Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Arthur MorganArthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin is vigorously opposing the Lisbon treaty and will be campaigning across the State for a "No" vote. We are opposing the treaty because it is, from any reasonable assessment, not in Ireland's interests. We are disappointed that there are not more voices in this House courageous enough to admit that fact.

We can judge this treaty by asking the following questions. Does it bring a much needed improvement in democracy to European Union institutions? Does it facilitate nation states in protecting their own interests and making key socioeconomic decisions based on individual needs and circumstances in their own jurisdictions? Is our neutrality protected? The treaty fails on all these counts.

Deputies from other parties who speak in favour of the treaty are falling short in their duty to the Irish people. They are not being honest with the electorate about the contents of the treaty or its implications. In meekly signing up to a treaty that erodes our say in decision making at EU level, they are betraying the ideals of independence, autonomy and self government, which were fought for in the struggle for Irish freedom by many generations. We should have no fear of rejecting this treaty and sending it back for renegotiation and improvement. Doing this will ultimately be in the interests of all the peoples of Europe who deserve better than this flawed treaty.

Sinn Féin believes that co-operation with our European partners is valuable and must continue. We have a clear sense of what is needed to improve democracy in European Union institutions and are, as far as I am aware, the only party to bring forward proposals for real reform in this regard.

I want to focus on the treaty's implications for workers' rights. We have supported EU measures that are in Ireland's interests, particularly those which have advanced workers' rights in the past. However, not everything emanating from Europe has been good for workers in this State. A general shift to the right by the EU has seen the implementation of an agenda of privatisation, deregulation and attacks on workers' rights. This is a matter of great concern to trade unions in Ireland and across the EU. Recently, David Begg, the general secretary of ICTU, addressed a discussion on the Lisbon treaty at the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and summed this up by stating: "While business rights are being codified and strengthened, workers can only expect loose frameworks and vague approaches to enforcement".

Over the last number of years we have had the Services Directive, which sought to allow service providers to operate outside the laws of the country where the service is being provided, creating a race to the bottom in terms of workers' rights.

Trade unions and workers were shocked at the recent European Court of Justice judgment in the Laval case which, interpreting existing treaties, upheld the right of a Latvian company operating in Sweden to import Latvian workers to do the job at Latvian rates rather than compelling them to pay Swedish rates. Last week, a similar judgment was passed in favour of a Polish company operating in Germany. The court has also found against the Finnish seafarers' union for trying to prevent shipowners displacing Finnish shippers with lower paid workers from Estonia. This court clearly views trade unions and collective bargaining agreements as a barrier to what it would describe as the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — by which, of course, we mean labour.

Last year, we had the EU Green Paper on flexicurity which called for an end to "overtly protective terms and conditions" in workers' contracts on the basis that "stringent employment protection tends to reduce the dynamism of the labour market". We have also witnessed a failure to protect pay and conditions and to enforce labour law when our labour market was opened to workers from the accession states.

It is worth noting that when the Government makes enthusiastic speeches in favour of the Lisbon treaty, it is not so enthusiastic about everything Europe proposes, particularly when it comes to enshrining workers' rights in legislation. For the last five years, the Government has obstructed the EU directive on agency workers, together with Britain. The directive is one of the more positive moves by the EU. As a result of that and the failure to introduce domestic legislation, the exploitation of agency workers and the depression of sectors through cheap agency labour have become prolific in this State.

This treaty, which is being supported by the Government and the other Opposition parties is a further blow to workers' rights. The key argument of those seeking to convince trade unionists to vote yes in the Lisbon referendum is bogus. The Charter of Fundamental Rights does not guarantee the right to strike. Article 28 of the Charter appended to the Lisbon treaty, states that workers have the right to collective bargaining and to take strike action only "in accordance with national laws and practices". SIPTU general president, Jack O'Connor, has argued that "in the light of the Laval decision, the charter now only has validity in the context of what the Government does here".

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is being used at any and every occasion to push and support the treaty. Sinn Féin strongly supports any measures that enhance the protection and promotion of human rights and equality. We support the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in so far as it reflects pre-existing human rights standards, applies them to the EU institutions and member states when implementing EU law, and thus potentially provides greater legal certainty. However, the idea that the charter is somehow a major step forward in human rights is an illusion. Even its advocates acknowledge that it is little more than a restatement of existing human rights law. In its analysis of the charter, the Institute for European Affairs argues that it "does not create any new rights" and, moreover, that the social and economic rights in the charter "do not give rise to direct claims for positive action". Its potential positives are severely curtailed by a number of features, not least its numerous limitation clauses. We also question the EU's actual commitment to the charter. If it is of real value to the protection and promotion of human rights in the EU, its incorporation into law should not be contingent on acceptance of this treaty. It should be done immediately.

There are other issues within the Lisbon treaty that will negatively impact on key economic issues such as competitiveness, growth and social inclusion. The privatisation agenda of the EU has served Ireland badly. Look at the debacle in Eircom, which has had six owners since 1999, with massive profit-taking only matched by the company's debt creation. Its current owners are desperately trying to separate the company structurally so as to sell off assets, while we are left with the worst broadband provision and the highest line rental costs in Europe. It is a sorry legacy for Eircom.

The liberalisation of the electricity market has led to artificially higher energy prices to encourage new entrants we are told, while we slip behind in investing in and developing renewable energy resources which are abundant on this island. EU surveys show that Irish consumers already pay a mighty 42% more than the EU average for housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels, 25% more for education and 24% more for health. The Lisbon treaty will make this situation even worse. Of particular concern is the possibility of the education and health sectors being privatised.

The European Commission leads negotiations on trade in services, including health and education services, at the World Trade Organisation. The Council of Ministers appoints the negotiator, currently Commissioner Peter Mandelson, and a planning committee. We all know that Commissioner Mandelson comes with considerable history and baggage. Under the Lisbon treaty, not only is the Commission given greater scope in the negotiation of international trade agreements but Ireland also loses its veto in all but a small number of cases.

Under current arrangements, the Council approves all trade deals, with the exception of those relating to health, education and cultural and audio-visual services, by qualified majority voting. The Lisbon treaty removes the requirement for unanimity in these four areas other than in exceptional circumstances. In other words, the Government could not veto a deal, unless it could show in advance that it would risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services. As there is no definition of what this means, it is open to interpretation by anyone. This could have serious consequences for health and education services and, I might add, workers in these sectors.

The treaty tries to police further public spending. We are all aware of the need to manage inflation but Article 2 of the treaty makes price stability an aim of the European Union, rather than a function of the European Central Bank. This could be used by the Union to exert indirect pressure on member states to reduce public spending. At a time when our health and education services are crying out for investment this simply does not make sense.

There is much more in the treaty that will damage the ability of the economy to function. Article 48 which will remove the need for unanimity and replace it with qualified majority voting will have a wide reaching impact on the economy, particularly with regard to tax harmonisation and our ability to set taxes at a rate which will allow this state to compete for foreign direct investment.

As we enter a period of economic uncertainty, it is clear that the Lisbon treaty does not equip Ireland or the European Union with the tools necessary for sustainable economic development or social inclusion. In some senses the debate on the treaty is a debate about different visions for the future of the Irish and EU economy. Supporters of the treaty are offering a future of greater liberalisation, more competition and privatisation, for example, in postal services — more inequality and poverty, greater risk and vulnerability to global instability.

The European Union has done much during the years to promote a more social Europe. Unfortunately, in the past decade these gains have been undermined by successive treaties that have sought to sacrifice social Europe in favour of a narrowly defined focus on economic competitiveness. Those of us opposing the treaty are arguing for a more sustainable and egalitarian future in which economic development will be based on social inclusion and cohesion, environmental sustainability, high quality public services and real competitiveness, greater democratic control over the management of the economy and a more equitable global economic order.

I have one more point to make regarding the scurrilous and erroneous accusations made by proponents of the treaty against Sinn Féin's policy on neutrality. My party believes strongly in Ireland playing a positive role on the international stage. We believe in combating the causes of conflict and instability by addressing global inequalities, poverty and disease. Peace has been achieved on this island and we want to see peace in other countries. However, we are also strongly in favour of the State's policy of neutrality. We have opposed Government policies such as on the use of Shannon Airport for US military personnel and aircraft en route to Iraq and rendition flights. We are opposed to the European Union playing a distinct and separate role on the world stage.

The treaty's cheerleaders argue that the triple lock mechanism, whereby military interventions abroad require a UN mandate and the consent of the Government and Leinster House, defends our neutrality. However, the triple lock mechanism has already been weakened following the passage of legislation in 2007 opening the way for military interventions abroad based on UN authorisation, rather than a formal mandate. This requires a weaker form of UN assent. Other sections, including Article 28 (B) 1, which list and expand the military interventions deemed possible, move us further down the road towards a common defence. When Commissioner Romano Prodi asked in 2001, "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power?", this was the vision to which he was alluding.

We have earned our place in Europe and our position is not under threat. We cannot be held to ransom by demands that exceed what we as a people are willing to give. The Government said "No" to Europe when such a response was in its singular, narrow interests. I have already given examples of this and the five years spent obstructing an EU directive on agency workers is another. Now let the people say "No" without lies and threats because this treaty is not in their interests.

The EU constitution was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands in democratic votes. Many admit that this treaty consists of around 95% of the EU constitution already rejected. However, no state other than Ireland is offering its people a referendum on it — I wonder why that is. Why are other states afraid to face the people with the treaty? Is it because they are concerned it will face the same verdict given to the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands? I believe that is the case.

Under the treaty, Ireland will lose out on having a Commissioner in five of every 15 years. We are told that there would not be work for 27 Commissioners from 27 states and that such a system would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic. In Ireland there are 15 senior Ministers and 20 Ministers of State; a total of 35 for a population of 4.5 million people, yet a figure of 27 Commissioners is deemed too many for a population in the region of 496 million. I do not see the logic in this and hope someone can point it out for me.

Earlier contributors suggested the treaty was not a complex document but I wish I had it with me in order that I could read some clauses from it to demonstrate its complexity. However, it is not so complex that it should not be debated and discussed. I welcome the debates taking place across the State, many organised by parties represented in the House. For example, Fine Gael is holding a series of meetings, which I welcome. Whether I agree with it, at least this offers public debate on an important issue.

An earlier contributor also told us that national parliaments would give an opinion on proposed EU legislation. That is just wonderful and reminds me of being a member of the Opposition in this House. We can give all the opinions we want but the Government, like the EU institutions, will pay no attention to us. I question whether any real influence can be exerted.

I look forward to continuing a campaign of opposition to what I believe to be a fundamentally flawed treaty. I intend to approach this campaign enthusiastically in the final weeks that remain, as I understand the date for the referendum is expected to be 12 June. I look forward to debating the treaty in the House and other fora.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.