But Major's gush of anti-Europe beef bile 1s about more than saving his own mothcaren noe.
The terminal crisis of British Conservatism is itself intimately linked to the failure of the European bourgeoisie to overcome their long-term political and economic crisis.
The never-ending uncertainty over monetary and political union arises out of the combined crises of the traditional parties of big capital, the impasse of social democracy and the continuing capacity of ine working class to resist tne austenty ortensive It takes a different form in every country, but the overall pattern is clear.
To a greater or lesser extent, Europe has relied on the US for the most part of a centurv. Its money was crucial in over. coming the wave of social revolution that began in 1916, went on to conquer state power in Russia and threatened capitalism all over Europe for nearly a decade.
After the Second World War the Dawes and Young support svstems were re-lived in the Marshall Plan's huge subsidy package.
It was the only way of getting western European capitalism on its feet again— battered empires in Asia, bourgeoisies discredited by lascism and a resurgent soviel Union, all forced the USA to intervene to prop up the system.
The arrangement was tempered bv the recession of the late sixties and early seventies-the end of Bretton Woods in the 1970s and the hike in oil prices marked a changing strategy. The USA became less able to dole out the dollars.
This put the European ruling classes in a bind.
Ever since they have struggled to find a solution. The European Communitynow the European Union—was an attempt to find a new way forward.
But Euro-capital has always faced special problems in relation both to the USA, and Japan and the far East. And this relatve weakness is not primarily caused by national division.
Because of the social settlement after the war European capitalism was obliged to shape its patterns of accumulation around a developed system of welfare.
Parties basea on ine organised working class developed a mass politics of welfarism and trade unions were able to win a position of influence in the corporate state.
This explains in part why US productivity has been generally higher than Europe.
On top of these advantages, the States' main mulary comoentor-ne Jookwas not a capitalist country. And the only other capitalist country capable of presenting a challenge to Uncle Sam was divided into Western Germany and the GDR.
Maastricht is the latest development in the attempt to overcome these innate weaknesses of Euro-capital. To achieve the level of profitability they desire will require a complete re-working of the postwar order.
The convergence criteria aims to limit overall total debt to sixty per cent of GDP. It means a massive onslaught on iobs and conditions, increasing unemployment, cracking down on immigrant communities and moving power increasingly to ue ecree Dankers.
The bitter fruits of the proposals are already being gathered. Long-term unemployment is at record levels throughout the Union-at least twenty million.
Yet despite the bourgeoisie's willingness to sign up to crippling cuts in state spending, they have not been able to per"it hurts suade ineir populations that therefore it works".
Profound political crises are gripping every conna that tries to qualifv for monetary union-from Sweden Austria, from France to Italy.
It is a bit of a problem for the bourgeoisie-parties that lead the way in implementing Maastricht get booted out of office at the first opportunity.
The parties that represent the interests of big capital, like the British Conservatives, have traditionally relied upon the support of sections of the petit bourgeoisie-small shopkeepers, farmers and small workplaces.
But this sector is getting a hammering in the new Europe- -small enterprises are being ariven out or business quicker than you can say Barclays Bank start-up loan.
This is due to the concentration of European capital and its penetration into retail and agriculture.
Such a break down at the base of the big parties of canitalism provides the conditions for a new rise of the far right all over Europe.
The ridiculous war footing of the cabinet is Major's Little England version of the same. He is trying to cash in quick, hoping that a summer of Blair's response has been predictably pathetic chauvinism will re-unite the reactionary alliance at the core of the Tory party and tap into the deep-seated chauvinism of British culture. Blair's response has been predictably pathetic, swinging in behind the Tories with a completely politically impoverished argument over National Unity. A campaign in the labour movement against Maastricht is long overdue. We need to add our voice to the debate For all the cappuccino drunk in Islington. Blair has not been willing to publicly break from the Little Englandism of his Conservative colleagues... much to the annoyance of the soft-left intellectuals he is trying to court at the moment.
And a sack-load of spin does not make up for the fact that behind the rhetoric there is a massive void of policy. Just what is a Labour government going to do about health cuts? About unemployment? About peet tor that matter!
It is clear to most activists in the la. bour movement that Blair's radicalism does not extend much further than re-labelling the doors on the corridors of Hoping to benefit from the Tory crisis over European direction by turning the Labour Party into the champion of integration only makes his unwillingness to break against Maastricht is long overdue. We need to add our voice to the dehate Increasingly the implication of Maastricht are becoming generally apparent as European governments continue to try to force through cuts.
The attacks on welfare and the rise of the far right are all products of the same process. Those who defend Maastricht, or try to work within its framework—-such as large sections of the British intelligentsia-—will find their line completely discredited.
Blair's strategy will flounder almost immediately—people simply will not accept the destruction of the welfare state for ine sake or monetary union.
This is why the new Alternatives to Maastricht initiative sponsored by over fifty Labour MPs is so important.
The platform rejects both Maastricht's sado-monetarist framework and the jingoism of the right.
The left has to fight for an alternative to the bosses' Europe, one based on full employment and democratic control rather than isolation and nationalism.
This can only be achieved by linking the battles inside the labour movement to the struggles of those at the sharp end of the Euro-offensive.
Ine lett has to work toward an alterna tive that shows a way out of canitalist decline and crisis. The Alternatives to Maastricht conference helps make this possible. • For more information send donations and support to : A Peoples Europe c/o Alan Simpson MP, House of Commons, London SWIA OAA.
Alternatives to Maastricht Conference