In the last decades, the crisis of capitalism has led, also in Europe, to a constant attack on wages. This is done in a direct, indirect ("the Welfare State"), or deferred (retirement) manner, and is also carried out against the rest of the gains of the proletariat and the popular masses. This attack has been carried out by all administrations and governments, of any colour, one after the other, all over Europe. Right-winged, centre-right, or "pluralistic left". No matter the achievements, in spite of the resistance of the working class, this offensive is far from a having been resolved. With all its contradictions, the crisis of capitalism continues, and with it the need of capital to defend and recover their benefits and profit rates..
This is evident even if we consider the new and complicated structure of the constitution of the EU. The text of the "Constitution" published last June 18 and ratified at the end of October shows on a formal terrain the general contradictions to be found in the EU. There is an ever greater contrast between a line that tends to build Europe as a coherent, unified imperialist alliance, in confrontation with the United States (position of the Franco-German axis and outgoing president of the EU Commission, Roman Prodi); and another that aims to convert Europe into a faithful, and in short subordinated partner of the dominant imperialism (GB, Berlusconi and various recent East Europe new members, such as Poland).
The events following the Irak war have undoubtedly determined a relative reinforcement of the Franco-German axis,which may become stronger due to the crisis of US imperialism. However, nothing is definite yet, this contradiction subsists as a potentially explosive factor in the present-day EU. And none of the resources devoted to restricting voting rights in the constitutional text will resolve it.
It is true that something has been achieved in this terrain. The main political goal of the new "Constitution" was to put the main European imperialist countries into place as decision-makers. From this point of view, the rules sanctioning the passage in the European Commission (managing structure of the EU and the expression of various national governments), from unanimous vote to "qualified" majority potentially reinforces the so-called "directorate", centered on the principal imperialist countries, particularly the Franco-German axis. But there are so many limitations and exceptions in the constitutional agreement that this is a very poor success. In fact, it would be totally wrong --as made evident implicitly in the afore-mentioned above-- to consider the present-day European Union as a super-state, a coherently united economical-political entity. Not by chance, although they have adopted the name of "Union", in the current debate there is a clear majority position against any evolutionary "federal" hypothesis.
In real terms, the current union is far from a real "confederation" (if things are analyzed seriously and terms are used with precision).The global economic and political scene over the last few decades made this project impossible for the interested parties, namely the imperialists of the continental countries (founders of the first European structure back in the 50s, the EEC, that is Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium).
The presence of Great Britain in the UE poses a significant and central problem in relation to this object. British imperialism has always represented a contradictory element in relation to a cohesive European imperialist pole. Due to its autonomous role in the financial world, based on the GBP and investments linked to the traditions of the "British Empire", and to its partnership with the US, entirely confirmed by the Iraq war. In this sense, the imperialisms of continental Europe saw a double failure, they could neither be part of British imperialism or break with it. As on a military plane they have been unable to build a European army, or go beyond NATO (after fall of the USSR and the Warsaw pact). Consequently they have remained in a military structure managed and predominantly in the hands of the United States. The very extension of the EU to the central European countries has a contradictory character: on the one hand, it structures the total opening of the economies of these former workers states to investment by the continental imperialisms. On the other hand, on the political plane, at least up till now, it makes the process of consolidation of the European imperialist pole more complex, as the "new partners" are linked to US imperialism. Not by chance has the US congratulated itself on the geographic extension of the UE and is today a big fan of the acceptance of Turkey (with Bush, who on a recent visit, not without an implicit argument, invited Chirac... not to put obstacles in the path of a positive solution of the issue), precisely in order to weaken its potential role of "competitor".
However, important contrasts between the EU and the US have developed, in the political and, more significantly, in the economic terrains ( "banana wars" over subsidy rights). Still, these situations are, so far, limited, restricted to some of the EU imperialist countries, and often only one of them (the most important now, Ghana, between France -not all Europe- and the US).
In contrast, there is one point in common, agreed among all governments, that of having rules functional to renewing attacks against the working class and popular masses. Here, not having a real "Constitution" nor conditions for a "superstate " or a real "confederation" of any kind, but instead a treaty among sovereign states with coordinated rules and principles, these "rules" bear the stamp of a "liberal" vision and constitute an attack against social gains. The reference to the "market" as a basic element of society is repeated more and more. Naturally, we know that every bourgeois State is based on the explotation of wage labour, that its economy is determined by the anarchy of the market, and that government decisions follow from this. But, unlike the vague cynical hypocritical normal bourgeois constitutions, incorporating this into the "Constitution" certainly reveals the real goals of the UE, as mentioned earlier.
This text is so reactionary that even from within a reformist social-liberal force such as the French Socialist party some voices were raised -only instrumental due to internal war for power- to vote against, on the occasion of the referendum validating the European treaty in France, and due to the absence of the so-called "social clauses" (this, although only formally, in defence of minimal social gains). This has led to an internal referendum that ended in the victory of the "yes" vote over the "no" vote, but with 41 percent voting "no".
However, the "social" opposition to the present European "Constitution", from the left of the French SP to the "Party of the European Left" ,with its partners in the leadership of the "anti- neoliberal globalization movements", to neo-reformists of the left of the "Unified Secretariat", are far from proposing a class struggle alternative, even a blurred and limited one.
Here are their alternative proposals on some of the key points (quoted in Liberazione,italian RCP), March 31:
"Art III-14. We have 10 days to reach the following goals:
- Jobs for all, unemployment rate below 5 percent
- a society based on solidarity, poverty rate below 5 percent
- a roof over everyone's head, homeless rate below 3 percent
- solidarity with the South, State contributions to development over and above 1 percent of GDP
States not complying with these social parameters by 2015 must be punished according to sanctions considered for countries not respecting Maastricht parameters."
Amazing. This means that if Europe had, in 2015, evenly distributed, 25 million people living in poverty, half of them homeless, with 10 million unemployed, we would be all right and would have achieved a "Social Europe".
And if any specific country failed to meet these "bold objectives" in percentages, it would only need to pay a fine.
The proletariat has the duty and need of speaking out against the "Constitution" of the European Union, the imperialist Europe of the capital and all its fractions. In every ad-referendum poll and consultation, against which there is even a limited working class and popular opposition, it must say "no" to the new "Constitution". But this has to be done from the point of view of class independence, not from that of a utopian and reformist "social Europe", and much less from that of the defense of the old bourgeois national states. But rather from the perspective of the unity of the proletariat of all Europe in its struggle against the offensive of capital, for the only realistic alternative against it, the revolutionary conquest of power by the proletariat in each of the countries of the "Old Continent", and the creation of the Socialist United States of Europe-
There is no other perspective than the necessary construction of revolutionary parties in the European countries, within the framework of the re-foundation of the Fourth International