Sadly, both Dead Men Left and Hold that Thought are barking up wrong trees when they come to Europe. DML argues for a left no and HtT for a left yes. I’m going to argue, in my usual flaccid and unconvincing style, that left-right issues are not really relevant for the constitution(al treaty) that goes to a referendum this Sunday in the Fifth Republic.
Dead Men Left makes a couple of mistakes, IMHO, in his piece. The first is to say
“Good Europeans vs. bad Americans is a model all internationalists should noisily reject. To dismiss – at a minimum – the 48% who voted against Bush in November 2004; to dismiss the many historic achievements of the US left; to write off any possibility of change in America that does not depend on external confrontation is to evince a profound, pessimistic conservatism.”
DML’s main point is right, but to say that the 48% who didn’t vote for Bush are somehow part of the radical left or even committed to another world is bollocks. They did, after all, vote for John Kerry. You remember. The one who based the personal part of his campaign on being in the military. You might remember which war he was in…
Secondly, Mandelson is very well described as oleaginous, but just because he likes something doesn’t make it bad. I am given to understand that he is partial to guacamole, which I consider an entirely reasonable position. The cynical point of view is that he would sell his own grandmother for power. The European Constitution means he doesn’t even have to do that, as it presents him with a lot more power. Now, while Mandelson having more power is probably as close to demonstrably bad as we could come, more power to someone is not necessarily bad. What if Make Poverty History were taken on board by the new common foreign minister as a leitmotif? While it may have become watered down, even Britain will support it and it would improve matters.
The point of the constitution is that it raises the stakes. There’s the usual bullshit of pandering to petty nationalism with pointless rhetoric about the EU being not a nation but a family of nations, but beyond that there are two big changes: the common foreign minister and the 1/3 veto.
If people are going to scream about the constitution, they might take the time to read it. If 1/3 of national parliaments vote against a European law, it goes back to the Commission. I do not deny that the EU has the potential to ride rough-shod over the European social model. The 1/3 provision means that, particularly given that people would appear to be more willing to participate in non party-politics based campaigns (viz. Make Poverty History, Stop the War, Social Forums &c.), a particularly odious piece of Eurolegislation could be effectively stopped by a concerted, transEuropean campaign.
The question should be not ‘does this accord with our political dogma’ but ‘is this good for us as lefties/righties/soggy centrists’. There is no bias inherent in the Constitution that cannot be undone by legislation coming from Brussels; the question is as to what nature this legislation will take if the Constitution is approved.
“…to say that the 48% who didn’t vote for Bush are somehow part of the radical left or even committed to another world is bollocks.”
Absolutely agree. Fortunately, it’s not what I said.
(the cautious “- at a minimum -” is a giveaway, hm?)
If you’re going to ask people to “read the constitution”, you’d better be prepared to deal with questions about its explicitly pro free-market content.
The signs are looking good for Sunday, however.
Come on, Meaders. Chapter and verse or, rather, give me the clause.
xD.
What’s wrong with some free-market reforms? 1% annual growth in Germany and France while Britain and the US grow at 3% should suggest that some reform is needed. After all we seem to be in the bizarre situation that France and Germany are less pro-market than they were in the 1950s. Since when did stopping Polish plumbers from making a living and cartels become ‘progressive’?
You want chapter and verse? Okey-dokey:
“1. Articles 111-69, 70, 77, 144 and 180 all identically repeat that the Union will act ‘in conformity with the respect for the principles of an open economic market where competition is free.’
2. There are numerous clauses that specifically correspond to demands made by certain employer organisations.
3. The ECT demands unanimous voting for any measures that might go against corporate interests. This is the certainly case for measures against tax fraud, or taxation of companies. Such legislative movement in this regard requires a unanimous vote as, above all, “[it is] necessary for the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.” (111-63). Thus, any future proposed duty imposed on corporations would be subject to unanimous voting – something the Ouistes regularly trot out as being reduced under the ECT.
4. Shockingly, the ECT demands all states’ subservience to NATO: ‘[M]ember states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capacities.’ (1-40-3). Article 1-40-2 says that European defence policy shall be compatible with members’ NATO obligations, a direct recognition of the superior judicial status of that military organisation. Furthermore, the article continues with even greater precision that “participating member states shall work in close collaboration with NATO”. Even in situations of “internal serious disturbances affecting public order, in cases of war or of […] the threat of war”, member states are obliged to work together in order to avoid “affecting” the functioning of the “internal market”! (III-16)’
5. Perhaps most disturbing in the ECT is clause 17 of the third section, regarding the question of the break-up of public services: It is permitted that a member state can be in favour of maintaining a public service. But public services have: “the effect of distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market, [and] the Commission shall, together with the state concerned, examine how these steps can be adjusted to the rules laid dawn in the Constitution. By derogation of common law procedure, the Commission or any member state can apply directly to the Court of Justice which will sit in secret…” (III-17)’ Thus the constitution from the start commits member states to the ultimate elimination of public services.”
(from the Apostate Windbag)
I will post a longer reply when I have the time to do so, but it is worth looking at 2-1-III-18… which starts with ‘workers shall have the right to move freely within the Union’.
xD.