The EU treaty, developments in the European Union, and people’s struggle
International conference organised by the Communist Party of Greece,
Athens, 14–16 March 2008
Speech by Eugene McCartan, general secretary, Communist Party of Ireland
Comrades,
This gathering of communist and workers’ parties is taking place at a very important time for workers, not just within the European Union but for all those struggling for global justice and world peace. European monopoly capitalism and the political elite that serves its class interests are making a grab for absolute power, free from any democratic accountability or control.
The Treaty of Lisbon would be the capstone on a process begun many decades ago to consolidate the power and influence of European monopoly capitalism, in alliance with global imperialism. The Treaty of Lisbon would be a major step in the consolidation of their dominance, giving renewed impetus to the construction of this new imperialist bloc.
It is our view that we are moving into a new phase, in which there is a potential conflict not just here in Europe but also around the globe as the struggle for the control and exploitation of natural resources, such as oil, water, and food supplies, becomes ever more pressing.
In Ireland, democratic forces are challenging the political establishment and building opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon, the re-branded and twice-rejected “Constitution for Europe,” in a number of essential areas: democracy, sovereignty, militarisation, and neo-liberalism.
I do not intend to give a detailed analysis of the Treaty of Lisbon, as I know that many parties have been actively involved in the struggle to achieve the democratic right of their people to decide on this fundamental shift in political power and assault on national democracy. But I will outline some of our objections and some of the principal arguments being developed in Ireland in regard to this treaty as the campaign gathers pace.
The hollowing out of democracy
It is clear from our reading of this treaty that it is a major assault upon national democracy and the further undermining of democratic accountability. The Treaty of Lisbon clearly lays out the requirement that EU law would have primacy over the Constitution of Ireland and Irish law in any conflict between the two.
The treaty would give the European Union greater powers to make laws that would be binding on everyone in many new areas, without any democratic mandate or contribution, and would further erode the role of national parliaments and the ability of citizens to influence and effect change at the national level.
The treaty would create a decisive shift in relation to law and decision-making in the European Union towards the bigger states and away from the small states, making it almost impossible for the smaller states to influence decisions or to block decisions they did not agree with. Thirty-two new areas in which the European Union could make laws are to be removed from national parliaments and thereby from any democratic accountability.
The EU Commission would retain the monopoly on proposing laws to the Council of Ministers, and under the Lisbon treaty it would be able to make laws in a range of new areas. The EU Parliament is essentially a talking-shop, putting a democratic veneer on what would essentially be an anti-democratic federal superstate.
The EU Council of Ministers would obtain additional powers to make decisions in sixty-two new areas by “qualified majority voting,” thereby removing the national veto from those areas. This is a further erosion of national democracy and accountability and would strengthen rule by diktat. Already 80 per cent of all laws affecting our lives are made by Brussels, and it is estimated that 80 per cent of those laws are never discussed or debated by any democratically accountable body. Laws are drafted by specialised committees gathered around the Commission. Recently it emerged that an estimated three thousand such committees exist, their personnel unknown. This is designed to allow corporate lobbyists the maximum influence over laws and decision-making by the Commission and thereby the Council of Ministers.
The central thrust of the whole process has been towards the construction of a laisser-faire superstate giving maximum freedom of operation to capital with a minimum of regulation, and the maximum regulation of labour with a minimum of rights.
While we may still elect national governments and we may have the appearance of democracy, it is clear that over the coming decades democracy at the national level will be hollowed out, devoid of any real or meaningful substance.
Superior and inferior rights
Workers’ and citizens’ rights would be determined by the European Court of Justice, a body that is highly politicised and has already set down in case law verdicts that the rights of the “market,” i.e. capital, are superior to those of workers. We know that this has always been so under bourgeois law, but it has never been so explicitly stated before. If they succeed in their strategy we will have more rights as consumers than as citizens.
The most recent decision in the Vaxholm and Laval cases has set a legal precedent and in fact has virtually made the much-trumpeted “Charter of Fundamental Right” irrelevant. This “charter” has been presented by social democrats as the legitimisation of “Social Europe.” The Irish Labour Party and leading elements within the Irish trade union movement are still attempting to sell this charter as a victory.
What is taking place is the construction of a European Union in which workers will be pitched against each other in a race to the bottom. The Laval judgement in regard to “posted workers” has in effect reintroduced the “country of origin” concept. “Divide and rule” will become the main card to be played by employers, pitting workers from central and eastern Europe against workers in western Europe. Already in Ireland, with the slow-down and near-collapse of house building, difficulties are beginning to develop on building sites between Irish and non-Irish building workers. Rates of pay and conditions have come under sustained downward pressure.
This, coupled with the growing number of services directives, regarding railways, health, etc., is all about opening up public services to competition—that is, privatisation. This strategy is for pushing more and more public capital into private or corporate hands, narrowing the public economy and the state’s role in economic decision-making and the provision of services. The latest danger to social gains is coming in the form of the Health Service Directive, which both the Irish and British governments have succeeded in having put on hold until after the ratification process. This will begin to build two-tier medical provision throughout the European Union.
If rights are fundamental, they are rights in all circumstances; but under decisions of the European Court of Justice they are not fundamental or absolute but must be considered in relation to their social function. Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market. This is the nightmare scenario for the workers’ movement in Europe.
But if we read the recent statement from John Monks, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, on the Laval judgement, we can detect panic within the ranks of social democracy. For decades they have peddled the illusion that the European Union was the only way in today’s globalised world in which workers could defend the social and economic gains made by the working class. They pinned their hopes on the “Charter” saving them from attacks by capital.
A global player in its own right
As provided in the rejected constitution, under the Treaty of Lisbon the European Union would have its own legal personality, thereby altering the legal relationship between the European Union and its member-states. For the first time the European Union itself would be a legal personality, separate from—and superior to—its constituent member-states. It would have its own president, elected by “qualified majority vote” of the Council of Ministers for two-and-a-half years, with the possibility of extending this to five years. In addition, the European Union would appoint its own “high representative” or foreign minister, who would be responsible for common foreign, security and defence policies, and it would also have its own diplomatic corps abroad.
This is clearly stated in the treaty. “The Member States shall facilitate the achievements of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.” In other words, member-states must give precedence to the objectives of the European Union. From an Irish viewpoint, this would certainly mean an end to any independent foreign policy and, we would argue, an end to any independent foreign policy positions by other member-states.
Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union states: “The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy,” and “the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever increasing degree of convergence of the Member States’ action.”
From our viewpoint, this would be the death knell of what little remains of Irish neutrality and of the possibility of having any distinctly Irish view on world affairs. “Mutual political solidarity” would make it impossible to have an independent position once the European Union had taken a position. If we take the example of the UN Security Council, the European Union would demand the right to speak there for all EU member-states, and the members would have to vote accordingly.
This would lead to a situation where the developing countries would be faced with a new, more powerful, united imperialist bloc. It would certainly have an impact on those countries within the European Union that might not display the same hostility towards Cuba as, for instance, Britain and Germany.
Internal security apparatus
Though there is no overt statement to this effect in the proposed treaty, further articles dealing with the areas of security, freedom and justice can only lead to this conclusion. Operational co-operation on internal security would be promoted and strengthened through a standing committee. “Internal security” now extends to “non-military crisis management,” “external border management,” and the maintenance of public order.
There is every possibility that the term “operational”—as we know from decades of experience—would be used to exclude the committee from all normal mechanisms of democratic and judicial control and rules on access to documents.
A common defence policy
The Treaty of Lisbon states unambiguously: “The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.” This is an example of the incremental “policy creep” that has characterised each successive EU treaty.
It further states that member-states must “make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy” and “undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.” This is reinforced by a mutual defence clause: “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power . . .”
The present adventure in Chad is the embryonic first step of “EUFOR,” pushing its agenda in Africa, and the future resources wars, all done under the pretext of “humanitarian assistance” or the more outwardly aggressive approach the European Union has taken in the Balkans.
Those who have been critical of the direction in which the process of EU integration is going have, we believe, been proved to be correct.
What the process under way and what the Treaty of Lisbon would copper-fasten is the construction of a new type of neo-liberalist imperialist state. It certainly confirms the argument that monopoly capitalism can create a United States of Europe, but it cannot and will not allow a democratic Europe.
The imperialist nature of the whole process needs to be clearly understood if we are to effect any counter-offensive that would have the potential of opening up the road for a more progressive economic and social development.
The Irish and the EU elites are attempting to portray the Treaty of Lisbon as nothing more than a tidying-up operation that is necessary for an expanded European Union of twenty-seven states. Leading members of the Irish Green Party and Labour Party are promoting the so-called “citizens’ initiative,” greater power for the European Parliament to propose amendments to laws, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the six words dealing with climate change in the treaty as a victory for democracy.
The Vaxholm and Laval judgements have crystallised the impact of the services directives and have exposed as never before the main forces driving EU integration and the building of the internal market. Many thousands of workers throughout the European Union have become aware of what is now at stake and are looking for leadership and direction.
Clearly, social democracy is unable and, most importantly, unwilling to mobilise workers in defence of their jobs and of social advances made. Conditions are now opening up for an alternative process to be presented, one that can win the support of working people. We need to present our struggle and demands in terms of the defence of democracy and accountability. More and more, the struggle for democracy will take on the form of class struggle in the battle to gain more control over economic and social policy at the national level. We are involved in the struggle to defend the gains achieved as a result of both the French Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia.
We would argue that not alone is the struggle for and about democracy but it is also anti-imperialist in character, as shown by the aggressive and predatory nature of the European Union in its economic and political relationship with the countries of the majority world. This is now being exposed in its continuing effort to impose unjust and unfair trade agreements in the form of so-called “economic partnership agreements” with more than a hundred countries.
Though there are some differences among us, we can and must find common ground in the defence of workers’ rights and of our social gains, now under renewed attack. Unity can be won in the struggle for the defence of national democracy, for the defence of public services, of resistance to the growing militarisation, for the mobilisation of workers in defence of their rights and social gains, and to combat social dumping and prevent the abuse of migrant workers. |