The following motion from RIC Edinburgh was passed
unanimously at the RIC National Forum held in Perth on May 30th:-
"This National Forum calls upon the
International Working Group to prepare a paper for a RIC Scotland campaign to address
the forthcoming EU referendum. This paper should be circulated to all branches
and members for discussion, prior to a National Forum held no later than
September."
It was also agreed that branches should initiate
discussion and actively seek a wider engagement with others from socialist
organisations in Europe, migrant workers groups, Women for Independence, etc.
This follows from the precedent established by RIC during the referendum
campaign of organising on the basis of 'internationalism from below'.
Edinburgh RIC decided to initiate the debate by
asking Allan Armstrong and Donny Gluckstein to put the case for voting for and
against staying in the EU in the referendum, at its meeting on 8th June. These
are very much preliminary contributions. It was also recognised that a case
could also be made for abstaining. Other meetings will be organised and other
RIC groups contributions cirulated.
Furthermore, comments from RIC members will be
added to the Edinburgh RIC blog.
1. THE CASE FOR A 'YES' VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU
Allan Armstrong
The background
Following the Second World War, and after Germany and France
had been in three wars against each other, key European figures decided that
their only possible future lay in greater economic and political unity. It was
clear to them that the major European states were no longer the dominant powers
in the world, and any future intra-European wars would prove suicidal The USA
and USSR had taken their place.. Therefore, one of the major considerations
behind the initial negotiations that led to the EEC was the desire to create a
new European-wide imperial centre, which could survive in the new post-war
world.
We have arrived at the current phase of the EU in five main
stages:-
1. The creation
of the European Coal and Steel Community (free trade in iron, coal and steel, and
no more wars between France and Germany over vital resources) in 1951 (6
members).
2. The creation
of the European Economic Community (towards a complete free trade area with
free movement of capital and labour) in 1956 under the Treaty of Rome (6
members)
3. The creation
of an expanded EEC/EU. The UK joined the EEC in 1973 followed by Ireland,
Sweden and Denmark (10 members). The next two major waves of accessions followed
the ending of fascist or military regimes in southern Europe, and the demise of
the Warsaw Pact in eastern Europe. There are now 28 EU members and 5 applicant
members.
3. The creation
of the European Union (a political union with shared citizenship) in 1993 under
the Maastricht Treaty (12 members).
4. The creation
of the Euro currency, now used by 19 member and 2 non-member states. This is
run by the European Central Bank (ECB), of which the largest shareholder is the
Deutsche Bundesbank.
Power is mainly divided between the heads of the member
states, represented in the European Council, and the European Commission, which
has a more all-EU identity. The European Parliament is very much a subordinate
element of the EU set-up. Germany has replaced
France as the most powerful member state, due to its greater economic strength
and population, particularly since German reunification. Germany is now the state
with the greatest ability to determine policy in the European Council and ECB.
However, the European Commission is less a centre for competing member states,
and more a body where multinational corporations can make their influence
directly felt. This is where the TTIP initiative came from.
The politics of the
EU
The underlying politics of the EU have been dominated by an
alliance between Christian Democrats (social conservatives) and Social
Democrats. Until the 1990s their policies were therefore largely based on the
idea of the social market, with protection for small farmers and workers. This
contrasted with the more 'free' market politics of the USA on one hand, and the
statist politics of the USSR on the other.
From the early 1990s, following the collapse of the USSR
and the wider impact of neo-liberal politics (originating in the 1970s
Pinochet's post-coup Chile and taken up in the 1980s by the Reagan and
Thatcher governments) there has been a move away from the earlier social to a neo-liberal
market model in the EU.
The UK and the EEC
The UK, as a declining imperial power, has had to adapt to
the growing power of the EU. After the Second World War, both Conservatives and
Labour agreed that Britain's economic future lay with continued trade with the
Empire (renamed Commonwealth), and closer political links with the USA. They
decided not to join the EEC negotiations. By the 1970s it was patently obvious
that there was no future in building the economy around trade with the Empire,
which had fallen apart. This was when the British ruling class decided that the
UK would have to join the EEC.
Under the Conservatives, the UK joined the EEC in 1973. In
1974 the new Labour government was committed to a referendum on continued
membership. The Labour government campaigned to stay in. The opposition came
from two sources - Left and Right.
The Labour Left and British Communist Party opposed
membership, because they thought the UK could be pushed further along the
social democratic path on a 'British road to socialism'. They saw the social
market model of the EEC as a barrier to achieving this. There were aspects of the UK economy and
social provision, which were more progressive, e.g. the system of agricultural
subsidies (c.f .the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy), whilst the NHS provided a
beacon for directly state provided welfare (c.f. state subsidised private
insurance health provision in Germany and France).
However, there was also a Right opposition to the EEC involving
small businessmen and various reactionary British chauvinists, worried about
the UK's continued economic decline and the demise of the British Empire. The
anti-immigrant, ultra-unionist, Tory MP, Enoch Powell, led this Right.
At that time of greater working class confidence it was
possible to argue that staying out of the EEC would allow the Left greater
influence in the UK. However, even then, the dangers of the Left becoming
involved in a British chauvinist campaign were apparent. In 1975, I attended an
anti-EEC rally organised by the CPGB-dominated Edinburgh Trades Council. Amongst
those on the platform was a Powellite speaker, whilst the wall behind the
platform was adorned with a large Union Jack!
The UK and the EU
By the 1990s, though, there was little doubt where the primary
axis of anti-EU politics lay in the UK - on the Right. But this Right was itself
divided over how to address the situation.
Thatcher, followed by Blair (both backed by the US), argued
for the UK to be in the EU, and to act as a 'Trojan Horse' for US-style
neo-liberal economics. They wanted to undermine the EU's social market
provision. By pushing for the rapid accession of former Warsaw Pact countries, they
hoped to find neo-liberal allies for their strategy. These new member states would
also diminish the influence of the core seven states, (the original Six plus
Spain), particularly Germany. At the same time, both Tories and New Labour
pushed for British exemptions when it came to social provision, so they could
undercut working conditions, e.g. on maximum working hours.
Due to the continued decline of British imperialism, the
Thatcher/Blair strategy of the UK becoming the leading force in the EU, in alliance
with the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, did not come to pass. This economic decline
is measured in real terms such as labour productivity, as opposed to profits
from fictitious capital and property values loved by the City of London and successive
British governments. German industrial and financial power has increased.
Germany now enjoys hegemony over the former Warsaw Pact countries too.
Furthermore, much to the chagrin of the many, including
sections of an increasingly atomised working class susceptible to the politics
of fear, the accession of eastern and southern European countries has led to
large-scale economic immigration into the UK. The neo-liberal economic politics
of successive UK governments have led to particular skill shortages due to the
neglect of industrial training, (e.g. in the construction and repair sector where
Polish workers have filled an economic niche), the driving down of pay and
conditions in the NHS and Local Authority care work, and the expansion of a low
pay service work at the cost of better paid industrial work. These types of
employment have all proved attractive to migrant workers, particularly from
eastern and southern Europe.
The emergence of a
new independent British Right
Therefore, the UK failure to take the lead in the EU, or
even to maintain its relative economic position, has led to the emergence of a new
independent Right, not just within the Tory Party (c.f. the Powellites of the
late 1960s and 70s), but outside, with the initial rise of the BNP, and now the
right populist UKIP.
UKIP has been able to force Cameron to promise a referendum providing
for a Brexit option. UKIP won the largest number of MEPs in last year's
Euro-elections. It has been cultivating links in the UK with Loyalists, in the
European Parliament with other national chauvinist and anti-immigrant parties,
whilst also exploring extra-parliamentary links with other far Right parties,
e.g. the Front National in France and even openly fascist parties, such as
Jobbik in Hungary.
If UKIP and the Tory Right were to get Brexit, then their
aim would be for the UK to become an offshore European economy, with British
subjects taking the work of EU migrants. They hope the UK would be able to
compete internationally through imposing slashed pay, economic conditions and
welfare benefits. UK defence and police
spending would be increased, with particular attention focussed on immigration
control. The remaining liberal social features of 'British' society would also
likely come under attack - human, women's and gay rights, whilst the
reactionary features of the UK state would be buttressed against ongoing moves
towards a more open and secular society. The politics of fear would be pushed
to new levels to counter the effects of the social breakdown, which would
inevitably arise.
The battle on the
Right over the EU
The Conservatives and Labour hope to use this Right wing
campaign for their own ends, to buttress their failing strategy of subverting
the EU from within. Cameron is seeking negotiations with the intent either of
lowering the EU's social regulations across the board, or of getting further
exemptions for the UK. He wants to protect the City of London from the threat
of even the mildest EU banking regulation and to further undermine other social
regulation, e.g. over health and safety. Both the Conservatives and Labour are
viciously playing the anti-migrant card, since they too need scapegoats when
pushing their austerity measures.
The majority of the British ruling class, backed by the US,
is behind Cameron's strategy of 'reforming' the EU, and the UK's relationship
with the EU, as far as possible, before throwing their weight behind a 'Yes'
vote in the referendum. However, both the Conservative government-led 'Yes' and
a UKIP-led 'No' campaign share a common Right wing drive - to intensify the
attack on workers pay and conditions, to further privatisation, and to promote
scapegoating by attacking migrants.
Therefore, at first, the political logic would appear to be
'a plague on both your houses' and to recommend abstaining. However, I think that
a 'No to the EU' vote would pull politics much further to the Right in the UK.
The politics of the EU
referendum compared to the Scottish independence referendum
Cameron has just declared who is able to vote in his EU referendum.
In direct contrast to the progressive franchise in the Scottish independence
referendum last year, this referendum excludes 16-18 year olds and I.5 million
EU citizens living in the UK (including an SNP MEP). Anti-migrant politics will completely
dominate the campaign. Migrants' position will most likely be worsened under
Cameron's negotiations prior to him recommending a 'Yes' vote (e.g. the removal
of welfare benefits for EU immigrants for a number of years, although not the
obligation to pay N.I. or taxes).
However, in the event of a 'No' vote and Brexit, the
position of 1.5 million EU citizens (not to mention many other non-EU residents
in the UK) will become much more precarious. Their presence will provide an
opportunity for the Far Right to regroup, and begin a massive campaign of
intimidation, whilst mainstream politics will be moved even further Right. Migrant
families would face the most immediate and direst consequences following
Brexit, but such a Right wing victory would effect us all.
Another Europe is
Possible
If those of us on the Left are ever asked, "What has the EU ever done for us?",
the answer clearly lies in the much more multi-ethnic society we now live in.
In this respect, Edinburgh has very much changed for the better. It is a very
different place to the narrow provincial city of 20 years ago.
Many migrant families joined the 'Yes' campaign, highlighted
particularly by the Edinburgh North and Leith Walk day of action on Leith Walk
on August 23rd , and RIC's September 17th rally on the Meadows.
The 'No' campaign will be completely dominated by the
anti-migrant politics of the Far Right. Any socialists attempting to fight for
a 'Leave' vote on their own anti-EU grounds will be even more marginal than the
Red Paper Collective was in the 'No' campaign during the Scottish independence
referendum.
There will be a number of 'Remain' campaigns. Whether the Conservatives,
Labour and Lib-Dems will form a new 'Better Together in the EU' campaign is a
moot point. However, together or apart they will be pushing the same neo-liberal
austerity agenda. The SNP will mount its own liberal 'Remain' campaign, with
qualified support for migrant workers. They will also be looking to the
possibility of a Scottish 'Remain'/ rUK 'No' to vote precipitate another Scottish independence
referendum.
Given the horrific consequences of a 'Leave' vote, the
continued anti-working class basis of the mainstream unionist 'Remain' campaigners,
and the inevitable weaknesses of any official SNP 'Remain' campaign (as we also saw
in the Scottish referendum campaign), I would argue that RIC should launch its
own 'Remain' campaign. Following our 'Yes' campaign in the recent referendum, we
should appeal to socialist organisations in the EU (including the rest of the
UK), and to migrant workers' organisations in the UK, to join us in new campaign - Another Europe is possible.
2. THE CASE FOR A 'NO' VOTE AND LEAVING THE EU
Donny Gluckstein
EURO DEBATE
Capitalism and imperialism throughout its
history -
• Schuman 1950
• develop intra-European trade by reducing tariffs and other barriers to the
expansion of trade, (Iron and Steel community)
• achieve conditions for better utilisation of labour.
COLD WAR PERIOD
Raymond Aron’s contention that the ECSC was
intended as a movement away from United States domination
1957 - EEC The European Atomic Energy
Community (EAEC or Euratom) founded in 1957 with the purpose
of creating a specialist market for nuclear in Europe, developing nuclear
energy and distributing it to its member states
Germany economic - French military/imperial
1973 UK joins - France is against - why? Britain
lost empire, not sure of US - so plays for both… France afraid of losing
hegemony but too small to counter US/Russia
EU TODAY
Development of capitalism. Pressure for states
to cluster together in regional blocs. Since the 1970s huge
“multinational” firms began to dominate Europe’s economy.
Only 1 percent of Britain’s top bosses supported
leaving the EU in a recent poll, but almost half wanted to “reform” it into
something looser.
But contradictions - City of London loves EU.
Levels of investment in German companies vastly greater than UK, so small firms
feel threatened.
Germany 115, Sweden, Denmark, France, Finland,
Luxemburg, Austria etc. UK 94 - Italy, Ireland, Slovakia, Baltic states etc.
CONSEQUENCES
Fortress Europe - led to thousands of drownings
Austerity in Greece, but don’t forget suffering
already imposed on Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal etc. - domination of Germany
using these countries…
TTIP
Make war impossible - but look at break-up of
Yugoslavia - Serbia .v. Croatia, look at Ukraine today…
REFERENDUM
UKIP wants tougher immigration controls through
Brexit. We stand at forefront - Stand up to UKIP in Thanet… etc./ UAF / M21 /
Glasgow’s Welcome Refugees campaign - recently at Glasgow girls meeting -
stressed this…
SIDING WITH CAMERON won’t weaken racism. Choice
of racisms - based on skin or E European.
Siding with bosses is the opposite of workers’
internationalism. Show solidarity with Greece by breaking up the EU. Show
solidarity with victims of imperialism in Middle East by breaking up fortress
Europe - in just the same way that we argued for real solidarity of workers
north and south of the Scottish border by breaking up the British state.
……………………………….
NOT
PRETENDING IT IS EASY… BUT IF YOU DON’T TAKE PRINCIPLED STANCE… YOU TAKE
UNPRINCIPLED STANCE…
Discussion
The following people contributed to the
discussion - Alistair, Ally, Allyson, Callum, Kate, Pat, Penny, Roger, Sophia
Additional points made for a 'Yes' vote included:-
The EU bureaucracy has often been blamed,
particularly by New Labour, for forcing through neo-liberal measures. However,
as can be seen in the case of continued public postal services and publicly
owned railway companies in other EU countries, it is quite possible to defend
these. New Labour was just using the EU as an excise for pushing through or
accepting the neo-liberal policies it wanted anyway.
The UK pulling out of the EU would not end
Fortress Europe, but just add another set of high walls further, increasing the
difficulties for asylum seekers and others. UKIP and the far Right want more
barriers not less.
The importance of a 'Yes' vote in Scotland and a
'No' vote in England, in providing the opportunity to trigger off another Scottish
independence referendum was emphasised.
Additional points made for a 'No' vote included:-
The social provision provided by the EU is
pretty worthless. Only workers taking their own action can defend pay and
conditions. We should not be encouraging people in believing a 'Yes' vote can
help workers protect themselves.
The social provision in the EU came about as a
result of the Catholic social thinking of the Christian Democrats, particularly
in Bavaria and the Rhineland. Such thinking had always been a counter to
socialism, and after 1945, the main motivation was to counter the influence of
the state provided social provision in the USSR. It is not surprising that
after the demise of the USSR, the EU has increasingly abandoned social provision.
Farage isn't the main enemy and leaving the EU is a challenge to the British ruling class and particularly the City of London. They would ensure that it was defeated, because it wasn't in their interests. Therefore we must be seen to support those who oppose the British ruling class.
Farage isn't the main enemy and leaving the EU is a challenge to the British ruling class and particularly the City of London. They would ensure that it was defeated, because it wasn't in their interests. Therefore we must be seen to support those who oppose the British ruling class.
Summing up
Donny emphasised the fact that the EU was a
bosses club, committed to imperialism and austerity. He argued that that the
overwhelming majority of the British ruling class, backed by the US, wanted the
UK to stay in the EU. Their economic weight would be reflected in the official
'Yes' campaign, against which the 'No' campaign, even with the Daily Mail, would be completely
outgunned. Therefore, there was little danger of a socialist 'No' campaign
contributing to a 'No' victory led by the Right.
The inability of Syriza to put forward its
anti-austerity programme whilst within the EU means that we should be offering
solidarity to the Greek people in leaving the EU.
We are all internationalists. Socialists can
still unite to defend migrant workers. Socialists should stick to their anti-EU
principles and recommend a 'No' vote.
Allan said that Donny had really made a case for
an abstention. The unionist, imperialist and monarchist UK state was the
original bosses' club and had been the largest imperial power on this planet.
The UK government was just as committed to austerity as the EU bureaucracy. It
was the UK's Labour government that declared Iceland a terrorist state when it
refused to buckle down to City of London demands. British owned banks like the
Anglo-Irish and Bank of Scotland have played a major part in enforcing
austerity and house repossessions in Ireland.
Donny's arguments reminded him of the SWP's
position in the 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum, when they argued 'No to
Devolution, Yes to Revolution'. Well they got 'No' to Devolution, but instead
of revolution they got Thatcher!
Allan thought that a populist 'No' vote could
not be ruled out, in a context when mainstream parties are losing support
throughout Europe. Furthermore, there are occasions when socialists do fight
alongside (not with) key sections of the ruling class. That is when the
alternative is even more reactionary. Socialists campaigned for a 'Yes' to gay
marriage in the recent Irish referendum, alongside an Irish government
coalition delivering austerity, and an official campaign receiving considerable
corporate backing.
Finally Allan argued for applying the 'September
19th Test'. After a 'No' vote, who would be out on the streets celebrating? The
motley crew of rampaging loyalists and fascists in George Square would be
nothing compared to what happens after a 'No' vote prior to Brexit. The DUP
would be celebrating the prospect of the erection of border posts in Ireland,
and with the help of loyalists try to re-establish Unionist ascendancy. Migrant
workers everywhere in the UK would be living in fear. This is not a prospect
that can be ruled out.
