A charge often made against the proposed EU constitution by its opponents in France is that it is an "Anglo-Saxon" document - a plot to enshrine Thatcherite policies which will devastate the social balance of European economies.
Law of the jungle: Jean-Luc Melenchon
As an example, they point to the phrase used in Article I-3 (2) which states that there shall be "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted".
One of the leading French critics, Socialist Senator Jean-Luc Melenchon, commented in a recent radio interview: "This is the law of the jungle turned into a constitution. I do not want a constitution that imposes a principle - free and unfettered competition - with which I do not agree."
For such critics the word "competition" represents all that is worst about what they see as free-market, "neo-liberal" principles laid down by the constitution for the EU.
Repetition
The problem with such an approach is that in many key areas the constitutional treaty essentially repeats existing policy.
The original Treaty of Rome from 1957, which established the then European Economic Community, also said, in Part One, Article 3 (c) that there should be "an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital".
And further, it said there should be "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted".
The principles of the "free and undistorted" internal market were established from the start.
So if you complain about the constitution, as you are entitled to, you also have to complain about the Treaty of Rome.
State subsidies
Similarly, Article III-167 in the constitution, about the outlawing of government subsidies, has been lifted straight from Article 92 in the Treaty of Rome (later amended to Article 87).
The French Left is becoming more vocal in defence of the constitution
This is what the constitution says:
"Save as otherwise provided in the Constitution, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market."
The only changes from the Treaty of Rome text are that "this Treaty" becomes "the Constitution" and the "common market" has become the "internal market".
In addition, the quite numerous exceptions where state subsidies are allowed (helping deprived regions, disaster relief etc) are transferred word for word to the constitution (III-167 (2)) from the Treaty of Rome (Article 92, later amended to 87).
These exemptions undermine the argument that only competition is sought by the constitution. Right from the start of the European Community, subsidies were allowed in certain cases.
Social protection
It is also worth pointing out that the constitution does not just mention "free and undistorted competition" as the Union's economic ambition.
In the very next paragraph 9 Article I-3 (2) it says that the Union "shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress.
"The Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote justice and social protection, equality between men and women, solidarity between generations."
So there is a balancing social agenda laid out and in not much different terms from the Treaty of Rome itself. This says in Article 2 that the Community shall promote "a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection".
All this is not to take sides in the debate about the future of Europe. It is simply to illuminate where the text has come from.
Degeneration
The constitution enshrines the economic principles which have always governed the European Union.
Democracy has become a pawn in the dictates of globally volatile capital
Guenter Grass
Sometimes it seems that arguments about the EU constitution have more to do with arguments about economic policy in general.
The most eloquent complaint about Europe, particularly Germany, has come from the German novelist Guenter Grass. In a recent article in Die Zeit (reprinted in The Guardian) he illustrated the underlying malaise which has also led to such opposition to the constitutional project in France.
"We are all witnesses the fact that production is being destroyed worldwide, that so-called hostile and friendly takeovers are destroying thousands of jobs, that the mere announcement of rationalisation measures, such as the dismissal of workers and employees, makes share prices rise and this is regarded unthinkingly as the price to be paid for 'living in freedom'," he wrote.
"Parliament is no longer sovereign in its decisions - [it] has thereby become an object of ridicule. It is degenerating into a subsidiary of the stock exchange. Democracy has become a pawn in the dictates of globally volatile capital.
"The social market economy - formerly a successful model of economic and cohesive action - has degenerated into the free-market economy."
Charter of rights
It can be seen that this argument goes way beyond the confines of the constitution. Grass himself did not mention the constitution. But those who use similar arguments do.
The fight back in France and elsewhere in defence of the constitution has been led by those who argue that it might actually help left-of-centre policies.
John Palmer, Policy Director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels, takes this view.
"I believe there will be a Yes vote in France because people are only now realising that the constitution actually balances existing EU rules. It adds in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it strengthens collective decision making, its gives a greater role to the European Parliament which was the body which really blocked the draft services directive recently as being insufficiently sensitive to social needs.
"All of this works to qualify neo-liberal economic policies. If you vote No, you are left with the existing rules. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face and would be completely illogical."
Not exactly sure why... maybe it's because after a certain point it just isn't gonna matter, and it won't make a bit of difference to anyone except the winners who wins.
__________________ http://www.anyairman.com
Click banner > Go directly to Air Force forum
"We’re at war with Japan. We were attacked by Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed?"
General Curtis LeMay
Not exactly sure why... maybe it's because after a certain point it just isn't gonna matter, and it won't make a bit of difference to anyone except the winners who wins.
Which in particular?
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How May I Help You?
PM me through this link if clicking on those banners doesn't help with your questions
05-11-2005, 23:40
An Anglo-Saxon takeover of the EU? 
Similar Threads 
