Fee Std Testing Jerseycity

Resurrection of the European "Constitution"

In Lisbon, in the back of peoples

Europe and popular participation have never gone well together. By opting for parliamentary ratification of a treaty virtually identical to that which had been rejected by referendum in 2005, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy widens the divide between citizens and the institutional apparatus of the European Union. A device that produces lean neoliberal policies that governments are only too happy to charge a "Europe" and they are undermining its legitimacy. By Bernard Cassen

signature, December 13, 2007, the Treaty of Lisbon by the governments of the twenty-seven member states of the European Union put an end to the period known, euphemistically, a "think tank" had followed the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty (ECT) by French and Dutch referendums in spring 2005. While developing institutional superstructure of the Union, it confirms its nature fundamentally neoliberal, and this undoubtedly explains that he has been calibrated to protect themselves, in Brussels jargon, against any "accident" of ratification. Translation: it must not be submitted to the decision of the people, which is never openly indicated their condition and unwanted intruders in the European construction. Called by

antiphrasis "simplified treaty" or "minitraité" by M. Nicolas Sarkozy during his presidential campaign, the new version, now called the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), includes no less two hundred and fifty-six pages including nearly three hundred amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Rome, 1957) and sixty amendments to the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, 1992), twelve dozens of protocols and declarations. In the long history of diplomacy, there have been more "simplified" and "mini" ... The quasi

unreadable in this document for the common man (and, one imagines, for the vast majority of their elected representatives) should not obscure the essential point: it is purely and just a few provisions closely, using the contents of the TEC (see "Treaties twins"). So the simple parallel forms have wanted it to be subject to the same ratification procedures. It is not. The argument advanced by Mr. Sarkozy during and after his campaign to justify the refusal of a new referendum is a disarming bad faith: TCE was a Constitution, for which a referendum was required, being the TFEU not a Constitution, a simple parliamentary ratification enough! However, the TEC was not a European "Constitution" within the meaning legal term and it was a treaty like the others, and had publicly said Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian prime minister and vice-president of the Convention on the Future of Europe who had written the first draft.

The constitutional reference was symbolic in nature, including "sacred" European policies in force, almost all of them neo fuel, contained in Part III of the ECT. This Part III has certainly disappeared as such, but its substance remains intact as it appears in the two treaties (Rome and Maastricht) which the TFEU only brings changes, and especially because such policies already apply daily. Last point made by the President of the Republic: the changes are introduced consensus. If this is indeed the case, this is an excellent opportunity to verify by consulting the voters. The areas of consensus are so rare in France ...

you will have guessed that Mr. Sarkozy does not believe a word of this nonsense. In remarks made in private during his recent visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, he delivers the substance of his thought: "There will be no treaty if a referendum held in France, to be followed by a referendum in the United Kingdom (1). "Aggravating circumstance:" The same thing [a negative vote, as the French vote in 2005] would occur in all Member States if a referendum was held there. "At least things are clear, as confirmed without too upset, a columnist of the weekly L'Express, strong supporter of the new Treaty:" There is evidence that the EU puts forward that 'by way of popular consent. (...) The EU fears its people, to the point he had to abandon the Lisbon "Conspicuous signs", flag and anthem, to give funny pledges to review (2). "Enough said.

A breeding ground for future ministers of "openness"

If Europe can "walk" to the blind people, if not against them, what are its democratic foundations - constantly invoked in all the treaties - which are themselves involved. This is not a matter subordinates. It is one where the form not only the premium base, but it is the background itself, namely the primacy of popular sovereignty. As such, it should be of concern at the highest point of all political leaders and, beyond, all the representative structures of society.

All forces and virtually all political leaders who had advocated the rejection of the TCE in 2005 are clearly united in the demand for a referendum to ratify the TFEU. The leadership of the Socialist Party (PS), eager to take revenge on a "no" when she had been disowned by some of its leaders and the majority of his constituents, decided otherwise: the majority calls elected officials to vote "yes" to the text to be presented to the National Assembly and the Senate, instead of fighting for the holding of a referendum. Commitment to oblivion in the sense contained in its program, as well as proposal 98 of the presidential campaign of Ségolène Royal! The opportunity is too good to pass by the Parliamentary fanlights text expelled through the front door of the popular verdict. Patrick Bloche, deputy of Paris, does not beat around the bush: "This time, I feel that the PS think something about Europe. Quit thinking the same thing Sarkozy (3). "

We saw above that actually think Mr. Sarkozy, who has the PS and an expanded pool of future ministers of "openness" sharing with him the fear - justified - the vote of the citizens. At least he had clearly set the tone before being elected to the presidency: there would be no referendum. For the PS, who had taken a contrary position, "Europe" is well worth the denial of his promises!

is questionable that hard of a party in favor of some form of European construction, the first day, was due to a machine liberalize (4), and then taken over the criteria of neoliberal globalization, particularly as regards relations with the South (5). The election - under the patronage of Mr Sarkozy - Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the general direction of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after Mr. Pascal Lamy to head the World Trade Organization (WTO ), took a test. Instead of questioning the merits of these appointments in multilateral organizations whose acronyms and policies are hated by almost all social movements in the world, leaders have expressed PS to see their pride and accepted the "skills" of two prominent members of their party.

By practicing a leak forward which is always demand "more Europe" (the meaning of their commitment to the "yes") - while "most" of this Europe inevitably means more liberalization , privatizations and questioning of public services - most of the leaders of the Left government deliberately refrain from any hint of social transformation and redistribution of wealth here and now. It is pathetic to see them go after a "Europe Socially which, like a mirage, escapes before them every day.

Aptly titled "European education" section of a genuine right-wing liberal, Claude Imbert, columnist for Le Point, drives the point home: "The wish, in our hackneyed socialist, a social Europe in the French is a daydream more. Among our partners, nobody wants it. Neither the Conservatives nor the Socialists (6)! The same Imbert wrote that liberalism is "a slogan ultimate anti-European: the European community is indeed liberal, and its rules are liberal (7).

It is bold to label as "socialist" Social Democrats Party of European Socialists (PES), which the European Parliament, are generally common cause with their "opponents" of the European People's Party (EPP) when it is to liberalize and move closer to the United States (8). If this is indeed Europe, and by nature, liberal, and if it has locked its institutions to remain, the question long taboo, is now how to get rid of this straitjacket.

Bernard Cassen.

Le Monde Diplomatique December 2007