Icy, which faced demonstrations of tens of thousands of anti-globalisation activists, failed, acrimoniously, to reach agreement on the much vaunted EU Constitutional Treaty, drafted by the EU's Constitutional Convention. This was despite the fact that the draft had been welcomed by the European Council in Thessalonica in June.
In the end, amongst the many conflicting interests around the Constitution, it was Poland's refusal to accept crucial clauses, which precipitated the breakdown.
The key questions behind the controversy were the composition of the Commission, the internal division of votes, and the right of veto. These are the core changes which the constitution would make to the current functioning of the EU. They will allow the dominance of not just the big countries - since Poland is a big country - but of the FrancoGerman axes in particular. This is what generated the heat.
This breakdown does not mean the Constitution will be abandoned, far from it. No doubt EU officials are already explaining to the Polish government the many unpleasant things which can happen to its interests if it does not back down and facilitate the acceptance of the Constitution before the EU Super Summit' in June. It has already been told its aid will be cut. Chirac has also scandalously told Poland that it is getting above its station.
This reflected the inter-imperialist divisions which had emerged over the invasion of Iraq - not just between the core countries of the EU and the USA, but Rumsfeld's definition of old and new Europe.
If the Constitutional Treaty is not retrieved then it will be returned to at a later date, but this could be at the cost of considerable increased instability and loss of political legitimacy of the EU itself.
To why is a constitution for the EU so EU? Partly because it is the next logical step towards the kind of European super-state which has been the objective at least since the Maastricht treaty in 1992.
This is the reason the proposals are being presented as a Constitutional Treaty rather than simple a treaty - which is a clear option. All previous rules of the EU have been contained in treaties. But states, and superstates, have constitutions - so as far as they are concerned the EU needs one if it is going to continue to develop in that direction. That is clearly the thinking.
After all the EU already has a supreme court with jurisdiction within the member states, a single currency, a central bank with wide powers, common citizenship and passport, and many other things which a nation state pessesses. An EU constitution follows from this, for the planners of the project.
But it is not just the general principle which should lead us to oppose this constitution - along with the vast bulk of the left right across the EU.
It is unacceptable either as a constitution or a treaty, since it institutionalises many of the most reactionary aspects of the European union as developed in the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties ...
It seeks to set in stone, as European basic law, the neoliberal management of the European economy - which attacks social rights in the members states through the operation of the growth and stability pact. It institutionalises the democratic deficit within the EU and it makes the 10 new candidate countries (with a combined population of 70 million) into second-class citizens when they join the EU in June.
This makes this an enlargement like T no provous enlargemen of the FU
For its predecessors: the EEC or the egio. With all other, enlargements, from the
...• All together against the Poles? Blair, Chirac and Schroeder original six onwards, new members joined with equal rights
This was the case when Britain joined in 1973 (with a population of 60 million) and when Greece, Spain and Portugal joineid in 1981 and 1986 (with a combined population of around 60 million).
They all joined with full equal rights with the existing members. This puts Poland's objections into perspective. The Eastern countries are expected to accept a break from this and become a source of cheap ... for relocation, is not new. lit has been taking place for some time. The new constitution will ensure that things stay that way.
The new constitution was a major theme at the ESF in Paris, last November. As far as l could tell it was universally opposed in the debates by the left. At the end of the event the assembly of the social movements decid ed to call a day of action against the constitution on May 9.
This means there need to be moves in this country to develop an increased awareness of the constution and develop and active opposition. The day of action should not be diverted by the current crisis of the process. In fact it is particularly important to have an effective protest when the process is in crisis since the possibility of further disrupting the se reactionary plans is higher.
Blair of course will face down calls for a referendum on the constitution, not least because he would have no possibility of winning it. The same can be said of the possibility of a referendum on the Euro, which in the post-war situation Blair could not expect to win in the foreseeable future another major problem for the European project ....