Lisbon Essay (4): A ‘No’ would force powerful corporate lobbies to give way to real democracy…

This week we kick off with an argument from the Irish left, and from the only one of Ireland’s twelve MEPs that could be in the least described as ‘Eurosceptic’. In particular, Joe Higgins notes the proposal to work together to a far greater degree on a raft of what might classed as a common foreign policy (see also LE3 for David Steven’s arguments in favour), linking it to the encouragement of larger countries to form joint military forces. A No vote, he argues, would give way to wider reaching debate from which a real European democracy might arise…By Joe Higgins

Lisbon is not a minor ‘tidying up’ exercise to make the workings of the European Union more efficient. It encompasses far reaching changes which would seriously diminish the democratic sway of citizens of Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty substantially diminishes the democratic check which citizens in the EU can exercise over their own governments in relation to decisions taken by the European Council (Meeting of EU Prime Ministers) and the Council (Meeting of EU government Ministers) when they come to make important decisions.

It removes the veto of individual Member States in substantial areas of policy ranging from how public services and changes the way that a qualified majority could be reached.

For instance, proposed new legislation will be circulated to the parliaments eight weeks before it is put to the EU Ministers. The parliaments have no say in the substance of the new legislation but can tell the EU Commission if they believe it breaches ‘subsidiarity’ that is if it strays into areas that they believe they themselves should be dealing with.

And this provision will have no bearing on the majority of substantial areas where the EU has competence over and above Member States.

Lisbon hands far more power to deal with deficits and borrowing to the EU Commission and out of the control of individual Member States and their people. This can have far-reaching implications.

For instance, the Lisbon changes enshrined in the new Article 126(TFEU) gives the Commission the power to demand of the Ministers of Finance to ask the European Investment Bank to ‘reconsider its lending policy toward the Member State concerned.’

Harsh action against an individual state could only be blocked if there was a unanimous vote of the Ministers for Finance to do so. Otherwise the punishment could be meted out by a qualified majority.

A key instrument of the “race to the bottom” in workers’ wages and conditions has been the “Posting of Workers Directive”.

This directive deals with the rights of workers employed by a company in one European state but working in another state temporarily. In theory, it means that companies have to obey some standards and laws regarding workers’ rights in the country where they are working.

In the Ruffert case (see LE(2) for McLaughlin’s counterargument to this) it ruled that the State of Lower Saxony in Germany was breaking EU law when it insisted that a Polish subcontractor should pay Polish workers brought into Germany to build a prison, the same rate as local contractors have to pay according to negotiated agreements. The ECJ agreed that EU law allowed the Polish subcontractor to pay 50% of the usual rate!

The crucial point within the context of Lisbon is that giving The Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal rights as EU treaties would change nothing as far as the ECJ’s rulings are concerned.

‘Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.’(Art. 42 TEU) This is a blatant call for more spending on armies and military hardware. But this drive towards militarization has to be seen in the context of very significant changes proposed in Lisbon to EU foreign policy. .

It will allow the most powerful military states in the European Union to set up military alliances among themselves ‘with a view to the most demanding missions’ This is to be known as ‘permanent structured cooperation’. (Art42 TEU)

In mandating these new ‘mini military alliances’, the EU leaders must act unanimously. However, once such missions are under way, their conduct will be under the control only of the participating states with other states excluded. (Art 6 TEU) However their actions will be in the name of the EU as a whole.

A ‘No’ Vote can be a new beginning. The Lisbon Treaty represents the aggressive, neo liberal agenda of the EU big business, military and political establishment. It is seriously damaging to the interests of the vast majority of ordinary citizens in the EU. That is why the Irish people should give it a resounding ‘No’ for the second time.

A second rejection would allow a more wide ranging debate to open up about what kind of Europe we want to construct in the next decades. If the majority of ordinary working people, the unemployed and thee youth actively joined that debate, a vision of a new Europe utterly different to the present EU can emerge.

That would be a Europe where the sway of powerful corporate lobbies, the military industrial complex and pro big business political parties would be forced to give way to a real democracy.

Biography: Joe Higgins is the Socialist Party Member of the European Parliament for Dublin. He was a Member of Dublin and then Fingal County Council from 1991 to 2003. He represented Dublin West in Dail Éireann for ten years from 1997 to 2007.

Tomorrow: Stephen Kinsella of the University of Limerick with It’s NOT the economy Stupid…

Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty

donate to keep slugger lit