National - Event Notice
Thursday January 01 1970

Campaign Press Conference

national | eu | event notice

Tuesday May 20, 2008 17:57

by MichaelY - - CAEUC

Left progressive campaign launched

Affiliates to the Campaign Against the EU Constitution:

Communist Party of Ireland
Community & Workers Action Group, Crumlin
éirígí
Irish Anti-War Movement
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Irish Socialist Network
Peace and Neutrality Alliance
People Before Profit Alliance
People's Movement
Sinn Fein
Socialist Party
Socialist Workers Party
Workers Party

Campaign Against EU Constitution – No to Lisbon
www.sayno.ie

Press statement – 20/5/08 – immediate release

Minister Martin, Peter Power of the European Commission:
when exactly would there be a veto on trade in health and education?

David Begg and Blair Horan:
how exactly would the Charter protect workers rights?

At the launch of its co-ordinated campaign for a No vote on the Lisbon Treaty, the Campaign Against the EU Constitution called on Minister Michael Martin and European Commission rep Peter Power, and trade union leaders David Begg and Blair Horan to explain their recent claims.

Speaking for the Campaign, Brendan Young said:

“We are calling upon Michael Martin and Peter Power to state clearly: on what present Treaty provisions is a veto available to an individual Member State in the current trade agreement being negotiated by Peter Mandelson on our behalf at the WTO? And precisely on what provisions of the Lisbon Treaty would an individual Member State be able to veto a future trade agreement at the WTO?”

Young continued:

“David Begg and Blair Horan are leading people to believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would give us more rights; and that it would prevent another Laval ruling by the European Court of Justice. We are of the opinion, supported by legal advice, that there is no truth in these claims. We call on Mr. Begg and Mr. Horan to say precisely how the Charter would prevent another Laval ruling.”

Quotes end.

Our view is that Art 188c of Lisbon would remove the veto on WTO trade agreements in health, education and social services in all but exceptional, undefined circumstances. Trade in public services leads to privatisation, service charges and two-tier services – especially in health and education.

We gave away the veto on trade in agriculture ten years ago and there are many who now regret that. A veto on the current WTO deal being negotiated by Mandelson is only possible because there are some areas in the deal on which a veto still applies, or if there are enough objectors to make up a 'blocking minority'.

Privatisation triple-lock
This government is already privatising our health system – giving contracts to fraud-mired American multinationals such Triad and Quest – which is why they support Lisbon. Lisbon would create a privatisation triple lock: the privatising policies of this government, locked in by Lisbon and the other EU treaties, with a third lock coming through international trade agreements at the WTO.

Brendan Butler (IBEC) was honest when he said Lisbon would bring opportunities to make money out of health, education and other public services. When people come to vote, they should remember the people on trolleys and those who died waiting – victims of a two-tier part-privatised crisis-ridden system.

Begg and Horan are wrong
David Begg and Blair Horan, leading trade union officials, are calling upon working people and trade unions to support Lisbon, arguing that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would protect workers rights. We are of the opinion, supported by legal advice, that there is no substance to these claims.

The granting of legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not prevent the European Court of Justice making another ruling similar to Laval. The Court took into account the right to collective action as a fundamental right set down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights when it made its ruling on Laval. So no gains would be made by the granting of legal status to the Charter.

This is why the European TUC has called for a supplementary 'social clause' that would ensure the right to take action for more than minimum wages would not be overruled in EU law by the right to conduct business across internal EU borders (Art 49). Such a clause can only be gained by a NO VOTE, forcing re-negotiation.

Race to the bottom
As with previous EU treaties, Lisbon puts undistorted competition at the center of economic policy. 'Price stability' is put into Art 2, as the fundamental upon which all other policy must fit around. It is the sole remit of the European Central Bank, whatever the impact on jobs, incomes or public services. EU economic policy will be based on unrestricted competition, low public spending and the control of inflation. Lisbon would only add to the race to the bottom.

Militarisation
It is clear that Lisbon accelerates the militarisation of the EU. Art 28 commits the EU to a 'common defence', even if by unanimous agreement. But if we vote for this Treaty, we are tied into a commitment to increase military spending. We could also be pressed to give military support to another Member State, or to a non-EU state, in what EU leaders call the fight against terrorism.

Lisbon would allow a group of well-armed states to form a military alliance within the EU in cooperation with US-dominated NATO. The remaining states would have no say in the workings of this group, but its actions would inevitably affect us all. Lisbon reinforces EU-NATO links and gives the US more influence over European foreign policy. Yet the Treaty would not require a UN mandate for EU military action.

Efficiency?
As to why the EU elite want this treaty, it has nothing to do with 'efficiency'. The Commission itself says that there has been no slow-down in decision-making since enlargement to 27 member states. If we have 15 Ministers and 20 Ministers of State for a population of 4 million, why the need to go from 27 to 18 EU Commissioners for a population of 500 million?

The real reason is that with the powers added by Lisbon, the EU would be able to make or influence law on all aspects of life. Now that the competences have been gained, the voting changes are needed to push decisions through against possible objections. Many more decisions would be made by qualified majority: unpopular policies, like trade deals and service charges, would be pushed through more easily.

Powers to the European Parliament do not redress the lack of accountability of the Commission, nor the enshrinement of neoliberal and militarising policies in Treaties we cannot change. The supposed increased powers to National Parliaments and the Citizens Initiative are window dressing – intended to give the impression of accountability but lacking any real power.

If we don’t like our government, we can vote them out. But we can’t change EU treaties once they’re in place. Lisbon offers nothing to ordinary people and would give us less control. We say vote No.

Ends.

Press enquiries: Brendan Young 085 713 1903 Barry Finnegan 085 142 3454

Notes:

QMV would decide on most trade agreements in health, education and social services because we already have a public-private mix, so couldn't object to more multinationals. We also have a fee-regime in our health system, so for the EU these services are 'economic activities'. An 'economic activity' is any service for which charges are made, to the user or to the state.

If charges apply, the rules which allow a company from any other EU state to bid to deliver the service come into play. The European Commission says (White Paper, 20-11-2007) that the “vast majority of services can be regarded as 'economic activities' within the meaning of the Treaties (Art 43 and 49)”. International trade agreements would simply allow non-EU multinationals bid to deliver these services, including more of our health, education and social services.

The Commission's White Paper, which lays out policy, incorporates the Protocol on Services of General Interest. The government and others claim this Protocol would protect public services. It's clear that they all envisage public services increasingly being delivered by private-for-profit businesses, EU or non-EU, with the users or the state paying and the state acting as regulator. This includes health services. And in order to ensure international trade deals are not blocked by objecting governments, Lisbon would change decision-making to QMV rather than unanimity.

save preference

Comments (13 of 13)

Paula's pics

by MichaelY - CAEUC

Tue May 20, 2008 18:13

of the CAEUC Press Conference earlier today

Brendan chairing - Patricia introducing

Patricia, Richard (People Before Profit) and Sinead (SWP)

Joe (Socialist Party) and Roger (PANA)

Some of the reps of our affiliates

More Paula pics

Tue May 20, 2008 18:23

of Press Conference

Thanks to UNITE for the use of their boardroom

Daithi (Sinn Fein) in excellent mood

Daithi (eirigi) outlines campaign aims

Padraig (Workers Party) refers to threats of privatisation

Morning Ireland (21.05.208)

by Curious

Wed May 21, 2008 10:48

"This is why the European TUC has called for a supplementary 'social clause' that would ensure the right to take action for more than minimum wages would not be overruled in EU law by the right to conduct business across internal EU borders (Art 49). Such a clause can only be gained by a NO VOTE, forcing re-negotiation."

This was refuted on Morning Ireland this morning. They read out a signed letter from John Monks saying that they had never asked for a 'social clause' and that he wanted the treaty ratified as quickly as possible. Seemingly this was in a letter sent to Kathy Sinnott and cc'ed to Beggs and De Rossa. Is this true?

percentage poser

by fringe man

Wed May 21, 2008 11:12

The affiliates include -

Communist Party of Ireland
Community & Workers Action Group, Crumlin
éirígí
Irish Anti-War Movement
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Irish Socialist Network
Peace and Neutrality Alliance
People Before Profit Alliance
People's Movement
Sinn Fein
Socialist Party
Socialist Workers Party
Workers Party

Aha, I say, how many votes did their candidates get altogether in the last election? What percentage of the national vote was that? How many of these groups have overlapping memberships? How many of them could hold their agms in half a dozen telephone kiosks?

I'm voting No without guidance from these wonderful Affiliates.

Overlapping

by kbranno

Wed May 21, 2008 11:43

Apart from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit Alliance and the People's Movement, (SWP fronts) none of the other parties have overlapping memberships. Eirigi members in Sinn Fein........ CP members in the SP...........

Is there going to be audio from the meeting uploaded?

Also are there dates for future meetings? Swords (Irelands biggest Town and soon to be city!) has yet to hold a meeting on Lisbon despite there being a strong(ish) SP in the town.

Two replies to our friends above

Wed May 21, 2008 12:19

Fringe man,
The important thing is that you, and hopefully your friends, will vote NO !! The affiliated organisations have a lot of accumulated experience and a very detailed knowledge of the Treaty. We are distributing about half a million VOTE NO leaflets nationally and we found the response very very positive. People, and particularly working class people, want information. Finally, for your consideration, think what the French PM said recently: "We didn't want a referendum in France because there is a serious gap, chasm, between the political class and the people". Do you agree that the same gap exists here in Ireland?

DBranno,
Following your message, I've contacted our comrades in the Socialist Party and they're considering the idea of a Public Meeting in Swords. You can call us in the office 01-8727912 or go to the CAEUC website www.sayno.ie for further info

by Le Phare

Wed May 21, 2008 12:25

"Apart from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, People Before Profit Alliance and the People's Movement, (SWP fronts)"

PANA is just Roger Cole. The People's movement is basically a CP front featuring Patricia McKenna. But yeah PBPA is definately a SWP front, although they've been going a while now so they might have some independants involved (maybe.)

Full text of the ETUC submission to the EU Parliament Employment Committee on Laval

Wed May 21, 2008 12:31

Curious,
Monks is rewriting history
Check Par 9

Presentation to the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of the EP
1. Chairman, thank you for this invitation to present the views of the ETUC on these two cases. We are grateful that you have moved swiftly to deal with them. They are of massive importance to the European trade union world, and not just to our colleagues directly affected in Sweden/Latvia and Finland/Estonia. It is deeply ironic that the Swedish and Danish models – the widely respected home of flexicurity - are under particular pressure from these cases.
2. They are different cases with different implications and the Viking case in particular has not yet finished its legal journey. The consequences of the Laval case for the Swedish system are the subject of social partner negotiations in Sweden, and talks are also underway in Denmark which shares many similarities with Sweden. But the cases have huge European importance to which I want to draw your attention.
3. In effect, in the Laval case, the European Court of Justice, by accident or design, has come close to challenging the European Parliament’s compromise position on the Services Directive by ruling that the free movement of services can impede the exercise of trade union fundamental rights to demand equal treatment. Collective action by unions to push for equal pay with host country workers could be regarded as an obstacle to free movement (although the ECJ recognised there could be an overriding public interest to avoid social dumping).
4. In the Viking case, although there are positive features to this case, one worrying point in particular stands out. The Court stressed that collective action must be “proportionate” to the issue in dispute and has indicated that the action of the International Transport Workers was not proportionate. (This issue is now referred to a UK court if the case is not otherwise settled between the parties). We are now left with not knowing what is “proportionate” action and what is not. Presumably a court will define “proportionality” in the context of each case, so creating intolerable uncertainty for unions involved in virtually any case of industrial action over migration and free movement, a naturally growing area for disputes as Europe integrates its labour and services markets. In some member states, the right to strike is a first rank constitutional right and this is now at risk. So, generally, is trade union autonomy.
5. The Laval case is unclear as to the question of when collective agreements set standards above minimum levels; are these standards recognisable by the ECJ as applicable standards? A German case – the Rueffert case – will be important on this issue when the judgment is issued in mid March.
6. So we are being told that the right to strike is a fundamental right but not so fundamental as the EU’s free movement provisions. This is a licence for social dumping and for unions being prevented from taking action to improve matters. Any company in a transnational dispute has the opportunity to use this judgement against union actions, alleging “disproportionality”.
7. This is intolerable and I am asking you today to initiate action to repair the damage being done. Unions across Europe are now deeply concerned with defending their national systems – and we risk a protectionist reaction. Bolkestein derailed the EU Constitutional Treaty. The Laval case, in particular, could damage the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty as awareness of its implications spreads.
8. What can be done to repair the damage? Our Executive meets next week and we are still at work on these two complex cases, but our proposals are as follows:
9. Firstly, quickly, we need a “Social Progress Clause” issued in anticipation of the EU Reform Treaty (article 5(a)), which firmly establishes that the Treaty and especially its fundamental freedoms shall be interpreted as respecting the observance of fundamental rights and especially collective action. It should also establish the rights of workers and their representatives to take collective action to improve their working and living conditions above minimum standards. (There is a precedent for this procedure with the Amsterdam Treaty to which the Employment Chapter was added at a late stage. There are also precedents with the Monti clause and the Services Directive).
10. Second, the Posted Workers Directive should be strengthened to fulfil its original aims of protecting workers. We have to reflect on the need for a revision.
11. Third, we need the speedy implementation of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive which has been blocked in the Council of Ministers. This Directive is highly relevant to mobility and migration and its principle of equal treatment would reassure unions that the EU was not to be a vehicle for social dumping.
12. The idea of social Europe has taken a blow. Put simply, the action of employers using free movement as a pretext for social dumping practices is resulting in unions having to justify, ultimately to the courts, the actions they take against those employers’ tactics. That is both wrong and dangerous. Wrong because workers’ rights to equal treatment in the host country should be the guiding principle. Wrong because unions must be autonomous. And dangerous because it reinforces those critics of Europe who have long said that liberal Europe would always threaten the generally excellent social, collective bargaining and welfare systems built up since the Second World War.
13. Europe needs to move fast to repair the damage.