Saving The European Union

With the declining value of the Euro and the rejection of the European Constitution, the news has not been kind for the European Union of late. Is it a temporary setback or an impassable divide? Is the constitution dead? Is the Union itself dead or can it be saved?
The news has not been good for the European Union of late. The declining value of the Euro combined with the rejection of the European Constitution by France and the Netherlands has given proponents of a united Europe pause for reflection.

What has gone wrong? Is it a temporary setback or a wall that threatens the very concept of a European Union? Is the constitution dead? Should it be? Is the union itself dead or can it be saved?

As an advocate of the Union, I do not believe the current setbacks need be permanent or fatal and yet it would be folly not to consider them a call for comprehensive reformulation. If the leaders of a united Europe do not take the lessons of the French and Dutch to heart, the crack underlying continental unity may grow into an impassable divide and the damage will be profound and enduring.

The most obvious lesson is the most fundamental: A constitution should not read like a corporate tax code. It should be a fundamental statement of the rights and responsibilities of citizens and a concise description of organizations, authorities and limitations thereof. Subject to future amendment, a constitution should not be a detailed prescription of government administration, immigration and trade policy. A constitution that runs over 200 pages has failed the fundamental test of simplicity. Instead of a statement of universal principles, it becomes a legal contract to be read by no one but low level bureaucrats and adjudicators.

In today’s political environment, a European Constitution should have been an opportunity to affirm European values, the rights of labor (including a living wage), the limits of corporate power and authority, the essentials of democratic government (including a free and independent media, the right of privacy, due process, freedom of culture and religion, and the separation of church and state), the right to medical care, the right to a living pension, and the essential rights of immigration.

To the extent that the European Constitution accomplished these objections, it succeeded. To the extent that it compromised basic principle with endless elucidation, it failed. When the constitution was presented to the people of France and the Netherlands for ratification, there was much discussion about immigration and the value of the Euro but no one in fact knew how the constitution would affect these concerns. The people were not being asked to evaluate its contents. Rather, they were being asked to vote yes on faith alone.

Such a proposition is alarming. As a rule, I do not accept anything on faith alone – certainly not the word of a government official. In my experience, the politician who asks to be taken on faith is most likely a crook with something nefarious to hide.

Media reports have variously concluded that the vote against ratification was largely a referendum on the government in power. Rejection in France was perceived as a vote of no confidence in Jacques Chirac. The loss in the Netherlands was seen as reflecting discontent with that government’s failure to control immigration. It seems likely that a vote in Britain, had it proceeded, would have rejected the constitution even more decidedly. The British pound is still relatively strong and the Brits are in no mood to give their beleaguered Prime Minister a showing of support.

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that the European Constitution is in deep trouble and, because Europe’s leaders have presented it as if it were synonymous with the Union itself, the Union itself is in danger.

Can either the Constitution or the Union be rescued?

The Constitution, as currently formulated, is dead. Bury it without ceremony. Redraft it from ground zero with all the virtues of universality and simplicity. The principles should be so fundamental that no nation should even be considered for membership if they are not in agreement.

If any nation does not wish to grant equal rights regardless of sex, orientation, religion or race, it does not belong in the European Union. If eastern nations are wary of a living wage, let them walk alone until they mend their ways. If any nations wish to deny immigration on the basis of race or religious creed, let them stand apart until they have awakened from a dark slumber.

If it is to have any value at all, the European Union must be built on a foundation of human dignity. It must offer the people of the world a model of humane behavior that balances the needs of society against the rights of individuals. It must be the vanguard of human and civil rights. It must be the home and center of international justice, equitable trade and labor policy, progressive environmental policy and international diplomacy. It must answer to the needs of its people without infringing the rights of others. It must offer a clear and viable alternative to the American model of corporate greed and military dominance.

In the end, I believe that the concept of a European Union is too powerful to be denied. A united Europe would be a logical home to a new United Nations. It would be a counterpoint not only to American power but to the Asian giants as well and it would offer the greatest hope for building a bridge to that continent. An enlightened European Union can begin to build a foundation of tolerance between religions, races, cultures and nations.

In the short run, the rejection of the European Union Constitution is a serious setback that can be converted to a positive outcome. In the mid run, the European Union will face some difficult choices, including whether to include a reluctant Britain or those nations who are not yet ready to fully embrace the principles of human dignity. Presidents and Prime Ministers may have to be replaced. In the long run, if the nations of Europe hold their course, the Union may yet be known as one of the greatest achievements of the new millennium. It very nearly must be so if the human race is to survive.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HIS CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE & OTHER SITES.
JACKRANDOM.COM
Home of Random Jack Blog

By Jack Random
Published: 6/11/2005
 
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Your Comments:
Your Name:
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
Recipient Email Address:
 Separate multiple email addresses by ;
Your Name:
Your Email Address: