NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/20/spain.eu/index.html


Will the other nations were the Constitutional Treaty will be subject to ractification approve it? What effects, if any, will the Spanish vote have on other nation's voting?

There will also be a referendum in the UK, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic and if any of these countries reject it the constitution will collapse. I hope the Spanish vote will have no influence on other countries as I am opposed to the constitution which is an attempt to enforce neoliberal economic policies on the people of Europe. Fortunately the UK is certain to reject the constitution and the no campaign in France which is led by the Communist Party is also quite strong.

what ever is goinG to happen is not important.
if a country says no ,it will have a second referendum and it will go on and go on untill the people agree(of course it will be back up by huge media campain)
...it is not a referendum it is a huge satire of what democracy has become(hence always has been)....this contitution will pass and we will all be fucked under the name of evolution and EKONOCRACY :headbang:

I was wondering why the Left in each EU nation seems to be opposed to it?

When I heard the news about the Left in Spain opposing it, I was mystified. I would have thought that any larger, more centralized entity would be favored by the Left.

wonder if i can vote on the constitution in both the Republic and in the UK....hmmm....

The Spaniards want to get rid of their sovereignty that badly?

I hear that the popular reason for voting yes was that some commercials claimed that if there had been an EU with more central authority, the US would not have gone to war in Iraq - so a vote for Yes is a vote against the Iraq War.

Not that the US would have been deterred at all. Nor could the unified EU have done anything about it. And now it looks like France wants to play nice now.

I'm still wondering why the European Left doesn't want to vote Yes. They were certainly against the Iraq War. Could it be because they would lose their influence in a greater Europe?

I was wondering why the Left in each EU nation seems to be opposed to it?

When I heard the news about the Left in Spain opposing it, I was mystified. I would have thought that any larger, more centralized entity would be favored by the Left.

Most extreme leftwingers are pissed at the EU because it is an alternative way of setting up a good cooperation between europeans, without the yoke of the mighty soviets.
Basically, they are pissed because this isnt the europe they wanted.


The Spaniards want to get rid of their sovereignty that badly?

No european nation, alone, is sovereign. We are too weak, divided. The EU is a way of our voices to be heard, in a stronger fashion.

Here is a statement about the EU constitution by John Foster of the Communist Party of Britain:

The position of the CPB on the European Union and Constitutional Treaty

The Communist Party of Britain defined its position on the European Union at its 46th (2002) Congress as follows:

The EU was established as a customs union that could maximise markets for big business. Originally United States interests were to the fore. Over the past two decades strongly contradictory tendencies have been apparent. Big business interests in Germany and France have moved to create a unified currency bloc with centralised banking, political and military institutions that would enable the EU to rival the United States. The United States and its allies in Europe have sought to keep the EU as a unified market with on minimal state functions.

In either version the EU exists as a creature of big business established to circumvent the democratic institutions of its member states. After 1945 the existence of these democratic institutions within the sovereign states of Europe made it possible for progressive forces to place some constraints on the freedom of capital. The successive EU treaties have progressively removed these powers - while ensuring that the EU itself is constitutionally bound by the free market and neo-liberal terms of its treaties. The EU parliament remains profoundly non-democratic, giving the appearance of democratic procedures while in fact denying the peoples of the EU any rights to alter the pro-business treaty structures.

In light of this analysis, the Communist Party of Britain sees the current draft Constitutional Treaty as representing a further and qualitatively new stage in the subordination of the democratic institutions of member states. The Treaty seeks to invalidate virtually any action by working people to use their own democratic institutions to control the capitalist market.

It transforms the EU from an institution established by treaty between equal members to a federal body with legal primacy over the member states.

It radically extends EU control of policy and consolidates the EU’s exclusive control over trade, agriculture and fisheries, energy, transport, industry, environment, public health, security and justice.

It extends EU powers by giving it the right to ‘co-ordinate’ foreign policy, defence policy and economic policy in general and gives the EU power to sign treaties on its own behalf which are binding on all members - including those members with a currently neutral status

The Constitutional Treaty also represents a further concentration of power within the EU in the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. Inside these bodies power is concentrated in the hands of the prime imperialist powers, Germany, France and Britain, to the detriment of other nations.

The Treaty therefore represents a critical threat to democratic rights and socialist advance across Europe. It demands the mobilisation of the broadest possible opposition by all democratic forces within the EU as at present constituted and within the ten accession states.


British imperialism and inter-imperialist conflicts within the EU

British imperialism has historically been closely dependent on the United States for the past forty years. There has been a growing interpenetration of finance capital interests - expressed in the alliances between British and US oil companies, arms producers and chemical and drug companies. Politically this increasingly parasitic dependence has been expressed most starkly in the British government's active participation in the illegal US occupation of Iraq. It has also been the principal factor determining British policy within the European Union over the past two decades. Britain's stance within the EU has almost always closely matched that of the US administration of the time.

The policy of the current US administration represents a much more aggressive and militaristic assertion of the interests of US finance capital - as set out in the document The New American Century produced in 2000. This document details the perceived crisis of US imperialism - resulting from challenges to its control of world energy resources, its severe trade imbalances and its falling rate of profit. Within this perspective the EU itself is explicitly seen as a potential threat. The US neo-conservatives who make up the Bush administration fear the development of a European Union as a rival imperialist military-industrial complex. They see the Constitutional Treaty's proposal for a common EU defence and foreign policy as marking a key turning point in this direction.

The role of Britain in the current negotiations has been to ensure that the EU remains subordinate to NATO and US imperialism and does not consolidate itself as a rival imperialist centre. In doing so it has sought to create an alliance among a range of smaller EU member states and in particular to seek allies among the more pro-American governments among the accession states.

Communists in Britain have fought to expose and oppose the imperialist links with the United States and played a leading role in the mass mobilisation against the occupation of Iraq and previously Afghanistan. The British trade union movement now opposes that war. Within the Labour Party a majority of back bench MPs voted against the war.

At the same time, Communists in Britain do not take the position that a consolidated and centralised EU should be supported as a 'counterbalance' to the United States. On the contrary, as Lenin noted long ago, such a capitalist United States of Europe was either impossible or ‘reactionary’ – being ‘for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty.’

It is precisely such an imperialist EU that the current Constitutional Treaty would create. The consequence of the Treaty, by overriding the democratic institutions of member states, would be to critically weaken democratic and anti-imperialist forces within Europe. In the campaign against the Iraq war it was the continued existence of sovereign governments dependent on democratic structures that gave power and influence to mass movements of opposition.


The campaign against the Constitutional Treaty in Britain

The original position of the Communist Party, the British Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party was to oppose Britain's membership of the Common Market for the reasons given above: that it infringed democratic rights over the economy and strengthened the hand of monopoly capital in Britain and across Europe.

In the 1980s and 90s the Labour Party and the British Trades Union Congress moved away from this position as right-wing and pro-imperialist influences became predominant. The Communist Party maintained its position but in the 1990s focussed its opposition, in terms of mass campaigning, on membership of the eurozone and the dangers of subordinating the economy to the Growth and Stability Pact.

The daily paper, the Morning Star, has won increasing understanding of the link between the consolidation of the EU and privatisation of public services and the attacks on public spending, pensions and benefits.

In consequence, over the last three years, there has been a significant change of opinion in the British trade union movement - expressed particularly in opposition to any immediate membership of the eurozone. This opposition now includes the two biggest unions, UNISON and the Transport Workers, and a number of smaller unions in railways and public services. In addition, as a result of the mass campaigning against the war, there has been a general swing to the Left in the trade union movement and an increasing understanding of the nature of imperialism.

This has provided the basis for a broad campaign, based in the working class movement, against the Constitutional Treaty and in favour of the right of the British people to take a decision on it through a referendum. Such a referendum would almost certainly produce a majority against - and is therefore strongly opposed by the prime minister, Tony Blair.

Communists see the creation of a working class base for this movement as critically important.

Currently, the right wing in British politics also oppose euro membership and the Constitutional Treaty. In the Conservative Party this in part reflects its understanding of the position of the Bush administration in America. But it also reflects a dangerous element of chauvinism and xenophobia. It is therefore vital that genuinely democratic and internationalist forces take the lead in the opposition.

A number of progressive organisations exist. These include Labour Against the Euro (LATE) which has the support of several dozen Labour MPs and the Campaign against Euro Federalism that has a base in the trade union movement. These have now been joined by VOTE 04 led by Labour MP Frank Field which is campaigning for the right to a referendum. A motion calling for a referendum was tabled in the Commons on 11 December and has currently been signed by 24 Labour MPs.

The Communist Party of Britain and the daily paper the Morning Star will be campaigning to develop this movement and to win majority support within the British trade union movement over the coming months. It welcomes the closing statement of the European Social Forum in Paris calling for opposition to the EU Constitution and for the naming of May 9 as a day of mobilisation across Europe against the Constitutional Treaty.


For popular sovereignty and internationalism

Communists in Britain see any advance against the anti-democratic forces of big business as dependent on the defence of popular sovereignty at the level of existing states. This popular sovereignty we define as the ability of progressive anti-monopoly forces to transform existing democratic institutions - so that they increasing to meet the economic and social needs of all working people and challenge monopoly capitalism.

It is the democratic potential of our existing democratic institutions that is now under threat as never before both in Britain and across Europe. This is why we see the campaign against the EU's Constitutional Treaty as central to any wider resistance to imperialism. The stronger the balance of class forces against monopoly capital in each individual state, the stronger the movement for genuine internationalism. To quote the Communist Manifesto, 'In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will be put an end to'.

It's a great step towards an European Superstate.

you should read the constitution which goes largely about business and little about social equality....europa does have a culture of social struggle and will not chew this Hypocracy...al least i hope. NO to the constitution YES for the power to the people without borders....Direct Democracy stop Hypocracy fight Ekonocraty

Europa can not do that,this neo libs logics is going to fall so surely as EC will disapear due to its lack of social protection and abusive liberal stands




Now EU Governments have agreed on their final text of the Constitution, it is time to analyse its implications for the centre-left. The Government claims this is just a “tidying-up” exercise, that there’s nothing to worry about in the Treaty.

Ministers like Denis MacShane dismiss criticism of the Constitution as “myths” and “scare stories”, and try to label anyone who raises questions about the Constitution as “anti-European”. It's time to raise the level of the debate.

This Constitution is, at best, a missed opportunity; to reform the EU’s unaccountable institutions, or to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and to end the EU's favourable policy towards nuclear power.

At worst, it is yet another step in the wrong direction, taking decisions further away from ordinary people and locking in right-wing economic and social policies. And we do not accept that the EU should impose illiberal asylum policies on member states by Qualified Majority Voting.

Moreover, a detailed examination of the Treaty reveals a worrying free market agenda. For example, we oppose the extension of the Common Commercial Policy to health and education.

We believe that the current EU Constitution takes the EU in the wrong direction and we should reject it as a first step to reforming the EU.

A version of the Constitution is available for download Here


EU Constitution would mean no anti-war vote and block a social Europe says Dutch MP Harry van Bommel

Harry van Bommel has a message for the British left. "Vote no to the EU Constitution, and vote yes to democracy", he says. The Dutch Socialist MP was speaking at a meeting of the Centre for a Social Europe, the newly formed left-wing campaign for EU reform, as part of a tour of Europe's progressive movements on the issue. He sees the proposed Constitution as the starting point for a debate on the very future of Europe, the importance of which has yet to be realised among Europe's diverse and often divided left-wing movements.

His detailed understanding of the Constitution's text and his placing of it within the ideological direction the EU is taking is a stark contrast to the level of the debate so far in Britain, a point he acknowledges.

To many on the left it is simply a case of being for Europe not against it. "But this Europe is their Europe, not our Europe", counters van Bommel. "There are different visions of Europe - of public services or privatisation for example, and now we can have a democratic choice. This is an instrument to start a debate on the future of the EU - we can't leave it to the neo-liberals."

The neo-liberal drift of the European Constitution is a recurring theme - one that is influenced by a similar drift in Dutch politics, much of which will sound familiar to British readers.

"The privatisation of district nursing led to mile long waiting lists for people to get the care they were entitled to. In this case privatisation was made undone. After ratification of the European Constitution, this will be forbidden." It is a similar story with the national railway company, which like Britain's has been privatised, and likewise with once socially-provided dental care.

"After five years, you can tell what people earn by looking at their teeth. This neo-liberal model is enshrined in this Constitution. The foundations are being laid for a Europe in which the free market rules."

This goes to the heart of van Bommel's argument - that the so-called Constitution does not restrict itself to setting out the political structures and processes of the European Union but actually prescribes policy across many of the EU's competences. Its stated goal is 'an internal market within which competition is free and unhindered' and the monetarist economics of the euro are given constitutional status.

"This is not a constitution, it is a political programme," concludes van Bommel. And it is not only the neo-liberal economic policy it enforces that exercises him.

"Member states will be obliged to expand their military. That is unheard of in a document that calls itself constitution. European countries are forced to spend more money on the defence budget."

The EU Constitution contains an Article - largely ignored in the mainstream British media - on defence, setting up an EU Armaments Agency to drive up defence spending and compelling member states to 'progressively improve their military capabilities' so that EU countries pull their weight in NATO.

"The constitution clearly states this connection," warns van Bommel, "and thus the connection of the EU to the US. There will be no room for a neutral position outside NATO, like Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta have."

Under a Qualified Majority Voting system the EU would not have had a majority against the Iraq war and van Bommel dismisses any suggestion that the Constitution would somehow create an alternative global power to the US. The Constitution also explicitly gives the EU the right to intervene - with its newly created 'battlegroups' - outside the European sphere itself, even if it does not have a mandate from the United Nations to do so.

"As we have seen in Iraq, war does not provide security," reflects van Bommel, "militarisation does not help prevent terrorism. We need better joint intelligence working, not more military spending, but we can do that without a Constitution. We need to change the practice, not the rules."

The threat of terrorism is one that is very real to the Dutch MP, whose country has gone from being a byword for social liberalism and tolerance to one marred by social unrest and a right-wing backlash against immigration following the murder of film producer Theo van Gogh. "Two MPs are under 24-hour protection and the police are overwhelmed by security requirements. It wasn't like this even after Pim Fortuyn was assassinated - now there are churches, mosques, burning. I don't even know what will happen next week. "

This social tension forms a difficult backdrop to the EU debate for the left, with right-wing Liberal MP Geert Wilders resigning and forming his own party on a platform of opposing Turkish entry to the EU.

"Wilders has said that if Turkey joins, the Netherlands should leave. He has left the Liberal Party and now, as an independent MP, he gets more in the polls than the Liberals do." Van Bommel recognises the danger that the crisis could allow the right-wing government to paint opponents as extremists of the right and left.

"But this is not just about left and right. This is about the elite against the people - the centre supports the Constitution because they are the political elite, the establishment. We must have a proper public debate on this now - about what direction Europe goes in, about whether we have more privatisation and higher defence spending or have a more democratic Europe and protect public services."

Raising the level of the debate is a constant theme of van Bommel's position. He cites the recent example of the political crisis over the European Commission.

The Dutch nominee, Neelie Kroes, is in van Bommel's words, "a powerful advocate of privatisation" and he predicts that "more of the family silver will be sold off." She led privatisations such as that of the Dutch postal service and more recently has sat on the Boards of numerous multi-national companies, a conflict of interest that did not prevent her appointment as Competition Commissioner.

"When she got an important post the reaction was like we had won the Eurovision song contest - when actually it was a sad day for the Netherlands. She will work for private enterprise, not for the good of the people in the Netherlands. It was the same with Bolkestein."

Frits Bolkestein, Kroes' predecessor as Competition Commissioner and also a Dutch Liberal, has drafted the Directive on Services, a measure with enormous implications for public services and workers' rights if it is agreed by the Commission. And Van Bommel sees little hope of a progressive stance from this Commission. With only six of the twenty five Commissioners from centre-left parties it is the most right wing Commission in the history of the Union. And one of those six is Peter Mandelson, a name that draws a wry smile from van Bommel

"I know about Mandelson, though he is not really known by the public in the Netherlands. The right-wing drift of the Commission has escaped scrutiny, despite our efforts to highlight it. When I write an article in the Financial Times on the Iraq war or Palestine, I get hate mail, fan mail, in response. When I write on Europe I get nothing."

The lack of public debate is clearly as big a challenge for van Bommel's Socialist Party as it is for his left-wing counterparts in Britain but it is something he intends to change.

"Our campaign will move the debate away from the political elites to the people. We must inform people or they will vote in ignorance. And we must not let the campaign be hijacked by the right-wing - that is why we have taken the lead." As in most continental countries, the left is the natural home for those sceptical of the direction the EU has taken and van Bommel is building up a grassroots movement to make that case.

"The Lisbon Agenda will affect peoples' daily lives - worse pensions, working rights, budget cuts…we are seeing these things in the Netherlands and we can show that the Government's right-wing policies are related to those of Europe, that they are the same political programme. And that political programme is enshrined in this Constitution. That is why the European project has gone sour when it was traditionally popular."

Van Bommel recognises this traditional support for the European project amongst many on the social democratic left in Europe but he dismisses the arguments often put in favour of unthinking support for EU proposals and institutions.

"By opposing the euro and now the Constitution, we are not opposing the EU. We are against this Constitution because it is not a good one. It is a neo-liberal manifesto, not a proper constitution. There will be a constitution one day but this is our only instrument to start a debate on the future of the EU, and it is a debate and a future that cannot be left to the neo-liberals."

Indeed, the very name of van Bommel's movement - A Different Europe - emphasises how the Dutch left view the debate.

He has no time for those who argue that a No vote will force Britain out of the Union. "The suggestion that countries which fail to ratify the proposed text will be forced to leave the EU is as senseless as it is undemocratic. If you won't take no for an answer, then why ask the question in the first place?"

Van Bommel also brings a message of solidarity to the British left, and an implicit answer to those who see a No campaign as isolationist. "We are not alone, we must remember that. We need to work together for a common agenda in Europe or the neo-liberals will dominate and there will be no coherent socialist alternative."

Preventing that outcome is clearly something that animates the Dutch Socialist MP. "We are in for an exciting phase, one which will give the EU's neo-liberal propagandists plenty to chew on. A 'no' in this referendum will mean the EU elite will finally have to listen to us. And it's about time that happened."

Harry van Bommel was talking to Nick Parrott

http://www.social-europe.org.uk/presscuts/050116chartist.htm