Reading the proposed EU constitution it's hard to see what's
in it for the left. There is no improvement in the content of
the Union's policies when it comes to workers' rights, social
issues, the environment or gender equality. There are some beautiful
words, but no obligations made or tools created for progressive
politics. On the other hand, it's made clearer than ever that
the Union is a political project created with free market capitalism
as its basic ideology. This is spelled out again and again. Any
policy contradicting the free market is simply not possible for
the Union, which of course limits the possibilities for progressive
politics in almost any field. The single market is still the core
of the project and the failed EMU policies remain unchanged, imposing
austerity measures on the member states and the dictates of a
central bank beyond democratic control. The goal of continued
economic liberalisation is clearly spelled out in the treaty.
The EU is a legal system and the constitution decides what will
be within that system's scope. Thus, unlike in other constitutions,
not only are the democratic rules spelled out, but the central
political goal. That's why the constitution has to be criticised
from the left, regardless of whether we like or dislike the idea
of transferring more powers to the EU institutions. If this were
a football match, the Left team has no chance of winning because
the constitution means that the rules of the game are fixed by
their opponents, the referee is paid by the opposition and they
have a 5-0 lead at the start .
One of the most controversial parts of the constitution is the
clear ambition to form a common defence, the "solidarity clause"
that makes the union into a military alliance and the obligation
for each member state continually to increase its military capacity.
This amounts to nothing less than a fully-fledged militarization
of the EU. The Union will become a military power totally dependent
on Nato, ending nonalignment for formerly neutral countries. We
also clearly risk a development in which the EU, like the US,
starts acting on its own initiative in military issues, further
weakening a UN structure which is already too weak. According
to the new constitution, no mandate from the UN security council
is required for EU military action.
Looking at the free market character of the text, the militarization
and the lack of progress in social questions, it's hard to find
anything good to say about it. Yet it is still defended by federalists
on the left because it brings the EU closer to being a federal
state. This the constitution surely does. It increases the powers
of the central EU institutions, weakening the national parliaments
and democratic systems. For me, however, it's impossible to see
what is progressive in the creation of a federal EU, especially
one built on the principles of free market liberalism. None of
the EU institutions gaining powers is more democratic then the
national parliaments. The EU Commission is a totally undemocratic
body, meeting behind closed doors and forbidden to take advice
from national democracies. Instead, they are heavily influenced
by large corporations. The EU court makes political judgements
in favour of the free market, though it is not formally a political
body. True, the Council will become more transparent with the
new constitution - a good thing. But it is governments, not parliaments,
which are represented in the Council, governments which will now
enjoy the right to extend the EU's powers still further without
asking those national parliaments. The European Parliament is
another winner, but remains a parliament that cannot live up to
the democratic standards of a normal national parliament. Turnout
in the elections is now well below 50% on EU average, but figures
are a lot lower among working class voters. Workers don't vote,
and they don't get elected to a European Parliament which, because
of that, is heavily dominated by the right. The present parliament
will use the powers it receives from the new constitution to impose
right wing policies and deregulation on the member states. The
only way to change the EU into something better, therefore, is
to reject the presently proposed constitution: let us do just
that.
Jonas Sjöstedt is a Member of the European Parliament for
the Swedish Vänster (Left) Party, the Swedish affiliate of
the United European Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL). He is the
GUE/NGL's co-ordinator for the Group's work on the environment
and public health, and played a leading role in the campaign for
a "No" in his country's referendum on membership of the euro.