Archived copy is here: https://archive.is/DqZ6m
The article says this:
“Immediately withdraw from NATO’s integrated command and then, in stages, from the organization itself. Reject the tribute demanded by the United States of 5% of GDP devoted to defense spending,” read France Unbowed’s 222-page program.
However, France under Mélenchon would still provide assistance to European Union countries under EU treaties, the document added
Is Melenchon right? Is it better for the EU to be the organisation of mutual defence guarantees for Europe, rather than NATO?
Making EU legislation fully optional (after all national politicians could arbitrarily then go on to decide to not “apply” binding EU law of whatever kind they choose further down the line), means destroying the very legal basis the EU is built upon. That is indeed not a reform, that is straight going to “destroy the EU from within” without the detour of pretending to go for “reforming the treaties”. Ironic or not, that is pretty much what the authoritarian far right was also trying to do in Poland and Hungary before being ousted by the people, albeit on other topics.
The only way to implement this is either by having cake and eat it for France (getting special privileges for France) or by changing that very aspect in the treaties for everyone. Both needs a treaty change and unanimous support by every member state which are almost entirely conservative or liberal.
So choose, this demand either means breaking the treaties or reforming the treaties.
This is the kind of fake dichotomy that makes it impossible to enact any real change in the current system. “Oh gosh we’d sure love to have a more just Europe but i guess that’s incompatible with current European legislation so we might as well forget it and do nothing”.
The point is to go head to head with the current state of the Union, then we can create a coalition of similarly-minded countries and introduce deep reforms. And if it means headbutting with the ECJ and tanking a few sanctions then so be it. The point is not to break the whole thing but to create a counter-force that is significant enough to have a say. I don’t understand how you can even compare that to the far right project which is basically Brexit with more Trumpism on top.
There is no European country that has a better shot at that than good old France, and the historical window is closing fast. There’s probably some hubris in there, but there’s also, i believe, some courage. You can’t live your life according to your adversaries rules, and you can’t materialize a popular movement by coloring inside the lines drawn by the 1%, so at some point you have to break some laws to make better ones.
That is completely besides the point. What you described was the demand to make the primary law of the EU optional. That is as if saying that the constitution is just optional and local politicians can simply decide to opt out on whatever they don’t like. It is no fake dichotomy to simply state the fact that this is blowing up the legal foundation of the EU. If you said, Melenchon is working towards treaty change to add safeguards to specific well defined areas it would be something different, but that’s not what you described.
That said, there is absolutely no need to blow up the legal foundation of the EU. Much of what Melenchon appears to be complaining about is not even EU competence but largely national competence. Not all but and we can have a debate on concrete issues. But if law becomes optional to ignore its is not law anymore.
The problem here is not the ECJ, it is destroying the legal basis without which there is no EU, certainly none that has any EU of any political significance. How I can compare that left proposal for destroying the legal sphere of the EU with the one from the right in Poland in Hungary before the respective governments were ousted by the voter? Because it is functionally the same thing, an attack on the legal foundation of the EU by destroying the legal system (making law compliance optional). If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
This isn’t a 1% or adversary rule thing. Any law sphere that becomes optional is doomed to collapse. It is tragic if that is not self evident anymore.
I recognize your legalist perspective and have leaned that way most of my life, but I don’t think it’s strong enough against the lawless fascists and their moneyed allies. There are moments in history where you have to tug on the balance of power.
I also chafe at the idea that EU law is comparable to a constitution. We already have a constitution thank you very much. What FI is proposing here is more like when Blue cities in the US “opted out” of helping with ICE enforcement.
It’s not about breaking the rule of law it’s about engaging with the old “rapport de force”. Sure it would be more comfortable to go “oh well them’s the laws after all” and I wish we were still at that stage but look where it got us.
Burning down law to defend it against fascists? All the while Putin watches pleased Europe setting itself on fire. He doesn’t care if it is the left or the right. It doesn’t matter if you consider EU primary law inferior to a constitution. Functionally it is primary law all the same and as such it relies just the same way on not being optional. Once it becomes optional it collapses on itself.
Which federal law did the blue cities declare null and void in their territory again?
That said, member states are not forced to oblige to the treaties. They are free to leave anytime. Hence the EU is not a state. No one is forced to stay and comply. One can leave if one finds the EU and its legal sphere unacceptable.
What is it really that justifies the destruction of the EU’s legal sphere and as a consequence the EU? That you seem to call necessary here? Let’s be concrete and say why it can’t be resolved without destroying the EU.