[E-rundbrief] Info 603 - Susan George: Critic on EU-treaty

[matthias reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 603 - Susan George (F): From 
'Constitution' to 'reform' or from bad to worse. (Critics on the 'EU-treaty'.)

Bad Ischl, 10.10.2007

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 From 'Constitution' to 'reform' or from bad to worse

Susan George

October 10, 2007 14:59

The European elites have never digested the 
French and Dutch 'No' votes on the Constitution 
and now they are striking back with the so-called 
"Reform Treaty". This latest, being pushed 
through the Europeans process with unseemly haste 
so that European citizens cannot interfere, is 
just as complicated, just as neo-liberal, just as 
unjust as the defunct Constitution it replaces, writes Susan George.


The French 'No' vote of 29 May 2005 in the 
referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty 
[ECT] was often misunderstood outside France 
[particularly in Spain]. Many thought it was a 
right-wing, regressive, anti-immigrant, 
anti-Turkish or anti-Chirac protest vote.

Probably 18-20 percent of the No vote could be 
attributed to such motivations, but even our 
worst enemies - and I say "our" because I 
campaigned vigorously for the 'No'- admit that it 
was a progressive, pro-European rejection of a 
deeply flawed proposal. We wanted Europe - but 
not that Europe. The ECT was a triumph of 
anti-democratic, anti-social, neo-liberal 
legislation which would have been nearly 
impossible to change. The media, political and 
corporate elites voted massively for the 'Yes' 
[in the rich Paris suburb of Neuilly 85 percent 
voted in favour] whereas ordinary working people 
saw through the constant propaganda and mostly 
voted No [85 percent in one working class suburb 
of Rouen, for instance]. Turnout was 70 
percent--up by more than half from the mere 46 
percent that had bothered to vote in the European 
parliamentary elections a year earlier.

The No was the French and Dutch answer to a text 
that described in detail precisely the Europe we 
don't want. The people were entirely absent. The 
Convention not elected but appointed. Although 
national or Euro-parliamentarians were among the 
105 members, they were not elected for that 
purpose and they could not even propose 
text--only comment on and amend text proposed by 
Giscard d'Estaing and his vice-presidents. It was 
hugely complex and long. It subjected Europe ad 
vitam aeternam to NATO for its defence policy and 
to the most narrow kind of neo-liberal economic 
policies where "free and undistorted competition 
" was far more important than worker or social or 
environmental rights. It was a recipe for the 
destruction of public services and for a "race to 
the bottom" with regard to wages, working 
conditions, and social, fiscal and environmental 
policies. The people were supposed to be entirely 
absent, as they were absent from the text itself, 
but when they actually read the book-length 
document that was to seal their fate, they rejected it. It was a great moment.

Immediately after the French and Dutch votes, 
European Commissioner Gunther Verheugen said, "We 
must not give in to blackmail": this nicely 
summed up the Commission's views on popular 
sovereignty. The Eurocrats learned their lesson; 
so did national governments. Do not, under any 
circumstances, allow the peoples of Europe to say 
anything about their future. Do not allow 
referendums; push the next text through leaving 
no time for discussion or debate. Leave all the 
anti-democratic, neo-liberal measures just as 
they were in the Constitution--or make them more 
so--but make sure they are even more difficult to 
identify and the text even more complicated to 
decipher. Make sure too that the new Treaty, once 
approved by governments, cannot be altered. In a 
word, or a slogan, Down with Democracy!

Now, two years later, we have the new Treaty, 
called in French "Modificatif" and in English 
"Reform". It is everything one feared, and worse. 
Our leaders didn't even bother to tell us they 
were working on it until the 50th anniversary 
celebration of the EU in Berlin in March 2007. 
The Portuguese presidency presented the draft on 
23 July; the Inter-Governmental Council [IGC] is 
to adopt the final draft on 19 October and the 
Treaty ought to be ratified by all 27 members 
before the European elections of June 2009. As 
far as I know, only Ireland will hold a 
referendum [mandated by law]. President Sarkozy 
of France has already announced that the French 
Parliament--where he has a comfortable 
majority--will ratify it [apparently he feels the 
people might still prove to be disobedient and dangerous].

At least 80 percent of the legislation passed in 
every European country now comes directly from 
Brussels--which alone shows how vital it is for 
European citizens to understand what is 
happening. Furthermore, not only do European take 
precedence over national law but the European 
Court of Justice has decided and reiterated that 
any rule promulgated by the European Commission 
also takes precedence, even over national 
constitutions. In other words, whatever its name, 
the new Treaty will be just as strong legally 
speaking as the dead Constitution.

Here is the state of play and congratulations if 
you understand it. First, the Constitution--which 
would legally have repealed and replaced all 
existing treaties--is formally "abandoned". The 
Reform Treaty modifies the two existing treaties 
which are [1] the Treaty on the European Union 
[i.e. Maastricht Treaty, as modified by the 
treaties of Amsterdam and Nice] and [2] the 
Treaty Establishing the European Community [Rome 
1957 plus later modifications]. The Constitution 
may be dead, but the changes it introduced are 
renamed "the innovations resulting from the 2004 
IGC"--which is the one that approved the 
Constitution and sent it out for ratification. Got that?

The 2007 IGC is mandated to merge and mesh 296 
modifications into the two existing treaties, 
along with the "innovations" introduced by the 
dead Constitution, minus a few listed exceptions. 
The modified treaty will come to 410 articles, 
often extremely detailed, 146 pages and 62.000 
words [in the French version]. Twelve protocols 
[69 pages] and 51 declarations as well as various 
annexes all have the same legal value as the Treaty itself.

According to a thorough analysis by Robert 
Joumard , the text remains, despite its length, 
highly ambiguous. The way decisions are taken 
varies from one area to another--and there are 
177 different areas of competence. More or less 
demanding Qualified Majority Voting will apply to 
about 120 of them, but unanimity remains the rule 
for revising the Treaty, for fiscal policy and 
most aspects of social and environmental policy, 
not to mention foreign and defence policy. The 
Commission emerges with its powers increased 
whereas the European Parliament, which has little 
power to begin with, is still excluded from any 
co-decision in many areas--but nowhere is there a 
complete list of all the areas from which it is 
excluded. Some of these, however, are; foreign 
and security policy, the internal market, 
monetary policy, most of agricultural and social policy.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, first 
proclaimed in Nice in 2000, remains ambiguous and 
understanding how the Court might interpret it is 
virtually impossible, but in any case the Charter 
"creates no new competence or tasks for the EU" 
so it has little judicial value. It guarantees 
fewer rights than, say, the French Constitution; 
furthermore, no matter how weak the Charter may 
be, the United Kingdom has been authorised not to 
apply it. This appears to mean that while 
competition and market freedom are compulsory for 
all EU Member States, even the most meagre social rights are optional.

What is not ambiguous is the centrality of the 
highly competitive internal market that remains 
the supreme common denominator for the EU. Free 
trade has iconic status. A new article says the 
goal of EU commercial policy is the "integration 
of all countries into the world economy
[through 
the suppression] of barriers to international 
trade"; elsewhere it calls for the suppression of 
all restrictions on trade--this includes 
non-tariff "barriers" like environmental or 
consumer protection standards--and on foreign direct investment.

The European Central Bank remains independent of 
all political control and "price stability" 
graduates to the status of an "objective" of the 
EU. Unanimity is still required for any 
limitations on the free movement of capital--this 
would undoubtedly include any tax on financial 
transactions of the kind ATTAC and many other 
civil society organisations call for. Many 
provisions weaken public services, which remain 
subject to the laws of competition.

European subservience to NATO for security and 
defence policy is reinforced and gets a new, 
special protocol; the Member States promise 
progressively to increase their military 
capacities", and the struggle against terrorism 
justifies military missions to help non-European 
countries to combat terrorism on their soil.

One could go on for pages more, but the main 
points are these: The new Treaty retains most of 
the rejected Constitution. It is uniquely 
neo-liberal in letter and in spirit. It has been 
put on the table with unseemly haste and no 
public debate has been, nor will be allowed on a 
text of supreme complexity. Amendments and 
revisions require unanimity, tantamount to making 
them impossible. The Commission will continue to 
hold practically all legislative and executive 
power. The EU will be legally tied to the United 
States defence Establishment [and thus to its 
Commander in Chief, the US President.]

Citizens of Europe: This is your last chance.

Susan George says that "I wrote this piece for 
"TEMAS para el Debate", published by the 
Fundación Sistema in Madrid, whose director is 
Professor José Felix Tezanos [also Professor and 
Chair of the sociology department at the 
Universidad de la Educacion a Distancia]. The 
Spanish version will appear in TEMAS in the 
October 2007 issue [no. 155] and will also be posted on (the TNI website)."

From: http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/george5.htm

See also http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/wurtz10.htm

===========================================================

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) 
Sparkasse Bad Ischl, Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX
-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: <http://lists.horus.com/pipermail/e-rundbrief/attachments/20071010/e850fe06/attachment.html>