Whether or not the EU charter is finally ratified, however, its adoption was a victory for London against its chief EU rivals—Paris and Berlin. It registered progress for the Anglo-American imperialist bloc in world politics.

This was the first EU summit since the May 1 accession into the EU of 10 new member states, mainly from Eastern Europe. These governments have largely aligned themselves with London and Washington—in what U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has described as the “new Europe”—as they seek to defend their interests against the weight of the Franco-German bloc, which is built around the two main capitalist powers in the EU.

UK prime minister Anthony Blair described the adoption of the constitution as “truly historic.”

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said the treaty satisfied London’s demand to maintain the right of his and other governments to veto proposals on issues such as economic policy and military and foreign affairs, and to opt out of majority decisions on cross-border criminal matters and social security for immigrants.

These concessions reflected the impact of London’s special relationship with Washington, on the one hand, combined with the opposition of many states, including the bulk of the new members, to a Franco-German-dominated EU, on the other. Washington remains a major “European” power due both to its world political and military weight and to its huge, and growing, investments and trade with EU countries.

Because of their historic dominance in the EU, the French and German governments have backed what is known as a more “federalist” stance: expanding the EU’s—that is, their—influence over political and economic decision-making by the other member states. The last EU summit in December collapsed after the governments of Poland and Spain refused to accept a proposed formula for “qualified majority voting.” Paris and Berlin had proposed at the time that a simple majority of 13 of the 25 EU members would have to vote in favor of a motion for it to be adopted, the catch being that the majority must also include states equaling at least 60 percent of the EU’s population. Madrid and Warsaw argued vehemently that such a procedure would give larger countries such as Germany, with a population as large as Spain and Poland combined, even greater voting weight.

At the most recent summit, the Polish and Spanish governments accepted a revised formula: a majority now is constituted by 15 member states representing at least 65 percent of the EU’s population. “This makes it easier for Poland and Spain to block laws they do not like, but stops the big three doing it alone,” said the June 26 Economist. An editorial in the Spanish daily El País opined that the agreement is “not as bad as we could have reasonably feared.”

The biggest concession the French and German rulers made, however, was to accept London’s demand to limit the sphere of “qualified majority voting” through safeguarding the UK rulers’ vetoes and opt-outs.

London also won its battle to ensure that the new Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is part of the constitution, does not override national laws on key issues such as employment legislation. Digby Jones, who is director-general of the Confederation of British Industry and supports Britain’s fuller integration into the EU, described as “very worrying” the possibility that workers and trade unions would be able to challenge employers under the charter using the European Court. “Pro-integrationist decisions by the European Court of Justice in the fields of tax and labour law remain a serious threat to UK competitiveness,” he said.

“The days of French and German domination are over,” stated BBC News political editor Andrew Marr. “That post-war idea of a Europe moulded in the interests of France and French interests, and funded by a compliant Germany, is now as jumpingly alive as the Holy Roman Empire.” He called the outcome of the June EU summit “a triumph of British obstinacy.”

The media in France complained about “British blackmail” and lamented British news headlines like “France’s new Waterloo.” The French daily Libération challenged President Jacques Chirac’s assertion that the constitution had not been spoiled by too many concessions. Why, asked the paper’s Jean Quatremer, do the “most Eurosceptic nations,” such as Britain, Spain and Poland, seem to be happiest with the outcome?

Opposition is growing in some French ruling circles to maintaining the alliance with Berlin as the axis of foreign policy. Current finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy—who is rising in French bourgeois politics, having won Chirac’s consent for his candidacy to become president of the ruling party—is one such example. Sarkozy has expressed his dissatisfaction with the Franco-German bloc, calling for new French alliances in the expanded European Union, possibly forging a Paris-London-Madrid axis. Sarkozy recently backed a bailout for ailing French industrial giant Alstom at the expense of the German company Siemens. He did not join the opposition to Washington’s assault and occupation of Iraq and he has sided with criticisms by Washington and Tel Aviv of Paris’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

The government of the Irish Republic facilitated concessions to the UK at the expense of Paris and Bonn through the rotating EU presidency, which it held. Along with Paris and Berlin, Dublin had opposed the timing of the Anglo-American assault on Iraq last year. But the recent accomplishments of U.S. imperialism on a world scale, especially in the Middle East, and changes to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and the accession of the new member states—which will be competing for EU grants—have strengthened the hand of London and Washington for influence over Dublin.

The Anglo-American bloc also scored a victory in the final nomination for the new EU Commission president. Until now, the EU had a six-month rotating presidency. The new president will have a two-and-a-half year term. The June summit failed to select a president as the British and Franco-German blocs clashed over competing nominations. By the end of June, Paris and Berlin indicated they would lift their veto on appointing to the post Portugal’s prime minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. The British Daily Telegraph described him as a “free-market reformer with close ties to the United States.” “There would be a smile on my face if he (Barroso) was the candidate to emerge,” said UK foreign secretary Jack Straw. Barroso backed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and hosted the pre-war Azores summit of imperialist powers.

Not all British capitalist politicians have welcomed the latest EU developments. The Conservative Party attacked the new EU constitution stating it would try to renegotiate it. A Vote No campaign has already built a war chest of millions of pounds and has gained big-business backers. A number of Labour Party members of parliament have launched “Labour against a Superstate.”

A week before the EU summit, low turnout for voting in the June 10 European Union elections was the trend in almost all EU member states. This reflected the widespread belief that the EU parliament will have little, if any, influence on most important questions in any country, and the growing discontent among working people toward the main capitalist parties in face of deteriorating living standards and working conditions.

Jonathan Silberman contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home