Restore Spinelli's Treaty

Notes on Attac Austria's  critical analysis of the EU Constitutional Treaty,  by Mikael Böök

Permit me to add my critical comments to the "Critical analysis of the EU Constitutional Treaty (EU-CT)" by Attac Austria.  I make these comments in my personal capacity, and not as a representative of Attac Finland. 

Although I call my comments 'critical', I do in fact agree on the main points with Attac Austria's critique of the EU-CT. Except that Attac Austria is re-inventing the wheel. And so are the other Attacs.

The kind of EU Constitution that we are asking for, although of course not exactly the one we want,  has already seen the light of the day.  I am referring to the "Draft Treaty establishing the European Union" that was approved by a majority of the members of the European Parliament  in February 1984. The French and English text of the document in question are available at http://www.spinellisfootsteps.info/ , a website which, undoubtedly, needs to be amended and improved.

 One would believe that Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986), one of the greater  political thinkers of the last century, would be well-known in the Attac and, more in general, in the movement that thinks of itself as the global justice movement. But this is not the case, except in his native country Italy, where Spinelli is indeed recognised as a major figure and intellectual influence in relatively wide circles.

In the other countries Spinelli has either never made it to the records, or he is already completely forgotten, or he is treated like 'ein toter Hund', by the Right and the Left alike.   For some politicians, and especially for those who know the history of the EU, because they have made it themselves, so to speak, this noble protagonist of European unity is probably a fearful spectre. 

Originally an Italian Communist youth leader in the 1920ies, Altiero Spinelli  was arrested 1927, at the age of 20, and put into prison by the Fascists. Like many other political prisoners, he managed to turn  the long years of confinement into a period of intense reading and writing, thus sharpening his mind and developing an independent intellectual standpoint.  Having served his first five prison years, Spinelli run into conflict with his fellow comrades over the politics of the Stalin regime and the politics of the  Communist parties of the third International, of which he become ever more critical.  The result was that the Italian Communist Party rejected Spinelli and he, in turn, the party. 

When Spinelli was 30 years old, in 1937, he was moved from the prison cell in Civitavecchia, first  to  Ponza, and later (1939) to Ventotene; these  so called Pontine islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Campania, which had already hosted political exiles from imperial Rome, were put to the same use  by Mussolini.   Spinelli continued his research into the works of Niccolo Machiavelli,  Immanuel Kant, Alexander Hamilton and Luigi Einaudi.  On Ventotene he also made friends with Eugenio Colorni, Enrico Rossi and his future wife and life-long companion, Ursula Hirschmann. 

In the context of the EU, Federalism belongs to the standard vocabulary, and is sometimes also used in official phraseology.  It is instructive to compare the status of Federalism in the EU liturgy with that of Marxism and Leninism in the Soviet Union, Socialism in the Nordic Social Democracies, etc. 

Federalism, however, is not really supported by the economic and political elite. Federalism, in the sense of Spinelli, has remained a blind spot of the EU. 

Yet the very idea of a "European Union" is, of course, nothing else than Federalism. But is there in the EU of today a single Prime Minister or President of the Republic who dares to call him-or herself a Federalist and follower of Altiero Spinelli? 

What, then, is Federalism in the sense of Spinelli?  A first answer could be that Federalism is the understanding that the transnational institution  must take command over the national content.  For the federalist,  the federation (the European Union, for instance) comes before the national soverignity. 

Note that for the fedralist, the federation itself has to be (in the words of Attac Austria) "open to the future". Thus Spinelli wrote, in his autobiography:

"La federazione europea non ci presentava come una ideologia, non si proponeva di colorare in questo o in quel modo un potere esistente. Era la sobria proposta di creare un potere democratico europeo, nel cui seno avrebbero ben potuto svilupparsi ideologie, se gli nuomini ne avevano proprio bisogno, ma che era assai indifferente rispetto ad esse" ( Come ho tentato di diventare saggio, Il Mulino 1999, p. 309;   the title of the book means "How I tried to become wise";  translations are not yet available, probably because of the "dead dog"-status of the author) 

I will not try to delve deeper into the core of Federalism here and now, and  I shall also interrupt the little biographical sketch of Spinelli that I have started, and  leave the  important Manifesto of Ventotene  "for a free and united Europe" (written by Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi in 1941) which envisages the future European Union as a peace project and as a socialist welfare society, at a bare mention. Spinelli was finally freed in 1943 whereafter ha made a fascinating and complicated career as a political adviser and  opinion-builder.  

In 1979 Spinelli was elected to the European Parlament as an independent candidate on the list of the Italian Communists. And it was in his capacity as an independent "eurocommunist" MEP that Spinelli made the contribution we should absolutely not forget when we discuss the alternatives to the neoliberal EU-CT. To begin with, he engaged in a campaign that stretched over five years and which implied the forming of an early "intergroup" of MEPs of different politicatl tendencies. This group was called the Crocodile Club after the name of a cafe in Strasbourg where the club-members used to meet.

Spinelli's intense and stubborn advocacy of a stronger role for the European Parliament and for the true federation already sketched in the  early Ventotene Manifesto, was  indeed highly successful.  The  "Draft Treaty establishing the European Union"  was adopted by the European Parlament  by 237 votes to 31 (with 43 abstentions) in February 1984. Spinelli was its author.   This  "Spinelli Project", as it is sometimes called, must be clearly destinguished from the Single European Act that was signed in February 1986. Spinelli's Treaty was never signed by the member states.  Why? 

Those years in the eighties marked the world-wide transition to the ideological hegemony of Neoliberalism under which we are still living. The treaty that bears the name of Spinelli simply did no longer  fit into the mood of the political and economic rulers of that time.  The Single European Act did. In addition to being the woman prophet of Neoliberalism, Mrs Thatcher was a staunch nationalist. The question why Spinelli's treaty was never adopted by the executive, although it was approved by the legislative, is an interesting one. 

But here and now, it is  even more interesting to see if and how Spinelli's project  from 1984  corresponds, at least to the spirit, but perhaps also to the letter, to  the demands that Attac Austria puts forward in its critique of the constitutional treaty that was proposed by the French ex-President Giscard d' Estaing in 2003, and then rejected by Giscards fellow-countrymen, and the Dutch,  in May 2005. 

Hereafter, I shall call the  Treaty that was written by Spinelli and  adopted 1984 by the European Parlament the  the Draft Treaty (EP-DT);  Giscard's Treaty that was rejected by the people I shall call (EU-CT), and Attac Austria's proposals will be called (AA). 

I shall quote AA in extenso, and add my comments to each section:

"1. Overloaded.
Generally, a constitution should only set forth:
-	democratic institutions and their interaction
-	fundamental rights
-	values and aims
The third section dealing with concrete economic policy has no rightful place in a constitution; this should be left to secondary law (e.g. the Euratom Treaty did not make it into the EU-CT.) In addition, a 352-page document is unreasonably long if it is meant to contain only the basic principles and be read and understood by every man and woman in the Union."

While the EU-CT covers 352 pages (without the protocols and the appendices I-II),  the EP-DT is a document of only 24 (twenty-four) pages - the printed version I have before my eyes is the one in Angelino, L: Le forme dell' Europa (Il melangolo 2003, pp 252-276). You may want to convince yourself at once of the clear and concise nature of EP-DT by looking up the French or English text at  http://www.spinellisfotsteps.info/.  

The EP-DT sets forth the democratic institutions and their interaction and  the fundamental rights. The Preamble, which states the values and aims, is free from ideological bias. The values mentioned are: " pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law"; "an international society based on cooperation between peoples and between States, the peaceful settlement of disputes, security and the strengthening of international organizations"; "peace and liberty"; "solidarity between the peoples of Europe".  These are the explicit value-statements which I can find. 

2. Not open to the future
A constitution should not express preference for a given economic model. The EU-CT however stipulates such a specific model. It is committed to an "open market economy with free competition" (Art. III-177, III-178 and III-185), and this must be denounced. Which areas of the EU economy are strictly regulated, less regulated or not regulated at all should be left to a democratic economic policy-making process. The same is true when deciding where "free" competition should be allowed and where not (e.g. supply of potable water, education, health, agriculture). These are tasks to be carried out within a vibrant democracy.

The EP-DT is open to the future and does not impose a specific economic model. Article 48 has some provisions about  "competition" one of which stresses "the need to prohibit any form of discrimination between private and public undertakings". In 1984, somebody may have interpreted this sentence as  an expression of liberalism.  Today, we would rather think in the opposite direction, I suppose, and thank the EP-DT for defending the public undertakings against the excessive privatization. - The expression "free competition" does not occur in the EP-DT.

3. Emphasizes means and not goals
A true, vibrant democracy determines the means by which to achieve the respective objectives of its constitution. Stipulating the means in the constitution itself is inappropriate. Examples:
-	The objective of a transportation policy should be "mobility," not the construction of trans-European networks (III-246) leading to more highways, motorways and high-speed railways, in stark opposition to the objective of ecological sustainability, diversity of cultures and territorial integrity. 
-	The objectives of an agricultural policy should be "sustainable agriculture," the maintenance of smallholder farming as well as the "production of healthy and sufficient food," not the "increase of productivity," the "promotion of technological progress," "rationalization" or "the best possible utilization of productive factors, especially of labour" (III-227).
-	Again the "priority aim" of the European Central Bank (ECB) should not be "stability of prices" (III-177 and III-185). Rather, full employment and the welfare of all should be assigned at least equal priority.

The EP-DT emphazises the means, not the goals. However, in the Part Four,  The Policies of the Union, it does of course formulate goals. Inevitably, this  part is somewhat outdated both  to the spirit and to the letter. 

4. An obligation to arm
Concerning the question of security, the aim should be "peace" or "security" and not the build-up of weapons. But the draft states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities." (I-41) The creation of a "defence agency" would have among others the task of "developing armaments." There is no trace of a peace agency. There is no provision for a UN mandate for military "missions outside of the Union." It seems that the example being followed is that of the USA. With only a fraction of the money spent on arms and nuclear research, it would be possible to foster research on conflict resolution and cooperation for peace and security. In regions where conflicts are imminent, effective policies of prevention could be offered in order to halt further escalation and avoid military intervention. This would be a real alternative to the US approach.

In contrast with the EU-CT, which states in I-41 that the European defense policy must be "consistent with the commitments " under NATO  the EP-DT does not specify any military alliances of the EU. Nor does the EP-DT oblige the EU to arm. 

5. No competency in social matters and taxes
In these fields a stronger integration is urgent to end competition based on comparative advantage by revenue or social standards within Europe, and to create a credible basis for measures against global competitive advantage. It is important to end the rule of unanimous votes  on taxes and social matters. Otherwise, neither a tax harmonisation nor a social union will ever be achieved. A domestic market without a policy framework on taxes, labour laws and social standards is a rudimentary one or, in other words, is capitalism on steroids putting the EU project in jeopardy. 

Article 49 of the EP-DT has this general provision about taxation:  "In so far as necessary for economic integration within the Union, a law shall effect the approximation of the laws relating to taxation".
Article 56 gives the EU competence in the field of social and health policy.
Whether these articles are "a policy framework" on taxes, labout laws and social standards is perhaps a matter of discussion. At least they are not a neoliberal framework. 
 
6. Lack of principles for social security and gender democracy
Social security is a democratic achievement of Europe and the core value of Europe compared to the USA. It has to be part of the constitution. The constitutional principles: rule of law, democracy, social security, gender democracy, and commitment to peace.

I think that the EP-DT expresses the said principles. Here I would also like to insert a reflection: if the EU constitution would emphasize some specifically European "core value", which is supposed to distinguish Europe from some other part of the world (like the USA), would we not then run the risk of imposing a certain economic model via constitutional provisions?  

7. Fundamental rights not enforceable through courts
Anchoring the basic laws in the constitution - a difference with the Nice Treaty - is positive. However important basic rights are missing and some are worded too weakly or cannot be claimed in court. Missing for example are the fundamental right to shelter, the fundamental right to child care (role model Finland: up to the age of 7), the copyright on the personal genetic code and the right to basic welfare. The fundamental right to employment was softened to the "right to work." The fundamental rights to social security cannot be enforced in courts of law. In reference to the "right of access to social security and social services" (maternity, sickness, accidents at work, medical and social care for the sick and elderly, old age, unemployment) (Art. II-49) it is mentioned in the explanations: "...this does not necessarily mean that such services must be established where they do not exist." Question: Then why are they fundamental rights?

The EP-DT, describes the fundamental rights in its Article 4. As far as I understand, the EP-DT also anchors the basic laws in the constitution. Personally, I would not recommend using that word 'copyright' in a   constitution. But I would add the right to information and communication, and a reference to the libraries and the internet. (EP-DT refers to 'radio' and 'television', but not, of course, to the internet.)

8. Weak upgrading of the parliament
Currently, the European parliament can neither initiate laws nor establish a budget, in spite of being the only democratically elected entity at the EU level. (Commission and council are not elected.) At the EU level, the democratic status of the member states is not achieved. The European parliament therefore should be given the right to initiate laws and establish the budget. The EU-CT would not have granted this, and would only have expanded the participating rights of the parliament, but only in 40 of 69 fields of policy. In 21 matters, the council would continue to decide unconditionally.

The EP-DT , like the EU-CT, gives the the right to propose draft laws to the Commission. However, "On a reasoned request from the Parliament or the Council, the Commission shall submit a draft law conforming to such request. If the Commission declines to do so, the Parliament or the Council may, in accordance with procedures laid down in their rules of procedure, introduce a draft law conforming to their original request. The Commission must express its opinion on the draft." (EP-DT Art. 37). 
On the budgetary procedure, the  EP-DT states: "The Commission shall prepare the draft budget and forward it to the budgetary authority." (Art. 76) The budgetary authority is the European Parliament and the Council of the Union.  

The division of power needs be clearly regulated. Parliament and council = legislative, commission = executive, European Court of Justice = judiciary. That is also not provided by the EU-CT.

I look forward to reading proposals from f AA, and the other Attacs, on how to regulate the division of power clearly, or at least more clearly than it is described in the EP-DT of 1984.

9. European laws by the citizens
In case the representative democracy fails und acts against the will of the citizens, there should be provisions to block undesirable laws and initiate desirable ones. For this a complete system of direct democracy in Europe is required, made up of referenda and plebiscites. A referendum alone as provided by the EU-CT is not sufficient. The final authority in a democracy is always the sovereign - the citizens.

The EP-DT has no provisions on referenda or plebiscites.  An amendment  would have to be formulated as a precise proposal. 

10. Procedures
Attac calls for the democratic election of the constitutional convention, so that it is not only (male) politicians who are writing our constitution. Rather we the citizens mandate the persons who will write our constitution. The convention has to be composed on gender parity (and should not again consist of 88 men and 17 women).
Then the preamble could start with "We, the people of the European Union" (similar to the US-constitution: "We the people of the United States") instead as it is at present with "His majesty, the king of the Belgians." (Explanation: in the preamble the heads of state of the member states are listed in alphabetical order, Belgium being the first.)

Here AA  is at its most federalist. Altiero Spinelli and Ursula Hirschmann would most probably have loved these proposals! 

Recommended reading:
Attac (edit.): "Das kritische EU-Buch. 
Warum wir ein anderes Europa brauchen" (Deuticke)

"The critical EU-book. Why we need a different Europe"

Sounds very interesting. Will now proceed to ordering this new book.  One of several important developments within the EU since 1984 is, of course, the establishment of the euro zone. Which only makes it even more urgent to restore Spinelli and his Treaty.