|
|
Fiasco in Brussels
THE ENTIRE European Union project faces its worst ever
crisis after the breakdown of negotiations for a new constitution. The Brussels
summit in December ended in an "extraordinary fiasco", as the Swedish news
agency TT commented. This was only a few weeks after the effective breakdown of
the eurozone’s so-called stability and growth pact.
Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, aimed to crown
his period as EU president with the ratification of the new constitution.
However, with the Polish prime minister, Leszek Miller, already on his way home,
and French delegates packing their bags, Berlusconi was forced to admit that,
"it became impossible to reconcile the contradicting views".
This is the first time a summit has failed to negotiate a
new treaty. Previous problematic summits – Maastricht 1991, Nice 2001,
Copenhagen 2003 – ended in some kind of compromise. "In reality, it was almost
ten years of preparations for enlargement, 18 months of democratic debate in the
European convention and two and a half months of governmental negotiations which
ran into the wall", declared the Danish paper, Politiken.
The purpose of the constitution was to prepare the EU for
the accession of ten new member states on 1 May 2004. The proposals included
bringing in an EU president (instead of rotating the presidency as at present),
a foreign minister, abolishing veto rights on several issues, and cutting the
number of commissioners.
The hardest nut to crack, however, was the proposed voting
rules. The draft put forward a ‘double majority’ system for decisions, requiring
the support of at least 50% of the states, accounting for 60% of the EU
population. This would have increased the power of Germany. According to the
present rules, agreed in Nice 2001, Spain and Poland have almost as many votes
as Germany, despite its population being bigger than these two combined. Miller
and Spain’s José María Aznar used the issue in a nationalistic way, attempting
to win back the support lost at home because of their backing for the US war and
neo-liberal policies.
The war against Iraq was the catalyst bringing EU tensions
to the surface. The ruling classes of Germany and France were not prepared to
blindly obey the Bush doctrine and give a blank cheque to pre-emptive military
attacks. At the same time, the Bush administration encouraged splits within the
EU, where the Franco-German axis was challenged by Britain, Spain, Italy and
others, as well as by the applicant states. The split between the US and
Germany-France was partly covered up by the quick conclusion of the war, but has
re-emerged with the growing problems facing the US occupation forces.
The other main crisis factor is economic. The eurozone
economy did not grow in 2003, with actual recession for parts of the year in
Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. This has resulted in an increased pace of
cuts and counter-reforms, plus higher unemployment. The Netherlands has
implemented a wage freeze, Portugal has sacked thousands of public sector
workers, France, Austria and Greece have reduced pensions, Germany is attacking
the benefits of the unemployed and sick, etc.
The budget rules of the EU - the so-called stability and
growth pact - have become a millstone around the neck of the European economies.
It demands that the total public sector deficit is kept below 3% of gross
domestic product (GDP), with balanced budgets as the aim. Public sector debt
must be less than 60% of GDP. But deficits are growing everywhere as a result of
economic stagnation.
Last year, Portugal was forced to make massive cuts to
reduce its deficit. But Germany, and even more clearly France, refused to obey
the rules. For three years running, the two countries’ deficits have exceeded
3%. France’s state debt is over 60% of GDP. The eurozone countries are supposed
to be fined if they break the rules – between 0.2-0.5% of GDP, depending on the
size of the deficit. On 25 November, however, EU finance ministers decided not
to punish France and Germany. Against were ministers from Austria, the
Netherlands, Finland and Spain.
These two serious breakdowns within a month are a result of
the new world situation, economic instability and the enlargement of the EU.
German capitalists and politicians in particular have been a driving force
behind enlargement, for economic gains and to create greater political
stability. But the closer actual enlargement comes, the bigger the doubts.
The Polish government’s threat to use its veto at its first
summit is one indication that the previous conciliatory approach within the EU
has disappeared. The dominance of the French and German governments has been
weakened. Additionally, the collapse of the present stability pact has
undermined the EU in relation to the new member states. Only three out of ten
new states have deficits in line with the pact’s rules.
This is why the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, and
French president, Jacques Chirac, were so eager to reach agreement on the
proposed constitution. In order to strengthen their position, the British prime
minister, Tony Blair, was invited to join an unofficial ‘trilateral’ leadership
grouping. The most concrete outcome was the decision on military cooperation,
where EU states can form an inner military nucleus, partly outside both the EU
and Nato. Despite being part of this agreement, Blair has assured Washington
that this is not a challenge to US military superiority.
The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, warned after
the fiasco in Brussels that the EU could split in two. This is a scenario for
which the German and the French governments have been preparing: "According to
the French president, the main powers of Europe must ‘seriously consider’ an EU
at several different speeds" (Politiken). Chirac spoke of "pioneer groups" of
countries acting in advance of others – an ‘avant-garde’. Schröder referred to
an EU on different levels. Militarily, there is already an agreement between
Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France. The Netherlands is also regarded as
part of the inner nucleus. At the same time, however, these states are in
constant competition with each other.
The constitution itself is less important than the political
crisis and the loss of prestige caused by the fiasco. The EU has rules in place
without the constitution. Even if a compromise could be reached under the Irish
presidency in the first half of 2004, it still remains for the member states to
agree. Seven have promised referendums, among them Ireland and Denmark where No
campaigns have won recent EU referendums. The Swedish prime minister, Göran
Persson, was among those advocating that all negotiations be postponed until the
second half of 2004 or even 2005.
The Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, asks in its editorial,
‘will the EU hold in a future with 25 member states?’ Even the most prominent EU
supporters no longer know which EU they are defending. The deep crisis could
lead to an EU which is a ‘mini United Nations’, where leaders meet and talk
without reaching any real decisions. Federal ideas, to move power to an
executive in Brussels, are now weaker than for a long time.
The deep crisis shows that the capitalists and the
politicians cannot reach their dream of a united Europe, with a ‘free’ economic
market and political/military muscles strong enough to challenge the US as a
world power. The governments of the big countries, representing their countries’
capitalist classes, are not prepared to give up decisive powers. The
contradictions between the interests of the capitalists in different countries
are too big. New conflicts are already appearing – over the new EU budget to be
implemented in 2007, for example. Germany has warned Poland and Spain that their
grants will be cut, a punishment for the recent disputes.
The whole eurozone will be economically shaky, with the
possibility that the economic and political crisis in Germany even leads to a
break up of the euro. The new member states are therefore very far from ever
entering the single currency.
One thing is sure, however. The politicians will continue to
agree with each other on attacks on workers, young people, pensioners, refugees
and other groups. The present attacks in Germany and France are only a prelude
to what the capitalists demand. These attacks will further increase the gap
between the rulers and ordinary people. According to a recent EU survey, only
48% of EU inhabitants see the EU as something positive, the lowest ever figure.
The EU elections in June will most likely see the lowest ever participation, but
also give opportunities for new alternatives. Nationalist parties will attempt
to gain from the crisis. The necessity to make the trade unions into fighting
organisations and to build new mass workers’ parties is therefore urgent.
Per-Åke Westerlund,
Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden)
|