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?
No, I am claiming that it doesn’t need any major treaty changes to change the political direction of the EU to a left leaning position. It would need however a left majority among voters, currently there is a clear right majority on EU level and most national capitals are right/conservative as well.
The EU’s operations are not “grossly corrupt”, corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states, certainly less corrupt than Germany or Austria, not sure about France but I would be surprised if things were different there. Most of the corruption is taking place on local level with EU funds. Fighting corruption on both levels is possible without any treaty change, as the creation of EPPO has shown. Great institution that has a mandate to fight corruption on both, European and national level, as long as it has something to do with EU institutions, policies or subsidies.
How do you know?
You can read the court of auditor reports and compare them to national ones, you can observe how when there are business lobby groups fighting for something, it is often some national governments who are already fully in line, copy pasting their positions and fighting for it in Brussels, while in Brussels the Commission is still on the fence and the European Parliament hosts meaningful opposition. Also on multiple occasions, where the national level was already completely in line, including national parliaments, initiatives still failed in the European Parliament, against massive lobbying campaigns because the public made a fuss about it
I also know from people, who are no business lobbyists that you can get heard by the Commission if you represent something of interest, eg open source initiatives. I also know from the business perspective that bribing agencies for getting some registration on EU level is not an option and that things that are not working as they should are rather issues of lack of resources or unclear legislation.
My favourite example however is the former interior minister of Austria, who afterwards continued his career as MEP in Brussels/Strasbourg. It is pretty clear he did not change the way he was doing politics but within a short time, he was uncovered to be bribed. That alone never happened in Austria in his long career before and unlike in Austria, it did have severe consequences, he did not only lose his job, was subject to prosecution but was entirely shunned by the party, as this had become such a big deal (also something that rarely happens in Austria with any corrupt politician). Of course Austrian nationalists were talking about how corrupt Brussels is, when in fact the Austrian modus operandi lead in Brussels to the destruction of a politician’s career.
EDIT: Things have improved further since the creation of the EPPO. A bribing case like the one above relied before purily on action from member state’s institutions. Now, EPPO can get active on its own and launch investigations and inquire assistance when raiding someone for example.
Which Aubry is already doing as head of the Left euro-group. There is not one single mention of treaty changes in FI’s platform. They just state that we may decline to apply some European laws if they lead to worse social or ecological outcomes for French workers. It’s called “principe de non-régression écologique et sociale” and i don’t see any great arguments against it.
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.