JOHN PALMER, European editor of the Guardian and leading member of the Socialist Society, argues for a qualified 'yes to Maastricht in the latest issue of Socialist In arguing for a yes' without itlusions, he says that the problem with the treaty is that it is not federalist enough, leaving all power in the hands of national governments, and the nonelected Counail of Ministers which represents those governments.
On this Palmer is absolutely right. The 'Europe' now being constructed is undemocratic to the core. Why vote for John Palmer's position is that the left should not oppose the process of European integrabion, but fight for in creased federalism through democratising the existing structures of the EC.
This would centrally involve fighting to give the European parliament real power, rather than its current decoraEve function; and devolving power downwards to the regions.
Democratising the EC is anillusion. The whole structure and meaning of the EC, before and after Maastricht, is based on agreements between governments, through secret discusThe central non sequitur Palmer's argument is to be found in the following passage:
Should the left have voled against Maastent! No. because a caiBal tor would mean less democracy. more inter government talism, less power to the European parliament and regions, less priority to social and citizens' rights, less defence of the environment, more unpolice, immigration and security policy, and untrammeled priority for the internal market 'The logic of this is baffling. All the evis wrich vor ramer enumerales as consequences of not having the treaty are in fact consequences of having it. And he makes no reference 0 to key quosoons of money; policy and budget cutting which are Central to Maastricht.
Federalism
According to Paimer 'all consistent left or green/socialist strategies for Europe are 100 per cent federalist in inspiration. Yes, a federal Europe is what the left should fight for; but we should not be partisans of a capitalist 'federal Europe which is in fact undemocratically controlled by governments.
rammer aroues sucnely or the development of Europe-wide movements of the worione dass and the oppressed, a Europe-wide trade union movement, and pan-European politcal programmes. Again this is perfectly correct; but why does it imply sup. port for Maastricht?
Underpinning much of John Palmer's argument is the idea that the
Home News_