TEAM Press Statement 29.10.04
DROP THE EU CONSTITUTION ...
MAKE SPACE FOR A REAL DEBATE
ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE
On 29 October
the leaders of the EU countries signed the "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe" and after that it is up
to all the EU countries to decide upon it. The Constitution grants to the EU significant
characteristics of a state, such as flag, anthem, army, currency, legal
precedence and personality, a motto and a national day, all combined with a
foreign policy monopoly and the right to further its powers without consent of
the national parliaments. Ever more legislation for the EU states will emanate
from the EU Commission.
This project has not been called for by the peoples of
A
move towards a democratic Federation for Europe like the USA or Germany can be criticised as to the need for such a project and for the naïve belief
that such a state can be reconcilable with real democracy for the foreseeable
future. For that would require a broad common political debate among its
citizens. That in turn would require a common language, common media and a community solidarity across Europe
that cannot realistically be expected within this century at least.
Who
really wants this and what would be gained by such a massive destruction of
European diversity and dynamics? The European integrationist project is already
reducing the debate on the future in all EU countries into disputes as to the
speed and extent of the EU's growing powers and their
reduction of the powers of national parliaments and electorates.
The
second stream of criticism is the criticism that the Constitution is an
unacceptable promoter of right wing or left wing politics. This seeming paradox
is caused by the fact that the EU Constitution is not politically neutral when
it comes to ideology, as a proper democratic Constitution should be. At its
core is an historically unique combination of certain
versions of Left and Right policies that some have described as including the worst of both worlds. The EU supports a huge
bureaucracy that seeks to regulate every product and extend its legislative
control into ever more areas of life. At the same time the EU promotes the
interests of the largest European-based transnational
companies. The Constitution's provisions for free movement of capital between
the EU and the rest of the world aim to assist these
in moving to where wages are low and environmental policies are weak, and the
extensive harmonising of products is aimed at giving them advantages of scale.
Controversial
issues of Left and Right and modern disputes over growth versus environmental
protection and the like - should be left to ongoing debate amongst the peoples
of Europe, not fixed as constitutional imperatives in a document that will be
virtually impossible to change on such fundamentals if it should be ratified.
We, the undersigned, think that a review of the existing treaties of the European
Union is highly desirable, but this present effort has unfortunately failed. However,
it has brought the good with it that referendums will be held in several countries, which can stimulate a proper debate on the
future of Europe, especially if the referendums are
fair, with equal resources and media access for both views. Those EU leaders
who have rejected to hold a referendum up to now can still change their minds an allow their citizens to take part in this vital debate
and decision. And it is an excellent opportunity for the other countries of Europe
"whether applicants to join the Union or not, to start a
freer and broader debate that can influence those struggling with the
paragraphs of the proposed Constitution.
Trying
to start an all-European debate is the more necessary, since it at present is
possible that the proposed EU Constitution is rejected somewhere, and in that
case, the Constitution is dead. This is because the treaty cannot come into
force for any EU country unless it comes into force for all. Historically, this
principle has been poorly respected by some EU-leaders, who instead have
arranged second referendums on losing EU-treaties in countries that turned them
down, adding some non binding declaration or other to persuade the voters to
change their minds. A people's democratic vote should be respected. If this happens
this time, a "No" should mean "No", and no such re-runs
should be attempted.
The
rejection of the Constitution in any EU country will provide an excellent
opportunity to stop and think a while. What is the great hurry to have an EU
State Constitution? What we really need is time for a thorough and broad debate
amongst our peoples to bring forth a vision, preferably many visions, of the
future. Such a pan-European popular debate should examine the ways and means to
a truly popular and non-elitist structure for European co-operation, applying
the basic principles of democracy. The outcome may be something wholly
incompatible with the present EU structures, or it may be something the EU can
develop into in a considered way. That is however a second stage in this
necessary debate. What is needed is public discussion on something other that
the fait-accompli of this EU Constitution, drawn up by a tiny handful of Europe's
top politicians and bureaucrats.
>We
appeal to the peoples of the EU countries that are holding referendums to vote
against the proposed EU Constitution. We ask the governments in those countries
that have not yet agreed to hold referendums to join the other countries in
doing so. And we appeal to political leaders in the rest of Europe,
whether EU applicants or not, to encourage a vision of their countries™ future
that goes beyond whether they should join the present EU or not. In that way we
can create time and space for a proper public debate on Europe's
future and the best way to encourage real international co-operation on our
continent in this dynamic modern world.
Signed
by
Anthony Coughlan, secretary, National Platform - Ireland
Hans Lindqvist, chair, EU-critical network of the
Centre Party - Sweden
Roger Cole, chair, Peace and Neutrality Alliance - Ireland
Denis Anderson, Chairman, Campaign against Euro-federalism - United Kingdom
Nicu Bazga, co-ordinator Attac - Rumania
Leopoldo Salqui, Another Democracy is Possible - Spain
Lukas Reimann, LeaderYoung4Fun - Switzerland
Ulla Klötzer, chair, Alternative to EU - Finland
Normunds Grostins, chair, Movement for Independence - Latvia
Carl Schlyter, EU-parliamentarian, The Green Party - Sweden
Antti Pesonen, chair, League for Free Finland - Finland
Ole Krarup, EU-Parliamentarian, People's Movement against the EU - Denmark
Mark Croucher, Secretary, United Kingdom Independence Party - Uinted Kingdom
29 October 2004