John Major and the leaders of the other
Common Market countries signed the Maastricht Treaty.
The Treaty aims to:
Create an undemocratic European super-state
run by bureaucrats in Brussels in the interests of Big Business
Hand over control of Britain's economy
to the Brussels bureaucracy and to an unaccountable European
Central Bank, with a single European currency
Keep down government spending on education,
health and social services - with fines and sanctions against
governments that defy the bureaucrats and bankers
Force governments to accept the foreign
and military policy of the European super-state aimed against
the Third World and emerging power blocs of a US-led North America
and the Japan-led East Asian/Pacific region.
Harmonise EC immigration regulations,
based on the most inhuman and divisive rules, instead of the
most enlightened.
Is this the kind of Europe
YOU want to see?
Instead of transferring power from the British
Parliament to Brussels and the Euro-Bank, we should be bringing
it closer to the peoples of Scotland, Wales and England.
Instead of public spending cuts and rate-capping
on a European scale, we need more spending to rebuild Britain's
industrial base and social services.
We must stop the Maastricht madness.
The people of Denmark, Ireland, and France
have been given a referendum on the Treaty - why not the people
of Britain?
The European Union's threat to our welfare
Moves toward a European super-state represent
a threat to jobs, living standards and democratic rights. This
is the reality of a 'United Europe'
It is obvious to most people in Britain
the real unemployment figure is around 5 million, the NHS is under
continual attack and Britain's education system is in massive
crisis.
None of these problems are inevitable or
unavoidable. They are the result of disastrous economic policies
carried out by British governments, both Tory and right-wing Labour,
they are also the orthodox economic polices of the European Union
and its Maastricht Treaty. These policies include tight control
of monetary policy, otherwise known as Thatcherism, and high exchange
rates to shadow the German Mark and high interest rates to maintain
artificial exchange rate levels.
Such deflationary policies have decimated
British manufacturing industries. In fact, manufacturing output
is now on a par with output during the three- day week under Heath
in 1973.
It has also led to further recession, low
output and low demand. Whichever way you look at it Euro-capitalism
has failed dismally to provide for the British people.
We have to ask, 'What is it all for?' The
simple answer is to 'remain in Europe' at whatever cost. So, when
we are told we cannot afford to be outside 'Europe' we must look
at the cost of remaining within the EU. These costs are the £25
billion paid by the British people to Brussels since 1973 and
the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, to which each family
in Britain contributes an estimated £1,000 per year to pay
for heavily subsidised food mountains. We can see that the cost
is definitely not a price worth paying.
The peoples of Europe are beginning to take
matters into their own hands and fight back. The recent huge demonstrations
and general strike in France were against the austerity measures
that all EU countries entering the single currency must impose
to reach the harsh convergence criteria. The French labour movement
successfully repelled Prime Minister Juppè's attacks on
the French welfare and benefits system. This has been an inspiration
to progressive forces which recognise the threat the European
Union represents to working people. Take unemployment, a recurring
and lasting feature of Euro-capitalism. Over 20 million people
are unemployed across the EU, around 13% of the work-force. That
figure is certain to rise as a result of Monetary Union. According
to the European Parliament's own employment committee, a single
currency will cost an estimated 10 million jobs Such alarming
rates of unemployment are ignored by both the Labour leadership
and the Tories. Yet unemployment is not a natural occurrence but
is exacerbated as a direct result of the economic policies of
the EU. We have to ask ourselves, why is unemployment soaring
within the EU? And why has the so-called recession lasted so long?
There are simple reasons why unemployment is, and will remain,
part and parcel of the EU. The Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) forces
member states to maintain fixed exchange rates which closely follow
the German Mark. The lunacy of maintaining these exchange rates
was best illustrated by the antics of the Tory government when
interest rates soared to ludicrous levels in a vain attempt to
remain within the ERM.
The effect of ERM on members states is to
increase the deflationary spiral of their currencies so compounding
and producing greater recession. We must continue to keep Britain
out of European Monetary Union.
Under the terms of Maastricht, member states
must cut budget deficits and make 'price stability' and low inflation
the only economic priority and give up their currency to a European
Central Bank run by the Bundesbank. That means cutting public
expenditure, dissolving the welfare state and only allowing the
'market' and 'free competition' to run the economy (as laid down
in the Treaty of Rome 1957).
As we in Britain already know, such Thatcherite
voodoo economics means closures, redundancies and even more unemployment.
Under the Maastricht Treaty, the public sector borrowing limit
must be under 3% of each nation's Gross Domestic Product. In Britain
under the Tories, it is currently 5%, despite massive public spending
cuts.
If Labour are to form the next government
under Tony Blair and it is to carry out pledges he has made to
join European Monetary Union(EMU) he must cut public expenditure
further. This is suicide for any Labour government on a par with
Ramsey MacDonald in 1931 when he cut benefits under orders from
international bankers. Any future Labour government should have
nothing to do with such failed policies and all socialists and
Labour supporters should campaign against them.
The EU against the developing world
Europe's relationship with the developing
world has never been equitable. It has been a history of cruel
exploitation and colonialism which has only sought to extract
raw materials and profit from poorer nations at the least possible
cost.
This exploitation did not cease when European
troops left Africa and Asia. Transnational corporations (eg Shell
Oil in Nigeria and bankers based in Europe have imposed themselves
on poor nations, forcing them to open their economies to imperialist
exploitation and as an extended market for unwanted goods.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has
produced heavily subsidised surplus food in the form of food mountains.
When these are dumped on the third world they depress world food
prices. This has catastrophic effects for local farmers in poverty-stricken
Africa who cannot compete. Already saddled with huge debts, these
economies are pushed into further crises.
The EU puts heavy tariffs and taxes on agricultural
goods produced outside the EU. That means that trade is restricted,
leaving farmers outside the EU no access to European markets.
This is one of the reasons BSE spread in
Britain - it was cheaper for fodder manufacturers to feed their
cattle on sheep brains rather than cheap, imported soya after
imposing penal taxes.
The Common Fisheries Policy makes EU nations'
fishing grounds 'common' to all EU fleets, leading to overfishing
this, in turn, has led to Spanish and Portuguese trawlers plundering
African nations' waters such as Senegal and Mozambique.
Western European wealth has always depended
on massive exploitation of the developing world. The relationship
between developed European nations and the developing world was
studied by Lenin who noted:
"From the standpoint of the economic
conditions of imperialism - ie, the export of capital and the
division of the world by the 'advanced' and 'civilised' colonial
powers - a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either
impossible or reactionary"
That is to say the capitalists of Europe
will come together only to increase exploitation and profits.
Although he did note another reason: "A United States of
Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists
. . . but to what end? Only for the purpose of suppressing socialism
in Europe' and 'to jointly protect colonial booty against Japan
and America". LCW Vol 21
There is no doubt that the EU wants to protect
its interests against other imperialist blocs. It is also clear
that the 'internationalism' of the EU stops at its own borders.
Democracy in the EU . . . Are you quite
sure?
There are just under 400 million people
living in the EU, yet only 50 people take all the decisions: 15
heads of State plus 15 ministers in Councils of Ministers plus
20 European Commissioners.
Neither the European Parliament nor national
parliaments can overturn decisions made by this tiny clique.
Disturbed?
You should be.
The Inter-Governmental Conference is meeting
to decide the future of the European Union. Yet, like the discussions
around the Maastricht Treaty, Single European Act and the Treaty
of Rome before that, there will be little or no consultation with
anyone but the Eurocrats and bankers who will, once again, impose
their will on an unsuspecting public.
These talks will decide the fate of individual
countries' right to veto EU decisions, agree the basis for a common
foreign policy forming process.
These steps are part of a process for the
creation of a United States of Europe and must be opposed by all
those interested in democracy.
A racist super-state
The term 'Fortress Europe' has been rightly
used to describe the intrinsically racist nature of the EU.
Although Schengen is not EU law, it has
openly been declared that it should be. Only a minority of EU
states have signed the agreement and France has now decided not
to operate it.
The governments of Norway and Iceland, not
even in the EU, are being put under heavy pressure to sign it.
Yet this has been covered up by sophisticated
media presentation. For instance, the Schengen agreement is mistakenly
seen by many as a mechanism which allows free movement of people.
Schengen seeks to restrict and control the
movement of people within the internal borders of the EU and close
external borders tighter against refugees and people from the
developing world. Within the agreement, there are provisions for
Pass Laws akin to those operated in Apartheid South Africa.
Non-Europeans must declare their entry by
law and if they wish to enter another EU state must declare their
arrival within three days. There will be a tightening up of travel
papers, conditions of entry, work permits and freedom of movement
for third world citizens.
Every EU state already has large 'detention
centres' such as those in Campfield in Britain to deal with these
'offenders' yet Schengen visas are not required for Americans,
Canadians, Australians, Japanese etc.
Although Britain has not signed the Schengen
agreement the Immigration and Asylum Bills conform to the essence
of Schengen.
The harmonisation of EU law within the member
states is why we have also seen the introduction of reactionary
and restrictive legislation such as the Criminal Justice Act,
and anti-trade union laws. There have also been, so far unsuccessful,
attempts to introduce identity cards.
Such repressive laws will be enforced by
a European police force(Europol) which will be linked up to a
computerised network known as Schengen Information System (SIS).
This organisation will deal with crime prevention,
terrorism and asylum seekers and immigration. As a result of the
democratic deficit that exists within EU structures such as force
will be beyond any democratic control, effectively, a law unto
themselves.
The openly hostility towards people of the
developing world represents the Europeanisation of institutionalised
racism.
What's the price of a single currency?
The moves toward a single currency brings
us closer to a single, centralised European superstate. This will
lead to political administration and control. Before the introduction
of a single currency, massive austerity measures are being introduced
within EU member states in order to reach the convergence criteria.
Within a single currency, no government would be able to control
interest or exchange rates. It would be unable to protect industries
from imports, or give subsidies to industries.
Many governments in Europe have faced electoral
destruction as a direct result of adhering to such Thatcherite
policies.
The lack of any democratic process has meant
that voices of dissent have been marginalised and ignored. Yet
French workers have found a way to make their voice heard, direct
action. The anger at attacks on the welfare state led to massive
general strikes which delayed government plans to butcher its
own benefits system to meet the Maastricht criteria.
The implementation of such measures will
be controlled by the strongest currency in Europe, the Deutschmark.
That would mean German monopolies would have effective control
of the main economies of Europe.
Anyone who questions the future of Britain
and the European Union is often called a backward-looking "Little
Englander" and an isolationist. Yet the history of the EU
and developments within it, reveal a secretive autocracy.
Many will tell you that we cannot afford
not to be in "Europe", yet as a result of being in the
EU Britain now has mass unemployment of almost 5 million, de-industrialisation,
and a Common Agricultural Policy that costs every family in Britain
£20 per week to subsidise farmers not to grow crops or produce
milk and to prop up prices, these are just a few of the costs
that we, apparently, cannot do without.
Labour illusions
To persuade the Labour and trades union
movement to swallow the bitter pill of Maastricht, the Brussels
bureaucrats offered the 'Social Chapter' as sugar-coating. The
Chapter guarantees little of any value and nothing at all in such
fields as pay, trade-union recognition and the right to strike.
It is full of high-sounding declarations and good intentions -
with an 'escape' clause for each one!
It is vital that the labour movement spearheads
a mass, popular campaign against the implementation of any further
stages of the Maastricht Treaty.
This is nothing to do with narrow nationalism.
It is a fundamental question of democracy, and a question of jobs
and the quality of life. Many left and progressive forces in France,
Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark and elsewhere have campaigned against
the Maastricht Treaty because they too oppose the creation of
a capitalist and centralised United States of Europe.
The immediate priority must be to resist
Maastricht and EMU, and to demand a referendum against a single
currency and rule by a European Central Bank.
The Communist Party believes that Britain
should ultimately withdraw from the European Union. The key institutions
of the EU cannot be democratised.
The alternative is to help break up the
Eurocapitalist super-state in its infancy. Britain could take
the lead, inspiring the many people who believe that European
co-operation should take place on a different basis - on the foundation
of national self-government, democracy, economic progress and
social justice.
