|
|
The EU constitution revived?
THE IRISH presidency of the European Union (EU) aims to get
agreement on the new EU constitution at the next EU summit on June 17-18. Since
the earthquake overthrow of the conservative Partido Popular (PP) government in
March, Spain is firmly back in the Franco-German camp. Does this mean that the
EU has recovered from last year’s ‘war with itself’, as the International Herald
Tribune described it? Not at all. It just shows that the rulers will continue
with new attempts to attack the conditions of the working class.
The most recent projects of the EU – the euro, the Lisbon
agenda, enlargement, military cooperation, and the constitution – are all means
of creating a US-style economy, including attacks on workers’ rights. The
result, however, is a deepened crisis. Last year, the economic growth of the
eurozone was only 0.8%. Public sector deficits are growing in all countries,
with a majority breaking through the 3% deficit limit of the so-called stability
and growth pact this year, according to the European Commission. Unemployment is
rising again. Mass movements and political discontent have shaken or toppled
governments in many countries.
The leading politicians and capitalists have growing
misgivings, but with no alternative they stick to the original plan. On
enlargement, leading EU politicians this year have stressed all kinds of
problems coming up. "Controversial cuts, shaky state finances, political
instability and unexpected difficulties in carrying out promised reforms", was
how the Swedish conservative daily, Svenska Dagbladet, described the new EU
member states. Poland and the Czech Republic have state deficits of more than 6%
of gross domestic product (GDP). And in both countries, unemployment has
exploded during the ‘integration’ process, from 3.5% to 10% in the Czech
Republic and from 13% to 20% in Poland, since 1996.
But to stop enlargement would have meant even bigger
problems, the politicians reckoned. The main aims of enlargement still exist – a
bigger market, cheap well-educated labour, advantages over the US and Russia,
and pressure on Western European governments from the competition from low
taxes, etc, in the new member states.
New crises within the EU will inevitably develop, sooner
rather than later. In these circumstances, how important is the new EU
constitution? Wouldn’t a ‘No’ just mean that previous treaties from Nice,
Amsterdam and elsewhere would continue to apply? That’s true, but there are
still important reasons for socialists to say no to the new constitution.
Firstly, neo-liberalism is a cornerstone of the
constitution. The EU is supposed to direct and coordinate economic policies even
more. The draft constitution says the EU will "strengthen the coordination of
their budgetary discipline and surveillance of it". This includes the Lisbon
agenda of privatisation and attacks on trade unions rights.
Secondly, increased military cooperation and a common
‘security policy’ is included. Last November, the EU decided to establish its
own military planning agency, supposedly independent of Nato. In Sweden, the
government predicts that every fifth draft soldier will be involved in
international missions in the coming years.
To advance further, groups of EU states can establish
"permanent structured cooperation", including "multinational force groups" and
"combat units". The effect will be compulsory, increased military spending, to
"bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible", in
the words of the draft. ‘Anti-terrorist’ surveillance and measures will increase
and can be directed against refugees and workers in struggle.
Thirdly, the EU laws will have ‘primacy’ over national laws.
This means a race to the bottom on issues like workplace security, the
environment, etc. Generally, the new constitution promotes stronger power at the
centre, with an EU president and a foreign minister. Immigration policy and
trade issues are fields where the EU already has a common position, increasing
the pressure on poorer countries.
There are still issues that could spoil the Irish
presidency’s plan for the signing of a deal on June 18. One is the voting powers
within the EU, despite the new Spanish government’s retreat. The present
proposal means that the votes from three of the ‘big four’ (Germany, Britain,
France and Italy) constitutes a veto. Another proposal means that ten out of 25
EU commissioners will have no voting rights in the European Commission. The
Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, has predicted traditional all-night EU
negotiations to reach agreement. Paradoxically, the pledge for a referendum in
Britain will force Blair’s government to pose with some ‘strong demands’ in the
negotiations.
For the draft to be implemented, however, it has to be
agreed in all member states. But there have been No victories against different
EU treaties recently in Sweden (2003), Ireland (2001), and Denmark (2000). Even
in France in 1992, Yes won only with a narrow majority. There could be
referendums over the constitution in all these countries, as well as in the
Czech Republic, where EU sceptical parties have 50% in the opinion polls for the
EU elections in June. Spain – remember the elections – and Portugal are other
possible referendum countries. Not to mention Britain which, alongside Sweden,
has the most EU critical opinion.
This debate has already created new political splits. The
French president, Jacques Chirac, irritated over Blair’s u-turn, even hinted
that countries voting ‘No’ should be expelled from the EU. Others, like the
Austrian chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, opened the door for an all-European
referendum.
The establishment-run Yes campaign in Sweden is now fighting
to avoid a sequel to its humiliating defeat in September. A referendum "creates
fixed positions and spreads distrust", and leads to "infected battles",
according to Dagens Nyheter, the liberal daily, which campaigns against a
referendum. Distrust is not created by the referendum, however, but by years of
cuts and increased poverty. It’s the privatisations and the privileges of
politicians and the rich which cause these ‘infected battles’. A referendum can
only speed up this process.
In Sweden, Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI Sweden),
supports the demand for a referendum. At the same time, we point out its big
limitations. In many countries, the No campaign dominating the media will be
nationalistic and even chauvinistic. Fortunately, this was not so much the case
in Sweden, where the No to the euro campaign polled 56%. The main argument for
No was fear of even bigger cuts in health care and education. The result shocked
the establishment, but "the outcome did not get any echo or consequences in
government policies", as a new anthology from some Left Party members points
out.
The leaderships of the Left Party and the Greens, both
supporting No to the euro, jumped back into the camp of the social democratic
government immediately after the referendum. They continue to support massive
cuts in councils and health care, as well as in parliament. The experience from
the referendum in Denmark in 2000 is the same. A majority voted No, but it did
not at all change the policy of the government. And within a year of the
referendum, a ‘neo-conservative’ government replaced the right-wing social
democracy.
To achieve a change of course in the interests of workers,
there is a need for a real workers’ party, which not only says no to the EU but
fights for a socialist programme, for struggle against neo-liberalism and cuts.
To prepare for this development is one of the aims of the parties of the CWI in
Europe.
Per-Åke Westerlund
Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna,
CWI Sweden
|