J19 Against the Europact
As many are no doubt aware this Sunday will see demonstrations in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick in solidarity with the Real Democracy Now movement across Europe. June 19th or J19 is the day that the people of Europe will demand that the Euro Pact is not implemented. They say that the Euro Pact, as envisioned by EU ministers as a new form of Economic governance, will erode the possibilities of democratic participation further and entrench neoliberal economic principles in every aspect of how a country is governed.
See Real Democracy Now Ireland on Facebook and the Real Democracy Now Blog for further details.
Below I’m republishing a piece by Kenneth Haar of Corporate Europe Observatory on the Euro pact, which we originally published on ILR in May.
Thanks to Hugh Green for the link to this impressive Spanish video about J19 and the Europact. Press CC to see the subtitles.
Barroso’s Silent Revolution
If one were to identify successful revolutionaries in crisis-ridden Europe, the European Commission would be a strong candidate. And it’s not social justice and democracy they have at heart.
“What is going on is a silent revolution - a silent revolution in terms of stronger economic governance by small steps,” José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, June 2010.
Dizzy with success he commented on decisions taken by EU governments.
“The Member States have accepted - and I hope they understood it exactly - but they have accepted very important powers of the European institutions regarding surveillance, and a much stricter control of the public finances.”
On that occasion, the Council had backed Barroso’s comprehensive list of political responses. Moreover, he had been given a green light to design new legislation that would allow the EU institutions - mainly the Commission and the Council - to intrude into matters which up until this point had been considered too sensitive; the level of social expenditure and wages to name the most prominent among them.
A comprehensive system
Many of those who followed with disbelief these early stages of Barroso’s revolution had their worst fears confirmed when legislative proposals for ‘economic governance’ were tabled in September. This was redoubled when the infamous ‘Euro-plus Pact’ was adopted by all EU member states but four. Austere and anti-social policies are the response of the European Union to the crisis, implemented via deeply undemocratical procedures.
It’s already been made abundantly clear that the Commission is prepared to intervene in loan arrangements to add conditions that squander collective bargaining - as can be seen in Ireland and Greece. But what’s important to stress is that this line of work from the Commission is not ad-hoc. A permanent system is being created that will enable the Commission to intervene in labour markets and social policies at any time in the future.
This model - unsurprisingly - enjoys enthusiastic support from the main big business lobby groups, the European Roundtable of Industrialists and the European employers federation BusinessEurope, and it has been framed in a way that lives up fully to the stream of declarations, letters and statements from these lobbies. The trade union representatives have - in stark contrast - been completely ignored.
Commission at the steering wheel
Among the key demands of big business from the outset was that the Commission should have a strong and prominent role, which was something that observers of the close relationship between business lobbyists and the bureaucracy of the Commission easily understood. Over the past decade, for example, the Commission has been deeply committed to an agenda of slashing social expenditure, commercialising public services, and ‘reforming’ labour markets. And along with big business, the Commission has often lamented that these policies have been hard to implement because of limits on the power of the Commission itself. The crisis, however, has opened a window of opportunity.
But why is the power of the Commission important?
The Commission is a group of 27 persons, selected by EU governments, and somewhere in between decision makers and civil servants. Their main power stems from the fact that the Commission is the only institution that can propose new legislation - not the Council, not the European Parliament.
The official philosophy behind this set-up is - among other things - that in order to prevent the agendas of one or more member states dominating legislative proposals, an independent body is needed. That independence, though, is highly questionable, given the close interaction with big business on all major issues, not least the Eurocrisis. But for others, the Commission is indeed hard to influence. It’s next to impossible to influence the Commission if you’re with a trade union or from another civil society organisation. These days, the Commission routinely turns a deaf ear to general strikes in Southern Europe, to major demonstrations in Brussels, Paris or Athens, and to other popular protests against austerity.
Power tools for austerity
The new system has no less than eight separate components, some of which have been adopted. Six more are due to be approved in June by the Council and the European Parliament. Unfortunately, there is little reason for optimism about the Parliament’s role: in the first debates last months the majority of MEPs voted for the transfer of even more far-reaching power to the Commission.
What role would the Commission itself play in this system? That matter is still being debated, but the following is a non-exhaustive list of what could be the case in only a few months:
- The Commission will be able to set the agenda for recommendations to member states budgets. This year, already, the Commission is going for pension reforms.
- It would have the privilege of proposing a member state with too big a deficit on the state budget to lower social expenditure.
- It would be able to propose fines on member states that don’t abide by a recommendation, and that are not able to lower their deficits at the required pace, and would only be defeated if a qualified majority in the Council opposes a fine.
- It would have the power to ask a member state to lower wages - be it by intervening in collective bargaining or by lowering wages in the public sector. And it could back it up with a threat of a sanction.
A crossroad
Barroso, the President of the Commission, sees the reforms as nothing short of historic. In January he stated: “If it is not now, in face of the biggest crisis we have since the beginning of the European integration, when are Member states ready to take real steps for economic policy that is consistent with the goals they have themselves stated? If it is not us, at European level, that take an encouraged attempt to take those decisions, who will do it?”
Behind self-confident proclamations like this lies a chilling message: it is not only in times of crisis that the European Commission is being equipped to force through an antisocial agenda via undemocratic means, but into the future. However, let’s not despair. It could also turn out to be an unrealistic project. Resistance has been mounting for the past months, not least in the trade union movement, and there is every reason to expect this to grow further. And once Barroso starts using his new powertools, and his silent revolution stops being silent, he might discover that it could undermine the legitimacy of the European Union as a whole.
Kenneth Haar is a researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.
Discussion
We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.
Leave a Comment
Sins of the Father
Subscribe by Email
Best of the Web
EU Should Admit Greece is Bankrupt | Christian Rickens
The unvarnished truth - the second Greek Bailout should not have happened.
The mistake isn’t the size, but the construction of the bailout package. It isn’t geared to the requirements of the people of Greece but to the needs of the international financial markets, meaning the banks.
How else can one explain the fact that around a quarter of the package won’t even arrive in Athens but will flow directly to the country’s international creditors? The holders of Greek government bonds are to get some €30 billion as an incentive to convert their old paper into new bonds. The aim is to keep alive the illusion that Greece isn’t bankrupt — after all, the creditors are voluntarily forgiving part of the debt. The financial sector is cleverly manipulating the fear that a Greek bankruptcy would trigger a fatal chain reaction.
That leaves €100 billion. But that too isn’t geared to what Greece needs in order to get back on its feet. It’s linked to an estimate of how much debt the Greek economy can bear without collapsing. International technocrats agree that with debts amounting to 120 percent of gross domestic product, the country can just about go on servicing its debt. That’s the level at which the cow can go on supplying milk without dying of exhaustion. So 120 percent became the goal.
Collaboration, with our European partners | Cunning Hired Knaves
The European project was supposed to be a bulwark against the dangers of fascist ambition, but now it is the instrument used to dismantle European democracy in the interest of the risk adverse looking for a steady income stream from the provision of the social net by those who cite the words and actions of old fascists while doing so.
The post Collaboration, with our European partners by Richard of Cunning Hired Knaves summed up in one sentence. For much better sentences and many more urgent points read the post.
On Sunday there were massive demonstrations throughout the Spanish state, with half a million people on the streets of Madrid and 450,000 in Barcelona, protesting against the labour ‘reform’ planned by the Partido Popular, the right-wing party that most closely represents the interests of the power elites that conserved their position when the transition from dictatorship to democracy was undertaken.
S.P.A.R.K. protest at cuts to lone parents, Dublin 18th February 2012
Many families were cut in the last budget but lone parent families were particularly hit by the Fine Gael/Labour Party government.
The key elements are that single parents can’t take advantage of training such as Community Employment (CE) Schemes and when the youngest child turns 7 years old, the parent is declassed as a lone parent but treated as an ordinary worker even though there are few affordable creche places. There is a bill coming up in March which will copper fasten some of the worst elements of government plans.
There is particular anger directed at the Labour Party because they are associated with women’s rights and a more progressive society.
Please share the link to this video
Exiting the euro | Michael Roberts
Michael Roberts argues that those in Greece who cite the example of Argentina when suggesting that Greece should leave the Euro are not necessarily looking at the whole picture. The situations are not the same, Roberts points out, citing Argentina’s former central bank governor at the time, Mario Blejer and his recent piece in the Financial Times. He also points to research based on the the experience of five recent devaluations of economies in crisis (including that of Argentina) which “shows that they lead to a 10-20% fall in real GDP and take five to ten years to recover to previous real GDP levels. But that is not to say that there is no alternative to “lowering wages, privatising the state sector, reducing taxes for the corporate sector (especially big business) and ‘deregulating’ labour markets i.e. the super-exploitation of the Greek people to raise profitability.”
But the left could also find an alternative policy to exiting the euro where Greece negotiates a full default on its debt to private and foreign bondholders; takes over the banks; and uses the savings from bond and interest repayments (€17-20bn a year) to start state directed investment in jobs, technology and funding small businesses, while staying in the euro to protect the savings of the people from destruction, keeping down inflation and avoiding a rise in foreign debt. The question of exiting the euro then becomes an issue for the Euro leaders to impose (and to be resisted by a campaign within Europe), not as the main policy plank of the left.
Corporate tax avoidance: where are the worst offenders?
This table comes via the Tax Justice Network (and Richard Murphy). It’s from a table produced by U.S. researcher Kimberly Clausing and as TJN notes “demonstrates which countries are working hardest to wage economic warfare on the United States (and, by extension, on other countries,) via the global tax system”.
Solidarity campaign to support the people of Greece
Mikis Theodorakis, famous Greek composer of Zorba’s Dance, and Manolis Glezos, veteran resistance fighter against the Nazi occupation, have issued a call for a European Front to defend the people of Greece and all those facing austerity. We have decided to support this call and work with trade unions, campaigns and parties across Europe to establish a European Solidarity Campaign to defend the people of Greece. We will organise solidarity and raise practical support for the people of Greece; they cannot be made to pay for a crisis for which they are not responsible.
Chris Dillow | Capitalism against freedom
[...]
During the Cold War, opponents of communism routinely, and not entirely wrongly, claimed to be champions of liberty. Freedom for capitalists and freedom of speech and thought go together, it was claimed. “Freedom is indivisible” wrote Bruce Winton Knight in 1952. “Economic freedom is…an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom“ wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom. And back in 1944 Friedrich Hayek complained that “We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.”
Today, though, this seems wrong. Many threats to freedom come from capitalists. The story is no longer capitalism and freedom, but capitalism against freedom.
Ian Stewart | The mathematical equation that caused the banks to crash
In The Observer, Sunday 12 February 2012
Anyone who has followed the crisis will understand that the real economy of businesses and commodities is being upstaged by complicated financial instruments known as derivatives. These are not money or goods. They are investments in investments, bets about bets. Derivatives created a booming global economy, but they also led to turbulent markets, the credit crunch, the near collapse of the banking system and the economic slump. And it was the Black-Scholes equation that opened up the world of derivatives.
The equation itself wasn’t the real problem. It was useful, it was precise, and its limitations were clearly stated. It provided an industry-standard method to assess the likely value of a financial derivative. So derivatives could be traded before they matured. The formula was fine if you used it sensibly and abandoned it when market conditions weren’t appropriate. The trouble was its potential for abuse. It allowed derivatives to become commodities that could be traded in their own right. The financial sector called it the Midas Formula and saw it as a recipe for making everything turn to gold. But the markets forgot how the story of King Midas ended.
Greece: a Sisyphean task | Michael Roberts
In a Eurozone that is unwilling to share its surplus with weaker, hardest hit economies there is no other option for those economies but default. Despite the agreement of Greek politicians to shorten their political life and accept the deal all that they have done is simply postpone this eventuality once again. However, even that postponement might be shortened by the Greek elections in April where the smaller leftist parties outside the coalition currently have 40% of the vote. Or so says Michael Roberts:
Whatever the Greek coalition leaders agree to and try to implement, such is the weakness of Greek capitalism, it will not be able to meet its fiscal targets or get its debt down to reasonable levels. Before the end of the year, the Troika will have to report that Greece is not delivering. Then the EU leaders will have to decide whether they ‘let Greece go’ or not. The EU leaders have agreed to more money for Greece (or more accurately its bondholders and banks) in return for draconian cuts in living standards in order to provide more time to try and ‘ring-fence’ other vulnerable Eurozone states like Portugal and Ireland (where they are preparing extra funding). So when Greece goes down, it will not affect the rest (or so the EU leaders hope). Of course, the Greek people may force the issue earlier if they vote in an anti-Troika government in April.
As Greece stares into the abyss, Europe must choose | Maria Margaronis
Do we really want to live in an economic union that must destroy the future of millions in order to just tick along? Maria Margaronis points out that the situation in Greece today says little about Greece and everything about the EU.
The trouble with historical metaphors is that they can obscure the present: what’s really at stake here is not Greece’s identity but Europe’s. All eyes are fixed on Athens, but the way out of the crisis requires a choice about what kind of Europe we want. The one we have now, with its deep structural inequalities and its rigid adherence to a failed economic ideology, protects neither democracy nor human rights. Stiff-necked and punitive, it prefers to eat its children.
Comment by: Tomboktu
Jul 1st 2011 at 13:07
Does anybody know if there is a report anywhere about the vote in the European Parliament on the package of directives?
I’ve found the texts they adopted in their first reading on 23 June but don’t fancy ploughing through 83 pages to figure out the main points. (If you too, Herod, wish to come and adore the child that is the draft EU legislation, see the file named “Texts (Part 2)” on this page: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+20110623+TOC+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN)
And I can find the voting record. Paul Murphy didn’t vote, which surprises me given the significance of the legislation.
Here’s a summary of the votes on each of the six legislative proposals:
Prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances
For: PPE (FG); S&D (Lab); ALDE (FF), Greens
Agin: GUE/NGL (SP and SF)
Implementation of excessive deficit procedure
For: PPE & ALDE
Agin: S&D, GUE/NGL, Greens
Requirements for budgetary frameworks of Member States
For: PPE; most of S&D (incl Childers, Prendergast); ALDE, Greens
Agin: GUE/NGL, a dollop of S&D (incl De Rossa)
Budgetary surveillance in euro area
For: PPE; ALDE
Agin: S&D; GUE/NGL; Greens
Surveillance of budgetary positions and surveillance and coordination of economic policies
For: PPE; ALDE
Agin: S&D; GUE/NGL; Greens
Enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in euro area
For: PPE; ALDE; Greens
Agin: GUE/NGL
“Formal” abstention: S&D
What that doesn’t deal with is how votes on amendments went.
If the number of amendments voted on is an indication, then the controverisal proposals were “Budgetary surveillance in euro area” and “Surveillance of budgetary positions and surveillance and coordination of economic policies”.