Thursday, September 03, 2009
Lisbon Essay (2): Nothing to Loose but a Mildly Social Democratic Reformist Opportunity…
Lisbon does strange things to what stands for an ideological split in Irish politics. On one hand, it splits the Left and and the Right. And on the other it has welded a huge super alliance between all the mainstream parties. In the second of our Lisbon Essays, Michael McLaughlin argues that that is partly due to the nature of the political character of the Union: it’s effectively an ongoing compromise between the Christian Democrats and Europe’s Socialist parties. Below the fold he lays out what he believes is in it from a worker’s point of view:
By Michael McLaughlin
One of the more genuine civil society groups to emerge from the Trade Unions is The Charter Group. As the names suggests they see the legal status Lisbon proposes for the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty as a major step forward for workers.
Not a great victory for the workers as they march across Europe; yet not a charter for neo liberalism either. Just a step forward.
In fact, it is rare for the language of left or right to predominate in the basic law of any state. Most independent academics note that the history of the EU has been one of a compromise between the forces of Christian Democracy and Social Democracy: a compromise, which secured a single market combined with a high degree of social protection.
In terms of Ireland, practically all socially progressive legislation has emanated from Europe, such as equal pay, maternity leave, the working time directive etc. Yet it is not the various treaties per se that deliver these measures into law. Rather it is the political make-up of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which decides this agenda even if the Treaty is a prerequisite to make it possible.
With Joe Higgins now in the campaign as an MEP, I suspect we may hear lot more about these issues. He has argued that Lisbon is a “charter for neo liberalism and privatisation”. Recently, at the National Forum on Europe, I invited Joe to do a search of the PDF of the consolidated version of the treaty to find the word privatisation.
Guess what: it’s not there!
Now competition is and always has been a competence of the EU (think airlines, telecoms what we paid years ago and what we pay now). This is the power that allowed the EU fine Microsoft, one of the largest corporations in the world!
In actual fact, Lisbon changes little in this respect. So if people are opposed to EU competition policy they need to start the campaign to repeal the current treaties, which effectively means leaving the EU.
However there are new provisions in Lisbon relating to workers rights and various progressive issues. And the Charter is the most obvious. It is now given the full legal force of treaty law.
I will try to avoid over egging my argument here. The charter is deliberately limited to the EU institutions but also, importantly, to the member states when they are implementing EU law.
The other major area of controversy and debate in this area is a series of recent European Court of Justice rulings on issues of workers rights. Here Higgins and Coir would both have us believe that our entire system of social protection will be removed. Yet all these cases were taken under the treaties as they stand today.
Of course it is not even true that the current treaties led directly to these cases (For Ruffert, Laval, Viking and Luxembourg: see the Charter group’s case file).
In truth, it was the transposition of the Posting of Workers Directive into domestic law that gave rise to the problems in mainly Scandinavian countries who have different systems of labour market regulation. Ironically, it is Ireland’s legally enforceable minimum wage is one of the reasons why the same rulings could not have been made in relation to similar cases here!
So then the question is whether such rulings are more or less likely under Lisbon. Certainly the elevation of the Charter to the same level as the treaty suggests things will change if Lisbon is passed. It also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights: a very progressive legal instrument.
The Treaty also contains, for the first time ever, a commitment to public services (Art 14 TFEU & Protocol on Services of General Economic Interest) and full employment (Art 3 TEU). These were both key demands of the left in the European Convention, which drew up the previous Constitutional Treaty. So all in all Lisbon is one of the most progressive treaties that the EU has produced.
Maybe some people just need to look at it in a little more detail.
The guest writers of the Lisbon Essays are by invitation only. But if you have something of importance to say and would like to write for us, or see someone else in particular writing for us, then drop me a line: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Mick Fealty @ 08:00 AM
I strongly disagree – the Charter Group of trade union activists is arguing for workers to support the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland’s October referendum, but their framework and evidence is perplexing. It has generally put forward the view that Europe has been of enormous benefit to workers and the treaty would further improve workers rights. If you look at the context of this debate, Ireland needs to consider carefully the negative impact Lisbon will have on workers rights.
First, the treaty is a new European Constitution, which by law, will have superiority over the Irish Constitution. If it is accepted, the Irish people will give up their constitutional rights under the Irish Constitution and be subject to very different constitutional arrangements under the European Constitution. This creates a new context – a new European Union, under which workers rights will be placed.
Second, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, attached to the treaty, rolls back workers’ rights by failing to include a clause requiring the recognition of trade unions.
Third, ordinary Irish people would be denied their basic rights in the workplace. For example, the European Court of Justice, basing its judgements on the Charter, had recently ruled against Swedish workers’ rights. In the ‘Vaxholm case’, the Latvian company Laval wanted to use Latvian workers in Sweden but would not agree to Swedish pay and conditions. Swedish unions opposed this treatment. The European Court ruled that the union could only act to ensure the Swedish minimum wage was paid and go no further. Other Swedish agreements could not be imposed. It puts pressure on Irish workers to accept minimum wage levels or risk losing their jobs.
At a time when about 450,000 Irish people are unemployed, crushed by cuts, taxes, mortgage payments, on top of public bank-bail-outs, the politicians who brought this upon Ireland are also asking for trust over the issues of workers rights in the treaty.
It is odd, then, that some groups are using those European Court of Justice decisions as evidence for a Yes vote. It is also worth noting that a No vote to Lisbon could be used to obtain a social Protocol which would outlaw these unjust verdicts of the EU Court.
Fourth, Lisbon puts the competition rules of the EU market above the right of Irish trade unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum for migrant workers – so whilst it reduces the power of Irish labour, it reinforces the power of migrant workers. The Lisbon treaty allows big business to import cheap labour and undercut Irish workers, in much the same way as it has done in labour disputes in the UK and the Nordic countries.
This comes at a time when Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has said, massive and uncontrolled immigration of EU labour into Ireland helped to cause the economic crash. Overseas workers now make up almost 20% of Ireland’s unemployed.
Fifth, I am glad to note that, in recognition of these aspects of the treaty, the Technical, Electrical and Engineering Union (TEEU) will now be calling for a No vote, stating that its opposition to the policy of the European Court of Justice in interpreting the law in this area was done in “a manner detrimental to the long-term interests of our members”.
In short, Lisbon would be bad for workers rights but it is for the Irish people to decide whether to reject this Treaty again.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 09:32 AMJim -
This comes at a time when Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has said, massive and uncontrolled immigration of EU labour into Ireland helped to cause the economic crash.
Do have a link for this statement? Seems completely divorced from reality, though I wouldn’t put it past him to have said it..
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 09:45 AMYes, certainly – it was Today FM. In relation to the construction boom which fuelled the Irish economy, the government agreed to allow unrestricted immigration from EU member states into Ireland. According to Minister Brian Lenihan, this policy added to the overheating of the economy (Today FM, 25/06/09).
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:02 AMJim -
Fourth, Lisbon puts the competition rules of the EU market above the right of Irish trade unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum for migrant workers
You may not be aware, but the Irish government recently awarded the contract to build a new barracks for the Irish Defence Forces to a firm from Northern Ireland. The firm was able to undercut southern Irish firms because it pays it’s workers less than half (on average) the union agreed minimums in Ireland (Republic).
This is the case today. Lisbon makes no difference.
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/you-couldnt-make-it-up2/
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:27 AMJim,
If it is accepted, the Irish people will give up their constitutional rights under the Irish Constitution and be subject to very different constitutional arrangements under the European Constitution.
This is a gross distortion. EU treaties do not replace national constitutions.
Second, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, attached to the treaty, rolls back workers’ rights by failing to include a clause requiring the recognition of trade unions.
The law is cumulative. If the EU treaties are silent on a matter, then national law will continue to apply. Rights guaranteed by Lisbon are in addition to rights guaranteed by national law.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:35 AMAndrew -
EU treaties do not replace national constitutions.
While I am generally pro-Lisbon, just on this particular point - the Lisbon Treaty does give EU law primacy over Irish law (including the Irish constituition) in those areas in which Ireland has delegated competency to the EU. Of course, EU Law derives it’s primacy over the rest of the Irish Constituition from one particular article which the Irish people could change (revoke) at any moment they choose (and enter into negogiations under Article 49 of the TFEU to modify the terms of their membership of the EU)..
The proposed Article 29.4.11 from 2008 -Article 29.4.11:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.Of course EU law was always supposed to have primacy anyway (in the Spirit of the EU, if not in the actual letter). What this should mean now is that the EU can evolve itself without neccisitating an Irish constituitional referndum each time.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:46 AMsighhh…folks the primacy of EU Law goes back 40 years and more!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gend_en_Loos_v_Nederlandse_Administratie_der_Belastingen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_v._ENEL
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 10:59 AMMichael -
But not the ability of the government to implement a directive that contravenes the Constituition without putting it to the people first.
Not that is neccessarily a bad thing (if the people object they can always throw the government out and revoke Article 29.4.11), so it just makes things more efficient. Unless I’m missing something?
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 11:09 AMJesus, has the word “loose” completely taken over from “lose” now? I come across it being used by people who really ought to know better.
But to the issue. The Irish are the final bulwark against federalization. If they don’t stand firm then Nineteen Eighty-Four is not too far distant. Time we all woke up before we sign away our freedoms and sovereignties to unelected quangoes.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 11:16 AMBig Maggie -
Lisbon is wee buns compared with the formation of the Euro.
If they don’t stand firm then Nineteen Eighty-Four is not too far distant
Care to elaborate?
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 11:23 AMMack,
“Care to elaborate?”
With pleasure. Europe could become an Oceania pitted against an Eastasia as in Orwell’s book. We’re already some ways down to road to losing our individual rights and sovereignty. Last year’s so-called Treaty was simply a European Constitution in sheep’s clothing. Let’s hope the Irish electorate won’t be fooled as so many other nations were.
Here’s what could otherwise come about, according to Philip Jones:
“The EU will take ownership of Police, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Currency Reserves and North Sea Oil as outlined in the Treaty document. Serving members of our Police and Armed Forces will be required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU. Refusal will result in dismissal. The EU will have complete control of all military matters, equipment and facililties.
“Political parties will be abolished, phased out or realigned. Only Pan European parties will be allowed. Independence parties will effectively be outlawed as under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU. (Even before the Irish Vote, News from Brussels indicates that plans are afoot already to eliminate any ‘Eurosceptic’ groups within the EU Parliament). The EU will have the legal right to close National Parliaments and Assemblies.
“Many people will be made unemployed as the EU rule of ‘retraining’ at a citizens own expense becomes universal (including the purchase of a Certificate confirming said retraining). Hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be forced to close due to the enforcement of endless numbers of impracticable and unworkable EU regulations.
“Around 107,000 EU laws will criminalise many, as adherence to this amount of legislation is impossible. We will be subject to frequent fines and even arrest as a result of what will be our inevitable ignorance. Take the following as examples: From January 2006, it became illegal to repair your own domestic plumbing, electricals or even your own car. If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after 1999, you will be required to pay the equivalent in Euros of £4000, or face six months in prison. As the EU ‘Police State’ flexes its muscles ever more, each of us will live under the fear and threat of arrest or prosecution for any one of a myriad of offences, even minor ones.
“The Large Corporations will do well of course, utilising massive immigration from within and without the EU, paying minimum wages to immigrants at the expense of the indigenous population, thus forcing salaries downwards. Futhermore, these Corporations will have a near Monopoly on employment (along with Government), and will be able to dictate conditions and terms of employment withour fear of contradiction.”
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 11:54 AMBig Maggie -
Except for most of it is nonsense ;-)
The EU will have complete control of all military matters, equipment and facililties.
Nope. Ireland retains complete control of all military matters, equipment and facilities.
“Political parties will be abolished, phased out or realigned
Paranoid conjecture.
Many people will be made unemployed as the EU rule of ‘retraining’ at a citizens own expense becomes universal
Other people do not pay for your retraining in Ireland today. This is pure drivel.
Hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be forced to close due to the enforcement of endless numbers of impracticable and unworkable EU regulations.
We’ve had EU regulations for a long time, care to compare and contrast the Irish economy pre-Europe to that post-EU membership. Far from costing jobs, I submit to you it has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Around 107,000 EU laws will criminalise many, as adherence to this amount of legislation is impossible
It would really depend what the law relate to. If there were 107,000 laws for standardising products and services across the EU would be very difficult for an EU citizen to break any of them, and if even if they did, it may not be criminal offence.
“The Large Corporations will do well of course, utilising massive immigration from within and without the EU, paying minimum wages to immigrants at the expense of the indigenous population, thus forcing salaries downwards.
Wrong, paranoid and deluded (all at once ;-)) .Ireland retains opt-outs on EU immigration law. We can set our own economic policy. See comment above to Jim - there is nothing stopping countries hiring cheaper workers abroad. But once they’ve moved here, why would they work for less than the going rate? They don’t need a visa, they can just switch jobs?
And completely missing the benefits of increased trade, increased wealth production, bigger markets with less barriers, and even where labour becomes cheaper it should result in a lower cost of production and thus cheaper products and services for workers.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 12:57 PMIreland retains opt-outs on EU immigration law. We can set our own economic policy.
Sorry, we can set our own immigration policy. We’ve had about 400,000 new immigrants in the last 7 or 8 years. Wages rose during that period, such that Irish net wages are the second highest in Europe.
http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/Rumuneration2008.pdf
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 01:00 PMMack,
the Lisbon Treaty does give EU law primacy over Irish law (including the Irish constituition) in those areas in which Ireland has delegated competency to the EU.
That’s not the point I was arguing.
Maggie,
Here’s what could otherwise come about
Translation: here follows a selection of one man’s paranoid ramblings.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 01:04 PMI honestly believe some of those who are involved in the yes campaign would sell their own souls if it meant an extra shilling. Not one of you will go near the fact that this treaty will expand the gaping hole that is the democratic deficit within the EU.
We could start with the proposal for an unelected president and Foreign Minister. Step forward and justify this please.
As a worker I find it amusing that those who have spent much of their careers attacking our rights and living standards suddenly step forward as our guardians.
For me it is enough to see who lines up in support of the treaty, i e the very same politicians who allowed Neo liberal economics to all but destroy the economies of the EU.
If a well known terrorist sells cigarets out of the back of a lorry, one would have to be especially dim not to conclude the money will go to para-militaries. If the mainstream parties sell the EU treaty, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize it will mainly benefit the multi nationals whose interest these politicos represent.
To hold a second referendum only a year after the Irish people decided this issue at the ballot box, is so typical of the absolute contempt these ‘yes’ people have for the democratic processes.
Whilst they are forever gassing on about democracy, as soon as it produces a result they dislike, they manipulate it in the most shameful and blatant manner. Not once in the last year, has a sizable section of the Irish electorate called for a second referendum,
Instead of expressing ‘concern’ for workers rights, perhaps Michael could tell us why he is prepared to pour excreta all over there democratic rights.
more on this here,
http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/08/2009-irish-referendum-reject-lisbon.htmlPosted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 01:11 PMMack,
A little unwise to dismiss Mr Jones’s article as “nonsense”. We’ll take your rebuttals one at a time, beginning with this one:
“Ireland retains complete control of all military matters, equipment and facilities.”
According to Article I-41 (3) of the proposed Lisbon Treaty, member states ‘shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy. This is an obligation, not an option.
The noose is tightening: “Furthermore the article states that member states ‘shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’. Again not optional but obligatory when the Treaty is signed.
“Crucially though, this is given effect in the treaty by the establishment of a European Defence Agency (EDA), which is charged, inter alia, with identifying operational requirements and, promoting measures to satisfy those requirements.
“Despite the [EU] constitution not having been ratified, this agency is now in place, and this week [22 January 2005] we have also seen another piece of the jigsaw puzzle locked into place: the European Security Research Advisory Board, which will assist the EDA in its work. The noose is tightening.”
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 04:46 PMBig Maggie -
See
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/lisbon-myths/
http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/eu-fact-v-fiction/Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 04:57 PMBig Maggie -
Also see proposed change to constituition
Article 29.4.15:
The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to —
i. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section, or
ii. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, where that common defence would include the State.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 05:00 PMMack,
With respect you’re missing the point. It won’t matter what amendments are made to the Irish Constitution. Those obligations Brussels is trying to push through will override them.
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 05:57 PMBig Maggie -
The constituition still has ultimate legal primacy. The amendments to the constituition give Lisbon legal force not vice versa. Article 29.4.11 gives EU Directives extra protection (from a simple constituitional challenge) but that extra protection is still derived from the constituition.
At the end of the day, what we’re actually voting on is an amendment to the Irish Constituition - the Dail will ratify Lisbon (or otherwise). We’re not abolishing the constituition, we’re amending it in part to facilitate Lisbon and to streamline our interactions with the EU..
Posted by on Sep 03, 2009 @ 07:13 PMInteresting that the word “privatisation” is not in the Lisbon Treaty, isn’t it?
I wonder why that would be?Oh, the word “competition” is in there. So publicly provided services will now have competition.
Just how stupid do you think people are? We are well aware that one of the reasons that the public health care system in the south is so bad is because of this self-same “competition”.Did the railways in Britland improve or disimprove after “competition” came in? What about their water services?
And I’d say you could think of a few other examples yourself.
Posted by on Sep 04, 2009 @ 10:14 AManony mouse
Ever wonder why the standard of living in Soviet Russia was so far below that of the West?
By the way, what drove European air-fares down?
Why is Irish electricity so expensive?
What happened insurance costs when new competitors were introduced?
Why are there so many free services on the internet?
What drives technological innovation?
Why can a patient be seen in under an hour at a SwiftCare clinic but take the best part of a day under the Irish public health system?
Monopolies are scourge and facilitate the price gouging of consumers, and lax standards in customer service..
Incidentally, The Lisbon Treaty promotes competition across all sectors (in particular within the private sector). Ever wonder why prices are so high in Ireland? What happened to prices in grocery stores once customers headed north?
You can introduce competition without privatisation (see Bord Gais and the big switch competing with the ESB - reducing costs for consumers)...
Posted by on Sep 04, 2009 @ 10:50 AM“Interesting that the word “privatisation” is not in the Lisbon Treaty, isn’t it?
I wonder why that would be?Oh, the word “competition” is in there. So publicly provided services will now have competition. “
Interestingly when the EU wants to give something a treaty basis like climate change or employment policy it gives it a treaty article, simple as. I know Joe Higgins and co think there is a conspiracy to bring things in by the back door. If you are that way inclined then you have to explain why the back door methodology applies solely to this area and not any other?
Mack has ably covered the respective issues between competition and privatisation…bus services in the republic for example plenty of private vs public with both of them regularly complaining which must be a good sign
Posted by on Sep 04, 2009 @ 12:08 PMMickHall
Well said.
Posted by on Sep 04, 2009 @ 01:13 PMMichael
I think you would agree that politicians and politics these days has a poor name amongst the majority of the European Unions population. This is nothing to rejoice about as until someone comes up with a better idea, the democratic process is our best option if we wish to change peoples lives for the better.
When people see a second referendum less than a year after the first, which rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of voters will understandably conclude, there is no point in voting as when you do, the politicians just ignore the results and repeat the exercise until they gain a result which is to they’re liking.
You as a ‘yes’ supporter can talk all you wish about public/private, etc. But until you openly discuss the EU democratic deficit you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
I have asked you clearly how can an unelected EU president and foreign minister be justified [Lisbon sets these unelected posts in stone] No reply from the Yes campaign. Thus people like myself, who are sympathetic towards the idea of the EU, will vote no, and say not a step further until the democratic deficit is dealt with.
Joe Higgins and co are absolutely correct to think there is a conspiracy to bring things in by the back door. One does not have to look at the sleight of hand competition laws etc, for there can be no better example of this conspiracy/collusion than this referendum.
It was concocted out of no where by the EU Brussels bureaucracy and Europe’s political elite and for no better reason than they did not like the result of the 2008 referendum. This fact is undeniable, there was no ground swell of opinion in Ireland demanding a second referendum, indeed most had accepted the result and hoped the EU would accept the democratic will of the people.
Posted by on Sep 04, 2009 @ 02:29 PM
