From Communist Party of Britain

Speech at the conference of European and Left parties London 14 October by Eugene McCartan general secretary Communist Party of Ireland

Dear comrades.

I would like to thank the Communist Party of Britain for inviting me to address this important seminar. This seminar provides an opportunity for parties with perhaps differing perspective on the European Union to share their experiences and hopefully to find common areas and issue which we can unite around. The views and positions that I will present are those of the CPI. They are based upon our understanding of the process underway, the forces propelling and driving us into a highly centralised superstate, which the current draft Treaty Constitution epitomises.

Every party has the right and the duty to decide its own view and understanding of the nature of this process and the extent of the assimilation into the European Union and this emerging superstate.

I will attempt to place our position in a context: that it is not some narrow nationalistic or chauvinistic position but rather one of a patriotic defence of the sovereignty of our country, our people and our long-fought-for and hard-won national freedom. It is also from an internationalist position.

My paper will be in two parts:

1. Our position: why we take the view we do of the European Union; in

other words our evaluation of the class character of the European Union.

2. A criticism of the Draft Constitutional Treaty.

Our position:

The European Union affects every aspect of our people's lives, from the way economic decisions are taken to how our budget is formed, the level of government borrowing and spending, the economic and political priorities of this State, even to what constitutes a fruit or vegetable.

The Communist Party of Ireland has been opposed to the Common Market since its inception and in particular since the Republic of Ireland joined it. We opposed membership then and we still express grave reservations about our continued membership, about the direction in which the European Union is going, and how it affects our ability to make political and economic decisions based on the needs of our people.

Within the working class movements across Europe, both Communist and Social Democratic, there have been and are differences both in their understanding of and in their approach to the nature of, and what is, the European Union - The extent to which they co-operate with and go along with the efforts of European-based Monopoly Capital to reshape Continental Europe. In other words, the process is driven by the needs of monopoly capitalism and not by working people.

Others have never really considered the European Union as a problem but a fact of life and have never had to question its nature or its role and the relationship of their countries within it. The idea of a united European structure is taken for granted by some as a good idea.

There has been a debate within the European labour movement over whether a United States of Europe would be good or bad for working people. The economic forces driving EU integration, the people who really make these decision, do not use such categories as 'good' or 'bad ': their values are based upon maximise profit, market share, market penetration, labour availability, global strategies of domination. They are guided by their economic and political class interests.

In 1911 Rosa Luxembourg took two famous German social democrats to task over their belief in a 'United States of Europe,' Ledebour and Kautsky. Kautsky in particular was then a leading figure in the workers' movement. He wrote:

Ledebour was also concerned about the emergence of the economic and political power of the United States of America on the world stage to challenge the dominant position within world markets enjoyed by the European states. The source of their wealth resulted from their empires, then as now, and their unequal trading relationships with the countries that they occupied, exploited, and controlled. Clearly the ruling classes then where also analysing and debating these very same issues which found an echo within the working class movement.

I have used both quotes before. I use them again to day because they highlight that the debates around a 'United States of Europe' are not new. Then, as now, the argument presented is that a United States of Europe is good for world peace and world stability, that such a united European State would be a benign force for good.

It is true that there are many shared values among European peoples, many shared experiences, historical, cultural, and economic, and also experiences of war. Most are former empires: their peoples have benefited from colonial exploitation and plunder; which retarded the development of the nations and peoples colonised. Others such as Ireland have experienced colonial domination, also resulting in retarded economic, social and cultural development.

THE CLASS CHARACTER OF THE EU PROCESS

The development of the Common Market in the 1950s and the process of its gradual development into what is now proposed, a strong centralised European superstate, was and is driven by European monopoly capitalism, tied closely to and dependent upon the big nation-states, in particular the former European imperial powers that lost their colonies after World War 2 - France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Holland, Belgium. European capitalism, or what I would prefer to call imperialism, needed both to break and to combine and strengthen the European nation-states into one unit in order to streamline investment, production, the movement of goods, a larger market, and the consolidation of labour resources, and to create a more friendly business environment. As separate economic powers they are were not capable of competing with the United States on their own due to its population size, vast natural resources, the scale and the level of development of productive forces etc.

The United States both welcomed and pushed closer co-operation between European states in the initial phase as a bulwark against the threat from the Soviet Union and the growing strength of working-class forces in post-War Europe and the role that those forces played in the defeat of fascism. The contradiction between keeping socialism at bay and building up a potential economic and political opponent are apparent.

Are we now seeing those contradictions emerging with the attempts by the U.S to consolidate its influence in Eastern Europe? In its effort to prevent an EU challenge to its world hegemony, its 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe' tactic? This poses a number of questions. Clearly, the interests of the ruling elites do not always coincide. The divisions which emerged between certain leading EU states and the United States over Iraq and the role of the United Nations reflects areas of tension and potential division and dangers for the future.

These divisions and tensions have had the effect of speeding up the process of European consolidation around the Franco-German axis. The expansion of the European Union eastwards has more to do with the consolidation of Franco-German control and influence and their desire to minimise the influence of the United States in Eastern Europe. Parallel with this are the economic advantages to be gained. This expansion is to secure markets and human and material resources under the control of European monopolies . . . To dominate and control these low-wage economies with their resources and infrastructure . . . To prevent any return to the socialist path of development.

At this stage in the development of the European Union we need to ask a number of questions about the role, the nature of, and the balance of forces within the EU. With the help of the governments of Britain, and some eastern European states, is the U.S hoping to turn the EU into a subservient ally? Is the U.S worried that an independent Europe with its own strong currency and political and military structures could pose a challenge to its strategic goal of world domination? Have all global rivalries ended between the developed capitalist countries? Do we all agree that the E.U is an imperial entity in itself? Unlike when Ireland joined the EEC, when the dominant political forces were social-democratic parties and Keynesian economic theory and practice, the European Union of today is dominated by neo-liberalism. The social democrats have abandoned their previous economic and political positions, and their social legacy is now being reversed. This process is now further sharpening in Germany, France, and Italy.

A reflection of this dominance of neo-liberalism is that the central thrust of the the Single European Act(1987), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), and the Amsterdam (1998) and Nice Treaties (2003) remain intact. These treaties are now to be totally repealed and superseded by this proposed Constitution as the legal, political a and constitutional basis of the EU.

Throughout the European Union, with the backing of EU law and the Commission, governments, including the Irish government, have been commodifying and privatising services in accordance with neo-liberal dogma and the proposed GATS. This, while simultaneously enriching a few, represents an attack on the living standards of the majority. It is a strategy directed towards removing any competitive dis-advantage in relation to the United States. We are not being presented with a choice of either 'Boston' or 'Berlin', the choice is only Boston.

Capitalism, and even more so imperialism, has never been, and by its very nature can never be, benign. It has only class interests.

The EU rules are about ever-increasing uniformity and the centralisation of decision-making and homogeneity. The new Draft Constitutional Treaty is an intensification of that process, and in our view poses a grave threat to national democracy and the right of nations and peoples to self-determination, and to world peace.

'The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe'

After the first defeat and then the re-run of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice in Ireland, the EU political elites issued the Laeken Declaration of December 2001. This outlined their view that the European Union and its institutions must become more democratic and more accountable. The declaration required that there be more clarity between the role of member-states and the European Union, that 'the division of competences be made more transparent', that the European Union 'must be brought closer to its citizens.' It spoke about the possibility of some powers being shifted back from Brussels to the EU Member States. This Constitution will bring about the complete opposite.

As part of the Laeken Declaration the question of a possible Constitution for the EU was suggested. This was immediately picked up by the Euro-Federalists who set about drafting a constitution. They bullied it through the Constitutional Convention, refusing to have amendments translated, distributed, discussed or voted upon that were critical of the direction of the draft Constitution they wanted. Over 1000 amendments were presented and not a single one was voted on. The Convention chairman, V. Giscard d'Estaing, decided that there was a consensus. It was all highly anti-democratic, essential the outcome had been decided before the Convention had even met.

Until now the EEC and European Union has been made up of member-states more or less on an equal legal basis, in so far as you can have equality between capitalist countries. The proposed treaty changes that relationship profoundly.

The majority of our countries have written constitutions. These form the basis on which we give expression to the history, culture and legal traditions and the rights struggled for and won over many centuries by our different nations.

A constitution is not the same as a treaty between States.

A Constitution in this context is the fundamental law of a State.

It is clear that if we use Article 1 Montevideo Convention: THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES 1933: Is generally accepted in international law and international relations as setting out the following generally accepted legal criteria for state recognition: If we apply those criterion then the European Union possesses (a) a permanent population: (b) its own legal personality and separate corporate existence. A President, Foreign Minister and Diplomatic Service. (c) its government (the Commission),as well as its own currency, Parliament, Supreme Court, Constitution etc. (d) It will have the powers to sign treaties on its own behalf as a separate identity.

Also the Constitution for the first time legally gives the EU its own State symbols, its flag, anthem, motto(unity in diversity) and annual holiday (Europe Day), as well as declaring the euro to be its official currency, even though most of the 25 Member States do not as yet use the euro.

We can see that the EU meets all the generally accepted criterion of a state, apart from having direct taxing powers. It will be a state in its own right, which means it will be superior to and above its constituent members.

There are many other areas that I could draw attention to within this draft treaty to show the extent of the shift of power away from national parliaments and national democratic accountability to the European Union.

This Draft Constitutional Treaty is the culmination of the political and ideological domination by corporate Europe over the peoples of Europe. It is the first state with its own constitution in modern times to have been created by and for big business. The people are secondary in the process, not primary. The EU constitution even defines its economic policy as 'a social market economy' based on free competition.

In essence, the EU Constitution, like the EU treaties up to now, is a contract NOT TO HAVE socialism. Socialism implies controls on capital. The EU Constitution re-enacts as a constitutional principle the article of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty which states that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the EU and the rest of the world. This is in effect a legal charter for the owners of capital. The basic principles of classical 'laissez-faire', of capitalist competition, of competition not co-operation as the basic mechanism for advancing public welfare, are fundamental legal principles of the EU: free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.

The EU is today the conduit through which the neo-liberal social and economic model is being institutionalised in Europe. Not alone is this ideology being imposed in Europe, but they are imposing them upon countries across the globe with disastrous consequences for millions of people. In July 2004 the EU tabled requests under the worldwide General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) to 109 countries; each such request involved asking the government of the country concerned to open certain, specified service sectors to competition from EU firms.

Policies favouring public enterprise as against private, are legally forbidden by the EU Constitution. The Constitution enshrines the legal independence of the European Central Bank in Frankfort for the 12 countries of the euro zone. The 12 national governors of the ECB control the money supply and interest rate for 300 million people, without any political control over themselves. In Britain the Bank of England is independent, but Parliament can change that or change the Bank's terms of reference. In the EU there can be no change in the rules of the ECB unless 25 States unanimously agree to amend the EU Constitution or the relevant Treaty.

Normally, most bourgeois Constitution do not embody a particular ideology or social philosophy. It sets the basic rules of public conduct, how a country should be governed and how its public policy decisions may be taken. But it leaves political parties on the Left and Right to argue over the content of these policies. The EU Constitution is flagrantly ideological however. It lays down public policies in detail. It makes socialism and socialist measures effectively illegal and comes down decisively in favour of out-and-out neo-liberalism, the competitive free market, hostility to public enterprise, monetary policy to be controlled exclusively by bankers etc.

No other model is to be considered. What we have in Europe today is already a 'social market economy', with high rates of unemployment, privatisation being pushed forward in health and education, and continual cuts in social provisions. The gains made by the working class over many decades are being stripped away daily.

Is this the only model that we are going to be allowed to aspire to?

The Commission has all the powers over economic policy. None of the bodies exercising power in the European Union are answerable to the voters, unlike the situation in members-states, where executive bodies are responsible under the national constitutions.

We know from experience that the countries with large populations and strong economic power will dominate. Under this draft Constitution they will have the dominant say. The deepening of co-operation between the central core of states will leave the small countries being pulled in the direction in which the big powers wish to go. We will be caught up in their centrifugal pull. That is one of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

Increasingly the nation-states of Europe will fulfill the role of local territorial administrators and guardians of the repressive apparatus on behalf of the EU superstate.

The present EU is a project of the economic and political elites. It is totally lacking in democratic legitimacy. The role of the Left in relation to this project must be to give a lead to struggle against the subversion of democracy that is involved, always taking account of the specific conditions and histories of each country. The immediate arena of struggle will be around the proposed Constitution for the EU.

There is a strong possibility that this project will be rejected in a number of national referenda and this might have the effect of halting this particular part of the project. We would be naive to imagine that this will completely halt the project but it will certainly cause serious problems for its elite advocates.

If the new Constitution was successfully foisted on the peoples of Europe it would place them in a stratjacket that would erect even higher barriers to struggles for democracy and social progress.

For example, the Irish struggle for national democracy and independence has been progressively made more complicated and difficult as many of the powers of an independent Ireland have been transferred to the EEC/EU. This means in practice that in addition to the struggles for civil rights, democracy, community reconciliation and social progress, Irish national and progressive forces have had to confront and battle against the erosion of Irish democracy that has come with involvement in the EU.

This has proved a very difficult battle as is illustrated by ruling class maneouvres after their defeat in the first Nice Referendum.

A new layer has been added to our struggle for Irish national democracy in that in we must now battle to win back areas of national sovereignty without which it is impossible to imagine even the slightest possibility of a socially progressive Ireland.

Widespread rejection of the new proposed Constitution throughout the EU could open up the possibility of successful struggles for flexible forms of co-operation in a Europe of democracies and diversity.

We would welcome the break up of the EU but the possibility of that happening at this moment in time are slim. Particularly as we as one of the small countries are vulnerable to the economic consequences. Of course if some of the larger countries where to withdraw then that would open up a completely new scenario. The likely hood of that happening appear to be slim.

So, we believe that we need to develop a strategy to exploit the inherent contradiction within the whole process, there by leading to a situation that the character of the European Union itself changes.

It is our experiences of the Civil Rights Movement in the North of Ireland, when we made the demands for democracy and democratic reform and therby exposed the inherently anti-democratic nature of the Unionist regime which eventually shattered under those demands.

So what is the Achilles Heel of the European Union? It is clearly the anti-democratic character of the whole project. It is skewed in favour of monopoly capitalism with power and control being ceded to and resting with the larger states to be used in their great power interests. These are the contradictions of our class enemies not ours. We don’t have to present alternatives, we have to exert the pressure of democratic opinion in general and working people in particular to these contradictions.

Can the European Union deliver democracy and accountability? The answer is no.

Can we meet the needs of our people in the economic straight jack of this emerging state? The answer is again no.

Can they deliver the changes that the working class requires without unravelling or changing the nature of the union itself? The answer is no again.

We have to have the confidence to know that they can not deliver. The global strategy of imperialism is to break and diminish as much as it can democratic control and accountability. So, we continue to raise our demands about investment in public services, job creation, health services, education, looking for the promised peace dividend. Directing our fire upon our national government the more their inability to deliver more the more the nature of the European Union is exposed.

We are in essence exposing the class nature of the EU super state as well as the servility of the National governments to those same class forces.

We are in essence exposing the class nature of the EU super state as well as the servility of the National governments to those same class forces.

There is much more to be said about the process now under way. Each country and party has its own tradition and experiences from which to draw. The Communist Party of Ireland's opposition is not based on a narrow nationalism, but rather we speak from our own experiences as a nation and a people who suffered seven hundred years of domination and occupation. We have experienced the near-loss of our language and near-extinction of our culture. We are and we believe communists must be both national-patriotic and internationalist. We see a dialectical unity between the two: one depends upon the other.

If we leave the ground open on the defence of national democracy and national representation, that ground will be filled by the forces of reaction and national chauvinism. We should not be misled by a false sense of some dubious internationalism.

Left unity and co-operation

There is always the desire and the pressure to seek short-cuts to overcome difficult problems. But as history has shown, short-cuts rarely if ever work in politics or class struggle. People's consciousness and understanding, their historical experiences and traditions, are different. They mature in their own way and in their own time and historical space. Crises within capitalism are experienced by different peoples to different degrees. The artificial construction of political vehicles that ignore this reality will end only in failure and frustration.

Within the European Union we can see and experience the uneven development of capitalism. We have been joined in the European Union by countries and peoples that have experienced some form of socialism, warts and all. These experiences cannot be completely obliterated.

We are of the belief that the emergence of a centralised European superstate - for which the EU Constitution is a decisive step - is a grave threat to world peace and could possibly lead to future conflict and worsen inter-imperialist rivalry. As Jacque Delores, the former EU President, put it so well:, the wars of the twenty-first century will be resource wars. Whose resources do they want to control, and by what means do they wish to bring this about?

What is on offer in the EU Constitution is not in the interests of the working people of Europe. What is being constructed is in the interests of big capital, corporations and corporate Europe.

We can either go along with this process thereby legitimising and increasing the political power of our class enemies, or we can continue to argue and campaign for an alternative set of progressive relationships, political and economic, between the peoples and countries of Europe. We are the stage of resistance not advance. Democracy is the key, and the denial of national democracy is the Achilles heel of corporate Europe.

Therefore, the left and anti-corporate forces have to find common cause in breaking the neo-liberal straitjacket and to free nation-states to adopt policies to meet their specific needs. The 'one shoe will fit all' theory will not work and is not working.

The strategy contained in the Treaty of Nice was to establish an inner core of countries. The proposed refinement of that proposition contained in the new draft constitution will exacerbate the inequalities between the larger, developed countries and the present smaller members-states and virtually the whole of the new members from the East.

So it will not lead to a harmonious relationship. We know from our own history that the strong economic centres dictate the political and economic course and pace. We don 't believe that the consolidation of the European Union into a superstate is in the interest of the workers of Europe or of world peace.

It is our belief that there is not and cannot be a social-democratic or democratic imperialism, or some unique European benign imperialism, willing to save the world from the ravages of a neo-liberal imperialism led by the United States.

This Constitution licenses the big states to use EU military and other resources for the foreign interventions they favour but that some member-states might oppose.

No-one can deny that there is a need for closer co-operation in the first instance between communist and workers' parties within what is now the European Union. Co-operation is one thing, buying into the structures and the process is another.

We would like to share the following proposals with the party’s attending this conference.

1. We must respect all parties as equals and value their experiences. Their views should be valued regardless of their size or electoral support;

2. We need to internationalise the struggle for national democracy and not leave that to parties and forces on the right;

3. At the same time we must argue for policies that are centred on mutual solidarity between peoples and nations;

4. International or supernational regulations should only be introduced in problem areas that cannot be solved by individual States. It should be national parliaments or peoples alone that determines what powers should be exercised at international or supernational level:

5. We must campaign for a more flexible economic model of policies and co-operation in Europe;

6. We must struggle for controls on capital and on its ability to exploit regional differences within the European Union as it now stands.

7. We need to struggle for a more flexible relationship between the different nations and states of Europe, to work towards relationships that are built upon respect for national independence and national sovereignty.

8. We must challenge the spurious and artificial “European Values”. In spite of Europe’s cultural heritage the violent history gives the ruling elite no right to claim that human rights or democratic concern are especially characteristic of the European continent, and the historical role of its dominant states played around the world.

9. We support the right of nations to self determination.

Comrades, some of the debates here today are reminiscent of the debates and issues that the workers movement faced in 1914. Should we rally to the flag of the ruling class and abandon the struggle for social change and socialism at home, or march to some other destination?



» Find more of the online edition.