Reflections on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe
I am merely a simple citizen from the Europe of the people, and I tirelessly strive for the best future for our children. I am neither irresponsible nor reactionary, but rather fully aware of the absurd world we live in—and the even worse version of it we are preparing to hand down to future generations.
I felt compelled to intervene, within the limits of my capacity, on the approval (for it is nothing more than approval—the "No" vote being sacrilegious) of the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe." Indeed, we live in a democracy of approval, as Mr. Valérie Giscard d'Estaing himself has said: "[ ] if the 'No' wins, the French will have to vote again [ ]" and Mr. Jacques Delors approvingly added: "[ ] why not [ ]"
Of course, if the "Yes" prevails, we would have gone exactly where they wanted us to go (a brave herd), making it pointless to confirm a position already desired by industrial leaders concerned only with the free movement of goods (workers being just another commodity).
I will skip over the clauses of articles that are already established or confirmed by our Constitution of October 4, 1958, adopted by referendum on September 28, 1958, and those that are merely empty promises, binding no one—especially not their authors—serving only to soothe our souls while failing to heat our stoves or advance our daily lives in the right direction: the right to happiness (not merely the utopian hope of it). Moreover, the general framework of these clauses reveals a weak will to achieve their stated goals, since they do not entail any real obligation. The European citizen is duty-bound to die on the battlefield, while our representatives, hidden away in their distant parliament, can shelter themselves behind a constitutional umbrella.
For this, I will cite only Article I-3-1: "The Union aims to promote peace, its values, and the well-being of its peoples." Can one seriously consider the opposite? "The Union aims to promote war, the absence of values, and the misery of peoples." It's one thing to write it, but far better to commit oneself by declaring: "The Union has the duty to promote peace." Merely stating "The Union aims to..." absolves our political class of all responsibility and guilt. Everyone can claim they're doing their best—my thirteen-year-old daughter could say the same.
Article I-3: Objectives of the Union
1. The Union aims to promote peace, its values, and the well-being of its peoples.
Already discussed.
2. The Union offers its citizens a space of freedom, security, and justice without internal borders, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.
How can the Union ensure a single market with "free" (i.e., liberal) competition that is "undistorted," when there is such great disparity in social rights among member states? If Polish truck drivers are paid four times less than their French counterparts, working longer hours, who will we hire (and fire)? When an Alsace-based company offers nine of its employees (not ten, to avoid triggering a redundancy plan) the chance to relocate to Romania (a candidate for EU membership) for just 110 € per month, can it really expect an enthusiastic response? If this isn't distorted competition, what is? Wouldn't it be better if the Union guaranteed its citizens a decent wage? Beautiful words have never fed the hungry.
3. The Union strives for sustainable development in Europe, based on balanced economic growth, price stability, a highly competitive social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of environmental protection and improvement. It promotes scientific and technological advancement.
What exactly is "balanced economic growth"? Balance implies a stationary physical state—something that does not change over time (already in contradiction with growth, which is inherently dynamic). It means the net result of all forces acting on a system (here, economic growth) is zero. What are these forces? How do we neutralize their effects? These are merely vague, pious wishes that can always be interpreted differently when the time comes. And I suspect (experience speaks) that this won't improve our situation. A drop in consumption should lead to unemployment (we've lived through that enough), while increased consumption, far from creating new jobs, merely extends working hours (for those who keep their jobs—only for now, until the next downturn) through overtime, preferably at normal rates (strangely familiar, but what exactly?); or through temporary, low-paid contracts, as usual (you know the tune). This is the anatomy of so-called "balanced economic growth." We already know it—and now we're being asked to endorse it in the context of Europe. They really do take us for fools.
As for the "social market economy," it refers to the part of economic activity carried out by associations, cooperatives, and mutuals. I strongly doubt this is the intended meaning, given the addition of the qualifier "highly competitive market," which effectively cancels out the solidarity inherent in associations and mutuals. Thus, the term "social" is merely a cosmetic addition to soften the pill. In truth, this is a highly competitive market economy—one that will create more unemployment (or low-paid workers), more job insecurity, more social injustice, and more daily hardships. For European citizens who are not part of the ruling class, industrial lobbies, or the wealthy elite of our societies, the only choices left will be to bow their heads or provoke the worst revolution humanity has ever known (perhaps that's what we should hope for in case of a "Yes" victory). It would have been better to propose—and impose—a planned economy. But such an economy directly contradicts the interests of private corporations, which profit from Europe's back.
Experts speak of the economy as if it were a natural disaster, with the WTO (World Trade Organization) tasked with containing it, and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the European Structural Fund working to limit its damage (preferably among the poorest, who lack the means to complain or resist). Perhaps we should tell them that the economy is an artificial phenomenon, created by humans—some deliberately provoke it (the richest), while others suffer its consequences (the poorest). Let us not turn Europe into a satellite of the financial Jupiter, the European Central Bank, which paradoxically, among all paradoxes, holds competence over all financial decisions in Europe (allocation of European loans, interest rates, debt restructuring, European financial plans, investment policy)—without...