Austerity locked-in with EU economic governance package

, , 11 Comments

25 Flares Twitter 3 Facebook 22 25 Flares ×

What was described by European Commission President as a “silent revolution” was passed in the European Parliament on Wednesday with hardly a mention in the mainstream media. The implications of the so-called six-pack of economic governance measures are vast. This package represents a qualitative leap forward in terms of the institutionalisation of austerity and neo-liberal economic policies at the heart of the EU and backwards in terms of a further undermining of democracy within the EU structures.

These pieces of legislation, ostensibly a response to the economic crisis, are actually a fulfilment of long-held desires by the capitalist establishment in Europe to develop a strong authority in the EU that would ensure that national governments implement austerity policies. The six-pack does this by establishing the European Commission as an effective policeman for austerity across Europe. It is also a step towards the fiscal unity that key sections of the establishment believe is necessary in order to save the euro.

Even if the media is ignoring it, the European establishment is aware of the significance of this victory from its point of view. Speaking in June 2010 about this package, European Commission President Barroso correctly stated that:

“The Member States have accepted – and I hope they understand it exactly – but they have accepted very important powers of the European institutions regarding surveillance, and a much stricter control of the public finances.”

What the package means:

In order to achieve this, the package centralises power in the hands of the un-elected European Commission, establishes a scoreboard of austerity, and gives the Commission power to impose massive fines on countries.  There are many different elements to these six different pieces of legislation. However, the central basis of it is establishing a mechanism to put significant pressure on national governments to implement austerity and neo-liberal policies.

Essentially there are three key aspects of the mechanism to ensure that governments keep within neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. The first is the notion of “budgetary surveillance” and the “European semester”. What this means is a timetable across Europe for the presentation of draft national budgets at an early stage to the European Commission and Council. These draft budgets will be discussed by these bodies in advance of any discussion in national parliaments. The purpose of the discussions is clear – to put significant political pressure at an early stage on national governments to implement what the Commission and Council consider to be necessary policies.

The second is a qualitative strengthening of the “Growth and Stability Pact” – which limits countries’ public debt to 60% of GDP and annual deficits to 3% of GDP. In the past, this has been a relatively toothless mechanism, which has been ignored by both the major powers and the more peripheral less developed economies. Now this will be backed up by an enforcement mechanism.

Those who breach the targets and ignore warnings and recommendations from the Commission will be faced with a fine, consisting of either an “interest-bearing deposit” or a “non interest-bearing deposit” equivalent to 0.2% of GDP, which will be converted into a fine if the situation does not improve. This fine can then be increased with repeated failure to follow the Commission’s recommendations. These fines will amount to hundreds of millions of euro – being taken out of the pockets of states that are evidently facing real financial difficulties.

The third is the extension of this enforcement mechanism well beyond the strictures of the “Growth and Stability Pact”. Now countries will be monitored not just on their public debt and their annual deficit, but on a range of other measures as part of a “scoreboard” system. The details of what will be measured has still not been revealed, but Commission recommendations are to “cover the main economic policy areas, potentially including fiscal and wage policies, labour markets, product and services markets and financial sector regulation.” (‘Prevention and Correction of Macroeconomic imbalances‘).

This gives a sense of how these proposals are not simply about tackling excess debt of deficits – but about giving the Commission a means to push right-wing economic policies generally and put pressure on countries to liberalise their labour markets and public services. Failure to act in response to warnings and recommendations from the Commission on the scoreboard issues, or being deemed to have acted “imprudently”, will open countries up to face fines. This is clearly a way for the Commission to push neo-liberal policies generally – including the liberalisation of the labour market and the privatisation of public services.

Assault on democracy

One of the most obnoxious features of this package is the fact that the already extremely limited democracy within the EU has been trampled upon in order to ensure that this austerity will rule. This attack takes a number of forms.

One is the strengthening of the power of the Commission. The majority in the European Parliament voted for a number of amendments designed to strengthen the power of the Commission. This is always the position of the right-wing in the Parliament who see the Commission as an ally in the fight for a “European” position as opposed to one rooted in the interests of the countries represented at the Council. The effect, however, is to remove decision making even further from ordinary people. The role of the Commission from the point of view of the establishment is to articulate a “European” strategy for the capitalist class in Europe. It is able to do this because it is relatively immune from the political pressure that national governments can face – precisely because the Commissioners exist in a bubble in Brussels and don’t have to face election.

Another attack is the stripping of the right to vote from “miscreant” countries on the question of sanctions. So if the Commission proposes that a country be punished by a fine of hundreds of millions of euro for example, that country and all other countries that have been deemed to be acting imprudently and have been subject to sanctions will not have a vote in this decision. You could therefore have a situation where most of the peripheral European countries have their votes taken away from them and it is the Northern European countries who are voting on the sanctions to be applied to these countries.

The other element is how this voting is to take place. The six-pack introduces a new form of voting which is breathtaking in its cynicism. Instead of a straight vote with a need for a majority of countries, or the traditional qualified majority system (which means getting 255 weighted votes out of 345, representing at least two thirds of the countries and at least 62% of the EU population), the qualified majority system is turned on its head. Now it is referred to as “Reverse qualified majority” voting. What this means is that the Council is presumed to agree with the sanctions, unless a qualified majority vote against it. This means that to overturn the sanctions, you would need to get a huge majority to vote against it. So even if the peripheral European nations still had their votes, they wouldn’t have a chance of defeating it if the major northern European governments were in favour of it! Of course, this was fully endorsed by the Parliament, and the agreed document (Enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in euro area ) argues that the procedure for the application of the sanctions should be “construed in such a way that the application of the sanctionon those Member States would be the rule and not the exception.”

Who is driving this agenda and why?

It is not indulging in conspiracy theorising to suggest that a large element of this six-pack is making sure not to “waste a good crisis”. This is posed as a response to the economic crisis. It is no such thing. It is part of the march of entrenching neo-liberal orthodoxy across Europe. The Corporate Europe Observatory (www.corporateeurope.org), an excellent research and campaign group working against the power of corporate lobbyists in the EU, has established how the major organisation of big business on a European level, the European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), has been pushing for such an agenda for over a decade.

Their chairman proclaimed in 2000 that a “double revolution” was underway. “On the one hand we are reducing the power of the state and of the public sector in general through privatization and deregulation… On the other we are transferring many of the nation states powers to a more modern and internationally-minded structure at European level. European unification is progressing and it helps international businesses like ours.” In 2002, the  ERT were calling for ”at the drafting stage, the implications of national budgets and of major national fiscal policy measures [to be] reviewed at the level of the Union” – precisely what will now happen.

European big business wants this, because, like their political representatives in the establishment parties, they want the certainty of knowing that what they deem to be “prudent” policies will be implemented. The uncertainty of democratic debate and discussion with different economic policy options on offer is simply too much of an inconvenience. Likewise, the ability of mass movements to put pressure on their governments to withdraw some of their worst attacks is a threat to the certainty of austerity. Therein lies the need for a central authority (the Commission) that through its sanctions and political pressure will act as a counterweight to the pressure of potential mass movements.

Can this package be stopped?

The Council is due to discuss and finally agree this six-pack on 4 October, which means that the package will enter into force at the end of 2011 or at the latest by the start of 2012. Effectively, the battle inside the institutions of the Parliament and the Council has been lost, given the overwhelming majority for the right-wing parties (including so-called social-democracy) in both institutions.

The battle now moves onto the plane of the streets and the protest movements. The movement against cuts and attacks that are aimed at making working people pay for the economic crisis is redeveloping in southern Europe. A major mobilisation by the unions is being organised in Portugal, while Greece will see a general strike on 19 October. While Ireland is currently behind these developments, with the passage of time and in particular the passage of their own savage budget in December, the ability of the new government to blame the old government and avoid facing responsibility and major movements will be reduced.

The Left has a crucial responsibility to build these movements and also to intervene into them, raising the need for a European-wide fightback as well as putting forward a socialist alternative to this crisis of capitalism. With lies being told about “lazy Greeks”, it is particularly important to stress the similar problems that working people face across Europe and raise the need for a common fight-back, including a 24 hour general strike against austerity across Europe. Part of this intervention must be publicising the effect of this economic governance package and injecting opposition to this European shock doctrine into the movements.

Paul Murphy is the Irish Socialist Party/United Left Alliance (ULA) MEP for the Dublin constituency

The following two tabs change content below.
Paul Murphy is the the Socialist Party and United Left Alliance MEP for Dublin. For more see paulmurphymep.eu
 

11 Responses

  1. Tomboktu

    September 30, 2011 11:16 pm

    Below is a record of how the Irish MEPs voted on the six legislative resolutions. (I’ve not included the votes on amendments and on adopting final texts. If you want to see those, they are listed in this PDF.) In the the titles the texts of the six texts adopted by the European Parliament, I have included a link to so you can follow through to see what each one says.

    A7-0178/2011: Surveillance of budgetary positions and surveillance and coordination of economic policies
    For: Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG).
    [It was only one of the most important votes is the European parliament, but...] Aylward (FF) and McGuinness (FG) mucked up their votes and added a note to the voting record to say they meant to vote yes.
    Against: Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Murphy (SP); Prendergast (Lab); [and de Brún (SF)].
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG).

    A7-0180/2011: Budgetary surveillance in euro area
    For: Aylward (FF); Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG); McGuinness (FG).
    Against: Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Murphy (SP); Prendergast (Lab); [and de Brún (SF)].
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG).

    A7-0182/2011: Enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in euro area
    For: Aylward (FF); Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG); McGuinness (FG).
    Against: Murphy (SP).
    Abstained: Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Prendergast (Lab);
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG) [and de Brún (SF)].

    A7-0183/2011: Prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances
    For: Aylward (FF); Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG); McGuinness (FG); Prendergast (Lab).
    Against: Murphy (SP) [and de Brún (SF)].
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG).

    A7-0179/2011: Implementation of excessive deficit procedure
    For: Aylward (FF); Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG); McGuinness (FG).
    Against: Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Murphy (SP); Prendergast (Lab); [and de Brún (SF)].
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG).

    A7-0184/2011: Requirements for budgetary frameworks of Member States
    For: Aylward (FF); Gallagher (FF); Harkin (Ind); Higgins (FG); Kelly (FG); McGuinness (FG).
    Against: Childers (Lab); De Rossa (Lab); Murphy (SP); Prendergast (Lab); [and de Brún (SF)].
    No vote recored: Crowley (FF) & Mitchell (FG).

  2. Tomboktu

    October 1, 2011 12:44 pm

    Effectively, the battle inside the institutions of the Parliament and the Council has been lost, given the overwhelming majority for the right-wing parties (including so-called social-democracy) in both institutions.

    The voting record of the PES — that is the representative of “so-called social-deocracy” — on the package in the parliament would suggest that Paul Murphy’s makes too large a claim. Whatever will happen in Council, it is not true “in both institutions”.

  3. Tomboktu

    October 1, 2011 9:18 pm

    A7-0178/2011
    Against: Dodds & Nicholson

    A7-0180/2011
    Against: Dodds
    Abstain: Nicholson

    A7-0182/2011
    Against: Dodds
    Abstain: Nicholson

    A7-0183/2011
    Against: Dodds & Nicholson

    A7-0179/2011
    Against: Dodds & Nicholson

    A7-0184/2011
    For: Nicholson
    Against: Dodds

  4. David O'Donnell

    October 2, 2011 10:40 am

    @ta for that

    Dodds and The DUP are great to have onside when one is ‘agin something’ (-;

    Really incredible that this has passed almost un-noticed or hardly discussed – other than a brief comment from Ms Childers on the 6 o’clock newz