British workers oppose ECM and Tory betrayals Britain’s Tory government is pressing hard for that country to join the European Common Market, a move that is being actively opposed by the Com- munist Party of Great Britain, and by growing forces in the British trade union movement and in the Labor Party. Canada’s economy will be directly affect- ed should British imperialists succeed in their aim to join the ECM. The following article by Gerry Cohen, North-West secre- tary of the CPGB, tells why British Communists and workers consider joining the ECM as a Tory betrayal of their country: Not since the world-shatter- ing events of the war against fascism have such momentous decisions, vitally affecting the livelihoods and the very lives of millions of. British people, been taken, as those being debated now, about Britain’s entry—or otherwise — into the European Common Market. Exaggeration? I think not. On September 19, 1946, Win- ston Churchill, speaking among the gnomes in Zurich, made the call for Franco-German recon- ciliation within a “kind of Unit- ed States of Europe.” Since that moment, despite the antagonisms and contradic- tions between the capitalist powers, efforts have ceaselessly continued to bring into exist- ence, consolidate and strength- en such an organization. Its aim? Disguise it how they may, its aim is to create a mighty bastion of big business, the more effectively to exploit the workers, economically, poli- tically and militarily designed to maintain, defend and rein- force monopoly capitalism. The “pro-Marketeers” pro- duce a tremendous amount of propaganda, lavishly prepared and freely distributed. One such publication is “Questions and Answers on the ECM.” Cynical exposure It asks, “Why was the Com- munity created?” It answers... “countries which for centuries had dominated the world found, when acting individually, that they were no longer able to in- fluence world events. The leade ers of the six countries were The Welsh Young Communist League has begun touring the South Wales countryside prepared to seek a solution in common.” I doubt if there has even been a briefer and more cynical ex- posure, out of their own mouths, of their real aims. Because of the tremendous changes that had taken place on a world scale, following on the war, countries which had “for centuries got their own way and dominated others, found they were no longer able to do so. So they decided the only way to “dominate the world” was to act together. This is the reality behind all the claptrap and double talk about “the solemn aims of uni- ty of Europe,” and so on. The question remains — in whose interest? NO TO THE MARKET ! Two points are now freely admitted, even by the more fervent advocates of Britain joining the’ Market. One, that for every family there will be a massive increase in the weekly food bill alone; and, two, that there will be huge increase on the deficit side of the balance of payments. The extent to which control over these economic factors by the British people will be re- moved, is illustrated by the re- cent decision of the Finance Ministers of the Six to raise the authorized capital of the European Investment Bank from $1,000 million to $1,500 million and their decision that the mem- ber States would pay 10% of the increase. The official journal of the Market, European Community, commented: ‘As a result of the Ministers’ decision, taken in Hamburg on April 26, Britain will, if she joins the Commun- ity, make a bigger contribution to the bank’s capital than ‘origi- nally foreseen.” Did you ever hear the like for sheer cold calculated, bloody cheek? No consultation, no by- your-leave — a decision by the Finance Ministers of the Six — and that’s it! This underlines one of the most sinister aspects of the whole set-up — the subordina- tion of the interests of the peo- ples of the member states to the edicts of a dictatorial, non- elected bureaucracy, whose de- cisions cannot be questioned, and must be carried out. There have been numerous examples of this—but let me give you just two quotations from the Market’s own sources. Court judgments Its journal (April issue) speak- ing of the “super national” Court of Justice, said: “The law it lays down takes precedence over national laws,” and, ac- cording to Article 171 of the Rome Treaty, “if the Court of Justice decides against a mem- ber State, that State must take the measures required to imple- ment the court’s judgments.” The “Questions and Answers” publication already referred to, asks: “Do the member coun- tries have any say left in the direction of their own affairs?” It answers “Yes”... but ad- mits... “their freedom of action is increasingly limited by the inter-dependence of the econo- mies,” and elsewhere states that the Court ruled in 1966 that ‘“‘by signing the treaties, the member countries had limited their legis- lative power so as not to con- flict with Community policy.” When this admission is seen alongside the declared aim of political union the prospect is indeed a disastrous one for any- one concerned with democratic participation by the people in the ordering of their own des- tinies. : The “Action Committee for a United States of Europe,” after a meeting in Bonn earlier this year, attended by Willy Brandt, Antoine Pinay (former French Finance Minister), - Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Denis Healey and Jeremy Thorpe, set up a group to report by the end of this year on how “the Commun- Fred in ‘hation, against Britain's entry into the Common Market. Hundreds of anti-Common Market pamphlets are being handed out along with a special issue of the youth paper ‘Challenge’. PACIFIC TRIBUNE-—FRIDAY, JULY 16; 1971—PAGE 6 ity could speak with one voice in international affairs.” Binding decisions Pompidou himself showed that the Market was a step toa longer-term aim when he said earlier this year, “If one day the European Confederation be- comes a reality, there will in- evitably have to be a Govern- ment whose decisions will be binding on all the States that will be members.” Market control over our des- tinies is regarded as a half-way house to complete control by an outside undemocratic organ- ization. In whose interests will those decisions be taken? It is doubtful if ever before in modern hsitory, such drastic steps, committing not only fu- ture governments, but entire future generations of people, have been contemplated, with- out the slightest intention of consulting the people. Decisions taken by “The Six” last June envisage the transfer- ence of powers from national to Community level which would result in the adoption of a single currency which — and I quote from European Commun- ity — “would guarantee the ir- reversibility of »the undertak- ing.” That ominous word “‘irrever- sible” is used no fewer than three times in the article deal- ing with “full economic union,” varied only by their decision on “the irrevocable fixing” of the relationships between their cur- rencies. Many of us believe it is es- sential to increase the say which ordinary people have in the run- ning of affairs in Britain. But under the laws of the Commun- ity even the limited say they have now would be seriously diminished. It shoud be no surprise to anyone that the Tory govern- ment is for Britain’s entry. The Tory Cabinet consists of Big Business representatives and acts for Big Business. So does the Market. But it will be a supreme tra- gedy of our times if Labor does not come out boldly and un- equivocally against. The Right Wing will manoeu- vre with all the craftiness of which we know it is capable, in order to bamboozle, cajole and confuse the movement. It lost an important round in the fight when it had to concede the covening of a special Labor Party conference. ‘Hands up all those in favour . . Co-operatlal if To our friends of Mi! the Labor Party, vie tof say: “History will ne é] you if you let this 4) challenge go Dy: pf time when Labor out in the interests : ae this hour of cru sion, when the state Hd ple is being dea challenge to Right ay canery and Tory-PY | aims must be made ff There is vast scoFe further development not technical and a co! operation with ‘i of we not just the handfu the capitalist powers | mon Market. The way to operation in CArOUBR the Markel iy close relationshiP og North Atlantic Tee ut! tion military Pach |, the convening of 4 ® off European Security | which could result! of massive ree squandered on mi tio {0 es and their utiliZ® iif prove the well-berre ge ple of Britain, of Mi the world. -ectiol It is in this diteC’ is solution of the Pf our people poe in the direction ©. alternative Socialis whose achievmel” jnoft made immeasurably co ficult inside ry that every individual, mus forts to rouse ple as never b Let our voice and clear — Say ket, Now! ganized by ”