Direct elections: another non-issue (1977)

From the December 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain towards the Common Market has been consistent: that it is a political and trading arrangement between capitalist States. Whether Britain should have gone in, should stay in or should withdraw does not concern the working class. Thus, during the 1975 referendum, we urged workers to vote neither “YES” nor “NO” but, if they wanted Socialism, to indicate this by writing the word “SOCIALISM” across their ballot paper.

This attitude distinguished us from all others calling themselves “socialists”, most of whom were urging a "NO” vote on a variety of grounds. For instance, we were urged to oppose the Common Market on the ground that it rules out the possibility of establishing “socialism” in Britain because it infringes “the sovereignty of parliament”. But, in imagining that Socialism could be established in just one country or that “socialist measures” could be taken within the framework of capitalism, those who argue like this show that they don’t know the first thing about Socialism, which can only be world-wide like the system, capitalism, it will be replacing.

What such people in fact stand for is not Socialism at all, but British state capitalism. The sort of anti- Common Market propaganda put out by these people—the left wing of the Labour Party and the so-called Communist Party—is falsely done in the name of Socialism. By waving the Union Jack and playing on British nationalism, they reveal themselves as opponents. Socialism can only come into being when workers throughout the world have, among other things, got rid of all national prejudices and come to regard themselves as citizens of the world.

The Common Market, even if it evolved into a United States of Europe or something similar, does not make the establishment of Socialism any harder. It does not undermine the institutions (the ballot box and parliament) which the working class should use to establish Socialism. It is true that the Common Market does transfer the right to legislate in certain fields to its own law-making body, the Council of Ministers (not the European Parliament which is not a legislative body at all). But the Council of Ministers is made up of representatives from the governments of the Member States, which in turn are responsible to their elected parliaments. Thus, if we argue at this purely constitutional level (which apparently we must when dealing with the arguments of the Eric Heffers and Norman Atkinsons), the Common Market could not hold up the establishment of Socialism, for, if socialist majorities existed in the national parliaments of its Member States, this would automatically mean that the Common Market’s law-making body would also be controlled by socialists.

We are not interested in using parliaments to pass laws dealing with trade, patents, social security, free movement of labour, etc.—in short, laws to administer capitalism—but only in using them for the one revolutionary purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism. The diminution of the powers of the British parliament brought about by the Common Market does not mean that it—or the parliaments of the other Member States— can no longer be used as an instrument to establish Socialism.

The so-called European Parliament is not really a parliament in the generally accepted sense of the word. It has no law-making powers (and has a final say as to how money should be spent in a very limited sphere) and plays a purely consultative rôle. Common Market regulations—which really do have the force of law, some being directly applicable in Member States without needing to be enacted by national parliaments as well—are made by the Council of Ministers on proposals from the Commission in Brussels. It is the Council of Ministers, not the European Parliament, which in the Common Market carries out the functions normally associated with parliaments (law-making, approval of the budget).

Nevertheless, it has been agreed (by the Council of Ministers!) that the European Parliament, instead of being appointed as now by the national parliaments from amongst their members, should be directly elected in all-Europe elections to be held in May or June next year. That these elections will take place is not yet absolutely certain since each Member State has to pass legislation to permit them in its country and if any one fails to do so then there will be no elections anywhere.

The “left wing” of the Labour Party, in accordance with its nationalist state-capitalist aim, is trying to stop Britain passing the necessary legislation. Once again we are told that direct elections to the European Parliament is something socialists should campaign against. Once again we disagree. Nevertheless, we can recognize that it is better that political bodies under capitalism should be directly elected instead of appointed from above; this makes it easier for the working class, when they have become socialists, to take them out of the hands of the capitalist class.

This does not mean we advocate direct elections to the European Parliament, but merely that, now this has been offered by our rulers, it is something that can be accepted. Thus, our attitude to the elections when (and if) they take place next year will be the same as to all other elections. We will use them to publicize Socialism; and we shall be urging those who want Socialism to write “SOCIALISM”— or “SOCIALISME” or “SOZIALISMUS” or “SOCIALISMO”, as the case may be—across their ballot papers.

Adam Buick

Letter: Euro-fascism? (2002)

Letter to the Editors from the June 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Euro-fascism?

Dear Editors

The views expressed in your reply (Socialist Standard, April) to my letter regarding a possible fascist European nation state developing at a later stage reveal an error in assessment.

Fascism is not just a military dictatorship capitalist state, seeking “a place in the sun” for markets and raw materials, but is primarily a counter-revolutionary force, created to crush within its own borders, serious trends developing for “social” change that could lead to “socialism”, by large sections of workers.

Whatever our view of the 1917 Russian revolution, the event put “the fear of God” into the ruling élite of Europe. Hitler’s Germany was called “a barrier against Bolshevism” by the then Governor of the Bank of England. “A bastion to prevent the spread of ‘Communism’”. After 1917, revolutionary movements abounded throughout Europe.

Your detailed summary of the present European Union is irrelevant to the case on a future European Nation State, the one-government assembly containing delegates form Europe’s regions of national councils. To assume, as you do, that in a revolutionary situation the delegates would never be legislated by majority to vote for fascists’ policies by the regions is politically naïve. The fact that some Tories are opposed to a European state, preferring closer economic links to the USA, does not diminish the view of genuine dangers for the workers of Europe.

Lionel Rich, 

London NW6

Reply: 

There are at least two things wrong with your nightmare scenario about a European Super-State somehow coming into existence and then going fascist.

First, your revival of the old “Communist” Party line that fascism is “primarily a counter-revolutionary force”. This implied that Bolshevism was some sort of revolutionary force. In fact, by the 1930s Bolshevism was a rival totalitarian ideology and movement to fascism which shared many of the latter’s features (one-party state, mass rallies, leader worship, concentration camps, etc). We repeat that, in our view, both Fascism and Bolshevism are to be explained from the concrete historical circumstances facing the ruling class in Italy, Germany and Russia in the first part of the 20th century and which are not being repeated at the present time (and are not likely to be). In fact, fascism today is related to opposition to immigration rather than open support for dictatorship. Of course as long as capitalism lasts what limited democratic procedures exist will not be 100 percent secure, but we would have thought that the growth of a genuine socialist movement would make them more secure, not less as in your nightmare scenario.

Second, there is the uncomfortable fact for you that most fascists today – the BNP, Le Pen, National Front, etc – are, as you urge us to be, against the Common Market. Apparently, they think they have a better chance of making progress if Europe is divided into separate, competing states with each having its own distinct nationalist ideology that they can latch onto. Which is one reason why, although we are against the Common Market as we are against any capitalist arrangement, we don’t want to touch the nationalist opposition to it with a barge pole. It is why we advocated constructive abstention (by writing “World Socialism” across the ballot paper) in the 1975 referendum on the issue and why we will be advocating the same thing in the referendum next year or the year after on the euro—Editors.

Passing the parcel (1995)

TV Review from the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Election nights are almost exciting, and Local Elections ‘95 on BBC 1 last month proved to be no exception. There was David Dimbleby with a twinkle in his eye and a Mars bar in his pocket. Peter Kellner looking studiously professorial next to a bank of computers. Anthony King thumbing through his mental book of historical precedents and the ubiquitous Peter Snow arms flailing like a whirling dervish in conversation with Magnus Pike. "Just a bit of fun” is Snow’s catchphrase. and of course it all is just that, at least for him.

For the politicians it is different—election night is akin to a life-or-death prognosis. John Selwyn Gummer had seldom looked glummer as the news trickled in of the most humiliating Conservative defeat in local elections on record. Frank Dobson chortled like a Father Christmas on Prozac and the Liberal Democrats' spokesman was there as well, popping up like Chad over a wall occasionally in the hope that nobody would forget he was there too. But it was Labour's night, and if all Frank Dobson's Christmases had come at once. John Prescott beamed as if his political marriage to Tony Blair had just been consummated in spectacular style. He opened a bottle of champagne at Labour Party headquarters and thrust the spray orgasmically at the cameras, adjectives tumbling over one another just as the Moet tumbled out of the bottle.

It was indeed touching that the working class could have had such an effect on their fellow human beings. Touching, though not altogether surprising, as it is the workers who put the politicians in their exalted position to start with.

If local election night demonstrated anything it was that the Labour Party . . . pardon me. New Labour, is on a roll of gigantic proportions and that the Tories are digging themselves further into a hole and not out of it. Labour, on this performance seems set to win a General Election and they will be aware at this time like at no other that dangerous talk costs political lives. During the election campaign itself they showed themselves cognisant of this fact, fighting the battle on presentation, managerial abilities, sharp suits and white teeth. "Policies" has become the most dangerous word in their vocabulary. When tackled about this by Dimbleby. Frank Dobson shrugged his shoulders and gave a "what can we do" look. Local government, he said, is hamstrung by government subsidies and capping, and so even if Labour wanted to spend more on education or local services, it couldn't.

At this point John Gummer intervened to claim that you could not blame the Conservative government for the belt-tightening consequences of the world recession and that in any case things were getting steadily better under the foresighted stewardship of John Major. But then came the pièce de résistance—Sir Teddy Taylor. Tory rebel, beamed in via satellite or some such device to tell the panel that they were all wrong as the real problem was Europe. "I know I'm being a bore . . ." he said, and of course he was right. And right about something else too. He went on to say that just as it didn't matter which of the parties controlled the councils, neither did it matter much which party controlled Westminster, as they were all prisoners of the system, the headquarters of which he identified as being somewhere in Belgium. Now he might have been misplaced about the importance of the last bit. but his substantive point, of course, has a lot going for it.

Travel with Teddy

Travel round Britain and can you tell where a Conservative council ends and a Labour one begins? Travel around Europe or any other part of the world and try doing the same with governments. It is very difficult indeed, and Sir Teddy has obviously noticed. Given all this, quite what his function is as a politician must be in some doubt, his obsession with Brussels notwithstanding. If he thinks politicians are as impotent as this (and they generally are) then it cannot be long before he packs it all in forever and takes to the stage.

But have some sympathy for him. Sir Teddy showed that he had grasped, in his own hamfisted way, a fundamental truth of capitalist politics, even if he lacks the full explanation for it. And this is that, in reality, election nights at present are momentary interludes in a mind-numbingly tedious and pointless exercise. They are the time when the two rival but otherwise identical brands of cola release their sales figures, when two bluebottles climb up a wall to see who can reach the ceiling first. Pointless, though at the same time mesmerising if your life is empty enough. And if the phrase "get a life" should be directed anywhere, the BBC studios on election nights are as good a place as any to aim. 

Dave Perrin

Letter: Euro super-state? (2002)

Letter to the Editors from the February 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Euro super-state?

Dear Editors,

Your article on the euro (January, Socialist Standard) presented, by valid economic assessment, how the euro is monetarily irrelevant for wage and salary earners. Yet the major issue involved requires deeper analysis. It is the determination of the capitalist class, in the main, for the political purposes behind the euro.

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, boldly states that “the euro is for a purely political process!”. This “process” is for the creation of a single European Nation State. It must lead to a single supreme governing assembly, with the power to pass laws obligatory for Europe as a whole. These laws, passed by majority vote, would be political as well as economic and be binding and incontestable. The assembly would maintain central control of all military and police legions in the European State.

In periods of serious political and economic crisis, mixed European forces would be used to crush any social unrest or revolutionary activity. With the inevitable chaos and turmoil of the capitalist system and the need to maintain “law and order” there is the distinct probability of a totalitarian regime emerging. Recent European history reveals how swiftly, in times of emergency, authoritarian rule develops and with the support of a misguided majority of workers seeking a “strong leadership”. These trends already exist in Europe.

Socialists should actively protest now against a European State. The euro is a reality and a further steeping stone towards these aims to strengthen capitalism. It is not just a question of more “sovereignty” for Britain but the practical ability to avoid the legal impositions by a European parliament. The dangers are neither irrelevant nor neutral.

Lionel Rich, 

London NW6

Reply: 

We are of course opposed to a European state but we are also opposed to a British state. In fact, we are opposed to all states since they exist, all of them, to uphold capitalist class rule and production for profit.

You construct a nightmare scenario to try to get us to support an independent state for the capitalist class of Britain as opposed to them merging into a European state. We don’t think even Prodi envisages as centralised a state as in your nightmare, but, even if he did, you give no reason why we should prefer repressive laws to be voted at Westminster rather than by a European Parliament. Nor why we should prefer British rather than European police to be used against strikes and pickets. Nor why we should want the government that presides over the operation of capitalism in Britain to be situated in London rather than Brussels. In short, we remain unconvinced that we should take sides in the debate about the best political structure for running capitalism today.

The socialist alternative to a European Super-State is not Little England but One World.

Editors

The euro and the sovereignty myth (2002)

From the January 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

The euro debate is a dispute between rival sections of the capitalist class and is of no concern to workers

On 1 January in 12 of the 15 countries of the European Union new notes and coins came into circulation. After a shortish transition period these will replace existing francs, marks, pesetas, liras and the others and the same money—euros and eurocents—will come to be used throughout the whole area.

In terms of capitalism, it will be a historic event. As many people for years (more in fact) have used dollars and cents in a single area will now be using a single currency in another area. And that, of course, is what it is all about from a capitalist point of view. The capitalists of Europe have decided they have a better chance of winning out in the competitive battle on world markets if they get together as a single economic bloc. To do this, they have already created—some time ago now—first, a customs union, then a single market and, now, a single currency. They are still divided on whether to take the next step, a single economic policy which would require a single “economic government”. But some are determined to go down this road and envisage, at the end, a single, federal United States of Europe as a powerful state to rival the USA for world hegemony.

As far as us ordinary workers are concerned, it’s going to have no effect on our wages nor on our standard of living generally. The introduction of the euro will be as neutral—and as irrelevant—in this respect as was the introduction of decimal currency in Britain in 1971. So, there’s no cause to get worked up either way over the issue.

Having said this, it is clear that being able to use the same money throughout the greater part of Europe will remove one of the minor inconveniences that has existed up till now: having to change your coins and notes every time you cross a frontier (and having to pay the money-changers a commission for the privilege). Of course the major inconvenience of having to use money at all to have access to things which should be ours as of right will remain but, as long as the money system continues, it can’t be worse to have fewer currencies than more.

Divided capitalist class

So, joining or not joining the euro is nothing to get upset about. But there are people who do, especially in Britain. You can’t open a local paper there these days without reading a letter from someone complaining about “our loss of sovereignty” or about the disappearance of the queen’s head from “our” money (actually, it could still appear on the coins, but who cares?).

This reflects the fact that the capitalist class in Britain is split on the issue. A section, with capital investments mainly in North America, would prefer Britain to join the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) rather than become irrevocably tied to the European Union. They include the newspaper tycoons, Rupert Murdoch of the Times, Sunday Times and Sun and Conrad Black of the Telegraph, who have not hesitated to use their control of these papers to beat the anti-euro drum to defend their own personal capitalist interests. The Tory Party, too, has also decided to throw in its lot with this section of the capitalist class, perhaps unwisely since this section is only a minority.

The dominant section of the capitalist class in Britain want to join the euro, but they have a political problem. Their representatives, in the Labour and Liberal parties, have for some reason committed themselves to holding a referendum on the question. This was unwise, from their point of view, as this is to subdelegate a decision of vital interest to them to a population of workers that is largely uninformed on the issue and whose heads have been filled over the years with patriotic nonsense for other purposes. It is by no means certain that they would win a referendum, though they might be if they time it right and craft the question carefully and put the media organs they control into top gear. But that’s Blair’s problem.

The main argument put forward by the anti-euro section of the capitalist class is that joining the euro would involve a loss of “our” sovereignty. It may well involve a loss of their sovereignty but the rest of us have no “sovereignty” to lose. Certainly, we have the vote and we can use it to elect politicians to Westminister. But neither Parliament nor the government can control the way the economy works. They can try but if they go against the profit logic of the system they just make things worse. The most they can successfully do is go along with this logic.

What is sovereignty?

Old-fashioned radical liberals like Tony Benn (who, as he said of the Labour Party, is not and never has been socialist) who use the same argument concentrate only on the formal side of things. They emphasise Parliament’s “constitutional right” to control the economy, completely ignoring the fact that experience has shown this to be a purely paper right. The capitalist economy works according to certain economic laws which no government or legislative body can over-ride.

So the argument about sovereignty is not really about what the constitution may or may not say. It’s about the effective power that a capitalist state can exercise within the capitalist economy. Capitalism has always existed within a framework of competing states, none of which is strong enough to impose its will on all the others. States, as weapons in the hands of rival groups of capitalists, intervene to further the interests of the capitalists that control them. They do this by using state power to set up protected markets, raw materials sources, trade routes and investment outlets. In normal times their weapons are tariffs, taxes, quotas, export rebates and other economic measures. When they judge that their vital interest is at stake their weapons are . . . weapons. They go to war.

The extent to which a capitalist state can distort the world market in favour of its capitalists depends both on its industrial strength and on the amount of armed force at its disposal. This is why all states are under pressure to acquire the most up-to-date and destructive armaments that they can afford. In the jungle world of capitalism might is right. “Sovereignty”—the margin of independent decision-making that a state has—also depends on might.

Over the years capitalism has become more and more international, more and more globalised. This has tended to reduce the margin of manoeuvre open to states, i.e. has reduced their “sovereignty”. Fifty years ago, six West European states—France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries—realised this and decided to pool some of their economic decision-making powers in order to increase their total sovereignty. In the capitalist world, just as much as for workers bargaining over wages, “unity is strength”. Certainly, this involved the individual states concerned giving up some of their sovereignty but the objective was to increase the collective sovereignty of the members of the Common Market as a whole. Thirty years ago the majority section of the capitalist class in Britain, too, decided that this made sense and joined along with Ireland and Denmark. Since then Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Sweden and Finland have also signed up.

Not our concern

The sovereignty argument is really an argument within the capitalist class as to whether they should give up some of the might of their state to be able to benefit from the greater might of a larger grouping. Tony Benn, the UK Independence Party and the BNP really seem to believe that a capitalist Britain would be better off going it alone. Murdoch, Black and the less stupid Tories are more circumspect. They realise that Britain can’t really go it alone, but has to be associated with some larger grouping. Their argument is about which this should be: North America rather than Western Europe.

The Trotskyists, who feel that they must have a “line” on everything, too, join in the argument, predictably alongside Benn and the Green Party, but also the UKIP and the BNP. They want a capitalist British state to have the full, paper power to pass the reformist programme they dangle before workers.

As socialists, we don’t take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. We don’t support one section of the capitalist class or the other, and we don’t have any illusions about the “sovereign power” of Parliament to pass reformist legislation that can make capitalism work in the interest of the exploited class of wage and salary earners. Capitalism just cannot be reformed to work in this way; so transferring some of the powers of the House of Commons to a European Parliament in Brussels or Strasbourg makes no difference.

Whether or not the British capitalist class join the euro is not a working-class issue. Let the capitalist class and their parties and supporters settle the matter for themselves. In the meantime we continue to campaign for the establishment of a world society without frontiers where the resources of the Earth are the common heritage of humanity and are used to produce the things we need to live and to enjoy life for us to take directly. Under these circumstances they won’t be any need for money and both the euro and the pound can join the Roman and Anglo-Saxon coins in local museums.

Adam Buick

The Irish 'No' (2008)

From the September 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

A socialist in Ireland looks at the vote there to reject the EU’s proposed Treaty of Lisbon.

On the 12th of June, voters in the Republic of Ireland rejected a constitutional proposal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. The rejection has caused ripples across Europe and provoked a lively and continuing discussion in the letters pages of the newspapers and in radio phone-in programmes. It is a quintessential example of what passes for ‘politics’ under capitalism with heated debate amongst the protagonists and yet the result is as irrelevant to most people as the composition of government here after the next election. Closer inspection of the campaign and its aftermath reveals all the pointlessness, chicanery and opportunism of mainstream politics.

The European Union (although that wasn’t its name at the time) was founded by six, reasonably like-minded European countries by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The aim then (and still now) was to make capitalism more efficient throughout the continent by organising it on a pan-European scale. The basic tenets of permitting the free movement of capital, goods and ‘labour’ (people in the real world) between member states had the intention of giving capitalists the opportunity to conduct their business in the most profitable location at any moment in time. Over the last 50 years the Union has grown so that it now has nearly 30 member countries ranging from the Mediterranean, to the Nordic states and includes most of the pre-1990 Eastern bloc. In fact most countries in Europe are now either members, candidate members, associate members or at a minimum aspirational members. Like any organisation, as it has evolved over time, its governing rules require continual amendments and the Lisbon Treaty is the latest such initiative. The main thrust of all these successive amendments has been to put flesh on and develop the principle of free movement and free trade within Europe.

The problem for the EU is that there is no longer unanimity amongst what may be termed the European capitalist class as to how the Union should develop and what are the appropriate rules for possibly completing structures for it. The Irish referendum debate and result is a manifestation of this and illustration of how the governing ideas in society are those of the capitalist elite. One section of the capitalist class, controlling large multi-national enterprises that are involved in international manufacture and tradable services are extremely concerned about global competition from the USA, China, India, South America etc. They want to see more integration of capitalism within Europe by the dismantling of any remaining national barriers in order to strengthen their position with respect to these external competitors. Some of this programme would involve having a uniform tax base throughout Europe and a ‘Services Directive’ whereby capitalists in any country in the Union would have open access to markets in all the other countries and not be hindered by any local labour or other regulations. Broadly this section of the capitalist class has the approval of the Brussels Commission, the ruling administration of the EU. Furthermore as part of this programme, they are prepared to accept a stronger social element to the EU in terms of certain aspects of workers rights to in effect partly compensate workers for the increased competitive environment in which they will have to sell their labour. This political philosophy usually goes by the name of Christian or Social Democracy where capitalist engage with the organised labour movement taking a long term view of the benefits to profits that stem from stability and social cohesion. As against that there is another rival section to the capitalist class. These generally operate smaller businesses acting in predominately national markets or trading almost exclusively with individual countries outside Europe such as the USA. They see no real need or advantage to be gained from deeper collaboration and are at a minimum, suspicious or completely opposed to these developments. To them other capitalists within Europe are as much a threat as those outside the EU. They also tend to be more resistant to the social aspects of Europe viewing it as a cost that confers no particular advantage to them.

Within Ireland, this uncertainty or confusion in the ruling circles of Europe also manifested itself. On the Yes or pro-treaty side was an uneasy and in parts unlikely alliance consisting of most of the important political parties, the employers’ umbrella organisation IBEC, the corresponding labour organisation, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and important sectional groups such as the Farmers organisations. The political parties, although they spend huge time and effort in ritualistic attacks on each other, basically share the same Christian Democratic ethos which fits in with the EU philosophy and explains their support for the Treaty. Given the predominance of multi-national companies in Ireland’s industrial portfolio (who located here specifically to take advantage of membership of the EU), it was no surprise that IBEC also solicited a yes vote. The unions’ governing body, the ICTU was won over by the social concessions in the Treaty and a desire to be in line with the mainstream labour movement on the continent.

The anti-Treaty side was even more motley in terms of its make-up and consisted of two entirely disparate streams (one from the Right and one from the Left) each in turn containing a myriad of sub-organisations. From the right of the political spectrum were prominent businessmen such as Ben Dunne (retail), Ulick McEvaddy (airlines) and most prominently Declan Ganley (communications). Joining them were a variety of free-market commentators, staunch and unchanging Europhobes and some reactionary populists. The main plank of their opposition to the Lisbon Treaty could be summarised by the lessening of Ireland’s influence within Europe due to the proposed loss of automatic national Commissioners and less ability for Ireland to set independent tax and national macro-economic policies. This Rightist element of the No campaign also included a curious assortment of very traditional and conservative nationalists and extreme Catholics worried about threats to Ireland’s sovereignty and ability to set independent (i.e. Catholic) social policies. The Left side of opposition to Lisbon also had a multitude of identifiable sub-groups each with its own grievance. Although the Green Party is part of the government, a dissident wing of the Green Party opposed the centralising tendencies inherent in the Treaty. Sinn Fein claimed to be concerned about the effect on the position of Irish workers of unrestricted access to the Irish market by foreign capitalists and also were unhappy with the increasing role of a potential European army and its effect on Ireland’s traditional neutrality. The Greens and Sinn Fein were joined in their opposition by a large number of small groups of Leftist, Trotskyite, Anarchist, ‘Anti-War’ and some bizarre single-issue protest organisations (Rural Hospitals, Palestinian Solidarity, etc.).

Most of the debate was ridiculous. The Yes side warned of economic meltdown if the Treaty was rejected when everyone knew an economic recession was already underway caused by factors nothing to do with the issue. Sinn Fein (an organisation responsible for over half of all deaths in the 30-year Troubles through its former armed wing, the IRA) claimed to be worried about growing ‘militarism’ within Europe. The Left groups opposed the Treaty on the longstanding and remarkably persistent misapprehension that capitalism organised on an international basis is something reprehensible while if the same society exists on a national basis, then that is something tolerable. This presumably stems from their aspiration that national capitalism can be more easily converted into state capitalism than if it has an international character. In fact some of the claims, mostly by the No side, made about the EU were so conspiratorial that they had the air of a UFO crank convention.

In any event, the Treaty was rejected by 53 percent to 46 percent on a relatively healthy turnout of over 50 percent. While both elements of the No campaign claimed credit for the result, the real winner out of the debate is the mysterious Mr. Declan Ganley who in the space of a few short weeks went from being an unknown figure to being the perceived architect of the Irish rejection. He is a self-made millionaire who made his money through his close contacts with senior members of the American Bush administration which yielded a number of lucrative defence contracts with the US military authorities. Prior to that he had advised a number of former Communist countries in Eastern Europe on the implementation of ‘privatisation’ of state assets and interests. He set up the campaigning organisation, Libertas which provided the bulk of the resources of the No side in terms of flyers, posters, billboard and newspaper advertising. The generous funding of this body is mysterious and under electoral rules does not have to be disclosed until next year. Also because it is not a political party, the level of disclosure about its donors is less stringent than it would be otherwise. There are rumours (denied by Libertas) that the organisation is financially supported by right wing elements in the Republican Party in America who see a growing and more integrated EU as a future threat in the same way as they now view China. He is now the toast of Euro-sceptics throughout Europe (at least those of a rightist persuasion) and has become a leading standard bearer of trans-European opposition to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. He has been glowingly endorsed by the British euro-sceptics, UKIP and the Tory right.

It is clear that Libertas outspent all the other bodies involved in the campaign. They were helped in this by a court ruling, a decade ago in connection with another referendum which made it illegal for the Government to spend public money on advocating a Yes vote. At the time this ruling was viewed as a progressive measure (levelling the playing field in referenda campaigns) but all it has led to is the American situation where private money now dictates the campaigns and success usually goes to the best funded groups and not those with the best arguments or greater support. The practical effect of the ruling is that the Government parties had to spend their own party money and resources to encourage a yes vote. This led to a very token campaign on their behalf as the party loyalists were hardly going to be enthusiastic about selling a 260-page technical document to the electorate. Although the main opposition parties (Fine Gael and Labour) were nominally supportive they clearly decided against spending money to obtain a result that the government would ultimately claim as a victory for itself. There is nothing unusual about that; most political parties only spend real money on getting their own members elected in sufficient numbers to give them access to power where the prospects of enrichment and rewards are tangible. Spending money to change peoples’ minds for its own sake is not a priority. All in all this has left the Irish government with a headache they could have done without. They are under pressure from the leading integrationist countries such as France and Germany to resolve it before other countries with a history of cold feet about European federalism such as Britain, Denmark and the Czech Republic join the No bandwagon. At the same time they are hemmed in by the justifiable taunts of ignoring the peoples’ sovereign will if they ignore or try to legally finesse the outcome of the vote.

What the future holds for this issue, time will tell. Inevitably it will be resolved by some compromise and the System will continue. In five, ten or twenty years time, people will look back and marvel at the heat and dust that it has raised and maybe wonder whatever became of Declan Ganley. For Socialists such tinkerings with the system are of no real concern. Given that the Treaty itself is mainly technical in nature and independent studies show it will not make a huge change to the day-to-day operation of the EU, whether it is ratified or not will not significantly impact on our lives. Only when the over 90 percent of the world’s people, who make a meaningful contribution to life on earth, realize that their interests need a new outlet, can politics become real and meaningful.

Kevin Cronin

World View: Euro or Krone? (2000)

From the November 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 29 September Denmark awoke to a crisp, sunny day. Various people were nursing hangovers because the result of the previous day’s Euro referendum had been a “no” (53.1 percent—no, 46.9 percent—yes; 85 percent of 4 million eligible voters—turnout).

The Ministry of Finance distributed a (lengthy) booklet to households discussing the euro. TV had live, lengthy debates (where the audience could put questions to the panel) almost every day. There were even TV phone-ins where “Joe Bloggs” could question, e.g. the PM and leader of the Social Democratic Party, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen. Of course the real alternative to the euro didn’t get aired.

The summer months saw the hive of various parties’ activity grow nigh-on exponentially. (The Minority Party turned down a debate with the World Socialist Movement because they were too busy on their anti-euro campaign.) It was intriguing to see how parties, who are opposed to each other, took the same side and often put the same arguments. The most humorous propaganda of the whole campaign, has Holger Nielsen (leader of the Socialist Peoples’ Party) and Pia Kjaersgaard (leader of the ultra-nationalist Danish Peoples’ Party) in a stance parodying the film poster to Basic Instinct. The poster was produced by the (Young) Social Democrats, who urged for a “yes”, just like the Liberal Party (who are more conservative than the Danish Conservative Party, who are like the British Liberal Democrats—confused?). And our old “friends”, the Leninists, were urging for a “no”.

One of the major talking points prior to the referendum was Denmark’s sanctions, now lifted, towards Austria. The Liberals claimed this policy made voters, who were undecided, more inclined to vote “no”. the sanctions were a part of EU policy in the light of Jörg Haider and the Austrian Freedom Party’s electoral successes, where they form part of that country’s government now. As it was, 60 percent of Danes opposed those sanctions (57 percent in Nyrup’s party were against). The Liberals’ argument was fallacious because all sides had people against the sanctions. Political analysts (various sources) noted that the “no” camp was swelling because people found the government untrustworthy, and not because of its sanctions policy.

Statistics from the “Institutet for Konjuktur—Analyse” showed that 61.4 percent said the euro would be good for business, 52.1 percent said a nay would increase unemployment, 45.5 percent said a “ja” would make an independent fiscal policy difficult—33 percent took the opposite view, 73 percent thought a “yes” would lead to a “United States of Europe”, 57.1 percent said the euro was a threat to “Danishness”. And so on.

The statistics are of interest since they give some indication of the views held by Danish workers and Party leaders. (It would be wrong to say that the parties were unified around a “yes” or a “no”.) A few other arguments are worthy of note. The SDP leader Holger Nielsen said a “no” would make it easier for the Baltic states to join the EU. A fringe group, consisting of refugees and immigrants entitled to vote, urged a “yes”; they argued that a “no” would lead to a deterioration in the Welfare State and give fuel to Denmark’s already growing far-right parties. And then there was the notorious argument put forward a few days before the referendum by PM Nyrup: a “no” would force up interest rates and thus cost 20,000 jobs. (In fact the, unaccountable, National Bank director put up the interest rate by 0.5 percent the following day.)

In the statistics above, people argued that an independent fiscal policy would be made difficult by a euro. This is true. A central European Bank would have the control over the issue of euro notes and coin. But for how long? Countries can make agreements but history has shown that each country can and does break agreements or push for amendments, since each country’s government is the executive committee of the collective capitalist class. A European Bank would still have an inconvertible currency (the euro) and could still influence price levels via inflation. A Central Bank could never avert economic crises, which are an inherent part of capitalism, because it is a system of anarchic production.

Control of currency issue and interest rates, high or low exchange rates, etc and what monetary policies are carried out depend on which section of the capitalist class has enough lobbying power. Each party stood for a policy of running capitalism. Capitalism cannot work in the workers’ interests. It’s creed is profit.

The working class should not side with any of our class enemies. It should stand for its own interests—freedom from wage slavery and exploitation; socialism: a society of production for use and free access, where all will contribute according to their abilities.

Despite all the debating and statements and what not through the weeks and months, one thing was patently clear: the basic previous which the politicians based their specious arguments.on were not examined. Thus anybody could say anything without being asked any awkward questions, like “What is money anyway?”, “Why does money exist?” and “I don’t have enough euros, does that mean I’ll have to go without food still?”

As this article has hinted, a certain viewpoint was not addressed at all: socialism. Socialists are against capitalism. This means socialists are for a global union, and not nation states, federal unions or global capitalism. socialists are also not interested in what the name of a currency is, as we are for abolishing money.

The question of “euro or Krone?” was of complete irrelevance, as will be “euro or Pound?” when Britain holds its referendum, to the workers. The real issue is “Capitalism or Socialism?” That is why your humble scribe wrote “World Socialism—Abolition of the Wages System!” on his voting paper.

Graham C. Taylor

What about the Common Market: A socialist guide (1971)

From the July 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the Common Market?

The European Economic Community (EEC), to give it its proper name, is a customs and economic union between France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg set up in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome. The aims were to create one huge market by abolishing all customs barriers between the Six  and by erecting a uniform tariff against goods from outside and to establish common agriculture, indirect tax, transport and energy policies. These have largely been achieved. The next stage, to which tentative steps have been taken, would be full economic union with a common currency and after that maybe military and political union.

Why was the Common Market set up?

Basically because big industry needs a big market. After the war the rulers of the industrial countries of western Europe, whose economic rivalries had twice plunged the world into war, realised somewhat late that the traditional European nation-State was not large enough either as a market or as an outlet for investment. In this sense the Common Market is an example of the continuous centralization of capital into bigger and bigger units and it was no accident that it grew out of the free trade in coal and steel the Six had introduced in 1953. Also, Germany wanted free access for its industrial goods to France and France free access for its grain to Germany.

Why didn’t Britain join at the start?

Britain’s pattern of trade was different. The Commonwealth was not only a market for British industrial goods and an outlet for investment but was also a source of cheap food and raw materials. To have joined would have meant giving this up for something whose success was uncertain.

Why does Britain want to join now?

Growing industrialisation in the Commonwealth changed Britain’s pattern of trade. Towards the end of the 1950’s Europe emerged as the best alternative market for Britain’s industrial goods. After failing to stop the Common Market by organising a wider European industrial free trade area, Britain under a Conservative government applied to join in 1961 only to be rejected. The present negotiations arise out of a second application to join made in 1967 under a Labour government.

So, this is all a question of markets?

More or less, and so is essentially a capitalist problem. Joining the Common Market is an attempted solution to the problem of finding new markets for British capitalism whose goods have not been selling so well in recent years. It is not a problem that concerns wage and salary earners, either here or in the Six.

But aren’t some British industrialists opposed to entry?

Yes, those with investments and trade interests in the Commonwealth. They are in a minority but do have some influence on sections of the Conservative Party. The argument for and against the Common Market is basically between those firms who think they will gain and those who think they will lose from entry. Russia, too, is opposed to the Common Market as a rival capitalist power and so therefore is the British Communist Party and the pro-Russia section of the Labour Party who have concocted various allegedly socialist reasons why workers should take the side of those against entry.

What will happen if Britain joins?

After a transitional period Britain will have to bring down its tariffs against the Six (and any others like Ireland, Denmark and Norway who might join at the same time) and to put up tariffs against outsiders, including the Commonwealth. British agricultural policy will have to fall in line with that of the Six.

Won’t that mean an increase in food prices?

Yes. For historical reasons continental Europe has protected agriculture through high prices while Britain has pursued a "cheap food’’ policy. The British industrial capitalists were strong enough in the 19th century to abolish the Corn Laws which kept food prices — and wages — high. The continental capitalists were weak and, to get protection for their industry, had to ally themselves with the big landowners and to agree to protection for agriculture too.

But won’t this make wage and salary earners worse off?

Not necessarily, since the level of wages is largely determined by the cost of living. Lower prices mean lower wages, as the workers of Britain found after the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846 and as the Six recognise when they say that for Britain to keep its "cheap food” policy would be unfair competition. Similarly, higher prices mean higher money wages. This is not an automatic process of course. Workers have to fight through trade unions and strikes to keep money wages rising along with prices. But this is what they’ve got to do all the time in all countries, and what workers in Britain must do whether Britain is in or out of the Common Market.

What will happen to wages if Britain joins?

They say money wages are higher in all the countries of the Six except Italy, but this is what you would expect if food prices are higher. And these wage levels were not achieved without struggle. There was a General Strike in Belgium in 1960 and in France in 1968 and a wage explosion in Holland after the failure of job evaluation; in recent years strikes have become more frequent in Italy and have even broken out in Germany.

Won’t there be an influx of cheap Italian labour?

Maybe, but the answer would not be co-operation with the anti-Common Market section of British industry. The important point is that workers in all countries face the same problems and so have a common interest in uniting to solve them.

What about taxes?

The governments of the Six raise their money more by indirect than by direct taxes. Critics say that indirect taxes fall more on the poor and give this as a reason why workers should support those against entry. That indirect taxes — such as the value added tax — fall on the poor is only an illusion. All taxes in the end fall on rent, interest and profit as only the rich can afford to pay them. The tax system is irrelevant as far as the overall standard of living of wage and salary earners is concerned. Insofar as taxes raise the cost of living they can, if the workers are strong enough, be passed on to employers as higher money wages.

What about social benefits?

Supporters of entry say they are better, but as you would expect some are and some are not. Family allowances, which generally are higher in the Six, were long looked upon with suspicion by trade unions in this country as a wage subsidy for employers, which is what they are. The higher the family allowance paid by the State the less the employer need pay the family man. In any event, “social benefits” along with contributions and income tax are a means of evening out the income of workers so as to ensure that nobody is paid either too much or too little to keep fit to work, and leave the overall standard of living unchanged.

Will we lose our sovereignty?

What do you mean our sovereignty? Not having a stake in the country we have nothing to lose. Our rulers may have to hand over part of their law-making powers to the Common Market, but that’s not our worry. It makes no real difference whether we are ruled from Brussels or London.

But won’t we be ruled by bureaucrats from Brussels?

That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The powers of the EEC Commission in Brussels were granted by the governments of the Six which (like those of the four who are applying to join) depend on popular election and majority acceptance. Governments and bureaucrats can only get away with what people let them.

Isn’t a United States of Europe a good idea?

No, it would just be another capitalist super-power armed with nuclear weapons. Some nationalist delusions might disappear, but this would be no advance if they were replaced by another, different one.

What is the attitude of The Socialist Party of Great Britain and The World Socialist Party of Ireland to the Common Market?

First, that whether or not Britain joins is a capitalist, not a working classe issue. Second, that Britain’s joining would not solve, and is not meant to solve, working class problems; it may not even solve British capitalism’s problem of markets. Third, that, equally, working class problems will remain if Britain stays out. We are neither for nor against entry and regard this as an irrelevant issue. We advocate instead the establishment of a world community without frontiers based on common ownership with production solely for use.

How would you suggest we vote in any referendum on the Common Market?

The government don’t want to risk one in Britain for fear that the anti-German and imperialist prejudices stirred up in the past might result in a vote for “no”. But in Ireland there’s got to be one. We suggest abstention, or rather rejection of the false choice by writing “World Socialism” across the ballot paper.

Scargillism or socialism? (1999)

From the September 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

The June elections to the European Parliament were notable not only in having the lowest turn-out ever in a national election but also for being the first national election in which every elector in Britain had a chance to vote for at least one party using the word “socialist” on the ballot paper. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a chance to vote for real socialism.

Only those in the North East had that chance. Apart from the Socialist Party the other parties calling themselves Socialist stood on anything but a socialist programme. Arthur Scargill’s SLP stood on a patriotic anti-Common Market programme. Tommy Sheridan’s SSP stood for Tommy Sheridan and Scottish separatism (the six words they used on the ballot paper were: “Scottish Socialist Party (Convenor Tommy Sheridan)”. An electoral coalition of Trotskyist groups including Militant and the SWP which contested the West Midlands under the name of “Socialist Alliance”, stood on a programme of minimum reforms such as “No to tuition fees and student loans”, “No to private toll roads”, “£5 an hour minimum wage”, “Oppose the Euro”, with no mention of socialism not even as a long-term goal (and not even as their mistaken definition of it as state-run capitalism).

Scargill’s party stood in all 11 Euroconstituencies in mainland Britain and in all but three of them was the only standard-bearer for the word “socialist”. But what a disgrace to the word his programme was!

The SLP’s main electoral slogan was “VOTE TO GET BRITAIN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION”. Socialists know that it doesn’t make any difference to workers whether or not the British capitalist class are in or out of the European Union. Whether or not they stay in this businessman’s club is their problem, not ours. The problems we face as workers are caused by the class ownership of the means of life and production for profit, not by the trading arrangements of our capitalist masters.

The SLP’s election manifesto, however, did not make such a socialist analysis. Instead, it echoed the analysis made by the UK Independence Party and the BNP that all our problems are due to Britain being in the Common Market—and indeed that those of the capitalists are too, since the SLP manifesto expressed great concern about their trading prospects and about how much of the surplus-value extracted from the workers they have to pay over to Brussels.

According to Scargill’s manifesto:

When Britain joined the European Common Market the people were told that membership would protect British industries and British jobs—but the very opposite is true . . . Membership of the European Union has led to mass unemployment, the closure of steelworks and coal mines, engineering industries and the near-destruction of Britain’s manufacturing base.

Or, as the BNP put it in their manifesto:

Being in the EU makes it illegal for us to protect our own industries, including manufacturing, fishing and farming, from the foreign competition which has destroyed millions of jobs. The BNP says ‘no’ to EU insecurity, and—unlike the pro-free trade UKIP—’yes’ to protecting British jobs. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Well, actually, no, it doesn’t, since the implication of the SLP/BNP position is that if British capitalism hadn’t been in the Common Market these closures and job losses could have been avoided. But how? Since they were caused by changes in world market conditions in the form of a world-wide economic slowdown it would have made no difference whether Britain was in or out of the EU. If Britain had not been in they would still have occurred.

The fact is that we are living in a global economy and there is nothing a government of any particular state can do to opt out of the effects of a global economic downturn. No doubt an SLP government—or a BNP government—would have tried to protect “British jobs” by putting up tariff walls to keep out “foreign” imports. But this is to forget that Britain, as part of the global economy, is also necessarily an exporting country; in fact its speciality has been transforming imported materials into manufactured goods for export. Keeping out cheap “foreign” imports would have meant forcing exporters to use more expensive British-made substitutes, so increasing their cost and making them less competitive on already over-supplied world markets. This, quite apart from the retaliatory action other states would be likely to have taken against imports from Britain to their countries. In other words, if such a protectionist policy had been pursued British exports would still have fallen off leading to . . . factory closures and job losses.

A siege economy, whether under Arthur Scargill or John Tyndall, is no way out of the global capitalist crisis. In fact there is no way out for workers other than socialism which, because capitalism is already a global system, has to be world-wide too. This is elementary Socialist thinking, but it’s the last thing you are going to hear from Scargill’s party.

Instead, we are told:

If a country like Norway—not a member of the EU—can have one of the most prosperous economies in the world outside the EU, why not Britain?

But Norway is an openly capitalist country (which didn’t in fact escape from the effects of the world slump), so the SLP evidently believes that the problems workers in Britain face can be solved within the context of capitalism. This mistaken conclusion follows logically from the SLP’s mistaken analysis: if the EU rather than capitalism is the cause of workers’ problems then the solution lies not in getting rid of capitalism but simply in getting out of the EU.

We suspect we know why the SLP chose Norway as its example of a supposed paradise outside the EU. The examples they normally give in their literature—Cuba and North Korea—are rather less attractive vote-pullers.

Although all this is enough to show not only that the SLP is not a socialist party at all but that it is a petty British nationalist party, the various Trotskyist groups were urging workers to vote for them, except in Scotland where they preferred Sheridan’s even pettier Scottish nationalism and in the West Midlands where they stood themselves, but including the North East where a genuine Socialist list was standing. This doesn’t surprise us as they have more in common with Scargill than they have with us and, in any event, we only want those who genuinely understand and want socialism to vote for us. They too are Eurosceptics, though not as extreme as Scargill, the BNP and UKIP in wanting a complete withdrawal. Their slogan of “OPPOSE THE EURO AND MAASTRICHT”, i.e. stay in but keep the pound, puts them rather in the camp of Thatcher and Norman Tebbitt.

The correct socialist position on the euro was put in a letter from one of our members published in the Newcastle Journal on 14 January:

To euro or not to euro, that is the question. Or is it? Does it really make any difference if you pay your bills with euro, dollars or pounds sterling? Would your life change if the money in your pocket no longer had a picture of the richest woman in England? The real truth is the rich will still be rich and the poor still be poor. Joining the euro will benefit the flow of business capital. Why? Because we live in a global economy. The European nations must compete as a trading bloc against their strongest competitors, the American and Far East economies. If this planet with all its vast resources was owned and democratically controlled by the people, money would be obsolete. Socialism means that the farms, factories, railways, etc are run for the benefit of all. Without the insanity of the boom-slump profit system, the Stock Exchanges of the world will become museums and the floor traders can stop running around like headless chickens wearing blazers.

The North East, in fact, was the one region where voters attracted by the mere word “socialist” on the ballot paper did have a choice between the SLP’s position and the genuine Socialist one. Of the 6021 voters in this category, 4511 voted for the SLP and 1510 for us. In other words, 25 percent opted for real socialism rather than Scargill’s British state capitalism. What is interesting is that in those areas where we had been active in putting over the Socialist case, in other elections and in letters to the press, the percentage opting for socialism rather than Scargillism was higher. In Jarrow it was 44 percent and in Easington 35 percent.

This would suggest that where those interested in socialism are given the opportunity to hear the socialist case on a regular basis they can be won over to supporting the real thing and not just the name. Many of the 86,749 people who voted for the SLP will have voted not for, but thankfully despite, its reactionary, non-socialist programme, as a way of showing that they rejected the Labour administration of capitalism and saw “socialism”, however vaguely defined, as the way out.

There is talk of getting all the various parties calling themselves “socialist” together in an electoral pact so as to win seats under proportional representation. We want no part of such an alliance. The SLP, the SSP and the Trotskyist groups may as well know that we will continue to put the case for socialism, against them and the other parties which all support capitalism in one form or another, at election times whenever we can. We shan’t be forming any electoral pacts with them since their objective of reforms now and state capitalism later has nothing in common with ours of a world community without frontiers based on common ownership and democratic control of the world’s resources with production to satisfy people’s needs not profit.

Adam Buick

Devolution makes no difference (1999)

From the August 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

The inexorable process of globalisation has increasingly made redundant the question of “national sovereignty”. Yet regional nationalists imagine they can buck the trend without even being against capitalism.

The growth of multinational corporations, some with a turnover exceeding the GDP of most states, has dramatically transformed the role of government as the locus of economic decision-making. Many of the most important decisions are now made, not by politicians, but in the boardrooms of these multinationals. Indeed, this renders increasingly problematic the very notion of a “British capitalist class”; in practice, ownership of “British” capital has become progressively dispersed across the globe, a process facilitated by transnational mergers and buy-outs.

Likewise, the proliferation of trading links between different states has effectively blurred the lines of demarcation between nominally separate national economies. It would be more realistic now to speak of there being a single global economy. Even so, many locally-based businesses are indirectly tied into this economy as subcontractors to multinationals. Not only that, the ever-deepening nexus of international linkages means they cannot escape recessionary perturbations emanating from elsewhere when these impact upon the local economy. At the same time, the limited leeway of governments to ameliorate such localised effects has been correspondingly reduced.

What applies at the national level applies even more so at the regional or subnational. While Wales and Scotland have been given a measure of devolution of power from Westminster, in other parts of the country the struggle to achieve this is still ongoing. This is particularly so in the case of Cornwall. Situated in the far south-west of Britain, Cornwall is likewise part of its “Celtic fringe” with a strong sense of its own identity.

There are a number of organisations which can be loosely described as “Cornish nationalist”. At one extreme are the hard-liners who advocate full independence, some of whom, according to a recent BBC documentary (11 February), have links with paramilitary contacts; the so-called “Cornish Liberation Army”. Evidence of paramilitary activity is scant, the most significant instance of which in recent years occurred in the St Austell areas in the early 1980s. At the other extreme are the more numerically important “soft” nationalists typified by the recently formed “Cornish Solidarity” organisation. Its goal is basically a better deal for Cornwall through greater local autonomy. Soft nationalism extends also to the main UK-based political parties, like the Liberal Democrats, who for historical reasons have long been the dominant political force in Cornwall.

There are other variations amongst the nationalists. Some focus mainly on the Cornish as a supposed ethnic group; others are more inclusive, welcoming anyone into their ranks who live in, and “care about”, Cornwall. Since probably a majority of residents in Cornwall are of non-Cornish extraction—according to one estimate, nearly 70 percent—this would appear to be the more judicious approach to adopt. Nevertheless, it does rather vitiate the notion of Cornwall as a distinct “cultural region”. But this is the lynchpin of the approach of Mebyon Kernow, the largest Cornish nationalist party. In their recent election document, Cornwall 2000—the Way Ahead, they make the following statement:

Cornwall is recognised as a cultural region yet ignored as an economic region. There is a lack of harmony between culture and economics here, but the answer to this imbalance is simple. Base the economic on the cultural region.

Last tin mine

There is little doubt that as an “economic region” Cornwall fares badly. In an article in the Guardian (20 April), the Camborne-Redruth area in particular was portrayed as a scene of post-industrial dereliction “worse than Albania” following the closure there of South Crofty, Europe’s last remaining tin mine. That was surely a gross exaggeration. Nevertheless, with a per capita GDP of only 72.2 percent of the UK average, Cornwall is the poorest county in England, notwithstanding its picture postcard image.

According to Mebyon Kernow, “social deprivation, low wages and high unemployment in Cornwall are in direct proportion to our distance from the decision-making centre in London”. This conveniently overlooks the fact that, in terms of absolute numbers, the greatest concentration of poverty in the UK is actually to be found in London itself, notably in the boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets situated within a few miles of Westminster and Whitehall and which have a combined population exceeding that of Cornwall.

Certainly, Cornwall’s remoteness from the major population centres like London has contributed to its relative poverty, but not for the reason Mebyon Kernow suggests. Rather, it has to do with the spatial economics of capitalism itself: the difficulty of gaining access to the large markets “up country” and, associated with this, the inability to capitalise on economies of scale. This is one reason why Cornish wages are so low, to compensate for the additional transportation costs of their employers.

Blaming Cornwall’s plight on the bias of Westminster politicians amounts to a kind of conspiracy theory with little foundation in fact. The government’s proposal to set up a seven-county South-West regional development agency based in Bristol is typically seen by nationalists as yet another example of it ignoring the needs of Cornwall for the sake of administrative convenience. Among the nationalists’ list of demands is the establishment of a Cornish Development Agency—as if, in Cornish hands, things would improve. Tell that to Cornish workers who are exploited just as ruthlessly by their Cornish bosses as by their up-country cousins. But even if a Development Agency were to materialise, with the best will in the world it would not significantly affect the basic economic realities the region faces.

Furthermore, as everywhere else, more and more of the vital decisions affecting the local economy have little to do with Westminster. Thus, the decision last year to close the symbolically important South Crofty mine was taken by its Canadian owners in the context of a precipitous fall in the world price of tin and cheaper production methods abroad.

The case of South Crofty highlights the importance of inward investment to the Cornish economy. By the same token, it exposes the futility of treating it as though it were a self-contained “region”. To look at the world in these terms is to succumb to the myopia of the development planner, too intent upon empire-building to see the larger picture. Capitalism simply does not operate in this way. Most of the big UK chains have outlets throughout Cornwall. Some of the largest concerns are not even based in Britain. SWEB, for example, the main supplier of electricity, is owned by an American company; English China Clays was recently taken over by a French firm.

That said, a striking feature of Cornish economy is the extent of small and medium-sized firms; over 90 percent of firms have a workforce of less than 25. This is partly attributable to the peculiar economic profile of Cornwall and its heavy reliance on tourism, fishing and farming. Even its traditional mining industry has historically tended towards fragmentation.

At its height, in the mid-19th century, the predominant mode of payment was the tribute system rather than conventional wage labour. Small gangs of labourers would contract with landowners to mine the ore, sharing out the proceeds from its sale amongst themselves. It has been argued that the tribute system, coupled with the quietistic influence of Methodism, have been largely responsible for the relative absence of class consciousness among Cornish miners. This impeded the growth of a traditional “Labour movement” in Cornwall while the weak hold of the big landowners on smallholders curbed the influence of Toryism, allowing a unique Cornish style of politics to emerge in the 19th century—a petty-bourgeois cocktail of liberalism and non-conformism.

Maverick millionaire

The economic background likewise helps to explain the marked hostility in Cornwall toward Europe. Many traditional industries have been adversely affected by EU regulations, such as the imposition of quotas on the Cornish fishing fleet, leading to its partial de-commissioning. Similarly, the proposal to join the single currency, insofar as this will deleteriously impact upon small businesses, will particularly hit Cornwall, given the predominance of small-scale enterprises.

It is not surprising under the circumstances that anti-European political parties, like the UKIP, fared so well in the recent European elections in Cornwall. For many years, anti-European sentiments have been regularly aired in the form of full-page weekly advertisement in all the main Cornish papers. The author of this frankly xenophobic rubbish, vacillating confusedly between Cornish and British nationalism, is a maverick millionaire, Mike Robertson (writing under the pseudonym, “Tripehound”) and founder of the home-grown Trago Mills chain.

Such confusion is typical of the nationalists in general: on the one hand, pushing for greater economic assistance for Cornwall from Westminster, on the other, seeking to weaken its links with Westminster. It’s a case of wanting to have your nationalist cake and eat it. This confusion is manifest too with respect to Europe. One of the main aims of the nationalist movement has been to get Objective One Status for Cornwall thereby attracting European grants of up to £500 million over several years. Only those regions with a GDP of less than 75 percent of the EU average could qualify for such funding but until recently, Cornwall was, for statistical purposes, lumped together with its wealthier neighbour, Devon, and thus denied funding. With this obstacle having recently been removed, Cornwall has now finally achieved this aim.

Whether this will make any impact on the extent of poverty in Cornwall is doubtful; more likely it will only exacerbate the degree of social polarisation and hasten the disintegration of what remains of a distinctive Cornish culture, now pitifully parodied by the ubiquitous theme park. That, after all, is the natural tendency of capitalist development.

As Cornwall inexorably succumbs to the imperatives of a McDonald’s culture, its nationalists would do well to reflect. For by striving to promote capitalist development, they have inadvertently assisted this outcome, poisoning, so to speak, the very ground in which their own cultural pretensions are rooted.

Robin Cox

TV Review: Our Masters’ Voice (1999)

Tyndall (top left) in his younger days.

TV Review from the July 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month’s Euro election campaign is probably best forgotten—just as well, as most of the electorate appeared to have forgotten about it even before polling day. It was not that the political parties made no effort to influence the electorate, it just seemed as if they were going through the motions, well aware that wherever real political power lies in Europe it is certainly not with the European Parliament. The Party Election Broadcasts screened during the campaign must have been among the most hopeless and insipid on record.

The Conservative Party ran with a two-part playlet featuring a young, upwardly-mobile couple whose prose turned with the trivial to overtly political with all the subtlety and finesse of Yasser Arafat gatecrashing a barmitzvah. Labour’s best effort was another risible attempt at the canonisation of Tony Blair, the saintly führer.

The real British führer, of course, achieved a Party Election Broadcast of his own this time thanks to the BNP running a full list across most of the UK. Standing resplendent in front of the Cenotaph in Whitehall was the man who poses as the saviour of the white race, Mr John Tyndall, professional bigot, race hater and petty criminal. If ever there was a case to be made for lengthier prison sentences of the type advocated by the BNP, then this man must feature prominently. Even he, however, looked good next to the “vox pop” type interviews which followed, where stilted fascists posing as “ordinary” members of the public read from cue cards, turning a few minutes of nationalist rhetoric into what seemed like a lifetime of televisual embarrassment. Unusually for the BNP, their broadcast this time around did not feature Tyndall railing against all those impure elements who have taken the Great out of Britain—communists, Jews, blacks, homosexuals, liberals, teachers, Guardian-readers, social workers, feminists, etc. Rather like the Daily Mail, Tyndall now has a greater, more all-encompassing target than these minority groups: Europe itself. Britain must Get Out Of Europe he bellowed, NOW!

For those whose familiarity with the BNP extends beyond a PEB every few years, this is odd. If it is the case that opposition to all things European and support for everything home-grown and British is what now really defines the BNP’s politics then why is it that they have been happy to spend so much time in the company of European terrorists from Italy and elsewhere this last 15 years or so? Why is it that the BNP attends international gatherings in Europe where—bizarrely—other foreigner-haters from all the different nations of Europe are in attendance? And, while we’re on the subject, wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much of the money to finance the BNP’s election candidates (and hence its PEB) actually came from Johnny Foreigner? Questions, there are many, but answers no doubt there will be none.

Left, right

Also in evidence during the Euro-election campaign was that other authoritarian comedy act, Arthur Scargill and his ever-decreasing and increasingly amazing SLP. Like Tyndall, Scargill made sure the SLP put up nearly a full list of candidates so that it would be eligible for a Party Political Broadcast, and like the BNP, the SLP’s broadcast was a homily to the Little Englander political mentality, this time with a bizarre Stalinist twist. Despite their national exposure, it would appear that the SLP now presents no challenge whatsoever to Labour anywhere in the country, despite the massive display of apathy on election day from Labour’s core support. The SLP, shorn of many of the Trotskyist activists which paradoxically both gave it presence and rent it asunder, is now little more than a Stalinist sect with small followings in the faction-ridden Asian working class movement in London. Just like the BNP, it its vote was desultory for a party with national political exposure and a lowest-common denominator political appeal. Like his great political enemy David Owen, Scargill truly has the negative Midas touch: everything he touches turns to shit.

Political mind control of the type manifested in Party Political and Party Election Broadcasts is a difficult and inexact science, though when it works it can infect the minds of generations of the working class. Those who doubt this should take a look at Party Political Broadcasts: The Greatest Hits, a video collection of PPBs since their inception at the end of the Second World War. As you watch it, the carefully planted myths of a capitalist political lifetime unfold before your very eyes. Here are MacMillan, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair, bamboozling the working class with nationalist rhetoric and reformist promises as if their very life depended on it. It is in fact, a monument to political trickery and flummery throughout the ages. Perhaps, one day, Arthur Scargill and John Tyndall will find their way on to the sequel, bearing in mind, of course, that sequels are usually a pale imitation of the original.

Dave Perrin

Is the Pound worth saving? (1999)

From the June 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some said it would never happen, yet on 1 January of this year the Single European Currency became a reality. Five months on, we have seen the fall of Oskar Lafontaine, the German Finance Minister, the resignation of the entire European Commission and the Euro steadily fall in value.

Despite all of this, New Labour has started to come off the fence and demonstrate that they are preparing to recommend Britain’s entry to the project, subject to a referendum of course. This policy shift (especially after publishing the National Changeover Plan), has only intensified debate across the country, spawning a plethora of ad hoc organisations, dedicated to both sides of the argument.

Without equivocation, we in the Socialist Party say that the introduction is a capitalist question which has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the working class. Our class interests can only be furthered by the abolition of the capitalist wages system and all money no matter which name our masters wish to give it.

The “pro” and “anti” positions span the political spectrum from right to left. Some of the Eurosceptics to be found on the extremes of the Conservative and Labour parties are actually in favour of EU withdrawal, whilst the majority are just hostile to the Single European Currency. In the case of the Europhiles, they can be found anywhere from the Tory left, the Liberal Democrats through to New Labour. It is interesting to note that the vast bulk of the pseudo-revolutionary Trotskyite sects are defending their own variation of the Eurosceptic position.

Ever-increasing concentration

The Euro project is just the latest (but by no means the last) phase of European capitalism’s attempts to compete as an effective unit on the world stage (especially against the US and Japan). This is not just a political project, as the capitalist media likes to make out, but is rooted in the ever-increasing concentration, centralisation and integration of European capital. Indeed, the prelude to the launch of the Euro was littered with take-over activity. This process itself is part of capitalism’s attempt to restructure itself to the needs of the modern globalised economy.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, we find that the most powerful section of the capitalist class (big manufacturing and finance) are generally the ones pushing for Britain’s entry into the Euro. There are the capitalists who have a big stake in Europe either via importing/exporting or providing finance for take-overs.

It does not follow that businesses with extensive European interests who have supported the development of Europe vis-à-vis the EEC and single market EU, necessarily believe the Euro is a good idea in itself. The CBI, which represents big manufacturing capital, is actually quite divided on this issue despite its leadership being in favour. For many members, it’s not the principle of the Euro which is the problem—it is the economics of it. However, some pro-European capitalists take the view that although the single currency is not perfect, they cannot be left out of it. In fact some argue that early membership would have allowed the British government to influence the shape of the Euro project in their favour.

Bearing in mind that the majority of the British public are not Euro enthusiasts, we should expect to see a big propaganda drive over the next year or two from the powerful pro-Euro lobby (which is likely to involve the government). The most popular argument trotted out by the Europhiles is that an integrated Europe will reduce the risk of another European war because Germany will be kept in check. This is a feeble argument which totally misunderstands the causes of war. The fact that superficially Europe’s capitalists are coming together does not alter the fact that they remain competitors and this is only a marriage of convenience. If, due to capitalist logic, the arrangement should break down, no amount of political organisation at a supra-national level will prevent a war. The example of the United Nations demonstrates this.

Following on from this, we are told that from this position of political stability there will be increased economic growth via increased trade and low interest rates and inflation. The logical corollary of this would be a Europe reasserting itself on the world stage, whilst capable of dealing with its own internal balance-of-power. As pro-Euro economist Christopher Johnson argues in his book In With The Euro, Out With The Pound:

“The Euro, with the UK inside it will become a world currency alongside the dollar and the yen. Britain can thus retain, or even regain, some of its status as a world economic and financial power without giving up its national identity.”

Moreover:

“Britain can avoid German domination of Europe only by joining France, Germany and other European countries as partners in an integrated Europe” (p.197).

Quite where Johnson find the facts to support such optimistic economic reasoning is anybody’s guess. It’s certainly not supported by the first five months of the Euro, which has highlighted many of its contradictions. Firstly, there has been the constant bickering between the politicians and the bankers of the European Central Bank (see January Socialist Standard) which resulted in the resignation of “Red” Oskar Lafontaine, the German Finance Minister, and of course the corruption scandal at the heart of the EU Commission which demonstrates the lack of even basic democratic accountability. And as for the Euro becoming a world reserve currency to threaten the dollar—well it hasn’t happened yet. 

Eurosceptics

However, the capitalist class is multi-faceted and some sections are openly hostile to Britain joining the Euro. These capitalists (generally small and medium size concerns) grouped around organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses see joining the Euro as a costly adventure. The EU “social market” model is derided as an economic anachronism which will not be able to compete against the low cost, dynamic “free market” US and that Britain’s entry into the single currency will effectively spell the end of the Thatcherite revolution.

There is a certain amount of truth in this position. It is clear that if Britain did join the Euro there would be moves to harmonise taxes and costs since British capital would have an unfair advantage over its European rivals. However, it is also true to say that European capitalists have been trying to restructure their own economies for sometime now with attacks on welfare provision and working conditions. The results of this have been violent protests and demonstrations by French and German workers. In reality, Euro capital will try to restructure at home whilst demanding concessions from a British entry.

The Eurosceptics often claim that a single currency with a “one-size-fits-all” monetary policy would inevitably require a single fiscal policy. John Redwood, the Tory arch Eurosceptic, articulated this view in his 1997 book Our Currency, Our Country:

“You cannot have a single currency without a single interest rate, a single banking policy, a single budget and a single finance minister or central bank governor. You are inevitably led to a single taxation policy and a single economic policy. You are close to creating a single government” (Preface).

Although Redwood’s arguments may be more cogent and honest than Christopher Johnson’s, his views are ultimately based upon populist nationalism. Britain would cease to be an independent nation and parliament would resemble little more than a glorified county council under the jackboot of French and German bankers.

This may or may not be true. The question is what difference would this make to the working class? When people like John Redwood start talking about democracy it’s difficult not to laugh.

The main strengths of the “Eurosceptic” position rests on their critique of single currency economics. Firstly, they argue that Europe is not an “optimal currency area” which is a prerequisite for the Euro to be a long-term success. Britain’s trade cycle is synchronised more closely with that of the US and this could cause problems with a common interest rate policy (i.e. German growth may be slowing and Britain’s picking up). This could mean that the currency area was more susceptible to “asymmetric shocks” that could threaten the stability of the entire continent.

Left-wing Eurosceptics with their desire to reform British capitalism have also used “loss of control” arguments. The Campaign for an Independent Britain write in a recent pamphlet:

” . . . opting for economic self governance, rapid growth and full employment means opting out of a single currency” (Burkitt, Bainbridge and Whyman—There is An Alternative, p.65).

It is a supreme irony that left-reformists such as the aforementioned authors and Tony Benn can be on the same side as the Thatcherites, whilst denouncing the Maastricht “Convergence Criteria” and Amsterdam “Stability Pact” for being “monetarist” and “deflationary”. For these people are still labouring under the delusion that capitalist governments can control and influence the economy by using monetary and fiscal policies. They have learned nothing from history.

Clearly, the Tory Eurosceptics (currently under the leadership of William Hague) nominally support the notion of an independent Britain, but in reality represent the pro-US section of the British capitalist class. It is precisely this division between the pro-European and pro-US sections of the capitalist class that will fuel the single currency debate in the coming months.

Indeed, the EU and US seem to be in a perpetual trade war at the moment and such tensions are likely to increase rather than diminish. This makes Britain’s future role even more interesting. If Tony Blair does take Britain further into Europe, how will this affect Anglo-US relations? Perhaps Blair’s strategy will be to play one bloc off against the other?

We have seen the poverty of all the capitalist arguments for and against the Euro and located this debate in its true context. From the petty nationalists to the more “sophisticated” pro-Europeans this is not a debate for the working class. To be “pro-European” or “anti-European” is to fall for capitalist trickery. We should create our own agenda rather than just responding to our masters’ in-fighting. Is the Pound worth saving? A better question would be: Is capitalism worth saving?

Dave Flynn