Crisis of the EU
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

The rejection of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands turned the EU summit on 17-18 June into a crisis summit. The so-called reason of the crisis was different point of views that appeared during talks on the EU budget for 2007-2013. While Britain did not accept to give up the rebate (about 5 billion Euros) that it gets from EU budget, France also did not give up from the subventions for agriculture sector. Moreover, the Netherlands has also declared that it will not raise its contribution to the budget. Since its foundation, EU has always come across with such problems and, each time it was able to overcome its financial problems with compromises. But this time finance is not the real problem, it only represents a pretext for the crisis. If Britain and France withdraw their demands and Netherlands raise its contribution to the EU budget by following the member states' request, will EU be saved from the crisis? Maybe it's going to be like that only in the shape. But the shape cannot cover the objective reality.

The majority of the electors in France and the Netherlands said "NO" not only because this constitution is the constitution of the monopolies. It is very clear that the neo-liberal policies; the neo-liberal attacks consisting seizure of democratic, economic and social achievements as a whole, have played a determining role in the rejection of constitution in these countries. The constitution has also represented distrust on the governments in these countries. The adoption process of the constitution has been stopped in Britain, Spain, Sweden and Portugal in order to avoid from such defeats in other countries. The issue of adoption process of the constitution by entire EU countries has been put into drawers until preparation of the political scene again.

During his speech at the time of handover, T. Blair, who just recently took over the EU presidency, has stated that the EU needs reforms. According to Blair, the EU can only be persistent by preparing projects and making investments for the future. A social EU should not be ignored; the budget should not be frittered away and should be turned into future's investments.

Blair does not concretise the reforms, but prepares the political scene for a discussion over the EU's future by saying the EU needs reforms in any case. The adoption process of the constitution has given opportunity for all member countries to express their views on the EU and its constitution. Therefore it is time to give concrete answer to the question of what sort of Europe do we want.

The existing crisis occurs because of different views on the EU's future. On this meaning, EU is divided into two: On one hand the ones who want EU to continue as an economic integration, on the other hand the ones who want EU to go forward as a political union.

Britain wants EU to remain as an economic integration. More correctly, it is on the side of an EU that has been turned into a "customs union", and it gets the direct support of the US imperialism on this issue. For interests of the British monopole capital passes from there.

Germany and France are on the side of the EU's development as a political and militarist union. German and French monopole capitals do know that alone they cannot fight for world hegemony; they cannot achieve result in the re-sharing process of the world. Their request for development as a political union is for the strengthening of the competing power.

The EU can solve its existing financial crisis. However, it cannot easily solve its political crisis, caused by the question what sort of Europe, regarding the EU's future that come into agenda in connection with the constitution. The problem can be solved in two ways: The EU countries will decide either on the continuation of the EU as an economic integration or its development as a political union. In any case, the EU's future process will be quite different than its process until now. Because, the EU already has reached the borders of development as a economic integration. Further development would mean overcoming of the existing borders.
 

 

Archive

 

2020
January
2019
December November
October September
August July
June May
April March
February

 

Crisis of the EU
fc Share on Twitter
 

The rejection of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands turned the EU summit on 17-18 June into a crisis summit. The so-called reason of the crisis was different point of views that appeared during talks on the EU budget for 2007-2013. While Britain did not accept to give up the rebate (about 5 billion Euros) that it gets from EU budget, France also did not give up from the subventions for agriculture sector. Moreover, the Netherlands has also declared that it will not raise its contribution to the budget. Since its foundation, EU has always come across with such problems and, each time it was able to overcome its financial problems with compromises. But this time finance is not the real problem, it only represents a pretext for the crisis. If Britain and France withdraw their demands and Netherlands raise its contribution to the EU budget by following the member states' request, will EU be saved from the crisis? Maybe it's going to be like that only in the shape. But the shape cannot cover the objective reality.

The majority of the electors in France and the Netherlands said "NO" not only because this constitution is the constitution of the monopolies. It is very clear that the neo-liberal policies; the neo-liberal attacks consisting seizure of democratic, economic and social achievements as a whole, have played a determining role in the rejection of constitution in these countries. The constitution has also represented distrust on the governments in these countries. The adoption process of the constitution has been stopped in Britain, Spain, Sweden and Portugal in order to avoid from such defeats in other countries. The issue of adoption process of the constitution by entire EU countries has been put into drawers until preparation of the political scene again.

During his speech at the time of handover, T. Blair, who just recently took over the EU presidency, has stated that the EU needs reforms. According to Blair, the EU can only be persistent by preparing projects and making investments for the future. A social EU should not be ignored; the budget should not be frittered away and should be turned into future's investments.

Blair does not concretise the reforms, but prepares the political scene for a discussion over the EU's future by saying the EU needs reforms in any case. The adoption process of the constitution has given opportunity for all member countries to express their views on the EU and its constitution. Therefore it is time to give concrete answer to the question of what sort of Europe do we want.

The existing crisis occurs because of different views on the EU's future. On this meaning, EU is divided into two: On one hand the ones who want EU to continue as an economic integration, on the other hand the ones who want EU to go forward as a political union.

Britain wants EU to remain as an economic integration. More correctly, it is on the side of an EU that has been turned into a "customs union", and it gets the direct support of the US imperialism on this issue. For interests of the British monopole capital passes from there.

Germany and France are on the side of the EU's development as a political and militarist union. German and French monopole capitals do know that alone they cannot fight for world hegemony; they cannot achieve result in the re-sharing process of the world. Their request for development as a political union is for the strengthening of the competing power.

The EU can solve its existing financial crisis. However, it cannot easily solve its political crisis, caused by the question what sort of Europe, regarding the EU's future that come into agenda in connection with the constitution. The problem can be solved in two ways: The EU countries will decide either on the continuation of the EU as an economic integration or its development as a political union. In any case, the EU's future process will be quite different than its process until now. Because, the EU already has reached the borders of development as a economic integration. Further development would mean overcoming of the existing borders.