<HTML><HTML>In a message dated 6/2/05 6:48:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lbo-talk-request@lbo-talk.org writes: The following is from a piece by The Nation's Ian Williams, submitted by <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Diehard conservatives in the United States cheered on French Communists and leftists for their success in frustrating a multinational challenger to U.S. global dominance, while many on the American left expressed solidarity with their French comrades who joined with fascists to vote down a "capitalist" constitution. The irony of this blinkered endorsement is redoubled by the rejected constitution itself, which guarantees rights undreamt of by any liberal in the United States. This is a constitution derided by the conservative Weekly Standard for guaranteeing "entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment." How can so-called liberals in a country that has 45 million uninsured citizens dismiss a document that ensures the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment? </BLOCKQUOTE> The above passage is highly misleading. The Constitution does, in fact, enumerate in Part II the rights that Williams refers to, among others. It is this section that all "oui" partisans constantly cited as proof of the document's progressive character. But when these provisions are examined closely, it becomes clear that they are very carefully crafted to sound advanced and enlightened without actually conferring any new rights. The following articles are typical: "3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices. "Article II-95 Health care. Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities." The insidious little phrase, "in accordance with," or "as established by" "national laws and practices" recurs throughout the text. This is a way of saying that the Constitution does not establish any rights not already provided for in the laws or constitutions of the member states. In the one case in which Tony Blair feared that the language might be interpreted to mean something new--a clause concerning the access of all citizens to what would normally be called public services--an addendum is careful to specify that this article (II.96) "does not create any new rights." I say "what would normally be called public services" because the Constitution itself is very careful to avoid that term--with any implication it may have of public ownership-- in favor of "services of general economic interest." It also says that these services... are subject to the provisions of the Constitution, notably to the rules of competition" (III.166) and goes on: "Save as otherwise provided in the Constitution, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market." (III.167) Thus is competition enshrined at the expense of public ownership. Le Monde Diplomatique (May) adds: "Rights described as fundamental by the Charter [Part II of the Constitution--JC] 'that form the object of provisions of other parts of the Constitution are to be exercised within the conditions and limits here defined' II.112.2). Among these "conditions and limits": the four liberties--also called 'fundamental'--are the liberty of circulation of capital, merchandise, services and persons. The invocation of the liberty of finance and free exchange is significant in the preamble of a Charter whose six headings are: 'Dignity,' 'Liberty,' 'Equality,' 'Solidarity,' 'Citizenship' and 'Justice.' " [my translation--JC] The Constitution, in other words, is a codification of neoliberal doctrine wrapped in high-sounding and empty Gallic phrases intended to make it seem progressive. The fact that even the phrases are too much for the Weekly Standard doesn't change anything. By taking this window dresssing for the real thing, Williams, knowingly or not, is abetting in the sleight of hand.    The English text of the Constitution is available at: http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc3_en.htm Jim </HTML>