Debate Between Patrick & John Martin

n/a

John Martin & Patrick Martin

Criticism of Irish Political Review by Patrick Martin

I'm afraid I don't understand any of your arguments at all. They are completely inconsistent.

Firstly, the whole EU project since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 has been about two things: a common market and ever-closer union between its members. If you are against free trade in goods and services between European nations why in hell did you support the following treaties?

1	The Single European Act
2	The Treaty of Maastricht
3	The Treaty of Amsterdam (I think you were converted to euro-scepticism around about the Nice Treaty).

All of these treaties promoted in their various ways Free Trade between member states and ever closer union. Secondly, enlargement was an inevitable consequence of the end of the Cold War. In order to guarantee stability on the EU and in particular Germany's eastern borders, it was essential to integrate these economies into Western Europe. Without such integration it is clear that many of them would have become unstable totalitarian states—witness what was going on in Slovakia before membership negotiations. This posed a considerable threat to the EU.

Enlargement was not a British plot although, it suits some traditional Foreign Office goals. Enlargement as you Marxists like to say was and is a "historical inevitability".

Finally, the whole point of the Constitution for those who do not share the goals of the British Foreign Office was that it allowed member states who want more than a free trade zone to proceed with ever closer union even if member states such as Britain could not or would not. I refer you to Chapter III Article III entitled, in French, Cooperation Renforcée. This article is the single most important reason why the British are so against the Constitution. They fear, quite rightly, that they will be isolated politically in Europe if countries proceed with ever closer union without them. For the first time ever in a European treaty, the modalities of such cooperation are set out. No member state has the right to veto such ever closer union. So those countries who want more than a free trade zone can proceed without those pesky Brits.

Let's look now at who supported the no vote: the French Communist Party: nothing wrong with this crowd. Their position was entirely predictable. Remember these people were taking orders from Moscow from 1920 to 1991. As a result, they even supported Adolf Hitler following the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in the thirties. With the exception of the forgoing pact, they have been consistently against every European treaty including the Treaty of Rome. So, no change there! The French National Front and Philippe de Villiers: again entirely predictable positions, very analogous to the British conservative party. They were once lukewarm about Europe when they thought it might be an instrument of French foreign policy. Now they have been ferociously against every European project from Maastricht on. So, again no change there! The Laurent Fabius wing of the Left: most euro-enthusiasts (including myself) reserve the utmost odium for this lot. Hitherto Mr Fabius's most memorable contribution to the French nation was the AIDS-contaminated blood. His moral and political corruption led to a blood transfusion scandal in the eighties that makes our own seem like a picnic. It is hardly surprising therefore that he would manipulate genuine concerns of the French left to his own political ends. This wing was conned by Fabius into voting no to end the "anglo-saxon" Constitution: the very same Constitution that was written by a French man. It seems that all reason and thought was just switched off and arguments unrelated to the Constitution designed to promoted knee-jerk reactions were espoused with gusto. How pathetic that these people fell for them but I guess this is understandable given the readiness of their leaders to sacrifice their supposed political ideals on the altar of political power. People from this wing are collaborators with the British Foreign Office. The fact that this collaboration was unwitting does not mitigate the tremendous harm they have done to France and the European project as a whole.

Now let us look at the consequences of the no vote.

1.	The British veto on ever-closer union is maintained and even strengthened.
2.	The Franco-German motor which has led to peace, stability and prosperity on the European continent is now sputtering to a halt.
3.	There can be no inner circles in Europe to make "a different kind of Europe" because these would have to exclude the Netherlands and France which is unthinkable.
4.	The EU has become EFTA in effect as ever closer union is dead and all that remains is the common market.
5.	The Euro has been severely undermined and politicians in the Netherlands and Italy are talking of reviving the Guilder and the Lire.
6.	The United States of America now controls the destiny of Europe and Europeans through its foreign, military and economic policy and there is no counter-weight in the world to stop them.

As they say in the Foreign Office. Tally ho old bean, jolly good show!

Patrick

Reply from John Martin

The European project has indeed been about a free market and ever closer political union since its inception. It has in short been about creating a new federal state. I support this objective. The six original members realised that since William of Orange Britain had been playing a balance of power game on the Continent in order to give it a free hand in the rest of the world. Britain was allowed join because Ted Heath and Wilson seemed to represent a post imperialist development in British politics. And it was on this basis that the original six countries allowed Britain to join despite Gaullist reservations.

With the benefit of hindsight the Heath/Wilson development was an aberration. From Thatcher to Blair the old disruptive instincts reasserted themselves. The accession of Britain represented the biggest mistake in the development of Europe. The "Yes Minister" sketch illustrates exactly the British approach to Europe: the more countries in it, the more unlikely the achievement of political union will be.

It is almost certain that the experience of the Second World War was the impetus which began the project. And since you raise the question of the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact let's look at that war.

The Second World War was as a result of British Balance of power politics that went wrong! Around the 1930s the British realised that its interests were not with France which was the most powerful country on the Continent. It therefore decided to encourage Hitler to break the clauses of the Versailles Treaty even though it retained its formal alliance with France. It never accorded the same indulgence to German Democratic governments after 1919. The British Ruling class decided that Fascism was a bulwark against Communism.

The British put pressure on France not to resist the Munich agreement. Why? It certainly was not appeasement. The French-built Czech defences were at the border. It was said of Czechoslovakia's geographical position that it was like a dagger pointed at the heart of Germany. The Sudetenland was where the Skoda Arms industry was based. Germany's military strength was immeasurably increased following the Munich agreement and it opened up the rest of the state to Germany and other countries (Poland, among other states helped itself to a bit of the former Czechoslovakia). You could say the Brits were incompetent. That beggars belief. It is clear that Britain's strategy was to encourage a NAZI-Soviet war. It encouraged Poland to take an intransigent stance re the Germany city of Danzig (in contrast to its policy re Czechoslovakia). Then when Germany invaded, Britain left the Poles high and dry. In the light of the machinations of Britain re Munich, Stalin did what any competent Soviet leader would have done and that was to make a deal in the event of the collapse of Poland. You could argue about the French CP but the effect of the pact was to postpone the war in the east for 2 years which was in the Soviet interest. (Incidentally, the French CP condemned the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 68. The orders from Moscow stopped being taken in the mid sixties).

Regarding your point about enlargement, I don't believe in "historical inevitability". I don't think Marx did either.

Who knows what would have happened if Eastern Europe was left to its own devices. You seem to be saying that the EU had to absorb the Eastern Europe's states to save them from themselves. The price of attempting to absorb them was political incoherence in the EU. In my view such a sacrifice was unnecessary. A strong coherent Western Europe would have been a guarantor of stability in the East.

I read the article iii-3 that you referred to. The reinforced cooperation is only possible as long as it does not interfere with the free market (iii-416 etc). In such circumstance the only cooperation I can envisage is military cooperation. I have no objection to this, but it is on the basis of a purely free market economy, and, of course, if France and Germany can cooperate militarily. Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland can cooperate with each other militarily as they did re Iraq. It is not exactly a recipe for greater political Union.

The Europe that I had hoped for would have had a market economy but not an unrestricted market economy. It would have allowed State subsidies for development. There would have been a required minimum level of taxation, minimum wage levels and good public services. The poorer states would have been heavily subsidised by the richer states (as Ireland was) but the quid pro quo would have been that the poorer states would not have competed with other EU states for International Capital on the basis of low corporation taxes (Ireland didn't comply with this). It is possible that the Europe of 15 might have developed along these lines with greater integration over time despite Britain's recalcitrance.

But with a Europe of 25 Britain has allies among the Eastern States both in economics and in foreign policy (e.g. Iraq). The European Social Fund has diminished. You have states in Eastern Europe with labour costs 20% of Ireland and France. France has experienced "outsourcing" of production for many years. It looks like Ireland is just beginning (Irish Ferries, Gama etc). The policy of closer Union of the founding fathers has been lost. Europe has become just a free market and the Constitution copper fastens that reality with the European Central Bank restricting borrowing for Public Investment.

The European leaders have lost the run of themselves. They want to continue to expand: Bulgaria, Romania and eventually Turkey. In my view it's madness. It is for this reason I welcome the "non" and the "nee". It's a reality check. Incidentally, the latest opinion polls in Luxemburg show a "yes" majority of only 55% to 45%. There won't be any more opinion polls before the referendum in mid July. So, there have been three referenda. Two have voted against and Spain has voted for. It remains to be seen whether in the short to medium term France will be isolated. Why not have a referendum in Germany to see if the France/German axis has really been sundered. That will be the next step or more likely scrap the whole thing and have a rethink on the European project.

Regarding some of your conclusions, the EU of 15 was incapable of having a coherent foreign policy re Iraq. Why do you think an EU of 25 with no limit in sight in terms of member countries could provide an alternative to the USA?

The only possible future in terms of retrieving the situation is a two speed Europe, probably based on the Euro zone countries.

I concede some of the points. Fabius is detested. But what political catastrophes have Emanuelli, Melanchon and other socialist opponents of the Treaty committed? Secondly, we are heading for a period of uncertainty. But I think it is a reasonable assumption that, at least, a halt will be put on the continued expansion of Europe. If the EU leaders continue to ignore the people it will deserve to fail. (With all due respect to Jean Marie LePen, DeVilliers and the French CP, they don't represent 55% of the vote. There is a lot more behind the French "no", which was achieved despite overwhelming propaganda for the "Yes" side).

John

Reply from Patrick Martin

I do not agree that the accession of Britain was a mistake and I do not accept that the "Yes Minister" Foreign Office caricature is an accurate reflection of the British view of Europe which I believe is more complex than that. And above all your interpretation of European History in the 1930s and 40s is Anglo-phobic in the extreme.

British Foreign policy under Chamberlain who was prime minister in the years leading up to Britain's declaration of War in September 1939 was utterly incoherent as was the foreign policy of France. Both countries' contradictory treatment of Poland and Czechoslovakia is illustrative of this.

Chamberlain's Irish policy was equally senseless in that he gave away the treaty ports without securing Ireland's participation in the coming war. He was vehemently criticized by Churchill who no doubt had a better understanding of Irish politics.

Despite what you appear to imply all countries including Britain and France act in their own self interest. The fact that both countries made such monumental errors in allowing Hitler to reoccupy the Rhineland, annex Austria and the Sudetenland is not evidence of a grand plot by Britain but rather of the bankrupt foreign policies of both countries. Though Britain and France made their contribution to the coming war there can be no doubt that prime responsibility for the war lay with Germany. Ask any German. War was an inevitable result of Hitler's inflationary and unsustainable economic policy. From 1933 onwards the prime objective of German economic policy was rearmament. This was done at a huge price to the German economy which would have crashed without war. Anyway I digress.

If you examine the foreign policy of the Quai d'Orsay since Napoleon you will see that France's policy was about forging alliances against a rapidly industrializing Germany. The exposure of French Banks as a result of the Russian revolution is legendary. The Entente Cordiale suited France as much as it suited Britain. You could even say that France manipulated Britain into getting involved in its continental affairs and used Britain as an instrument of French foreign and defence policy.

You say at the beginning of your Reply that:

"The European project has indeed been about a free market and ever closer political union since its inception. It has in short been about creating a new federal state. I support this objective."

That's fantastic, we agree with each other from the outset. A common market leading to a loose Federation of Nations is exactly what I want too: pooling of sovereignty to enable decisions governing the destiny of Europeans to be made by Europeans rather than Americans or even Chinese or Indians. However later on in your reply you state:

"I read the article iii-3 that you referred to. The reinforced cooperation is only possible as long as it does not interfere with the free market (iii-416 etc). In such circumstance the only cooperation I can envisage is military cooperation. I have no objection to this, but it is on the basis of a purely free market economy."

So now you're against the Single/Common Market the mainstay of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—the latter of which you supported I seem to remember. That's hardly coherent. Are you in favour of a Federal State in which the constituent parts raise protectionist barriers to trade within the state? If Cork started imposing tariffs on imports from Dublin we would hardly have a State. You can't have the European project without Free Trade between its members. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

You also are quite wrong when you imply that the constitution would legitimize the ad hoc alliances that emerged over Iraq. This is not "cooperation reenforcée". Indeed such a scenario would be less likely had the French not dumped the Constitution. The constitution obliges countries to move towards a common foreign and security policy. Without it we will have more of the divisions we now have such as over Iraq.

The Europe you desire "would allow state subsidies for development." Haven't you heard of the European Social Fund? Europe has always subsidized its poorer regions. The constitution doesn't change this and the ESF is in no way is incompatible with the constitution.

As regards "delocalisation" re-locating of production you are quite wrong when you say that this is something new to Ireland and the new member states. Ireland both north and south has been shedding jobs in Textiles and Manufacturing for years. Countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic cannot compete with Morocco or Pakistan and jobs are being lost. The reason such job losses do not even raise a whimper in Ireland is because we have a labour shortage and low unemployment all thanks to the benefits of globalization. "Delocalisation" is totally unrelated to high French unemployment. The French need to ask themselves why jobs are not being created.

France has benefited and will continue to benefit from enlargement. Already Hungarian consumers complain that their local distributors cannot compete with Carrefour and the likes. French pharmaceuticals, electronics etc now enjoy privileged access to a huge market in developing new member states. France as the fourth largest exporter in the world will benefit from a larger single market.

Finally it is self evident that a strong Europe will eventually require a strong army. This means cooperation with Britain and eventually Turkey is essential. Europe will not be able to prevent its destiny being determined by others without a strong army and navy. Militarily Germany is a dwarf therefore a strong Europe requires British participation. Admittedly, this will involve a lot of compromises and many years to achieve but that's politics.

Anyway all of these Federal dreams are now rendered impossible by the French "no". There can be no renegotiation of the Constitution whereby the French would impose their economic model on the rest of Europe. Why on earth would Europeans accept a system that produces 15% unemployment, budget deficits a-go-go, coupled with high corporate and personal taxation? Granted the health service is great but you have to wonder whether a decent health service could not be provided more cheaply. Do you honestly believe that the rest of Europe (including the Dutch) would accept such a model? The Constitution was not ideal. It wasn't a federal state but to paraphrase Michael Collins it was the means to achieve a federal state. The French have followed the path of DeValera and we all know where that leads.

Patrick

Reply from John Martin

We seem to be discussing more than the Constitution in this debate and that is only right and proper. The EU Constitutional debate is an opportunity to discuss what kind of Europe we want. I note with a certain hope that both Austria and France have suggested that there should be a halt to the limitless expansion and Chirac has indicated that the EU should be for its citizens.

I suppose all comedy relies on caricature, but in my view the "Yes Minister" sketch is remarkably perceptive. Thatcher, despite all her battles against the rest of the EU, was an enthusiastic supporter of EU expansion. Why would the most Euro sceptic of European leaders be the most enthusiastic supporter of its expansion? I haven't seen any official explanation from the British for their behaviour. Perhaps it is not in their interests to be too candid. However, I once read an interview with our own home grown "Tory" Mary Harney in which she said that she supported EU expansion as a means of preventing a federal Europe.

Regarding your historical comments I happened to have read recently some contemporary Irish comments on the subject of the British conceding the Treaty ports in early 1939. Another way of looking at it was that it was an Irish diplomatic triumph. The Irish caught the British at a time when their minds were on Continental Europe. Also, there was a Cabinet crisis when Anthony Eden resigned on a foreign policy issue at the time of the Anglo-Irish negotiations.

I suppose incompetence is one "explanation" of British foreign policy of the 1930s (incompetence is not really an explanation since it assumes that there is no rational explanation). But there is a reasonable explanation which doesn't depend on irrationality. In the thirties it was a widespread view in the British ruling class that Fascism was a bulwark against communism. The actions of Chamberlain can be explained logically if it is assumed that Britain's objective was to provoke a war between the Germans and the Soviets. Why else would the British put pressure on the French to effectively hand over the Czech armaments industry, which at the time was more advanced than the German? Why would Britain with the same leader encourage Poland to take an intransigent position in relation to the German city of Danzig in the Polish Corridor? Why leave Poland high and dry if it was not to eliminate it as a buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union?

Of course, this coherent policy ended in disaster because the Soviet Union ended up making a pact with Germany. But it was a major surprise that such incompatible ideologies made a pact. Hitler, who was an admirer of British Imperialism, had indicated in Mein Kampf that Eastern Europe was to be Germany's "Australia".

I don't remember ever "appearing to imply" that states don't pursue their own interests. The problem that France or any continental power had when it embarked on an alliance with Britain was that Britain is an island nation which had the strongest navy in the world. It therefore could afford to be more reckless in continental politics since the wars would not be fought on its own soil. This is not to say that it did not suffer during the two World Wars. In both wars it underestimated German military ingenuity.

Patrick, unlike me you seem to be an economic determinist! You say that:

"War was an inevitable result of Hitler's inflationary and unsustainable economic policy."

Later on you say:

"A common market leading to a loose Federation of Nations is exactly what I want too."

I don't believe a common market on its own will lead to a federal state (you seem to be happy with a "loose Federation of Nations").

All countries are a combination of the State and a free market. I support the European Social model of high taxation, first class public services, high skilled labour (the much maligned French have the highest productivity in the world) and workers protection. Of course, in a new federal state there will have to be one market. The problem is that the Europe that has developed is undermining the old western European social model. The thrust of the Constitutional Treaty is towards a free market without any development towards a common fiscal policy. For this reason French companies have an incentive to re-locate to Eastern European countries which have as little as 20% of the labour costs, and in some cases zero corporate taxation. When people say that "France must become more competitive" they mean that workers should make themselves poorer in order to compete with low cost countries. Of course, French and German companies can also re-locate to even cheaper countries such as India and North Africa but the latter countries unlike Eastern Europe do not have unrestricted access to the EU market.

You seem to think that the French should be grateful that Eastern Europe is allowing French companies to re-locate there. Perhaps French capitalists should be, but it is not easy to see why the workers should be grateful. One of the striking features of the French "no" was that the poorer the group of voters the higher the proportion that voted "no".

In my view Nice and the Constitutional Treaty represent a move away from the objective of a European Federal State (the opposite to a stepping stone). There are two Europes: a Europe of the Free market with low taxes and rudimentary public services; and a Social Europe. I support the European social model and the only way that this can be preserved is if the countries which support such a model unite and reserve the right to have economic tariffs to protect themselves against countries within the EU that support the unrestricted free market model.

Regarding the European Social Fund, it has been reduced and there is less for a greater number of countries.

I would be interested in hearing how the Constitution would have prevented a repeat of the Iraq situation. The recent "Downing Street" documents, which have led to calls for Bush's impeachment, suggest that Blair was working very closely with Bush to implement "regime change". Regime change was what it was all about. The WMD argument was false and was known to be false by both Washington and London. All of this is yet more evidence that British foreign policy is tied in with Washington rather than Berlin or Paris.

Table Of Contents

Debate Between Patrick & John Martin

n/a

John Martin & Patrick Martin