|
by talos
Thu Jun 1st, 2006 at 08:03:50 AM EST
[This was posted as a comment in Jerome's "Non to the Constitution - one year later" thread. Jerome was kind enough to suggest that I post this as a diary, in order to further the discussion. So here are my thoughts/responses to Jerome's earlier story, slightly edited and with a small intro. And now promoted by Jerome]
The aftermath of the rejection of the European Constitution one year on, is under debate. Jerome has made a few points disparaging the "non" vote and suggesting that the vote was an "unmitigated disaster". I respectfully disagree. When presented with a flawed document, especially in circumstances where you know the balance of power is such that its negative points will be dominant, the proper reaction IMHO is not to point to its positive aspects but to a. Fight it and b. Propose an alternative, better, document. As for b the European left has been lacking. But there is much to the idea of putting on the table an alternative Constitution, if only for the effect this will have on shaping the debate.
Anyway, far from being a disaster, I think that the result of the referenda on the European constitution presents an opportunity for the European left, and I'm not convinced by Jerome's arguments for reasons that I explain below:
**From the front page
- The prospect of a united, democratic (and ultimately confederate) Europe had received a terrible blow before the constitution by the EU's expansion. This signified, I think, that the EU institutionally had absolutely no desire to "deepen" the union and create some forms of strengthened democratic accountability, because, were that the case, the institutional changes required would have taken precedence over geographic expansion. Anything that was bloody difficult with 15 members became bloody impossible with 25 - and not all of the new members were exactly eager to proceed to a tighter union.
- The fact of the matter is that the third part of the proposed constitution was a neo-liberal manifesto. The fact that it wasn't worse than what was being enacted before, is I think irrelevant: It would have been legitimized as constitutional principle and would be that much harder to oppose. It's the difference between the government passing neoliberal laws privatizing the public utilities and including a passage that states that all utilities should be private in a country's constitution. While such a constitutional amendment might indeed be in practice "no worse" than what was already in place, politically it is vastly worse.I quote from an article by Bernard Cassen written before the referendum in Le Monde Diplomatique:
...In drawing up this treaty, Europe's governments couldn't resist the golden opportunity it presented to constitutionalise the neo-liberal doctrine. The third section can only be explained as an attempt to set in stone the diktats of free trade and establish the rule of the market once and for all. (Its principles are enshrined on the first page of the document: article I-3 stresses the importance of "free and undistorted" competition in "a highly competitive social market economy". Article I-4 sets out the EU's "fundamental freedoms": placing human beings on a level with commodities, its first sentence guarantees "the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital".)
- That this wasn't "really" a constitution, is a. debatable and b. beside the point: the fact that it was being advertised as such surely means that the intention was for it to be used as such.
- "The "non" is seen as a "vote against Europe" by those that don't want to even ponder the alternative. The fact that the "non" vote might have been a vocal vote of no confidence for the policies of the past 15 years, is an idea that no one among the EU's elites wants to ponder, much less discuss. One could reasonably claim that in a EU with a widening democratic deficit the referendum was seen as an opportunity by many to express not only their opposition to legitimizing as a "constitution" the same set of policies that were actually hurting them, but their displeasure at the way the EU project was developing. The "oui" would certainly be seen by these same (powerful) circles as a vote for their particular set of policies. And I'm reasonably certain that this would have been worse. If they can spin the "non" vote, imagine what they could do to the "oui" vote...
- "We are left exactly with an opaque technocratic body focused on free-trade and markets and little else" - that however is not legitimized by popular vote, and should feel uneasy about it - which it does. The alternative would have been to have the same opaque technocratic body focused on free-trade and markets and little else, with a huge blank check to write policy for the foreseeable future.
- The neo-liberals are pushing their agenda, pretending that the result (which was partly a condemnation of their policies) meant the exact opposite of what it meant in reality*. This is understandable, but not really convincing. Imagine if the constitution had actually passed however: do you think that they would be in a worse position to push their agenda?
- The "non" forces are not at all responsible (not in the slightest) for the rise of nationalist policies everywhere, a phenomenon that predates the european referendum by a decade. These forces have indeed made inroads in Europe precisely because the European project has been dominated by neoliberal policies (And anyway they don't seem to be any stronger as a result of the european referendum than they were before). To the extent that the left does not draw a very clear line and doesn't distance itself from these sort of policies, doesn't wake up to the fact that the European agenda isn't hers any more and doesn't actively try to take it back, it will allow displeasure and disenchantment in Europe to spread even wider among the people - and then it will be responsible for the rise of nationalist forces - who are gaining from the EU card exactly because the slide to "a Europe of the markets" is really affecting people, who will thus vote for whoever expresses their discontent in any form.
- The "Non" forces must indeed proceed more forcefully to state their message. It doesn't help that they are being treated as pariahs in most of the EU's media. As I pointed out in an earlier diary, it seems that the idea of a review of the European constitution in a way that would be pretty much a victory for the left "Non" vote, is being seriously considered. The EU must have a working document of basic principles. The only issue, ever, was what sort of document.
Jerome, I think the logic behind the "left yes" vote has been a contributing factor to the EUs "shift toward the right" and away from democratic accountability. Every bone that was thrown leftwards was heralded as a victory, while all the deep institutional changes and the widening of the democratic deficit in the EU, was dismissed as "circumstantial". Whatever helped in "building European institutions" was seen as positive, no matter what the political balance of power was... There was and is a powerful current within the european left that seems to believe that a. it is in some sort of position of strength and b. that the main issue is to proceed with European integration - and we'll talk about the political "details" after this has been consolidated. Well a.it isn't and b.by then you'll already be living in a US economy version 2.0. The time to draw lines was last year- and it was about time.
* Note the title of this story and compare it with the results of a very recent poll in France:
Apart from the constitution, the great majority favoured building European structures, with 44 percent calling themselves "enthusiastic" and 38 percent saying they were "favourable" against only 8 percent "sceptical" and 7 percent "hostile".
"Everything that's going on in public opinion is suggests the debate is not between 'pro' and the 'anti' Europeans but is more about the nature and the content of the European project," TNS Sofres said.
|
|
