The introduction of the Euro on January 1 has given new urgency to new Labour’s plans for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the single currency.
Blair thinks that the introduction of the Euro on the streets will open up a window of opportunity in which a referendum can be won as people travel in the Euro-zone and see the benefit of a single currency at that level.
This poses a challenge to the left in general and to the Socialist Alliance in particular - which should have a perspective of putting itself at the centre of the campaign for a no vote.
There is a problem, however. Although the SA adopted a position on the single currency for its manifesto in last year’s general election, this was a line that all the SA’s component organisations could accept – rather than a line that would hold water in a referendum.
The manifesto said the following:
"For a democratic and federal Europe based on solidarity and co-operation. Against the Europe of the bosses, the unelected European Central Bank, and the creation of "Fortress Europe" as a bastion of racism and exploitation. Against British nationalism and the raising of barriers between nations in Europe. No to the monetarist criteria for European Monetary Union – we neither advocate the Euro or defend the pound".
In fact the organisations involved in the SA are divided on how to vote in a referendum – and the SA as a whole has taken no position on this question.
Whilst the SWP has an analysis which would imply a vote no in an election (as do the Socialist Party, who have walked out of the SA) the CPGB, AWL and Workers Power already advocate an abstention.
Abstainers
Strongest of the abstainers (if that is not a contradiction in terms) is the AWL. They see the EU as a mixture of progressive features with others that are unacceptable. They are strongly opposed to any call for withdrawal, and call for reform.
They argue that it is up to the capitalists how they organise themselves and we should be neutral on the issue of the introduction of the Euro – simply fighting capitalism whatever form it takes. They counterpose the EU and the Euro to international workers solidarity and caricature those who oppose the euro as supporters of the pound.
This is a strange position to take. If the capitalist class change their form of rule (either on a national or international level) in a way which is detrimental to the working class (i.e. to one that is more effective in carrying through attacks on our rights) we should oppose it.
This does not mean we support the existing form of rule - it means we are opposed to a worse form.
We take this attitude to different bourgeois governments: we don’t just say that they are all capitalist. The idea that we could have been indifferent to the Thatcher governments of the 1980s or Berlisconi in Italy today turns political reality on its head.
When we say we are opposed to the single currency, this does not mean that we support the pound. It means that we are opposed to the alternative on offer at this time.
We oppose a reorganisation that is to the detriment of the working class. We have no interest in how many currencies the ruling class wants – only in how it will affect the class struggle. We oppose the single currency, not by supporting the pound but by defending the jobs and services and democracy that it puts under threat.
The AWL counterpose ‘workers’ unity’ to the EU and the Euro. But workers’ unity is a concrete issue. We always strive for it, but it takes place under given conditions. We are not in favour seeing the conditions of workers worsen in order to provoke an international response – not least because that is likely in practice to have the opposite effect.
Struggles
But there is another aspect to this. Although international solidarity is extremely important, the reality is that most struggles take place at the national level – even when the attack is international. This was the case even with the bulk of the strikes and demonstrations in different European countries against the introduction of the convergence criteria in the second half of the 1990s. Therefore to weaken the struggle at the national level is to weaken it at the international level.
Workers Power rightly see the EU is a union of big business interests manipulated by organisations like the Round Table of European Business leaders and the European Employers Association. They think it is a vehicle for neo-liberal economics aimed at the oppressed of the third world. They think it is racist towards immigrants and refugees.
Yet they call for an abstention rather than a ‘no’ vote because they want Britain to stay inside the EU in order to call for simultaneous social revolutions in each of the EU countries and then for the formation of a Socialist United States of Europe. No concessions to a transitional approach there then!
They put it this way:
"The workers of the EU must reject attempts to withdraw ‘their’ nation states from this entity, but rather combine our forces more urgently and militantly to overthrow the bureaucracies in each state and in Europe as a whole. We want to build a Socialist United States of Europe with real democratic rights for all and free from exploitation by the big corporations and militarism".
Don’t we all?
The CPGB argue that although the EU is indeed a reactionary institution, and that the Euro project is aimed directly at the European working class, they cannot call for a no vote because the campaign against it is reactionary as well.
Well, it depends which campaign the CPGB is talking about. If they are talking about the xenophobic campaign of the Tory right, they are correct.
If they are talking about an anti-nationalistic working class campaign, organised by socialists, and based on the defence of jobs, services and democracy, they are wrong.
In any case, it is a strange idea to suggest that those of us who don’t give a damn for the pound, and oppose the Euro from an internationalist standpoint, should abstain from voting against an anti-working class project of this kind … simply because others will also vote against it from a completely different political standpoint.
The problem with these positions of the AWL, Workers Power, and the CPGB is that in the event of a referendum they help to ensure that the agenda on the single currency remains in the hands of the Tory right – something which has already been worsened by the confusion on the British left.
Sidelines
Their policies would leave the left wringing our hands on the sidelines, with nothing to say, whilst the Tories held forth. There would be no socialist strand to the debate.
This would be a disaster in a referendum. Precisely what is needed is a campaign against the Euro based on the interests of the working cla, and with the Socialist Alliance at the centre of it.
This would be impossible on the basis of abstention. It makes no sense to working people for us to argue that the single currency is such a big threat to jobs and welfare that we are going to abstain!
The SA needs to open a discussion on these issues, to ensure that by the time decision making time comes any disagreements which remain are not the result of a lack of political dialogue.