formed in 1957.
A draft has been produced by the Constitutional Convention chaired by former French President Giscard D'Estaing. Final proposals will be agreed at an Intergovernmental Conference in Paris at the end of the year.
Some argue that expansion to 25 member states, due to be completed in june 2004, requires this. Others say it would be more convenient: that the current situation is a bit messy and a constitution would clear it up - as if the citizens of the EU are desperate to read the constitutional basis of the union.
The reality, of course, is more political. The adoption of a constitution is the next logical step in European integration - the key political project of the European ruling class.
For them it is a matter of political leadership. Some kind of European super-state would better provide the kind of leadership to the EU, which the US government is able to exert in North America
The most powerful big business interests back European integration. They want to see a neo-liberal Europe designed to increase profitability, maximise job flexibility, and run down the welfare state.
They want to see a Europe in which The decisions of dected parta.
ments (with all their limitations) are handed over to an un-elected bureaucracy. They want a racist and militarised Europe controlled by a European Central Bank (ECB) even more remote from democratic control than most national banks.
Big business has been at the forefront of this from the start through the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). Today the ERT represent 45 of the biggest European multinational companies, including BP, Shell, Fiat, ICI, Nestle, Phillips, Unilever and Vodaphone.
It has a headquarters in Brussels to conduct its huge lobbying exercise on the future of the EU. The companies it represents have a joint turnover of £600 billion.
The constitution builds on the process of political integration that began with the Single European Act (SEA) of 1985. This changed the European project from a predominantly economic one into a strongly political one. Margaret Thatcher signed the SEA because she was attracted to the deregulation on offer.
She soon regretted it, however, when the pace of integration accelerated. She has been attacked by the Tory right for this ever since.
The Maastricht Treaty, of December 1991, established the single European currency. This was a radical move not even contemplated at the time of the SEA, although less ambitious versions of it had been discussed earlier.
The aim of Maastricht was the creation of a monetarist regime across Europe which could reduce the 'burden' of the welfare state, and be regulated by the so-called Growth and Stability Pact.
The Amsterdam summit, of June 1997, introduced qualified majority voting into a number of new areas: customs, research, data protection, health policy, unemployment, equal opportunities and social policy. The primacy of EU law over national law was strengthened.
The Schengen agreement (the basis became a part of the basis of the EU. The Nice summit set the scene for enlargement and a further step towards the domination of the big powers.
The EU thus has a flag, an anthem, common citizenship, common passport, a parliament (of sorts), a single currency, a central bank, a £100 billion budget, a supreme court with primacy over national law, a EUwide police set-up (Europol), an EU military force in development, a common foreign policy (of sorts), and a president of the Commission).
Added to this - with the adoption of the proposed constitution - would be a new EU President who would hold office for two and a half years, abolishing current revolving presidency, which has outlived its usefulness. There would also be a strengthened foreign policy department.
Further moves are towards a military structure, an expansion of majority voting into 34 new areas and a reshaping of the Commission, putting more power into the hands of the major states.
The constitution incorporates the socalled Charter of Fundamental Rights, agreed at Nice in December 2000. easier.
This means that a referendum on the Euro is very unlikely, though not impossible, before the next election. The problem is compounded for Blair by the outcome of the war. He hoped that with a quick victory and a surge of popularity, a referendum might be possible. What he got was a quick victory, the biggest crisis he has had in government, and the start of a war of resistance in Iraq.
Blair is caught between the requirements of British manufacturing capital to go into Europe and the role he wants to play on a world scale shoulder to shoulder with George Bush.
A clear majority of British business is hos tile to the current situation of half in and half out of the EU and want membership of the Euro.
They think that economic activity will gravitate towards the Euro-zone, as the core sector of the European economy, and that they have the worst of both worlds (from a capitalist point of view) being subject to the constraints of EU membership whilst lacking real influence, and being unable to take advantage of the fixed exchange rates provided by the Euro.
Socialists should be against the furintegration of Europe, as represented by the new constitution
We need to be ready to fight for a no' vote in the referendum whenever it comes
We do not defend the nation state. We do not defend the pound. We are internationalists who recognise that the material conditions created by globalisation are incapable of solving the pressing problems faced by the impoverished peoples of the dependent countries.
We are against the Europe of the bosses because it is designed to increase the exploitation of the working class and strengthen the employers.
page 12 of the scan
12 socia ust re European left nce Summer 2003