| Brown said that the TUC would not vote for a referendum. How wrong he was. And as our report from Congress in Brighton shows, the issue brought a dull meeting to life... |
After the TUC: the referendum debate begins
WORKERS, OCT 2007 ISSUE
Two motions calling for a referendum on the EU Constitution brought the TUC to life in September. Although the motions from the GMB and the RMT referred on paper to the "Reform Treaty", Congress was in no doubt that this was indeed the original rejected Constitution in all but name and there was no dispute on that issue. Nor was there any significant disagreement about whether or not to demand the referendum that was promised by all three parties at the general election in 2005 – only a handful of steelworkers and shopworkers supported Gordon Brown's contention that a referendum is not necessary.
The GMB motion set out the timetable – draft legislation by the Council of Ministers in December 2007, ratification before June 2009. It drew attention to the unfettered privatisation implicit in the Constitution, and expressed bitter disappointment that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not – in the GMB's view – apply to British workers.
The RMT motion was more forthright and informative about the significance and implications of the Constitution, pointing out not only the threat from privatisation, the further militarisation of the EU, and the abolition of Britain's veto over transport and many other areas, but also at least ten constitutional changes, which the government denies are constitutional, but which all serve to transform the EU into a United States of Europe with all the powers of a legal state.
The RMT called not only for an urgent referendum, but went further by urging the General Council to campaign for a No vote in line with Congress policy decided in 2005.
A week of arm-twisting
Debate came on the third day of Congress, preceded by a week of intense arm-twisting on the General Council, and at times angry argument in delegation meetings, amid speculation that the T&G section of Unite would line up with the RMT, Unison, the PCS, the FBU, Aslef, the Bakers' union, and a number of smaller unions demanding a "No to the Constitution" position.
This proved to be a mirage – the T&G General Secretary meekly gave in to his Amicus counterpart when push came to shove, and joined in a concerted attempt to sow confusion about what a No position would mean. It was said that this would be a vote for withdrawal from Europe.
This was misleading. (Some realise that withdrawal from the EU will be necessary to make progress in Britain – equally, many have yet to reach that conclusion, but don't like the Constitution and want a referendum). There were repeated deliberate attempts to equate Europe with the Constitution, and to denigrate union members arguing for a No as anti-European and "lining up with UKIP and the Tories" (a refrain that is heard with tedious regularity in TUC meetings).
Livelier outside than in: the RMT demonstration in Brighton against rail and tube privatisation
A majority on the General Council (29:17) voted to oppose the RMT, swayed by the Amicus General Secretary, who castigated the RMT for what many would see as astuteness in remaining outside "the Big Four" (T&G, Amicus, Unison, GMB) and outside the Labour Party (a reference both to the ineffectual Warwick Agreement and to the withholding of the political levy). In its delegation meeting the GMB voted by just one vote to oppose the RMT. On the floor of Congress a Swedish president of the ETUC was planted to set the tone and spoke earnestly of "the European Adventure" and her hopes that the "treaty" would go through.
Although the RMT motion was lost, the GMB motion for a referendum was carried overwhelmingly, paving the way for the unions to play their part (or even take a lead) in a genuinely democratic process of deciding on the direction for Britain. It was noticeable that not a single British speaker – including the GMB – denied the correctness of the No position.
All welcomed the debate to come, and expressed solidarity with other workers in Europe. "It's about your liberty," RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said.
Workers cannot afford to be complacent however. The task that has begun in the unions to explain to members how the EU is already removing all protection for workers must intensify. The Constitution will formalise the power of the EU against its workers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will doubtless end up languishing at the European Court of Justice, where the interests of EU capital are bound to prevail in the end.
The British government has stated in a submission to the EU that collective action is not a fundamental EU right, that free movement is more important. And the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has put it in writing that "It [the Charter] does not create the right to strike."
But even if the lawyers were to rule that the Charter is applicable in Britain, would that make a "Yes to the Constitution" acceptable, as implied by the GMB? No it would not; there is far too much else at stake, namely the sovereignty of the nation states.
There are still too many trade unionists, especially in the industrial private sector, who are in denial about EU attacks on British manufacturing, and are held back by an illusory faith in the EU rather than reliance on their own ability to help forge an independent Britain for the working class, in cooperation with the workers of Europe.
The debate has only just begun.