Here, DAVE PACKER looks at the background to the Maastricht Treaty anil the socialist alternative path for the future of Europe Why was the European Community Created?
The central controversy of the Maastrich Treaty as far as the British ruling class is concerned is not the move towards cconomic union as such, or even at some parint, fall monetary onion, but the implications of political union which inevilably follows.
A federation of Furopean capitalist states that can meet the economic challenge of Japan and the United States requires its own state form to regulate and guarantee financial and political stability. This logic is reinforced by the fact that a common foreign policy flows directly from the needs of a common domestic policy. This is anathema to sections of the British establishment and especially the nationalist wing of the Tory Party. But as the German government understands - and it is the German government which calls most of the shots - any move towards economic union will always remain tentative and fragile, if not consolidated by a political union.
The Kohl government also understands that a German dominated Europe, would be vulnerable to anti-German chauvinism if a European government was not in place, with at least the appearance of democracy. T'he enormous strength of German capital will inevitably result in the weaker capitalisms bearing the greater burden of cuts and unemploymene. This, il is reasoned, will probably Inel the growsh of right-wing nationalism. Consequendly, il is the German government (definitely not the British), which pushes for stronger and more democratic European political institutions, for more power for the European parliament, for a social Europe, to help deflect discontent over the new German hegemony. Some Euro-political strategists have always harboured the dream of a complete economic and political union, but this was not a precondition of the Treaty of Rome, if always implied.
To some extent, the EC is a creature of the Cold War and NATO. It was a mechanism, combined with the Marshall Plan, 10 rebuild European capitalism after the devastations of war, while NATO was designed to protect it. The whole post-war sellement was forged in the framework of American hegemony after
the USA's emergence as the main victor of war and the overwhelmingly dominant capitalise power.
A reaction against this hegemony within Gaullist France, which refused ever to become a full member of NATO, and later in Germany, began 1o erode the dominant 'Allanticism'. During the 1970s this political stance was combined with and fuelled by, the relative economic decline of the USA. This precipitated a crisis of "Allanticism' and stimulated a new drive towards European union during the 19X0s and 1990s. Despite attempts by US imperialism to maintain its influence and leadership of the Free Workd' under Reagan and Bush, mainly through strengthening NATO and then pulling Europe behind its military operations (cf the Gulf War), today we see the growing division of the globe into three major competing power blocs.
Europe versus America and Japan now appears as the crux of European union. In this global struggle, the relatively small European imperialist states, require bigger and more scenre markets, a greater freedom for the movement and rationalisation of capital on a European basis. This includes having the means to circumvent worker's resistance and the roduction of taxation and state spending on welfare to levels comparable with the opposition. In order to face die competition from North America and the Pacific Rim economies dominated by Japan, Europe's big companies need mergers and rationalisation if they are to compete with the generally larger American and Japanese giants (the European car and truck industry is an example, telecommunications another). The Maastrich process was introduced lo create the conditions for such a development so as to ensure the longer term interests of European big capital in a new, more unstable, world situation.
The Maastricht Treaty goes further than any previous treaty towards a Europcan state. I1 establishes the concept of "Europcan citizenship', sets out procedures and timetables for a single currency as part of an cconomic and monetary union, establishes a common policy on judicial affairs and provides for a common foreign, security and defence policy. Il includes a provision for a full constitutional review in 1996. Politically, legally and economically it challenges the sovereignty of national parliaments and establishes institutions which are completely ourside of any democratic control.
Economic power will be shifted from both the national governments and national banks to a complelely unaccountable European central bank. The Trealy states, under Article 107, that "The Community institutions and boxlies and governments of member states undertake..not to seck to influence the members of the decision making bodies of the European central bank or of the national central banks in the performance of their dasks." These powerful members of the Buro-bank will be appointed for eigh ycars and cannot be dismissed by popular vote! Bankers rule OK!
The primary objective of Maastricht is not only to maintain price stability, but to cap cach country's public expenditure levels. No country will be allowed to have a budget delicit that excceds three percent of its annual economic production (GDP).
Fundamentally, the Maastricht process is a strategic attempt by the most powerful sectors of the European bourgeoisie to shift the balance of power in its favour and against the working class and small businesses, in order that a restructuring of uncompetitive European capitalism can be carried through with minimum resistance.
Already 30 million people have been made unemployed across Europe. The destruction of "uncompetitive" coal and steel, of surplus truck production (DAF) are all part of the process, while nearly filly million people have an income less than half the average in their country. 'The "shake our', rationalisations, mergers and cuts in public spending and the human misery it brings, are all pare of the attempt by European capitalism to compete with its main rivals. The objective of establishing European Union, potentially a 'Fortress Europe' - one of three competing power bloes in the world - is entirely reactionary, not only because of its immediate and shon term consequences for the conditions of exploitation of the working class in Europe, but in its super-exploitation of the underdeveloped workl, which will now include Eastern Europe. Fortress Europe will also be a major determining factor in global politics with its longer term dangers of major conflicts and wars.
The ground for a European security and military policy is being prepared by clauses in the Maastricht Treaty and hy the franco-German proposad for a European army and oher forms of military co-operation. Al the contre of this disuession is the future role of NATO, which will be based on a more equal parnersip with the USA and with new objectives which correspond to the post-war scenario, ie. its guns will he directed towards the south and not just the perceived threat from the cast.
However, the drive towards European union has not been without its difficulties for the bourgeoisie. Differen interests have led to sharp tensions and rivalry. These must be exploited by the left.
Maastricht and the Crisis of the ERM The most important goal of the Maastricht Treaty is the establishment of a single European currency and bank. This is essential not only for economic integration but the establishment of a monetarist regime across Western Europe that can break up the main elements of the welfare state. The tready sets out three stages toward a single currency. The central instrument of the first phase is the
Exchange Rate Mechanism. The second stage in 1994 is the complete abolition of exchange controls, followed at the end of the decade, after a period of convergence, by the single currency (the Eco).
The ERM is a fundamental stage in the key objective of monetary union. Tes current crisis, which bas by no means run its course, is a major setback for the Maastriche process. The world recession is laking its toll on the weaker economies such as Britain, but also in today's conditions, currency speculation is on a scale which is often beyond the control of national banks, as we saw in the Furope wide financial turmoil last autumn.
According to the Bank of Incemational Senlements (BIS), European Banks had to lend s203 billion to bolster the collapsing ERM during last September's currency speculation. Tus currency chaos, which culminated in so-called Black Wednesday, saw first the devaluation of the Malian lire, followed by the withdrawal and free-fall of the lire and the pound. The Spanish poseta and the Portuguese escudo were also forced to devaluc, though both currencies were able to remain inside the ERM, while the French franc and Danish krone just survived. They staved oft the attack only by drawing heavily on the resources of the German Bundesbank and by increasing domestic interest rates sharply. Speculators and the big banks were the beneficiaries of this fiasco with, according to BIS, banks in the City of London increasing their assets by $61 billion, closely followed by a $5l billion rise by the Benelux banks (Luxembourg is the centre of Euro-Deutschmark trading).
But the pressure is still on the weaker currencies. The Spanish government's sharp sbift in attitude to a two speed Fusope which it had previously rejected reflects these pressures. The shill came after renewed pressure on the peseta in February this year, which suggests that it could be the next currency to fall our of the ERM. This is in line with Delors' earlier, much critcised statement, suggesting that both Spain and Porngal would need a transitional period' Preparing for this abour turn, Gonzales said of European Monetary Union (EMU) that 'in terms of the history of Europe, it isn't particularly important whether it happens in 1997 or 1999. It is more important that the signatories to Maastricht make it clear there is no altemative.'
Britain and Europe.
As European capitalist integration proceeds, Britain cannot afford to be left out, both for economic and geo political reasons. But a full union is not without its contradictions and will require considerable political and economic upheavlal. As the Major government cajoles and kicks resistant sections of the British establishment into Europcan union, it is not accidental that the crisis over the monarchy has erupted. However, more fundamental than the future of this outdated but hallowed institution, are the economic considerations.
Historically, British capitalism has been the most "imernationalised' capitalism with the whole globe as its oyster. A very high proportion of its assets lay outside the United Kingdom, hence the special role of the City of London as a centre of international finance and commodity markets. With the decline of the British Empire, however, British capital made an historic compromise with dominant US capital and settled in as its 'first lieutenant'. British overseas markets, assels and financial operations, increasingly in the United States itself, became more and more dependent on US military hegemony. This 'special relationship' was consolidated by the post war sellement imposed by Us imperialism.
Atlanticism remained the main pillar of British ruling class strategy until the post-war boom ran out of steam wilh the arrival of a long wave of recession which followed the collapse of Bretton Woods currency agreement in 1971, the attempts of the USA to foist the cost of the Vietnam War on its allies and the 1974 oil crisis. British capitalism made a belated turn towards Europe (as a result of which Germany is now Britain's biggest market). This cremed powerful new contradictions herween the British market for goods and its international financial operations, which during the 1980s brought a massive outflow of capital primarily to the USA. These contradictions have led to binter conflicts within the ruling class over monetary and state policies. Today the majority of big capital wants to be part of a free market Europe. This is particularly true of those stronger, more competitive manufacturing and service sectors orientated towards the European markets. These companies see Britain's future as part of a greater Enropean Union. If the fill benefits of Europe are to he realised, these companies need not only markets but monetary and political union.
Other sectors, whose operations are focused elsewhere, are more divided; while many smaller, uncompetitive companies are definely opposed to Maastricht and its consequences. Mrs Thatcher and her right-wing Euro sceptic allies, deploying traditional Tory nationalist and populist rhetoric, reflect the pressures of those sectors.
However, John Major has also made concessions to this wing of the Tory party in order hold the party together, negotiating varions opt-outs, and has argued that he remains opposed to the federal state idea. In the House of Commons, he insisted that 'we need a definition - a selled order - of what is for national action and what is for Community action.' So, by seizing on the principle of "subsidiarity' together with various temporary opt-outs, Major believes he can construct a majority pro Maastricht consensus in the Tory Party. However, in a deepening world recession, the anti-Europe lobby have gained ground, Ciermany is prioritising its own interests — atracting Tinance, through high interest rates, in order to fund the high costs of unification. And despite
Kohl's strong support for Maastricht and the unity of the 12 EC member states, neing ical for resures in pray es and pricail tonion in Faster. Europe, with its poemial big market and low labour costs. Therefore, Britain's allempts it slowing down the dynamic towards a federal state, now has some support within Germany. This is just one example of how the conflicting interests of the different European capitalisms make the unification process very difficult.
Maastricht: a weapon directed against the working class It has become increasingly clear that integration will be on the tens of the richest and most powerful member - Germany. If Germany is developing into the dominant political and economic heartland of the new Europe, Britain is developing into a low pay, under skilled, assembly economy, over reliant on financial services in the City - the so-called ice-crcam cconomy'. This is the real reason the Hoover company shifled its low tech production from France to Scotland, to find a cheaper workforce in the low-cost British sweatshop. This process only sets worker against worker.
Monetary union and fiscal harmonisation will exacerbate this trend and exact a heavy price from the working class of Europe. It will mean that the banks have a free hand to impose monetarism, deflation, cconomic restructuring, to force through massive public spending cuts, (eventually to at least the level existing in the USA and Japan), creating a more mobile, cheaper labour force, through the discipline of mass unemployment. When the treaty is put together with the racist Schengen agreement, the Council of Ministers and other undemocratic institutions, a frightening picture of 'Fortress Europe' emerges. Cutting 'excessive government deficits" (Article 104c) has already ded to the first anti-Maastricht strikes in Italy and Greece. In haly, massive cuts in the welfare state broughn hundreds of thousands onto the streets, protesting al attempts 1o roll the wheel of history backwards towards the 19th century. The ceiling or 'reference value' for the public borrowing requirement (planned yearly deficit) in the treaty is only three per of GDP, while it is 60 per cent for the ratio of totat government debt to GDP. Already in Britain the amount the goverment has to borrow has jumped from £19 billion in 1991 lo approximately £33 billion in 1992 which is already over five per cent of GDP, while City analysts suggest that the 1993 requirement will be over f45 billion, mainly because of the recession. Who but the working class are going to pay for this deficit? Massive cuts of at least £12 billion in publie services and social securily, plus increased taxation, plus inflation are the order of the day.
If a future Labour government wished 1o embark on a crash programme of public works, building hospitals, schools, housing which resulled in å breach of this ceiling, sanctions could be imposed, such as fines and the calling up of credit frun British banks. In reality a Labour government which was Dol prepared to mobilise the mass of working people in opposition to this capitalist logic and crack the treaty wide open, would have to drastically cut public expenditure. Alsn, the poorer regions which rely heavily on a redistribution of wealth through public expenditure, will be substantially effected. Maybe this is why John Smith is quite prepared to remain an uninspiring tea-cosy in opposition for the next few years and let the Tories do the dirty work. As Socialist Oulook argued, '... it is not just the welfare state which will be crushed by this deflationary regime. In every country but Germany the economy depends on open or hidden state subsidies and support. Without it, important areas of European industry - those outside the German-dominated industrial centre of Europe are going to suffer.'
The labour bureaucracy and the 'social chapter'
The attitude of the Labour and trade union bureaucracy to Maastricht and a united capitalist Europe flows from its historic attachments to 'modernising' and "progressive" sectors of the industrial bourgenisic, particularly if those sectors labour burcaucracy is to integrate the British economy into the larger European marker, with the addition of the Social Chapter.
Many trade unionists still think that the EC will extend workers' democratic and social rights chrough harmonisation' opwards and the 'Social Charter". This is the approach promoted by the TUC and the Labour leaderships.
Unfortunately, with Major's opt-outs and the idea of 'subsidiarity' there has been a full-scale retreat on the Social Europe, which, in any casc, was created as i sop to make Maastricht acceptable to working people. But the Labour and union bureaucracy has, in reality, turned a blind eye to this. They still hope against hope that the Europeans will delend workers' rights withont them having to organise any struggle. They also see an advantage in deferring to Europe in order to get themselves off the hook. it can be used as an alibi when in government and they have to explain anti-working class policies. Al bollom the labour bureaucrats think the new bosses' Eumpe can be reformed. This is even repeated by some on the left. But this approach represents the self-delusion of a bureaucracy which is attempting desperately do find a niche for itself in the new capitalist order. What is happening in reality is the watering
down of the Social Chaner with all its provisions subject to the principle of "subsidiarity'.
, ie the righe of national goverments not to implement it. In part this is due to the intervention of the Tory goverment, but also to the fact that the Commumty es controlled by the Christian Democratic bloc of nght-wing capitalist partes. To date not a sungle social directive bas been unplementod. The so-called Social Europe is not abour the altruism and generosity of Europe's bosses. It has two functions. First it is designed as a palliative to persuade and cajole the working class and the labour bureaueracy to accept European integration. les second function, insofar as it was intended to be implemented, was to impose higher social securily and wage costs on cheap-labour economies like Greece and Portugal. This was because Germany feared the shifting of production away from its own area, where social and wage costs are very highhence the German canpaign against "social dumping'
. John Major wants to keep sweatshop Britain as an area of social dumping, hence his vigorous opposition to the Social Chapter. Stressing the "principle' of "subsidiarity' Britain has already achieved ope outs on a number of spocific social clauses, for example te ken year ope on on implementing the 48 bour week! In the end, Germany and France will accept non implementation of the Social Chapter, for the greater good of moving towards unity.
Il is becoming clear that unless a better political balance of forces can be achieved, nothing progressive will be made into law. 'Subsidiarity' means that whole areas in the social, cultural and economic spheres will remain the responsibility of the nationat states. There will be nothing from Europe on minimum pay or cqual pay or the right to strike and organise solidarity actions. The Commission will mainly deal with supra-nationat issucs such as finance. currency, trading laws, customs and immigration, and won't touch anything else. In so far as the EC does deal with other questions, it will depend on the balance of forces. The stress is on harmonisation', usually downwards, rather than raising workers" rights up to the highest levels.
In addition, and contrary to public perceptions, the Furopean Court of Justice has a very narrow scope. It is made up of judges on life-long sinecures, whose political colouring will be more reactionary in the future rather than its majority liberal-social democratic colouring of today. Neither is it the case that European Court is particularly liberal today, as some on the left believe. One of the Court's directive has been the right' not to belong to a trade union! Another has been on pensions, where equal pension rights were granted to women, but only provided that they work until they are 65.
Article 13 of che Social Chapter does inchules the right do strike, but this is subject to 'national obligations'.
. The Tory anti-union laws impose many such obligations which, in effeet mean that this right has been taken away. When Ken Gill enquired about this anomaly, he was informed, according to the lawyer who
Maastricht: The Criss of European Integration drafted the reply, that there was nothing the Commission would or could do about it! In reality one of the main aspects of Maastricht is that anything to do with collective bargaining as going to be removed from European control and vested in the national state.
At the same time the European bourgeoisics are clearly making conscious attempts to integrate and enmesh the trade union bureaneracy into the developing Euro-state burcaucracy, and this policy is working. The idea of bosses and workers as "social partners", and of 'social dialogue' • are not only fraudulent, but are a danger to the trade unions. Supposedly the employers and the unions are "consulted" through such institutions as the 'European Workers Council.' The terminology of the treaty refers an "worker's representatives" in this Council, an ambiguous formula being seized on by the Tory Government as being not necessarily union representatives. Representatives could be elected through other means, a mechanism which could be used in countries or industries where trade unionism is weak to challenge the legitimacy of the unions and even lead to de-recognition by the employers.
In practice the 'social dialogue' is dominated by the employers who have greater weight in decision and policy making, through numerous governmental, business, and informal lobbies and contacts, than do the unions, Laws are being used and reinterpreted, to the detriment of trade unionism and for the promotion of new management techniques, thus undermining the role of the unions. Unfortunately, the hankering by the union barcaucrats after the old "corporatism' at home under Labour, where they rubbed shoulders with the great in the corridors of power, has resulted in their enthusiastically welcoming their new prestige in Europe. They express joyful relief at the fact that they are not institutionally excluded, with their role as negotiators and mediators being in part restored. They thankfully accept all kinds of EC funding and perks. Further, there are discussions about new super unions on a European scale; supra-national union structures with yet another layer of unaccountable bureaucracy. This will simply create another excuse for inactivity and passivity on the part of the New Realists - they can blame the comrades in Europe. Such structures, of course, will not be used to facilitate direct links between workers in struggle; on the contrary, they will be used at best to mediate and at worst to deflect this necessary development.
All this explains the extraordinary volte-face of the bureaucracy, who, five years ago were in their majority opposed to the EC. Now, the overwhelming majority support the Maastricht Treaty, While 60 Labour MPs have voted against, only NAIGO among British unions has taken a stand against the treaty at its conference and this was against the advice of the platform.
The El and Maastricht is not a secondary question for trade unionists or
socialists. The rank and file must not allow the bureaucracy to become beguiled by the bosses' Furope and tamely go along with it. It is a scandal that opposition 10 Maastricht has been left to a few left MPs, with the pace being set by the most right wing populist press and Thatcherite politicians. In fact it is dangerous. When a reaction against a capitalist Europe grows, as the implications are fully realised, it will be right wing forces who will be well-placed to gain from this, while the leadership of the labour movement will once again have mud on its face and lake part of the blame.
Maastricht plus Schengen equals a racist 'Fortress Europe'
The 1985 Schengen agreement deals with questions of citizenship, immigration and civil liberties. It is the foundation stone of future arrangements for the whole of the FC. Whilst citizens and residents have extensive rights to move their place of residence within the Community, a wall is being erected against immigrants and asylum seckers from outside. Anyone barred from one country will be barred from all. Increased co-operation between immigration and security services will step up surveillance throughout the EC, in the name of fighting crime and 'terrorism'
While Article 8b of the treaty gives the right to citizens to stand and vote in municipal and European elections in any EC country in which they are resident, the same right does not exist in national elections. Maastrich will not advance the democratic rights of millions of immigrants' (for example in France and Germany) who are already excluded from national elections.
Article 100c of the Maastricht Treaty reinforces the Schengen approach when it proposes that the European Council, on the recommendation of the Commission, will be responsible for determining the countries whose nationals require a visa do enter the EC. Individual states will not be able 1o challenge this ruling. The Treaty will allow the Council, 'in the event of an emergency situation in a third country posing a threat of a sudden inflow of nationals from that country into the Community' to introduce a visa requirement on nationals from the country in question, without any recourse to any democratic process.
Such a draconian clampdown coutd be imposed on the refugees from Bosnia for example, or people fleeing from a crisis in the Indian sub-continent, or the Magreh. Relatives of these peoples in Britain or France, would not even know about it until the victims were turned back at Heathrow or airports in France. These laws will be combined with the new agreements on asylum seckers, including the specific national laws such as the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill in Britain. Many commentators, including the Financial Times have warned that the new tough policy on immigrants is designed to exclude
those asylum seckers who are victims of torture and rape in civil wars. Thus the capilalise Europe being put in place by the Maastricht process, behind the rhetoric of free movement of citizens and liberalisation of border controls, is a Furope which sets its face against the outside world. Fortress Furope is aimed against both immigrants and the third world. It encapsulates a 'get tough' approach to both imperialist rivals such as Japan and the US, as well as with third world cconomies.
The get tough' policy towards immigrant workers and asylum seekers gives a dangerous boost to growing racism and fascist movements across Europe. Movements like the Front National in France and the Northern Leagues in Italy are growing because of the desperation of sections of the middle classes with the endless economic crisis; and they bave won support from some demoralised sections of the working class.
All diese movements scapegoat immigrant workers and asylum seekers. The crisis in caster Europe sparked off a process of impoverished refugees moving westwards, especially into Germany. The Fortress Europe mentality, sparking alarm and panic about the black and third world masses at Europe's periphery, will duly give ground to the racists.
As the effects of Maastricht and monetary union become apparent, the way coulo be open for a wave of regionalism and anti-federalist nationalism in response. There are growing signs of it already in several European countrics. Areas hit hard as production and limited prosperity become concentrated around the German dominated core of the continent will rebel. Anti-Germanism is likely to grow in France and the poorer EC countries.
The ugliness of a Fortress Furope is also highlighted by the plans to create a milied military structure in Europe; a rapid deployment force composed of french and German troops has already been created. Who will they rapidly deploy against, especially given the end of the Cold War? The strategic interests of the dominant sections of European capital lie ahove all on Europe's periphery • Africa and the Middle Fast. French and Belgian troops are currently deployed in several African countries.
A European "peace keeping' force aims to keep the peace for capital. The gun turrets once aimed at the Sovict Union are now being aimed against the impoverished third world masses. This the reality of Fortress Europe. The socialist alternative The nature of the Maastricht Treaty is clear, It is a political, legal and economic framework, in which even a finiter bourgeois democracy is trampled on in lavour of rule by unaccountable banks; it is a mondarist framework in which
price stability and fiscal constraint lake procedence over all other considerations growth will be replaced by deflation and unemployment. There are no ceilings for levels of unemployment, it isn't even mentioned. Even a Keynesian, social democratic policy is more or less outlawed, not to mention socialist planning. No socialist can fight against Maastricht on the basis of defending a capitalist Brilain. As Tony Benn says in the attached interview, we don't want a capitalist Britain outside of a united capitalist Furope: we want a socialise Britain in a socialist Europe. That's why, at every stage, socialists have lo propose a Europe-wide alternative to what the bosses want.
Al the same time, we cannot simply abstain on the question of Maastricht, on the grounds that if we don't get Maastricht we will just get another fonn of capitalism. That approach is sectarian and ultra-left. For Maastricht represents a direct attack on working people and their interests; and especially it represents part of a co-ordinated attempe to smash up the wellare state. That's why Socialist Outlook supports the call for a democratic referenlum on the issue. Wo also call on the Labour leadership to abandon its hi partisan on this important democratic issue.
The 'Altematives do Maastricht Campaign' launched by Socialist Forum also supports this demand and aims to widen a recognition of Maastricht's anti-welfare, anti-Keynesian and anti-democratic content. It wishes to promote dialogue with socialists, trade unionists and anti-racists throughou Europe around alternatives to the 'Treaty.
Unfortunately much of the broader discussion on the left has remained within a • Keynesian framework, which can be summed up as: reject the narrow Maastriche Treaty, pursue a policy of reflation and growth through Keynesian policies and government intervention. Ken Livingstone gives dis ulopian policy a sharper edge with a call for massive cuts in the arms bill in order to finance services and growth.
While socialists must support such cuts in the arms bill, the left needs a more fundamental alternative to the bosses" Furope in order to defeat it. National planning would not solve the problems of a deepening world recession which, in the absence of a radical socialist alternative, could throw the workers movement further into nitreas. The question is posed at a rumber of levels. Can the organised left develop not just a strategic socialist altemative which breaks from the logic of capitalism and create growth, but an action programme or platform that can save jobs and impose social protection?
In November, 1991, Tony Beno made an intervention into this debate when he introduced a private members bill in Parliament on a new Europcan-wide cooperation, part of which is a 'Charter of Social Rights'
Ale was presented as an alternative to the Maastricht Treaty which he has consistenly opposed. It
aim of a fundamentally different, democratic commonwealde of all the peoples of Europe, east and west is totally unacceptable do the bourgooisic. Its main function so far has been to stimulate public debate and influence opinions. We are against a Fortress Europe which intensifies the exploitation of the working class throughout Furope as well as the masses in the semi-colonial world, and further aims to 'Latin Americanise' the collapsing states of eastern Europe, reducing them to the level of dependent capitalist states. At the same time we are against right wing nationalist arguments: we do not defend the narrow confines of the national state, we stand for a United Socialist States of Europe, cast and west. Internationalism and solidarity must he to the fore.
The Europe we want is one which prioritises the needs of working people against profit, promotes equality for women, fights racism and defends the environment. A real 'social Europe' can only he a socialist Europe. We are for a broader, democratic workers' Furope. We suppore the idea of a genuine Constituent Assembly of all the peoples of Europe, 10 determine the future of Europe. We are for loans, aid do and the elimination of punitive trading laws with Eastern Europe and the ex-Sovict Union, withour strings. Seconlly we are for workor's solidarity against the capitalist trusts and multinationals. We are for building direct links between workers and democratic accountability for all Euro-union officials.
Only the independent mass action of the working class, as we have begun to see in Italy, Greece, Belgium and other Puropean countries, can confront and defeat the power of international capital and its states forms.
A socialist Europe is not an immediate option which can be put in place by some referendum or constitutional measure. It is a goal which has to be fought for. The raw material for that struggle is the the huge range of struggles which exist in Europe, the vast power of the workers movement, the battles around ecology, anti-militarism, the huge mobilisations there have been against racism and fascism.
Tens of millions of the citizens of Europe know that the present system has brough only economic crisis and decay, and poverty and hopelessness many of their fellow citizens. Maastricht will only worsen this situation. There is an alternative and it must be fought for now.