shape of enormous fines of upto 0.5% of GDP to be paid by any government that steps out of line Of course there is nothing inherently progressive or socialist about running a budget deticit: it depends who is then obliged to pay taxes to cover the borrowing required.
The issue is one of democratic control, entrusting, the economies of Europe to the control of unelected bankers makes it impossible to protect social priorities such as jobs or welfare
This will set the scene for a whole new stage of European political integration. Not all the objectives of Dublin were achieved. John Major and the British Tories vigorously opposed proposals to drop passport controls and move to a common immigration policy - a chauvinist line now echoed loyally by Blair's team. These issues were laid to one side but will come up again in Amsterdam. The crucial step which was taken by the Dublin summit was the agreement on the so-called 'Growth and Stability Pact. This is a legal framework for the Euro, and establishes the rules by which the new currency will function. The Stability Pact is highly significant and will hand over far-reaching powers to the Council of Ministers to determine the fate of countries which sign up for the single currencv. Effectively, under the Pact, the convergence criteria will continue in force after the introduction of the single currency in January 1999, in the form of "stability criteria". Government spending deficits will remain fixed at a maximum 3% of GDP - and a breach of the criteria will result in a huge fines being levied on the countries involved, forcing them to cut spending to get back into line. These fines can be up to 0.5% of GDP - amounting to billions of pounds. From the point of view of the European project, the Stability Criteria are crucial. The single currency is as precarious as previous attempts to regulate the currencies of the EU. The most recent experience was of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which went into crisis under the impact of recession. As a result the pound was spat out of the ERM on "Black Wednesday", after Norman Lamont and the Bank of England had spent £18 billion trying to maintain its value. EMU will not just regulate exchange rates, but lock them permanently together. After that, if the Euro is to remain stable against the dollar and the yen, economic fluctuations between the different member states must be reflected directly in rising unemployment and cuts in government spending rather than in changes in the relative value of currencies. This is why there has to be a genuine economic convergence if there is to be a chance of stability. There might be fudging at the margins, but serious fudging would threaten the whole set-up.
A new development in the world political situation, such as a recession in the USA, could threaten the whole structure. British Capital and EMU Both the Tory and Labour Parties have prevaricated over entry into EMU and argued that all the options are open. But it is not so simple. The majority of big banks and industry chiefs want integration. Other sectors of capital, whose operations are focused elsewhere in the world, are more divided. Many smaller, less competitive companies are opposed to Maastricht and its consequences. But the most significant sectors want closer links with the EU. They are the driving force arguing that if the full benefits of Europe are to be realised, capitalism needs not only a single market but monetary and political union.
Germany, France and others are prepared for a two-tier Europe if some other countries are unable or unwilling to join by the target date of January 1999. Prime Minister Blair has been seen - and tacitly endorsed - by Germany's Helmut Kohl and other right wing European governments as the man most likely to bring Britain into EMU and closer integration. He will not be happy if he is unable to join the first wave.
Waiting for stage 2 is not an easy option. There could be a lot to lose for British employers if they are forced to remain outside the currency for a few more years - and things shape up without them. However, it is not clear that it will be possible for Labour to move quickly enough to avoid this. Ultimately integration will be on the terms of the most powerful state in the EU - Germany, which is itself struggling to meet the strict criteria it helped devise.
Many smaller, less competitive British companies are opposed to Maastricht and its consequences.
But the most significant sectors want closer links with the EU. They are the driving force arguing that If the full benefits of Europe are to be realised, capitalism needs not only a single market but monetary and political union.
Britain is already developing into a low-pay, under-skilled economy, over reliant on financial services in the City of London. EMU will accelerate and spead this trend, and exact a heavy price from the working class. The new Central Bank will have a free hand to impose monetarist, deflationary economic restructuring across Europe, to force through massive public spending cuts, with the aim of creating a more mobile, cheaper labour force, through the discipline of mass unemployment - all on the British model. What Kind of Super State?
The European Union is fundamentally an attempt by the most powerful sectors of the European bourgeoisie to shift the ba!ance of power towards itself and away from the working class. -acing stiffened competition from Japan, the USA and emergins naustrial economies, they need to restructure European capital. ism in the most effective way to increase the rate of exploitation and maximise profit.
Their ultimate aim is some sort of European super state, since - while it is not the only answer - a single state form can most effectively achieve this objective. What they have in mind is not just a duplication of the existing nation states, but development of a new state apparatus on a vastly larger scale.
However much the EU architects or monetary union may deny it, the new structure is intended to perform all the essential functions that nation states have traditionally carried out.
The Maastricht Treaty went further than any previous treaty towards the creation of this kind of state form. The timetables for a single currency and economic union also run alongside moves towards a common foreign, security and defence policy for the EU. Politically and economically both the Treaty, and the objectives it promotes, challenge the sovereignty of national parliaments and establish institutions which are outside of any democratic control. Altnough their critique is from a reactionary, ultra-nationalist perspective, the Tory right have made some correct points about this process. This issue has Under Maastricht, economic power will be shifted from both the national governments and national banks to an independent and even more unaccountable European Central Bank (ECB), modelled on Germany's Bundesbank, wilich would control the interest rates of all the countries within EMU.
The power would therefore be in the hands of a non-elected Euro-quango: board members of the European Bank would be appointed for eight years, and could not be removed by any popular vote. The European Monetary Institution, the forerunner of the ECB, will be established in early 1998 in preparation for the launch of the ECB a year later. A single European currency and bank are essential not only for economic integration but the establishment of a monetarist structure across Europe that can break up the main elements of the welfare state which emerged in the post war settlement. They are seen as the way to slash the costs of European industry, preparing them to do battle in the global market place.
However much the EU architects or monetary union may deny it, the new structure is intended to perform all the essential functlons that nation states have traditionally carried out.
RGJ "Congratulations it's a quango"