 |
| Image by Wikimedia Commons |
There is no sign
of European solidarity in this deal. It is a punishment handed down to Greece
for daring to say no to austerity. The EU was established on the principles of
cooperation and mutual support – and many are now wondering what has happened
to those aspirations. But solidarity fell by the wayside some time ago in
Europe. This is just the most recent example of how European integration today
is about profit maximisation for capital – not about cooperation between
European people.
Built on
co-operation and solidarity: the establishment of the EU.
When
the EU was established during the 1950s, economically it was based on mutual
support in the reconstruction after World War Two. Politically, it was intended
to ensure that especially France and Germany would never again go to war
against each other. The initial success was impressive. France and Germany
moved from a relationship of arch enemies to the axis of further integration. The
whole EU prospered economically so much, in fact, that other countries were
quick to seek membership too.
 |
| Photo by Jubilee Debt Campaign |
From
the mid-1980s onwards, economic integration deepened with the internal market
project as well as Economic and Monetary Union including the introduction of
the euro – but, at least initially, solidarity with less advanced regions was
not forgotten. The 1993 Maastricht Treaty included the so-called cohesion fund,
which was specifically intended at the time to support Ireland, Greece,
Portugal and Spain in their efforts to catch up economically with the more
advanced EU members. Equally, further economic integration was supposed to go
hand in hand with the development of a social dimension, guaranteeing minimum
social and workplace rights across the EU.
 |
| Photo by Chris Goldberg |
Profit–maximisation over solidarity: neo-liberal restructuring in Europe.
The 1990s marked
a clear break away from solidarity in the EU. Even though some progress was
made in areas such as parental leave, the social dimension of the EU was never
fully developed. Broader, neoliberal restructuring quickly started to dominate.
Full employment was mentioned in the 2000 Lisbon Strategy,
but this was to be achieved mainly through supply-side measures such as
training, not through state investment in the economy.
Several
decisions by the European Court of Justice during the 2000s further undermined
the social dimension. In the so-called Laval case, for example, the free
movement of services across borders was prioritised over the right of Swedish
workers to blockade a construction site where 14 Latvian workers were employed
on wages of around 40% less than their Swedish counterparts (EurWork,
24 February 2008). Supporting the profitability of the company was
considered to be more important than social justice, minimum standards and the
right to strike.
 |
| Photo by European Parliament |
Then, in 2004, eight countries from Central and Eastern Europe joined the EU together with Cyprus and Malta. These countries were economically even further behind the EU average than Greece, Spain and Portugal had been in the 1980s.
Instead of
providing extra support, the EU imposed a more radical, market-oriented variant
of neoliberalism onto the new members than for existing members. As it enlarged
to the east, the EU did not offer substantial financial aid, the free movement
of labour, or the full amount of subsidies available to farmers within the Common
Agricultural Policy (Bohle
2006: 69-74). Having just overcome ‘Communist’, authoritarian regimes,
there were no forces in Central and Eastern Europe able to demand compromises –
just as had been the case for Western Europe after World War II. Is it
surprising that these new members now show little solidarity with Greece,
having never really experienced solidarity themselves?
 |
| Photo by European Parliament |
In its external, free-trade policy too, the EU moved away from relations of special support for developing countries. For example, the Lomé Conventions included preferential arrangements for countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. In 2006, however, this was replaced with the new free-trade strategy, Global Europe, which demanded full reciprocity in market opening from developing countries and emerging economies alike (War on Want 2006). Again, solidarity was replaced with a focus on profit maximisation.
Given this
history, the lack of solidarity being shown towards Greece now should not come
as a surprise. For quite some time, EU policies have been dominated by
neoliberal restructuring and a focus on profit maximisation for capital.
When the eurozone
crisis hit, it quickly became a justification for austerity, undermining of
trade union rights (see, for example, the erosion
of collective bargaining in Portugal), privatising state assets and public
sector cuts. The purpose was to shift the general balance of power in society
towards capital.
 |
| Photo by Brookings Institution |
The idea of solidarity has been lost in European integration. Neoliberal capitalism has no room for solidarity with workers, no understanding of the importance of social justice and equality in society. Neoliberal capitalism does not consider balanced development across the EU an important objective.
An earlier version with the title 'How Europe turned its back on Greece in the pursuit of profit' was published in The Conversation on 14 July 2015.
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net
17 July 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!