THE TUC has had a busy week. As well as pledging to minimise industrial disputes, they have Issued a circular which aims to everse the groundswell of sup ort for the European March fol Jobs and against Exclusion.
The Euro-March has been winning tremendous backing beth from trade union organisations and unemployed centres.
That this should provoke a hostile TUC circular comes as no surprise to those who understand the craven fallure of the TUC leadership to defend workers' rights and its insistence on ignoring the detrimental effect of the Maastricht convergence criterla on jobs and services.
Indeed we might have expoctoo what to iuc soabotage would come earlier, before the able to bulld up such a head of steam.
In any event, while this intervention may sharpen political debates where the campaign for the marches is raised, with those whe have illusions that the paper tiger of the Social Chapter will bring an end to all evil given new confidence, we should by no Answering these who defend the Maastricht criteria will allow us to reach a broader audience We print here the response to the TUC's circular agreed by the Euro-March campaign in Britain, which not only exposes its inaccuracles but also, more impertantly, answers its political March 1st 1997 WE WRITE regarding the advice issued by the TUC Executive to Kegional TUes. rades Councils and unemployed centres not to support the European marches against unemployment and social exclusion, which begin across Europe in mid-April and converge at the IGC of the EC in Amsterdam in mid-June.
There appears to be a serious factual error in the advice you have issued. You say that in opposing participation in the marches you are following the lead of the European TUC who, you say, have already taken such a position.
We have been in contact with the ETUC and they say that this is not true. They have never discussed the marches let alone take a decision on them one way or another. There is a personal letter from Emilio Gabaglio saying that he feels that the ETUC should "keep our distance" from the marches. You imply an official position of opposition to the marches, which is a very different thing.
The substance of your objection to the marches however, is a far more scrious matter. You say that the marches are "anti-Maastricht" and cannot be supported for that It depends what you mean by "anti-Maastrichr". The basis of the campaign is not against the Maastricht Treaty as such but against the social effects of the Treaty as it exists, most importantly through the convergence criteria for the single currency (EMU) and the racist provisions of Schengen and Fortress Europe.
Within the campaign are those who are against the Treaty in principle and those who are not. We are unico in opposion to the clicts or the Treaty in its present form, principally its effects on employment and the welfare state.
You will be aware of the implications of the convergence criteria. To enter the single currency, each member state must reduce its public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) to below 3% of GDP.
Once inside the single currency, cach member state must maintain its PSBR below 3% permanently or face massive fines through the "Stability Pact agreed in Dublin. It goes without saving that the only way these requirements can be met forms: health, education, pensions, In this country it means billions single currency, more to meet its rules once inside. UNISON has estimated that this will mean the loss of 100,000 jobs.
The threat represented by the convergence criteria is not just SORCERERS recognised by paigners in Britain. Across Europe it has provoked the biggest wave of industrial action for decades. There actions in the majority of countries of the EU directly opposed to the social effects of EMU.
The European marches directly reflect that opposition. We do not support the nationalist opposition co Maastricht as expressed by the Tory right, but neither can we allow them to set the agenda.
The convergence criteria represent a massive attack on the working class right across Europe and there needs to be a working class re sponse right across Europe. This is reflected in the European day of action called by the ETUC on May 28th, which the Euro-marches will fully support, as well as in the EuroOur problem with the advice you "You say that in opposing participation in the marches you are following the lead of the tact with the ETUC ,and they say that they have never discussed the marches, let alone take a decision on them one way or another. ... You Imply an official position of opposition to the marches, which is a very different thing." are giving on this issue is not just that you oppose the European marches but that you appear oblivious to the dangers involved in the convergence criteria, in fact you don't even mention them.
This is a big problem since it is hard to defend jobs and services unless you recognise where the attack is coming from. It is even harder to defend jobs and services if you are in favour of European integration and in favour of a single Buropean currency under the conditions it is currently on offer, which seems to be the burden of TUC policy as adopted at last year's Congress.
The marches have gained wide andrew ward Busy wook stopping things happening: TUC General Secretary John Monks We have been in consupport in Britain and will go We call on you to reverse your decision on them; firstly because your interpretation of the position of the ETUC is wrong, and secondly because the basis of the European marches is not antiMaastricht per se.
Most importantly the Tuc should support the marches because we should all be united on the basic aims of the marches: the defence of iobs and services against unacceptable convergence criteria.
Glenn Voris For the British Euromarches committee EE WATERTRONT • SIDE AND BY ALL WIN 1996