Behind the parliamentary legal disputes over the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, lie deep divisions in the Tory Party about European onion. I is still possible that Tory fissures over Maastricht, together with opportunist manocuvres by the Labour from bench, could between them derail the treaty - which in any case is way behind schedule. There was even talk in Tory cabinet circles of ignoring Parliament if things went against them. This is possible, because international treaties are negotiated by the government and then ratified by the Queen. The will of Parliament, in legal terms, is irrelevans to this process (Those who think the Monarchy is just Horseguards Parade and expensive "soap opera, please note).
Meanwhile, other pro-Miastrich governments, particularly in France and Germany, are increasingly irritated by the delays and apparent chaos over the tready in Britain. Chancellor Kohl has spelt out his intention to pursue union it necessary with only the other nine EC countries should Denmark and the UK not ratify the treaty by the end of the summer. He also made it clear that once the Community had been enlarged to 16 members in two years time, with the inclusion of candidate member states - Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland the stage will be set for a further move to a still deeper political union in 1996. The plan is that the 1996 constitutional review, provided for in the Maastriche Treaty, prepare the basis for a full constitutional union.
The Labour party leadership is now committed to the Maastricht process but continues to use the Tories dogmatic refusal to endorse the Social Chapter as a basis for opposition to Tory 'paving motions' and for wrecking amendments in the Commons. Both sides cynically fail to point out that none of the 'Social Furope" proposals, endorsed or otherwise, such as the right to strike, or worker participation, have any statutory force in the respective countries in the EC. All are subject to the principle of "subsidiarity', which allows governments to ignore them.
This typically unprincipled approach of the Labour leadership may also reflect an unease, scepticist and a growing opposition to the treaty within the Labour movement. Some Labour leaders and MPs have at last managed 1o drag themselves ou of their torpor and read the teary. Suddenly, they have discovered that it would shift economic power from the national governments to an unaccountable European Central Bank. In effect, the banks would then
Introduction determine such traditional Labourist concerns as social spending, among other matters. They have also discovered that it makes the maintenance of price stability and the free market an overriding objective: that it will prohibit Labour Governments from initiating industrial development through planned incentives and subsidy. I means that a public ownership programme to soak op unemployment and promote social equality wonld be in breach of EC law any large scale public investment in the social infrastructre (for example road, rail or house building, or a substantial expansion of the NHS) would be limited by stringent ceilings for public sector borrowing.
The Labour leadership, however, have unashamedly tied themselves to the long sectors of industrial and financial capital:
term interests of the dominant especially the hig multi-nationals, whose most important markets lie in Europe. The Labour leadership hopes lo find a new political space for itsclf as a revamped, or 'modernised' party which quietly drops 'Clause Four' and social ownership, in favour of the new brand of right wing social democracy, pioneered in Europe during the 1980s by German social democratic theorist Peter Cilotz and Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission. This rosy view of capitalist Europe sees the defence and extension of social and political rights brough about, not by the strength and combativity of the working class mobilised in the defence of its own interests, but through the economic stimulus of a large market, the reorganisation of European industry in which workers are protected from the word effects by the Social Chapter, and by an expansion of world trade. The Labour leaders argue that Europcan union will not only create more jobs, but existing jobs will be protected from the full force of foreign competition. It is clear that in the future, many of these will not he slow in promoting protectionism to defend so-called 'socialists'
European industry, in the name of defending jobs.
This new reformist policy can of course be given a radical edge, with a fight to democratise EC institutions, implemene the Social Chapter in full and fight the drive towards a militarised and racist 'Fortress Europe'. But this approach ignores the fundamental fact that European national capitalisms have been driven towards the process of economic and political union by the long capitalist depression, the falling rate of profit and a consequent intensification of inter-imperialist competition. Thus capitalist Europe needs new forms of capital accumulation and social regulation. Central to this are attempes by capital to facilitate the movement and concentration of capital and to circumvent the power of the unions and workers' resistance. In short it is designed to intensify the exploitation of labour.
I particular, the European capitalisms fear competition from che North American Free Trade Zone, dominated by an increasingly aggressive USA intent on reconquering lost economic ground, and from the dynamic Pacific Rim
economies dominated by Japan. A combination of trade war and workd recession is explosive for global relations and potentially catastrophic for the working class. In Europe it will require notonly greater exploitation of the working class, but the crushing of its post-war social gains and its organisations of resistance, in particular the trade unions.
Whatever the economic dynamics at play, the unpalatable fact is that the British people are being offeral no choice at all in the Maastricht process, which will have a profound effect on their lives. The Tory government, reflecting its weakness and divisions, refuses to consult the electorate with a referendum. relying in the last resort on the undemocratic royal prerogative. Worse, the bureaucratic leaders of the Labour Party and trade unions have supported this slap in the lace for democratic rights. John Smith, ad the Labour Party conference, steam-rollered through a rejection of the resolution for a referendum as part of a vote of confidence package. This despite the fact that the treaty represents one of the most momentous changes in the governing system in this country this century.
The Maastrich Treaty represents a fundamental change in the constitional hasis of the British slate. Considerable political power will be shifted from Westminster to the European Commission, which is not elected, nor can it he removed by democratic means. The socialist critique of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, as practiced at Westminster and elsewhere, should not lead as 1o abslain on this narrowing down of democratic rights in a new capitalist Furope. Community laws which will have profound effects on the righs and conditions of working people, will take precedence over the domestic laws of member states, are made by the Council of Ministers in secret, without requiring the prior consent of the elected parliaments of the member states.
The democratic righes of the people of Europe are threatened not only at this political level but enshrined at alt levels. The rights of immigrants and asylum seekers are also curtailed through subsidiary treaties like the Schengen accords on immigration, nationality and asylum. This tightening web of immigration lows will increase discrimination against black people and ethnic minorities. Contrary to the illusion spread by British Labour leaders, the Social Charter, unlike other provisions, is not binding in law on member states even if they do sign it. The Social Charter is litle more than a figlead which can be used by Labour bureaucrats to sell the FC to the workers. It is simply a sugar coating on an otherwise very bitter pill.
The combined eflect of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty is to lake a major step in the direction of a super-centralised European state. A political and economic union which would reduce even further the limited democratic accountability of those with power, the capitalist class and its representatives, and those over whom that power would be exercised, the
Introduction working people of Europe.
But pro-EC commentators of the left, like The Guardian's Jobn Palmer insist triumphantly that the process has now gone too far for any retrcat to take place. 'Whatever the saloon har strategists may believe,' he writes, "the odds are getting shorter on the emergence of a federal-style European union by the end of the decade.' (Guardion 25.2.93). But this bravado ignores the effects of the deepening necession on the far from complete unity process, the instability of the financial system, the impact of the speculators and the weakness of governments, not only in Brilain, Spain, Haly, Belgium, but also in France and Germany, which are the driving forces behind European Union. Opinion polis in bull Germany and Britain seem to confirm widespread scepticism and opposition to the Maastricht process that was also shown in the French and Danish referenda.
Neither has the crisis of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) run its course. It is being fueled both by the world recession and by currency speculation, the scale of which are beyond the control of the national banks. Monetary union is a corner-stone of the whole Maastricht process and the collapse of the pound and lira came very close to wrecking the whole system. 'This is why the Bundesbank intervened beavily to support the pound and the franc. The unprecedented scale of the Bank of England's intervention resulted in huge losses in reserves, which is estimated at between £10-15 biilion.
Also, on the very day that John Palmer was lauding the 'fast forward' to European union, the Spanish government, previously so stridently in favour of a 'one lane' Europe, was also making preparations for dropping out of the FRM, after heavy pressure had been put on the peseta in February this year. The problems for the Euro-fanatics are not just growing public disquiet, but the in sharper and sharper very logic of capitalism itself, which is resulting competition between stares. But socialists cannot sit back and rely on the internal contradictions of the system. A campaign of education and disruption must be waged against the Maastricht process. Union conferences must be won away from illusions in the Social Chapter, while the left must develop its alternative — a policy which rejects any retreat into nationalism and looks forward to what Tony Benn has called a 'European Commonwealth', , East and West, on a socialist basis.
The very first step towards this goal must be a campaign for a referendum to defeat the treaty. In particular, Labour must break with its bi-partisan policy; it must be forced to break ranks with the Tories and ensure a referendum. This result would not only deliver a body blow 1o Maastrich but the Tory goverment as well. This pamphlet has been writen as a contribution to this fight.