Last year Tony Benn introduced a parliamentary Bill for a new 'Commonwealth of Europe as an alternative do Maastricht. The Bill, proposes a Europe including all the states, cast and west, hased on fundamental social rights - the right to a job, civil liberties, health care and other social benefits; « Curope which respects the environment, combats racism, committed to peace aru a new relationship with the 'third world'. Socialist Outlook talked to TONY BENN about the campaign against Maastricht and the prospects for socialist advance.
This article appeared in Socialist Outlook No. 39 in March 1993. Some people on the left suspect that campalgning against Maastricht gives cover to right-wing natlonalism, and that only the right-wing benefits from such a campaign.
But that is simply untrue. In Britain it was the left that was against the Treaty of Rome, the Tories were all in favour of it; it was the Tories who took us into the EC, using the Royal Prerogative, without consulting anyone. It was the Labour Party which came out in favour of a referendum on the issue.
The idea that because Mrs Thatcher discovered that foreigners start at Dover it is a right wing campaigo is ludicrous. I'm not a nationalist, and I won't appear on platforms with right-wing nationalist opponents of Maastricht. The reason why Tory opponents of Maastricht are getting all the publicity is because only they have the power to defeat the government on the issue; if we had a Labour government it would be the left critique of Maastricht getting all the publicity.
'The proponents of Maastricht want 1o present the ami Maastricht campaign in a way which alienates liberal opinion, so they say, well it's led by Le Pen and Thatcher; but it's not the case at all.
Of course the opportunity to present things this way in part stems from the Labour leadership's pro-Maastricht stance. The real question is why do the three main party faders agree abour everything. Major, Smid and Ashdown agree about NATO, about nuclear weapons, about Ireland, Maastricht, market forces and controlling the trade unions: that is the real unprincipled political coalition, not some mythical alliance of the left and right against Maastricht. But of course there's nothing strange in politics about people laking a similar view on something for totally differen reasons. We can't determine a proper socialist attitude to the bankers" Maastricht Europe simply on the basis that it's excluded in all circumstances to go into the same voting lobby as Teddy Taylor. Not only the Labour leadership, but most of the trade union bureaucracy has come out in favour of Maastricht.
That's because after 12 years of Tory rule the trade union leaders get better treated in Brussels than they do in Downing Street. But I think it is a classic failure of analysis by the trade unions not to recognise that the Maastricht Europe will be run for profit at the expense of working people. The recent case of the Hoover plant moved from France to Scotland is typical. Here Scolland was the beneficiary because we're becoming a low-wage sweatshop; but this is a product of the Trealy of Rome. You have free movement of capital. So capital comes to Brilain where wages are low; and the free movement of labour is onto the dole queues.
Does the view of the trade unlon leaders reflect opinion In the country?
Well there has been fittle information about the real meaning of the Maastricht Treaty. If you present opposition as a lot of Thatcherite nationalism, it's bound to be unattractive. But it has to be understood that the Maastricht Europe will be deeply undemocratic. In Briain all the laws decided in Europe have been imposed by Royal Prerogative. It's the first time since the execution of Charles I that laws have been made by ministers without consulting parliament. Is the European Commonwealth you propose a soclalist one?
The Charter of Rights in the Bill is a very radical series of measures. It doesn't enforce socialism, but it cerainly makes the European model of capitalism impossible. Because it lays down that everyone is entitled to work, and a home and to join a trade union, and so on. These are demands that people can rally around.
But the British establishment wants Maastricht, the City of London wants it, as does the IMF, the international financial markets, the newspaper proprictors -
all of them. For the simple reason that it would make democratic social change much more difficult.
Why Is the Major government against the Maastricht social chapter? They are against it because they think it might possibly strengthen trade unions and workers rights. But in reality, the social chapter is a bit of a fraud. I's completely unenforceable, and it won't do what it's alleged in creating minimal standards of social welfare and workers rights.
What will happen if the Danes vote against Maastricht in the coming referendum?
By voting against Maastricht last time the Danes put themselves at the heart of Furope, not as Major says outside of Europe. If they vote 'no' again, then Brilain won't go in. And Kohl said just yesterday they might have to go ahead with a 'core' 10 countries. Bur it won' work, and there will have to be a big rethink. Then I think that proposals like my Commonwealth of Europe Bill will come into their own. But it bas to be said that the near manimity of the political leaders in Denmark in favour of Maastricht makes another 'no' vote a difficult task.
Do you think that the Maastricht treaty will be reallsed?
It's much more difficult now, to create the kind of capitalist economic and political unity they are looking for, because of the depth of the economic crisis. Harmonisation is very difficult when there are such disparities berween States, and the interests of different groups of capitalists conflict. But my worry is that a failure of Maastricht, because of the way it has been done, couki lead to a rise of reactionary nationalism. The French wilt blame the Briliste for Floover, the British will blame the French for subsidising agricuiture, the Americans will blame the Europeans for subsidising the Airbus. So we've got to find a way of building a substructure of working class links in Europe, and not only in Europe, to prepare an altemative to the rise of reactionary and right-wing forces. That's why I'm in favour of building a Fifth International, a common association of working people worldwide to confront the power of capital.
What do you think Is the real meaning of 'Fortress Europe'?
The real intention of the people who founded the EC, like the poople who founded NATO, was to prevent socialism spreading. That's what it's all about. They aimed to rejuvenate European capitalism with the aid of the Marshall plan,
that's what the EC was all about, and to defend capitalism, that's what NATO was all about.
Now that the cold war is over NATO is extending into what is called an 'outer area role: and for capitalise Europe this is an attempt to restore the dominant position it had in relation to the colonies it lost during the two world wars. What we're witnessing is "Furo-nationalism' preparing to challenge the United States and Japan for world dominance. And this Euro-nationalism is not internationalism at all, it's the opposite.
If the EC is about defending capitalism, then why have the main soclal democratic partles In Europe all adopted such enthuslastic pro-EC pollcles?
It's well worth reflecting on this question. In my opinion it's because of the collapse of socialist confidence, and a collapse of understanding about what socialism means. Looks al Yellson; he was the secrelary of the Moscow Communist Parly, and now he's so far to the right of Thatcher he makes her look like a progressive. The Socialist parties hecame career structures. You joined a Socialist party and gor into power; you became a minister. Then you expelled dissidents, distanced yourself from struggle and boped the establishment woukd accept you as one of the two ruling partics. Nobody in these parties discusses copitalism any more, lt alone socialism. I can understand the Labour leadership not discussing socialism, since they don't have the remotest idea what it is; but you think they'd discuss capitalism and its crisis. But all they discuss is Major, Lamont and Heseline.
So there's this huge vacuum. Socialism is about building a society on a moral basis, about internationalism and about democracy. And those three ideas have a universal validity throughoud human history. But these values have been totally neglected, so there's a gap which is filled by trying to strengthen capitalism, whilst calling it a more bumand society'. It isn't an all. I's the same it has always been, throwing workers on the floor and allowing the privileged and rich elite to run things.
What can be done to turn around the present difficult situation for the working class and soclalism?
The frst thing is to re-establish the socialist tradition of debate, argument and education. The media in this country have obliterated serious discussion, it's all in terms of personal abuse and sound bites. 'The first thing to do is to get people asking basic questions again .. why are we poor, why are we unemployed, why does every lamily in this country spend £30 a week on weapons before they pay
the rent? Why? Once you ask this hasic question, you're half way to a socialist analysis, amd that's how socialism started in the first place as a critique of the existing order.
Now everyone knows the working class has changed in this country, and internationally. Of course there are no longer 750,000 coal miners going underground. But this idea that because the occupational structore of the working class has changed, there's no hope for socialison, as Marxism Today used lo say before it went bust, is an absolute illusion.
Two hundred years ago the working class were agricoltural labourers. Then they became industrial workers, like the people in the shanty downs in the third world' today. Then many became omployed in small businesses, in bi-tech industries like computers and so on, but they're still working class. Because the definition of working class is where you get your income from; do you own things or do you work? And by that definition the working class is very much alive.
But the situation of the working class is difficult poday because the debt chains have been added to unemployment. Becoming unemployed can be a real personal catastrophe because, unlike the 1930s, you can lose your house and savings. So people are worried about challenging the boss. There's a real groundswell of anger, but it's pardy frozen by fear. And it's denied an outler, because the leadership of socialist parties have stopped talking about any alternative - except 'let's give us a chance 10 run things'
We'll see now what will happen in Australia, where the Hawke and Keating Labour governments have simply been running capitalism in a Yehsin-Jike way. Probably they won't he re-elected, and no wonder. Indeed what is the hope for working people it the only choice is between Thatcher and Kinnock? settle bitaci. And i wesera hidin can gu, the ole that is the Europe as a consequence of this. So the left has to fill the vacoum with argument, analysis, historical understanding and future perspectives, which can win support from a wide range of people.
But stlll, coming back to Maastricht, Isn't there a problem about outlining a soclalist alternative to Il? The left can Identify the undemocratic and deflatlonary character of the MaastrIcht process, but what do we propose?
That's right. A negative criticism on its own is inadequate, because we don't want a capitalist Britain living outside a capitalist Europo, we want a socialist Britain in a socialise Burope. That means you've got to have a much stronger
socialist association across Furope and the world, and is precisely why I'm fighting for this idea of a Fifth Interational.
But quite honestly if you're going to recover Britain from its current state, you have to have public ownership, planning, a more egalitarian tax system, a totally different system.
Why did you become a socialist?
My dad was a Labour MP. I was brougne up in a socialist home, I joined the Lahour Party on my 17th birthday. I campaigned for Labour on the troop ships in the last war, campaigned in 1945 and was elected to parliament in 1950. So I've been an MP for 43 years, and a member of the Labour executive since 1959. And I was a government minister for 11 years.
Everything l've leamed in this period has derpened my understanding of the nature of capitalism, and made me want to change it. It's not fundamentally a theoretical matter, it's a question of whose side you're on when the going gets rough - do you cop out or do you support people in struggle? It's about an understanding of history and perspectives for the flure.
And it's also about right and wrong as a guide to political behaviour. It's wrong that people are unemployed, that we waste money on weapons, that we had the Gulf war. That may seem simplistic, bor it's actually quite a revolutionary idea in contemporary politics. It's also about democracy and a world perspective. The exciting thing is since last October when the pit closures were announced we've seen the most tremendous political campaign, and things have begun 10) change. The problem is the lack of deadership given by the Labour and trade union leaders: Instead of fully supporting the campaign, every time you open a paper or tum on the rV, you see someone from the Labour leadership urging people 1o be cautious and wait, a sort of 'leadership by repudiation'. You won' get anywhere with that.
I don't have a foolish optimism, and 1 can see a lot of people are discouraged. So socialists have to give them a sense of perspective. That's why I do a tremendous number of meetings, so people won't give up and sit at home watching Inspector Morse. So 1try to encourage people to continue the struggle that's my function in life.