Eva Durant (nomen est omen) wrote:
> You left out the peragraph that refered to international trade
> unionism in Europe.
Ah, now we know why it's called "the European UNION"... <G>
So you think the EU's massive democratic deficits could be compensated by
international trade unions ? That would be a strange and weak substitute,
and actually it's not even that. Neither the EC nor the corporations really
care about the trade-unions. All trade-unions combined employ about 50
lobbyists in Brussels, compared to thousands of corporate lobbyists (e.g.
a single oil company employs 400 lobbyists to take care of the 700 EP
members). The communication of the 'central' trade-union with the 'local'
trade-unions in the member countries is quite bad, and the efficiency of
them is very low. (The center is too far away and speaks a different language
[also literally].)
BTW, the EU is not a prerequisite for "international trade unionism in
Europe" -- rather, it's an obstacle to it, since the Euro (currency), the
Maastricht criteria and the stability pact constitute an economical corset
that leaves little room for being social.
> Crawling back to national governments that are
> weaker than international corporations, is certainly not the best
> solution.
But certainly a better solution than a centralistic mega-state "EU Inc."
that is dominated by corporate lobbies.
> By the way, probably due to the
> stronger influence of the left in the EU,
> their workplace directives tend to be better than the ones in the UK
> for example.
Well, this example from the country of Manchester-capitalism is hardly
representative for the EU's impact on social issues. If you look at the
changes that occurred in Sweden since it joined the EU, you'll get a much
more negative picture: Reduction of democracy, political transparence,
environmental protection, etc.
The "Left in the EU" is a hoax: Blair and Schroeder are neo-liberals rather
than social-democrats. Schroeder's party (SPD) completely rejected a Green
proposal to introduce direct democracy in Germany, although the SPD's
election campaign had announced this introduction. As the secretary of the
Swedish EP delegation noted, the political power in the EU is actually in
the hands of conservatives and of corporate lobbies, and not even a
fortification of the EP would lead to a democratization of the EU (i.a.
because the mega-state is simply too big and too centralized to be
democratic -- 1 MP would represent 500'000+ citizens). Both "social" and
"democratic" are fraudulent attributes of the EU, to lull the herd animals.
> All in all, what seems to be so good for global capitalism
> could be also good for the global integration of democratic
> movements for a better globe...
Maybe, but what does this have to do with the EU ?
The EU has long become an accellerator rather than a decellerator of
anti-social globalization, increasing the internal competition within
Europe. To update your EU knowledge (while sticking to your familiar
Marxist reading), you might read articles like "The EU and the Left"
in the German journal "Marxist Renewal" 32/97 (or similar contemporary
literature in case you don't read German). An interesting online resource
for a Left anti-EU perspective is http://europa.crossnet.ch/ (Swiss Forum
for Direct Democracy). (some articles in English)
--Chris
