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.