European Union Reform Treaty changes exposed
Steve McGiffen uncorks old wine in new bottles

Don't be fooled by the removal of the words “free and unrestricted competition” from the list of EU goals. Don't be fooled, either, by the removal of any reference to the EU flag, or the EU anthem. Don't be fooled by the tinkering with the number of member states' votes required for a new law to be introduced.

The fact is that the Reform Treaty is simply the Constitutional Treaty in a different form. The same ingredients which made it impossible for any socialist or democrat to support that measure are still in place.
In a Europe in which macro-economic policy is in the hands of twenty-seven unelected bankers legally immune to influence from the people or their elected representatives, democracy is already dead. All we can hope is that it will come back to haunt its killers. But if Maastricht drove a stake through democracy's heart, this new measure will nail down its coffin lid.

The major reason why the French and Dutch voted to reject the Constitutional Treaty was that they recognised that it would strengthen the instruments whereby the EU is able to force member states to privatise publicly-owned concerns. Telecommunications, public transport, energy, the postal service, sections of the education system and the health service are all on the shopping list of the predatory corporations which dominate European Commission policy-making. And the shocking fact is that these sections of the rejected treaty were not even discussed in Brussels. President Sarkozy's rhetorical flourish notwithstanding, no changes have been made to the economic prescription – “private good, public bad” – which has been killing the patient since “Europe” swung towards neoliberalism with the Single European Act of 1986.

So what has been changed?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office document The EU Reform Treaty: 10 Myths emits an ear-splitting sound of barrels being scraped.
“The Constitutional Treaty would have replaced all the existing Treaties and effectively refounded the EU”. It states. “The Reform Treaty takes the same approach as all previous amending Treaties”
The FCO then spoils this rare experiment in truth-telling by adding that “It amends the existing Treaties and will not have constitutional characteristics.” This is, of course, completely illogical. If the main features of the Constitutional Treaty have been carried over to the Reform Treaty then the change of form is no more than technical.

So here, in addition to the economic provisions mentioned above, are the most important points on which the two treaties are substantially identical: recognition of the Union as having a legal personality, which will allow it to conclude, in its own right, agreements and treaties in the name of all of the member states; creation of a President of the European Council with a term of office of two-and-a-half years renewable once, and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs.

More areas under which decisions are taken by qualified majority, and extension of the areas under which co-decision applies, somewhat increasing the power of the European Parliament.
Reduction of the number of commissioners and strengthening of the role of the President of the Commission; reaffirmation of the primacy of community law over national law; and one area where there has been a small change to the figures, but where the principle remains: double majority voting at Council, under which measures will have to be approved by 50% of the states representing 55% of the population from 2014.
There are also changes which are specific to the UK, though these will in the main hardly be welcomed by socialists. Britain will not be automatically bound by all of the provisions under the “Justice and Home Affairs” section, but will have the right to ‘opt in’ to these as the Government sees fit.

The FCO argues that this provision will protect “our common law system and criminal and judicial processes”. Well, it will, but only until a government decides to “opt in”. Britain will also retain greater control of social and labour legislation than do other member states, and there will be “stronger safeguards for protecting our social security system”. As these are in each case amongst the worst of any developed EU member state, these protocols are, not surprisingly, designed to take care of the employers' interests. Finally, at Britain's insistence, despite the creation of a High Representative, a “Declaration” was added to the effect that foreign policy remains in the hands of the member states. This is more of a clarification than a change, but is certainly to be welcomed, though probably rather mutedly in a country which has simply opted to have its foreign policy laid down in Washington DC rather than Brussels.
And in case you were thinking there might be just one sweetener in this whole package, I quote, once again, the FCO: “The Charter (of Fundamental Rights) will have no new impact on UK domestic law and creates no new powers for the EU to legislate.”

If the Government can get away with its claim that the differences between the two treaties mean that the referendum promised for the original proposal is no longer needed, they can get away with anything.
Unless a mass movement embracing all of Britain's democratic forces can change Gordon Brown's mind on this, we will have to accept that we are ruled by charlatans and liars and that to be so ruled is perfectly acceptable, or at least immutable. The game which began at Peterloo, in my home town of Manchester, will be up.

Steve McGiffen edits www.spectrezine.org