No coverage on Indymedia about the important Euro referendum in Sweden

by pc Thu Sep 11, 2003 16:15

is it bad to join the euro or good?

i mean i know its just another spoke the capitilist wheel but what difference will it make to us and others if sweden join

by Anonymous Thu Sep 11, 2003 16:34

Indymedia is only as good as those out there who are prepared to write articles on issues.

Nice one for bringing it to the attention of Indymedia's readership but write an article about it "curious"! : )

by type it yourself Thu Sep 11, 2003 17:21

or maybe you're asleep?

You wanna see an article about Sweden and the Euro?..then go ahead and type it.

by Yossarian Thu Sep 11, 2003 19:26

The referendum was supposed to take place in Sweden on Sunday but due to the murder yesterday of the Swedish Foreign Minister yesterday there is talk there of it being postponed. She was to the forefront of the pro-Euro campaign and some anti-euro conspiracy theorists allege that it is some ploy by the pro-Euro side to postpone the referendum (which they were expected to lose) and/or gain sympathy votes. In favour of this theory is the question: what would anti-Euro people have to gain if they were going to win anyway? Of course it could just as easily be totally unrelated to the referendum. As is the way with these things (JFK, 9/11 etc.), we'll probably never know.

by SP - CWI Fri Sep 12, 2003 13:25

For articles and info on the situation in Swedish referendum go to http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org or to Rattvisepartiet Socialisterna's website http://www.socialisterna.org

by SP - CWI Sat Sep 13, 2003 20:41

Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna strongly condems the horrific murder of Sweden’s Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. No one can avoid feeling anger and dismay over this terrible act of violence. The deadly knife assault on 10 September was a completely reactionary act. A dark shadow is cast over the euro referendum this Sunday and it can even have an effect on the outcome of the referendum itself.

The parties in parliament have today, 11 September, agreed to continue with the referendum, but de facto have closed the official ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns. In a brutal way, the situation surrounding the referendum has been dramatically changed. The vote will now take place in a climate markedly affected by the mood following the assault and the news of Anna Lindh’s death. There is a great risk that the horror and sympathy of ordinary people can be turned into increased support for the ‘Yes’ campaign which has overwhelming dominance in the media. This has been admitted even by Prime Minister Göran Persson, even though he has falsely tried to claim that there has been a “strong rally” for the ‘Yes’ campaign. On the contrary, in all the opinion polls from the beginning of this week, the ‘No’ campaign was increasing its support

It is still not clear who the attacker was. The police have not come forward with any possible motive. But regardless of the ‘who?’ and the ‘why?’, the murder will strongly affect the result of the referendum. It is a loathsome act which not only killed Anna Lindh. It also deals a brutal blow to the vote which was expected to express massive opposition to the EMU/euro and the right wing policies which are its trade-mark.

As with the murder of Social Democratic Prime Minister Olaf Palme in 1986, the murder of Anna Lindh will tend to boost support for the government. It can temporarily act as a brake on the mood of distrust building up against the establishment which the opinion against the EMU expresses. This distrust and anger is today much stronger than in 1986. In particular, the perception of what Social Democracy represents has changed. The murder of Olaf Palme was seen by many as an assault on the very welfare system established by Social Democracy. It was also coloured by the conflicts of that time, including the strong right-wing hatred against Palme. The shooting of 1 March, 1986 affected the political situation for some months. Criticism against the government was held back, but in the autumn it returned and was expressed in a strike by workers in the public sector against cuts in spending.

This stabbing will have immediate consequences, but not on the level of the shooting of 1986. Because of the present crisis of the capitalist establishment, to which Social Democracy firmly belongs, they will have more difficulty this time in using the tragedy to “unify the nation”. This will be the case even if there is now a victory for the ‘Yes’ campaign.

Following the death of Anna Lindh, the official ‘No’ campaign has actually muzzled itself and seems to have given up on the referendum altogether. But the ‘No’ campaign has no reason to be apologetic in this regard – the reasons to vote ‘No’ are as strong as they were before. It is not only the case that people should go out and vote. We say: “Still vote and still vote ‘No’!”.

Despite important differences, there are similarities between what could now happen in the Swedish referendum and the unexpected success in the election in the Netherlands in 2002 of the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF). The founder of the LPF, Fortuyn, was murdered in the run-up to the election and all campaigning was suspended. The racist LPF then reached record results in the election because of the sympathy whipped up by the media after the murder. The lack of workers’ parties or socialist mass alternatives gives rise to the possibility of dramatic turns in public sentiment.

After yesterday’s murder, journalists in Sweden immediately began to speculate that the whole referendum would be postponed. That, however, was never very likely, because the government and the ‘Yes’ campaign probably believe that they will gain more now from the sympathy vote. In the past, shocking tragedies have tended to benefit the government of the day. The terror attacks in the USA, for example, on 11 September 2001, sharply increased support in the opinion polls for Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson.

The police are saying they are not sure if there was any political motive for yesterday’s outrage. It is not unlike other vicious attacks that have happened recently in Stockholm. One was the assault with an axe in the Åkeshov underground station, where one person was killed and several others wounded. Another was a car being driven into a crowd in the city centre this summer. Both were conducted by mentally ill men. These acts, as well as the development of a generally more violent society, are no doubt connected with the drastic cuts in spending on health care and the dismantling of the welfare system which have been conducted over the last decade.

We will not know who carried out the attack on Anna Lindh or the motives involved, at least until the culprit is found. If the deed is found in any way to have a political connection it is a completely reactionary act.

The editorial in the liberal daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, attempts to claim that it was the ‘Yes’ campaign itself which was the target. It links the knife attack to the massive criticism of Anna Lindh by the ‘No’ campaign for the joint statement she made in favour of the euro/EMU with the Ericsson boss, Carl Henrik Svanberg. They were claiming that that many jobs would be lost if the ‘No’ vote won the referendum.

This editorial comment, however, is pure speculation from Dagens Nyheter, unscrupulously aimed at winning over to the ‘Yes’ campaign the many Social Democrats who were going to vote ‘No’.

It is impermissible to link the murder of the Foreign Minister with the fact that sharp criticism of the ‘Yes’ campaign has been expressed by many workers. They genuinely believe that Social Democracy has degenerated through open collaboration with company managers and the other traditional capitalist parties in Sweden and the referendum was developing into a clear vote of no confidence against the government’s right wing policies and the huge cuts in public spending.

Politically, the murder of Anna Lindh may now have a temporary dampening effect on this revolt against the establishment. However, it will quickly be thrown off and there will be a return to the combative mood shown already this year in the anti-war movement, the council workers’ strike and in the anti-EMU campaign itself.

by SP - CWI Sat Sep 13, 2003 20:43

First Jonas Sjöstedt, European MP for the Left Party spoke in favour of Sweden leaving the Stability Pact and the need for budget deficits at certain moments. A week later he apologized. This panic from the Left Party raises several important questions. What is the position of socialists on budget deficits? What is, really, the position of the Left Party?

The Left Party has demanded for years that Sweden should leave the so-called Stability Pact of the EU (Sweden is a member of the pact despite not having the euro). Two weeks ago, the MEP, Jonas Sjöstedt, repeated this position and added, "There have been moments when we, for good reasons, have been forced to accept 10 per cent deficits and we want to keep that freedom”. A week later, he made a public correction "I assumed that would be our position because we have written resolutions on it, but I went too far, and apologize for that".

In a recent article in the conservative daily, Svenska Dagbladet, three leaders of the Left Party: Ulla Hoffmann, Jonas Sjöstedt and Camilla Sköld-Jansson, did everything to calm capitalist opinion. "According to the Left Party what will take place if there is a 'No' on 14 September? The simple answer is that nothing dramatic will change compared to today…Sweden’s economic policy will continue to be shaped in constructive cooperation between the government, the Left Party and the Green Party”.

"That means a policy where we clearly advocate a [state budget] surplus target of two per cent of the GDP”, they wrote. Another party spokesperson, Lars Ohly, interviewed on national TV, referred to the Left Party’s participation in "saving” the state finances in the mid 90s.

By referring to those huge cuts and austerity measures - slaughter of health care, reduced pensions etc (see separate box) - and its role as a guardian of today’s budget deficit limit, the Left Party leadership hope to calm the right wing media and parties. In addition, the Left Party in recent weeks has supported new big cuts on health care in Norrbotten, schools in Luleå etc.

The Left Party produced a report at the beginning of their "No" campaign which quoted extensively from the advice which the Ecofin, made up of the finance ministers of the EU, has given to its membership countries. The Ecofin "advice” for Germany in 2002 was for example very similar to the Agenda 2010 austerity plan presented by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder this Spring. In advice to another country, Austria was told to cut its pension costs.

The practice of the Left Party has nothing to do with its claimed programme, or even its proposals in the Riksdag (parliament). The demand for Sweden to leave the Stability Pact has clearly now been dropped.

”We have only eight per cent in the Riksdag”, said temporary party leader Ulla Hoffman, to underline that a "No" victory will lead to no real change.

But a lot of "No" voters actually want to show their discontent with cuts and growing inequalities in society. Their hope is that "everything will change”. The Left Party leadership now even says that Sweden should stay within the EU, contrary to the party’s official position, throwing more cold water on working class "No" voters.

The massive support for the council workers' strike this spring - 80 per cent in opinion polls - shows the political mood below the surface in Sweden. If a "No" victory was to have any sustained effect, apart from the feeling of victory over the establishment, it has to be linked to an increased struggle against cuts and for improvements for the working class.

"In our view, Sweden should have the economic policy which is supported by voters in elections – whether it is right wing or left wing policies”, write the Left Party leaders. But when have the voters ever supported the version of neoliberal policies which have been conducted over the last decade? The betrayal of the former workers’ parties, the capitulation of the union leaders and the lack of any mass alternative has so far put enormous brakes on the class struggle. This has been reinforced by the collapse of Stalinism and capitalist globalisation. In the last few years, however, we have seen an increased radicalisation and willingness to struggle. But as soon as there are active protests or struggles, then the Left Party leadership is on the wrong side.

The Stalinist remnants of the Left Party are evident in both the public "apology” of Sjöstedt and in the party’s aim to keep the "No" alliance with other parties at all costs. They are willing to let the most openly right-wing "No" representatives set the tone of the campaign.

In the liberal daily, Dagens Nyheter, the Left Party’s previous position of leaving the Stability Pact is called "unrealistic”. This has now been accepted by the party itself. The party has for many years agreed to the state budget limit which makes any proposal to increase resources in schools or health care impossible.

But a judgement on if proposals are implemented cannot be based on whether they are approved by the capitalist class in Sweden. All improvements made by the labour movement in Sweden and other countries have met resistance from the market, like increased pensions or shorter working hours. Whether they can be implemented is a question of struggle, where the strength and willingness to fight of the working class is decisive. Revolutionary struggle has been followed by the greatest reforms, like in Sweden after 1917 and in France following the general strike in 1968.

The profile of the Left Party up to the referendum is not helping the "No" campaign. The only possibility for Yes to regain the upper hand is that No leaders move further to the right and declare their willingness to conduct almost the same policies as the "Yes" campaign, in line with demands from the EU and the EMU. The socialist "No" campaign of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden) is in sharp contrast to the Left Party leadership and puts forward a class position and socialist alternative.

Do socialists want deficits?
The statement of Jonas Sjöstedt is in itself not particularly left wing or socialist. ”There have been moments when we for good reasons have been forced to accept 10 per cent budget deficits and we want to keep that freedom”.

He is referring to the state budget deficits in Sweden at the beginning of the 90s. They went up to 13 per cent of the GDP and unemployment increased rapidly. But “the good reasons” did apparently not last for very long. The austerity policies of 1994-95, which were supported by the Left Party, put the costs onto workers, while the big companies got tax reductions and the bank owners received billions of SEK (Swedish Krona) in state aid.

It is of course better to decide on a deficit budget than to make cuts. But it is no solution, the deficit is just postponed for later. A period of deficits has than to be used by unions and workers’ organisations to prepare for struggle.

How can deficits be avoided? They have not been caused by growing costs alone, but as much by reduced incomes. The tax reform introduced in Sweden in 1990 reduced state income by more than 50 billion SEK per annum. The same is the case in Germany today, where reduced taxes on companies are on about the same level as the proposed health service cuts.

To avoid deficits is a question of struggle, not a fiscal technicality. Socialists fight for the rich and big business to pay for the crisis. A fighting labour movement can increase wages. There is enough wealth today to pay for more resources for the public sector and increased living standards for workers. A socialist programme, with nationalisation of the big companies and financial institutions under workers’ control, would lay the basis for a democratic planning of the economy, which would enormously increase the resources in society. With capitalism abolished, deficits in the public sector and their effects on working class families will disappear.
Fact box:
On deficits
The Stability and Growth Pact of the EMU means threats of fines if the deficits are over three per cent of the GDP

Current deficits, Summer 2003
France – 4%
Germany – over 3%
USA – 6%
Japan – 9%
Changes behind the Swedish budget deficit in the beginning of the 1990s
62.2 billion SEK costs for bank crisis
50 billion SEK in reduced incomes because of ”tax reform”
100 billion SEK a year for increased unemployment
Who paid for the “convergence” of the Swedish state budget deficit?
Health care: 100 000 jobs disappeared as a result of cuts
Workers taxes: increased by 23 billion SEK
Housing: Subsidies cut by 30-40 billion SEK a year
Schools: Every tenth teacher per pupil was cut
Pensioners: pensions were cut 6-9 per cent in 1991-95.
The sick, unemployed, refugees, children and school students had their grants severely reduced. The councils lost many state grants.
In total, the social democratic government cut 134 billion SEK from the budget, of which the first 114 with the support of the Left Party.

by SP - CWI Sat Sep 13, 2003 20:45 www.worldsocialist-cwi.org

On the 14 September, there will be a referendum in Sweden on joining the EMU and the Euro. The following is an editorial from Marxismen Idag (Marxism Today), the journal of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden). It deals with the real EMU - in stark contrast to the picture of a prosperous and stable euro-zone given by the ‘Yes’ campaign. Since the article was written in June, the French president, Chirac, has openly asked for a softening of the EMU demands on budget deficits.

"Cuts necessary in Poland after Yes to the EU", was the headline in the Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, the day after the Polish referendum of 8-9 June. The establishment was relieved because they avoided the feared fiasco of less than half the electorate voting (58 per cent voted), notes the reporter, Michael Winiarski. However, he continues, "In the midst of joy there is reason to consider a number of problems which the referendum campaign exposed". He quotes a EU opponent, "Crushing pro-European propaganda" was necessary to reach 50 per cent participation.

The reporter then points to the coming problems, "Still, in the remaining eleven months before joining the EU, Poland has to create order in politics and economics, both of which are in bad shape…Close to twenty per cent unemployment shows no sign of decreasing, at the same time as the budget deficit, according to the EU rules, has to be drastically reduced".

Winiarski’s conclusion is that the government now must, "force through the painful cuts (mainly in education and health) which are needed". The leading international capitalist newspaper, the Financial Times, is more exacting "Spending is burdened by heavy social transfers to pensioners and others, including some of the developed world’s most extensive disability payment schemes". The FT quotes the economic adviser of the Polish president who says that, "Poland ideally needs deep reforms - cutting such spending and reducing taxes". Further privatisations and a ‘liberalised’ labour market are other capitalist demands in Poland.

This is what the EU and the Economic and Monetary Union, the EMU, are about: to increase the pressure to abolish reforms and improvements which workers achieved from the 1950s to the 1970s. The programme is one of privatisations of state companies and public services; massive cuts in the public sector; slaughter of social benefits and pensions; undermining trade union rights both on wages and on employment rights; extreme pay rises for bosses, politicians; tax reductions for the rich and big business. This is done to make the multinational companies within the EU "competitive" on a world scale.

The EU and the EMU are instruments for these attacks. The EU is pushing for the coordination of markets, trade policies, transit rules etc. Linked are the ideas of common borders against commodities and against refugees. From that and the need for a common "order", spring the first steps towards a military force. However, the deep splits this spring over the war against Iraq show that the EU is far from the picture of unity painted by the Swedish PM Göran Persson. The splits at the top reflect deep-going conflicts between the capitalist classes, but also the growing resistance from workers and others in society to their plans. Later, the "unity" will be replaced by even deeper crises and splits.

Mass strikes
The EMU in reality looks completely different from the adverts of the Yes campaign. The mass strikes in France in May and June were directed against enormous cuts, which are linked to the budget conditions of the EMU. "France is not going to escape from the necessary measures to reduce the budget deficit", said a spokesperson for the French government after the meeting of the EU finance ministers in May. The budget deficit is predicted to grow to around 4 per cent of the GDP this year, far beyond the 3 per cent rule in the EMU’s Stability and Growth Pact. Also, the state debt is on its way to 61 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, one unit over the EMU limit of 60 per cent. In May, the French government was given a new deadline - 4 October - to show how the deficit will be reduced. Otherwise, fines of up to 0.5 per cent of the GDP could be charged.

The threats of EMU fines are used by the French government to stick to the austerity plans. The main issue is worsened pensions. Those who retire after the year 2008 will get 20 per cent less in their pension than today’s pensioners. Originally, the government attempted to push through an "education reform" at the same time. In Sweden in the 1990s, such a "reform" meant councils taking charge of education. That was the first step towards commercialisation and privatisation. In addition, it separated the national protests of teachers and school students, because decisions on cuts are taken school by school. The French reform, however, was postponed so as not to coincide with the movement on pensions.

Raffarin has full support from politicians and capitalists internationally. The Swedish finance minister, Bosse Ringholm, was among those lecturing France on budget discipline at the meeting in May. "Don’t give in", writes The Economist in an editorial, and continues: "In France it would certainly be worth a few weeks of chaos if the outcome were to be victory in the battle over pension reform". The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has praised "the personal courage" of Raffarin. The French right-wing social democratic Socialist Party is also in favour of a pension reform, despite their criticism of Raffarin on the issue.

The counter reform on pensions will not be enough to reduce the budget deficit in line with the EMU. Raffarin has already said that state costs cannot increase by "a single euro" next year. President Jacques Chirac has raised the need for "health reforms" to lower the costs in the public health service. There have, for a long time, been ongoing cuts in that sector, which have caused a number of strikes from doctors and health workers.

Six weeks of strikes and demonstrations did get broader support than the government expected. This confirms that the movement was channelling a general discontent with neo-liberal policies. This is aggravated by the downturn in the economy and increasing unemployment, to 9.3 per cent in March. To propose even further cuts in this situation is inevitably provoking resistance, despite the conciliatory position of the trade union tops.

The EMU is not an aim in itself but a mechanism for the ruling class. In a crisis, as in France, it gives support for the government’s position of austerity measures and cuts, which the French capitalist has been demanding for a long time anyway. The employers’ federation, Medef, is already complaining that Raffarin is not going far enough. This is despite decisions which limit the right to strike and make it easier to sack workers in companies with less than 20 workers.

The neo-liberal policies did not start with Raffarin or the EMU. Lionel Jospin’s government (the "Socialist" party) made the biggest privatisations ever. Jospin’s reform in working hours, to a 35 hour working week, meant that "flexible" hours were introduced in the workplaces. "Jospin was not the socialist he aimed to appear as", The Economist commented.

Raffarin will not achieve all his aims. Most of Chirac’s promised tax reductions have already been postponed. The pension reform could be modified further. And the long-term target of the EMU, a balanced budget, is completely out of reach without further vicious attacks on the working class.

US - lead economic boom
An important difference during Jospin’s period in office was the US - lead economic boom in the end of the ‘90s. The speculators willingly bought privatised companies. With growing state incomes, taxes were reduced. The present economic downturn, however, has worsened the state finances in all capitalist countries. This was also one of the aims of neo-liberalism, to prepare the ground for even more drastic cuts.

Growth in the French economy has fallen drastically. The prediction this year is for around one per cent, but even that could be too optimistic, since the fall is already faster than for example in Germany. In Germany, the government of Social Democrats and the Green Party has produced an extensive plan for cuts - Agenda 2010. "We must say goodbye to much that has become dear to us, but is also, sadly, too expensive", Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told the SPD special congress. 20 billion euros worth of health cuts is one part of Agenda 2010.

The German finance minister, Hans Eichel, claims that the cuts are needed to keep the budget deficit within the three per cent limit of the EMU. But at the same time, the government is preparing tax cuts of 26 billion euro in a desperate attempt to re-start the economy. This means breaking the EMU rules, but not changing the anti-working class policies.

Almost every EMU country has been shaken by massive strikes and demonstrations in the 2002-2003 period. "More and more of the Southern European trade union struggle is now taking place on the streets", wrote Tommy Öberg, the industrial reporter in the daily Svenska Dagbladet (June 2003). He then went on to say that the struggle has spread north of the Alps. German unions were mobilising against Agenda 2010 and Austria saw the biggest strikes in 50 years. In Austria and Greece, the big strikes were against reduced pensions. Last year’s general strikes in Italy and Spain were directed against "labour market reforms" which would make employment more insecure. In other countries, workers have gone on strike against privatisations and the loss of thousands of jobs, like the postal workers in Portugal and workers on Alitalia.

The struggles put the role of the trade unions in focus. For the last 15 years, the unions in most countries have lost members, while the leaderships have made more efforts than ever to cooperate with employers and politicians. Unions rights have been undermined in order to make wage contracts etc more individual. But workers in country after country have, particularly this Spring, exposed the mistaken claim that industrial struggles and strikes belong to history.

Also, very right-wing leaderships have been forced to organise strikes and demonstrations. These big mobilisations can achieve concessions; but for real victories, new union leaderships with a programme for struggle are needed. Fighting, democratic trade unions which coordinate an all-European struggle would be an embryo to a workers’ alternative to the EU and the EMU.

The Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson is warning that Sweden will become an "outsider" if there is a No vote in the EMU referendum on 14 September. But in reality, workers, pensioners, youth and others in the EMU countries are also "outsiders" when decisions are made on the Stability Pact, the ECB, the Lisbon process for deregulation and privatisation etc. Workers are not just on the sidelines, they are actively fighting against the EMU policies.

Socialist opposition to the EMU is not in defence of the Swedish currency – the krona - or today’s Swedish policies. Socialists and workers must have an alternative. That starts with supporting and linking up with the workers’ struggle around Europe in order to defeat the Yes campaign in the referendum with internationalism and workers’ policies - for a socialist Europe.

Editorial in the summer issue of Marxismen Idag (Marxism Today), the journal of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden).

by SP - CWI Sat Sep 13, 2003 20:49

Results of the referendum will be published on the site below as they begin to come in from abour 7.30pm on Sunday evening.

Indications are that the murder of Lindh will increase the turnout. Judging by the latest polls it looks like the No side are still in the lead by approx 8%.

http://www.val.se/