agree to open their borders to the poor people of the east. Some are already talking about being "swamped" after enlargement. Rightwing populists and neo-fascists from Haider in Austria to the Vlaams Blok in Belgium and the Northern League in Italy are whipping up racism arouna Ine issue, lalkıng ol 'hordes" of impoverished people streaming in from the east and taking all the jobs. In practice the external boundaries of Fortress Europe are likely to remain where they are - between the poor countries of the east and the rich countries of the west. This is not easy but may be justified by some kind of 'transitional' arrangement with new conditions written into the treaty which triggers the process of enlargement.
The EU has been developing into a two-tier Europe: those inside the Euro-zone and those outside it. This has been formalised at Nice, with the decision that any eight countries (minimum) can go ahead as an "inner core" But enlargement creates another tier: the poor countries of the east.
However the final proposals shape up in 2004, one thing is clear enough: the new applicants are going to be offered a very raw deal indeed. And the assumption seems to be that the populations of the applicant countries will accept a raw deal.
This may not be so. It will be true of the governments, but not necessarily the people. It is true that at the present time that a lot of people in the ex-Stalinist states countries are trying to get into the richer west. But these countries have to have a referendum before they can join, and the outcome of that in some countries is not so certain.
in the Czech Republic, for example, for EU membership has dropped from three quarters to just over a half. It may be that people will want to hold out for a better deal, or that they may have seen more of the realities of the EU as its neo-liberal polices go deeper.
None of the existing members of the EU are likely to hold a referendum on Nice or on enlargement although some will be under pressure to do so. But Nice has to be ratified by the national Parliaments and there will be opposition around that.
The EU and integrationism have little popular support in many of the member states, apart from the poorest ones which receive cohesion funds. The Danish referendum was a shot across the bows for those who are marching down the road towards a federal super-state - particularly since it rejected entering the single currency in the teeth of opposition from every major political party and all the mainstream media. Nor was the vote based on British Tory-type nationalism, but on a genuine fear of a loss of democratic control.
The need is to build an opposition to the EU and the Euro which rejects completely the nationalist agenda of the Tory right.
We need a position which recognises that to oppose the EU and the single currency is also to defend the working class against the ravages of the neo-liberal offensive and the global economy as it is reflected through the institutions of the EU, which are designed to increase the rate of exploitation and destroy welfare and social provision. Greg Tucker AT THE BEGINNING of December, preparing for the Nice counter-summit the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (CR. French section of the Fourth International) acted as host to the second European conference of the anti-capitalist left. Around forty representatives of left parties and united left formations from eight countries attended the Paris meeting. Groups from three other states sent dooloses.
Building on relationships built at its first meeting in Lisbon, the conference renresents a further step forward in bringing together all those across Europe who see the need for a united opposition to capital's plan for Europe and want to struggle for another Europe - as the conference statement put it, "social, democratic, peaceful and based on workers' solidarity - a democratic socialist society".
The conference delegations eccentially broucht together the experiences of left unity across Europe - broad united left formations such as the Red Green Alliance from Denmark, the Left Block from Portugal, the Red Electoral Alliance from Norway, and the Socialist Alliance from England, with broad left parties/groups such as the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarité from Switzerland and far lett groups involved in united projects, notably the French LCR and the British SWP.
The Lisbon meeting had essentially been a "getting to know you" gathering. Paris has moved things forward with a useful discussion on the nature of the European Union - from broad principles to the specifics being discussed in Nice. This led to a joint statement being issued.
It is clear that across the continent of Europe there is a range of positions taken by the left on how you respond to the existence of the EU. Representatives from some organisations (particularly Britain and northern states) explained that they were part of a "withdrawal" movement in their own countries and that for them the break up of the EU was an option to fight for Others argued that for them the EU was an established reality, you had to fight for its radical transommato - nonIs reform but its replacement by a new truly democratic European unity.
Others, from states currently outside the EU, argued that it would be tactically to their advantage if their state were to be included in the EU. They took the view that, in or out, they were affected by EU policies and the overall effects of globalisation, and that it would be easier to fight these policies from within.
These broad tactical differences did not get in the way of moving forward on what did unite the meeting - an understanding that fighting the policies of European capital needs a united Europe-wide response from the left - "a joint struggle against the actual policies and institutions of the EU".
Concretely, the conference attacked the new stage in the history of the EU opened up in Nice. It pledged itself to oppose the rise of the EU's military power, represented by the creation of a European armed TorCa It opposed the form of expansion to the East, through economic conquest of Eastern Europe, calling instead for voluntary unity of the whole continent through working class solidarity and co-operation. In particular this means fighting for "the free movement of people... open immigration into the EU and ... the right to full citizenship". The meeting noted that EU policy is pushing forward the objectives of the WTO and pledged to oppose the institutional changes that would enhance this process, as part of a rising struggle against the impact of globalisation. And it opposed the introduction of the "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights", pointing out that, far from being a progressive statement, this charter is a radical setback, a step backwards from most national and international legislation which will be used to hold back advances in some states and roll back existing rights in others.
The conference could have discussed much more.
How practically do we actually work together to achieve our objectives? Are the ways we can learn from and build on the cooperation which developed between the British SWP and the French LCR in Nice?
Is there room for joint electoral work at the level of the European Parliament?
What can we do to build active solidarity between workers in struggle?
What are our policies towards existing Europe-wide institutions of the workers' movement, ETUC etc.?
But as French LCR MEP Alain Krivine pointed out at the press conference that closed the meeting, "we are still at the beginning of a process.' What was agreed was that the debate must continue. It is planned to reconvene in six months in the run up to the Gotenborg summit and in Brussels again six months later. These further discussions must take the process still further forward, looking at these practical issues.