‘No’ to the Bosses’ EU

Last spring, referendums took place in France and Holland to approve a new European Union constitution. The political and journalistic elites of both countries strongly advocated a ‘yes’ vote, which would ratify the constitution, but the general public thought otherwise. Despite an avalanche of biased propaganda in the media, in which celebrities, intellectuals, Eurocrats and businessmen were mobilised in support of the ‘yes’ campaign, blue collar workers, the young, the unemployed and small farmers banded together to deliver a rebuff to this united front of the wealthy.

The vote was, to say the least a revolt of the have-nots against the haves. The overall ‘no’ vote in France stood at 56%, yet among blue collar workers it was a massive 80%, according to the French polling organisation CSA (www.csa-tmo.fr). In the age group 18-29, the ‘no’ was at 62%, whilst 71% of unemployed voters and 64% of public sector workers also voted ‘no’. Similarly, it was in the regions with the strongest working-class vote in terms of numbers – Nord, Haute Normandie Languedoc-Roussillon, and the departments in the south of France – which voted ‘no’ with the biggest majorities. The over-paid leadership of one of France’s main trade union federations, the CGT, having advocated a ‘yes’ was subsequently corrected by its rank-and-file membership and the opposite policy was adopted.

The Dutch vote showed a similar division in society. The inappropriately-named left parties in the Dutch parliament – the Greens and the Social Democrats both backed a ‘yes’ vote, which meant that 85% of parliamentarians voted yes. Only the radical Dutch Socialist Party, an organisation in which the Committee for a Workers International plays a role, came out against the constitution. In the streets and in the suburbs, however the ‘yes’s were soundly thrashed. Opinion polls taken in Amsterdam close to the vote showed an approximately 50-50 split in the more well-to-do centre of town, whereas out in the working class estates the ‘no’ vote was above 70%.

The ‘yes’ votes were almost certainly undermined by the ‘yes’ campaigns themselves. In France this was characterised by a patrician arrogance which simply begged to be cut down to size. At the beginning of 2005, some opinion polls showed French support for the constitution at 65%. But the ruling class was simply unable to respond to the key argument, promoted above all by the French left, that the EU as a whole is an institution dedicated to implementing only neo-liberal, pro-big business policies. These policies have meant privatisation, cuts and the ‘internal market’ in the public services across Europe, along with attacks on workers’ rights, conditions of employment and the welfare state. According to this right-wing creed everything must be run in order to make profit for shareholders, and individuals must pay for every service they use, or go without. For too many people, a decent pension, a free education, a living wage and a reasonable work-life balance have simply disappeared under this regime.

Incapable of addressing these issues, the ‘yes’ campaign tried to play on national feeling, highlighting France’s founding role in the European project, and the role of ex-Finance minister Valerie Giscard d’Estaing in drafting the constitution. This scotches the myth circulating in certain quarters that the anti-constitution vote was a xenophobic vote. Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, was decisively cornered by the main players in the ‘yes’ campaign.

Nonetheless, both in France and in Holland the supposedly anti-establishment Green Parties supported the ‘yes’ campaign based on the false belief that it would draw nations closer together. These parties forgot that people do not want to be drawn closer together in a dole queue, a council house waiting list or in an overcrowded hospital. It was left to the voters to teach them this valuable lesson, after which this endlessly vacillating force got their other face out and wrung their hands at the despicable neo-liberalism of the European Union.

The far-right French National Front, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, did oppose the constitution, but campaigned primarily on the issue of Turkey’s possible admission to the EU. However his expressions of Islamophobic bigotry only had a limited impact, with just under one in five of ‘no’ voters surveyed considering Turkey to be an issue. For most people it was more pressing economic grievances and other class issues that persuaded people to vote ‘no’, rather than the question of immigration.

The result was therefore quite a victory for the French left. Their strong showing during the campaign unleashed a shower of arrogant tirades against it in the media of several countries. The two nominally Trotskyist parties in France, the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire and Lutte Ouvriere, along with the French Communist Party all urged a ‘no’ vote. During the campaign their opponents vociferously denounced them for not having an alternative, and the tone reached such a pitch that it in effect questioned the right of anybody of sound mind to vote ‘no’. This dismissive attitude naturally alienated many waverers, pushing them into the hands of the ‘no’ camp.

Nonetheless, there is an element of truth in the criticism. Far too many of the European left, by avoiding the question of a socialist transformation of society, put forward vague phrases about a ‘social Europe’ as opposed to a neo-liberal one, whilst avoiding any discussion about how this ‘social Europe’ is to be achieved.

We say that in the current circumstances real socialists should call for a socialist Europe. Socialists want to unite European workers’ struggles against neo-liberalism in the workplace, in the colleges, in the communities and in the streets. The EU is an international capitalist club, and consequently workers, in alliance with all the ‘have-not’s must equally club together across national boundaries. The voting-down of the EU constitution in Holland, which all agree was influenced by the French vote, shows how workers of different nations do pay attention to what happens in one another’s countries.

We should seek to develop this internationalist outlook, based on class solidarity. Trade unions, student unions, student societies and campaigning groups must consolidate practical working links to share experiences across borders and develop the best practices learned in the struggle against capitalism as a whole. They should also coordinate their efforts. The overall aim of this struggle should be a Europe based on democratically accountable economic plans, developed at a local, national and international level, and a classless society. The dictatorship of billionaire investors must be brought to an end. This wealth was created by the millions, not the millionaires, and it is the former, not the latter who should control it.