I will probably vote no at the referendum on the European constitution that, in France, will take place in May. But until then I will try, like almost every one of that opinion, to understand the arguments of those in favour of that constitution. If we set aside the criticism that can be addressed to this text from the point of view of a thick conception of democracy, and stick with the social and economical problem, I cannot understand how a left-wing Yes can be argued for.
Art. I-3: The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.
Art. III-176: (… )the activities of the Member States and the Union shall
include, as provided in the Constitution, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.
Art. III-292-2-e: The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to: (…) encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade
Art. III-131: Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war.
Is it not obvious that these provisions stem from an ideology that cannot be accepted by anyone who believes that political forces should control the market? How can one believe that and at the same time vote for this constitution? Frankly, whishing for a market where competition is free and undistorted, and calling that a value, is not left-wing. I know that, without so many words, such a market is already a value of the European Union and that the constitution doesn’t change all that much to it. But now we are given, finally, a chance to reject such a polity and I, for one, will take it gladly.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I respect Raphael's decision to vote "no" in the referendum about the EU Constitution, however, I wish to criticize some aspects of his argumentation, in the conclusion he argues, "I know that, without so many words, such a market is already a value of the European Union and that the constitution doesn’t change all that much to it. But now we are given, finally, a chance to reject such a polity and I, for one, will take it gladly." Fine, Paour is led by a left-wing sensibility that strives to protect the welfare state and a certain amount of state interventionism in the economy. I could subscribe to that. However, voting against this constitution means much more then voting simply left wing, it largely means supporting a populistic, nationalist vote that wants to keep Turkey out of the Union, that supports the rotten idea of the "core" Europe and that genereally breads populist nationalism covered by the discourse that is concerned by the lack of democracy at the European level. This constitution presents a step towards constructing a genuine democratic forum at the European level. Once the EU Parliament gets more power, once the EU finally acquires some state-like attributes, it will be possible to fight for the "social-Europe" at the European level. This constitution is simply a pragmatic step that could possibly lead us to both directions: towards a neo-liberal Europe or towards a social Europe. Voting no to this Consittution unfortunately cancels Europe itself. If I had a right to vote in the French referendum (and I do not) I would vote "yes" since voting "no" would certainly not change much. The left in France would scream THE CONSTITUTION LOST BECAUSE OF ITS NEO-LIBERAL CHARACTER but the prevailing feeling would be that it lost because the RIGHT-WING POPULISTS VOTED AGAINST IT...this is not good.
I tend to agree with Srdj on this one; certainly, reducing the complex question of how to vote in the referendum to a simple economic left/right dichotomy does seem overly simplistic. The EU is already much more than an economic union (perhaps not so obvious from a French perspective, but consider it seems streets ahead of thew UK in terms of social rights).
Furthermore (although I am almost entirely ignorant about economics), it seems that there is a plausible argument to be made that it is becoming increasingly difficult, in the global economic climate, for a state to introduce widespread and ambitious welfare policies. It may just be that an entity the size of the EU could overcome this obstacle (the "European Rescue of the Nation State", anyone?)
Srdjan's last point also strikes me as important. A successful "no" vote, in France or elsewhere, will likely be viewed as a right-wing victory - and these things can serve to create momentum for these parties, regardless of how the vote broke down in reality. A brief glance at who I would be lining up beside in the UK if I was to vote no is, frankly, almost sufficient in itself to persuade me to the contrary. I share all of Raph's concerns about the proposed Constitution; I even add a few more of my own (not the least of which is a deep dislike for and distrust of constitutional documents in general). As yet undecided, but definitely leaning towards a "yes". Perhaps, however, Raph's "no" will save me the bother - certainly what Blair seems to be hoping...
Post a Comment