Greece

From Noeuconstitution

Project : Hellas portal (we would want to build a Greek portal - contributions needed)

Context

In Greece, the EU constitution was ratified by the parliament on 19th April 2005.

Most Greeks apparently believe that "the European Constitution" is something they should know about. However, the two main parties wanted the ratification process to be parliament-centred, and as a result there has not been a great of public discussion.

There has been some 'public relations' type advertising, promoting the idea of Europe as something that exists 'for me', like an article of consumption.

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the Synaspismos both oppose the proposed European Constitutional Treaty. The KKE is anti-EU in any case. The Synaspismos is pro-EU and has a strong tendency in it that would favour ratification of the proposed Constitutional Treaty. However, the recent leadership change in the Synaspismos has meant predominance of the 'left' tendency that is opposed to the proposed Constitutional Treaty on the grounds of its institutionalising neo-liberalism.

This objection to the Treaty is also put forward by the Hellenic Social Forum, and by ATTAC-Hellas in its recently published pamphlet.

Events

• The Chamber for Environment and Sustainability and the Law School of the University of Athens is organizing a seminar on 'European Constitution and Sustainability' on Tuesday 10th May. Read a full report

• Meeting after the summer to be organised?

After the french referendum

Mr. Antonis Manitakis does not agree with the proposed title: Who will be the Defender of Greek National Sovereignty.

On 16th July he made the following comments on ATTAC's post-referendum statement:

"I agree with the action programme and the goals, which I find feasible and practical. The individual demands seem to me to be properly ordered. It would be possible to mobilise people around them. To be continued in the autumn."

The following thoughts are by W.H., from immediately after the referendum:

The next step is to organize meetings entitled: "We said which Europe we don't want. Now: Which Europe do we want?" Here in Greece, for example we could have a meeting (perhaps after the summer) including Mr. Michaelis Dekleris, former head of the Council of State, who supported the French 'NO' on Greek national sovereignty grounds, and Mr. Antonis Manitakis, who is part of the altermondialiste movement and works with the Social Forum. The idea should be that Mr. Dekleris has the problem, Mr. Manitakis is part of something that wants to be the solution.

This should be the approach towards all those who supported French NO on nationalistic grounds. You have a problem. Help us to be the solution to it. THE LOGIC HERE IS THE PRECISE OPPOSITE OF ELECTORALIST COMPETITIVENESS which might be appropriate if a Trotskyist, say, and a Lepen supporter, were both standing for office and each had to persuade electors to vote for them

"We said which Europe we don't want. Now: Which Europe do we want?" This means that the debate is among people who supported the French no to the "European constitution". Those who did not do so have excluded themselves. Here in Greece that would mean that EU high-flyers (applying the criteria of their respective milieux) like Mrs. Anna Diamantopoulou of the Socialist Party and Mr. Michalis Papagiannakis of the Synaspismos are OUT. Henceforth they are spectators to our debate.

Which Europe do we want? We want a Europe of the Social Forums. That means we want Social Forum participation in the European integration process. For a start, we want it to be possible for a Social Forum representative to be European Head of State. Why should Jose Bove, for example, not be European Head of State? (Perhaps the social forum in France would choose him as their representative. And they again they might not.) Propose the formation of a Sovereign Council comprising 1) a representative of the social forum of each European Union member state and 2) the head of state of the country concerned. If the member state is a republic this would mean the president. If the member state is a monarchy this would mean the monarch. This Sovereign Council would choose the European Head of State from among themselves, the same way that the Cardinals choose the Pope. The European Head of State would not be an executive president like the French president. He would be non-executive like the German or Greek president.

If the parliaments of the member states object to being sidelined in this way this they could call for a national referendum in the member state concerned calling for the representative of the country's Social Forum to be replaced on the Sovereign Council by a representative of the national parliament. This would establish a process of healthy emulation between representative and deliberative democracies, breaking the monopoly of parliamentarianism.

I put these ideas down a couple of years ago, when the constitutional conference that produced the now-rejected "European Constitution" was just getting under way: Go to my article