the labour March 13, 1993 No. 39 movement Some people on the left suspect that campaigning against Maastricht gives cover to right wing nationalism, 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. se Min Thatcher The idea that because Mrs Thatcher discovered that foreigners start at Dover tums it into a right-wing campaign 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 defeat the government on the issue; if we had a Labour government it would be the left critique of Maastricht getting all he publicity The proponents of Maastricht want to present the anti-Maastricht campaign in a way which alienates liberal opínion, 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 leaders agree about Major, Smith 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 over Maastricht.
But of course there's nothing strange in politics about people taking a similar view on something for totally different reasons. yve cans actermune a proper socialist attitude to the bankers' Maastricht Europe simply on the basis that it's excluded in all circumstances to go inte he same voting lobby as Teddy Taylor trade union bureaucracy has come out in favour of 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 Burope 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 Scotland was the beneficiary because we're becoming a low-wage but this is a product of the Treaty of Rome. You have free move ment of capital. So capital comes to Britain where wages are low; and the free movement of labour is into the dole queues. Does the view of the trade THERE HAS been little information about the real meaning of the 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 Britain all the laws decided in Europe have been imposed by Royal Prerogative. It's the first time since the execution of Charles 1 that laws have been made ov without consulting parliament. a socialist one? THE CHARTER of Rights in the Bill is a very radical series of measures. It doesn't enforce socialism, but it certainly makes the European model or capitarsm impossibie, because it lays down that everyone is entitled to work, and a home and to join a trade union. and so on. hese are demands that people can rally around.
But the British establishment wants Maastricht, the City of London wants it, as does the IMi. the intemational finan. cial markets, the newspaper proprietors 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' But in reality the social chapter is a bit of a fraud. It'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 BY VOTING against Maastricht last time the Danes put themselves at the heart of Europe, not as Major says outside of Europe. If they vote 'no' again, then Britain won't go in. And Kohl said just yesterday they might have to go ahead with a 'core 10 countries. But 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 has to be said that the near-unanimity 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 realised? 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 between states, and the interests of different groups of capitalists conflict.
But my worry is that a failure of Maasdone, could lead to a rise of reactionary British for Hoover, the British will blame the Americans will blame the Europeans for subsidising the Airbus.
So we've got to find a way of bullding a substructure of working class links in Europe, and not only in Europe, to preiry and right-wing forces. a Fifth International, a common assodation 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 people 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 detend 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 capitalist 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 Euro-nationalism' preparing to the United States and Japan for world dominance. And this Euro-nationalism is not internationalism at all, it's the oppoIf the EC is about defending capitalism, then why have the French socialists about to pay price of Mitterand's failure main social democratic parties in Europe all adopted such enthusiastic pro-EC policies? IT'S WELL WORTH reflecting on this question. In my opinion because of the collapse of socialist confidence, and a collapse of understanding about what socialism means. Looks at Yeltsin; he was the secretary of the Moscow Communist Party, and now he'sso far to the right of Thatcher he makes her look like a progressive. The Socialist parties became career structures. You joined a Socialist party and got into power; you became a minister. Then you expelled dissidents, distanced yourself from struggle and hoped to establishment would accept you as one of the two ruling parties.
Nobody in these parties discusses I can understand the Labour leadership not aiscussins sociansa, since taey don't have the remotest idea what it is; but vou think they d discuss capitalism and its crisis. But all they discuss it Major, Lamont and Heseltine.
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 throughout human history.
But these values have been totally neglected, so there's a gap which is filled by trying to strengthen capitalism, while It's the same its always been, throwing workers on the floor and allowing the privileged and rich elite to Tan runs. What can be done to turn around the present difficult situation for the working class and socialism? THE FIRST 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 tirst thing to do is to get people asking basic questions again - why are we poor, we are we unemployed, why does every family in this country spend £30 a week on weapons before they this basic question, you're half way to a socialist analysis, and 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 curse there are no longer 750,000 coal miners going underground. But this idea that because the occupanonal stucture of te working class has changed, there's no hope for socialism, as Marxism Today used to say before it went bust, is an absolute illusion.
Two hundred years ago the working class were agricultural labourers. Then they became industrial workers, like the people in the shanty towns in the third world today.
Then many became employed in small businesses, in hi-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 own things or do you work? And by that definition the working class is very much alive But the situation of the working clas: isdifficult today because the debt chains have been added to unemployment. Becoming unemployed can be a real per1930s, you can lose your house and savi people are worried about challenging the boss. There's a real groundswell t anger, but it's partly frozen by fea ind it's denied an outlet. because tr leadership of socialist parties have stopped talking about any alternative -except let's give us a chance to run things.
We'll see now what will happen in Australia, where the Hawke and Keating Labour goverments have simply been running capitalism in a Yeltsin-like way. Probably they won't be re-elected, and no wonder. Indeed what is the hope for working people if the only choice is between hatcher and Kinnack?
Indeed, obliterating hope is the worst thing you can do, because that is the seed-bed of fasdsm. And we've seen a very disturbing growth of the far right in Europe as a consequence of this.
So the left has to fill the vacuum with argument, analysis, historical understanding and future perspectives, which can win support from a wide range of people.
But still, coming back to Maastricht, isn't there a problem about outlining a socialist alternative to it ? The left can identify the undemocratic and deflationary character of the Maastricht process, but what do we propose? THAT'S RIGHT. negative criticism on its own is inadequate, because we don't want a capitalist Britain living outside a capitalist Europe, we want a socialist Britain in a socialist Europe. That means you've got to have a much stronger socialist association across Europe and the world, and is precisely why I'm fighting for this idea of a Fifth International 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 rought up in a socialist home, I ined the Labour Party on my 17t birthday. I campaigned for Labour on the troop 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 ycars.
Everything I've leared in this period nas acopenea my understandins of the nature of capitalism, and made me want it. it's not fundamentally d 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 future.
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, out 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 politial campaign, and things have begun t change he probler is the lack of leadership given by the Labour and trade union leaders. I do a tremendous number of meetings, so people won't give up and sit at home watching Inspector Morse. I try to encourage people to continue the struggle - that's my funetion in life.
Maastricht: The Crisis of European Integration Interviews with Tony Benn MP and Peter Gowan (New Left Review editorial board) and an article by Dare Packer Price £1.50 plus 50p p&p Send to: Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109, London N4 20U No. 39 March 13, 1993
union leaders reflect opinion in the country?
Is the European Commonwealth you propose