Trade unionists have been told for years by eurofederalists that the EU would deliver workers' rights and full employment. However, a number of recent events have clarified the nature of the EU and shattered these illusions forever.
In December 2007, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Viking and Vaxholm cases that taking strike action was not, after all, a fundamental right under EU rules. Also in December, EU leaders in Lisbon also officially adopted the curious word 'flexicurity' as a concept.Combined, these events represent the greatest threat to trade unionism, democracy and social progress since World War Two. For example, 'flexicurity' makes the false promise that if workers embrace "flexibility" then job "security" will follow, surely a contradiction in terms. The architects of this new word 'flexicurity' reside in the European commission and corporate lobbyists like the European Round Table of industrialists and the concept is designed to fatally undermine collective bargaining. 'Flexicurity' demands the abolition of "overtly protective terms and conditions" in contracts which supposedly "deter employers from hiring during economic upturns". In plain language, this would mean an end to collective workers' rights. The paper also claims that "stringent employment protection tends to reduce the dynamism of the labour market" - and presumably without unions there would be a permanent economic boom.. Unite General Secretary Derek Simpson told The Times (22/1/07) that the concept "hides behind the language of equality to propose measures to force exploitation and insecurity on to every worker in Europe". The biggest trade union in Cyprus, PEO, recently declared that 'flexicurity' represents "a very dangerous attempt to completely smash existing labour laws and gains" increasing the trend towards "casual uninsured jobs". "The changes being sought are aimed in reality at easing labour protection rules, the abolition of full and steady employment as well as the marginalisation of collective agreements," it said. Flexicurity also suggests that contractor obligations to monitor employment legislation among sub-contractor: "may serve to restrain subcontracting by foreign firms and present an obstacle to the free provision of services in the internal market". That brings us to the recent ECJ judgments. It is no accident that both the Viking and Vaxholm cases attack trade union collective bargaining rights in Scandinavian countries, where they are enshrined in law and the constitutions. This is the social model which is most at odds with the EU where the 'smooth operation of the market', as the EU constitution puts it, overrides any other rights or considerations.In both cases Swedish and Finnish unions sought to prevent companies paying foreign labour up to 60 per cent lower wages. The ruling claimed that while there is a "fundamental" right to take collective industrial action, Industrial action represents a restriction on the right of freedom of establishment where it makes the exercise of that right "less attractive". But industrial action is, by its very nature, an obstacle to the activities of a company and free movement. However, the ECJ has now declared in both cases that EU rules on the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour gives private firms protection against collective action by trade unions. In other words an employers' right to "freedom of establishment" trumps the right to strike.Richard Arthur of Thompsons said that the ECJ rulings were 'absurd' and 'ludicrious' and ran roughshod over universally recognised trade union rights. It was worse, in fact, than the anti-union laws in the UK. "Tory anti-union legislation only restricted the right to strike by introducing stringent procedures in order to carry out industrial action. "However, the European Court of Justice has now given itself the opportunity to scrutinize the legitimacy and the proportionality of any given dispute and the effect on the employer," he said. An article in Tribune recently declared that trade unionists were 'surprised' by the rulings. However, many years ago the ECJ stated in another case that: "it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market". So the human right of withdrawing your labour must not interfere with the 'common organisation of the market'.Taff Vale Such rulings are reminiscent of the infamous judgment in 1901 in favour of the Taff Vale Railway against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for having the audacity to take strike action. The 'crime' then was known as being "in restraint of trade". Today, it is called 'freedom of establishment'. Under the renamed EU Constitution, currently being scrutinized in parliament, the ECJ - an EU institution - would gain huge new powers over member states. The constitution also gives the EU a permanent neo-liberal orientation and gives Brussels the power to privatise - the main reason for the No votes in both France and the Netherlands. It also persuaded TUC delegates to vote against the Constitution at the TUC in 2005 and renew its call for a referendum in 2007. For instance, Article III-147 of the old Constitution gives the EU powers to enforce privatisation in any area of economic activity: "A European framework law shall establish the measures in order to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service". That provision remains in the renamed Constitution.That is why flexicurity, EU court judgments and EU rules on 'free movement' - all enshrined in the renamed EU constitution - represent the most fundamental attacks on working people for a generation. We are at a crossroads. If there is a European Social Model it is enshrined in flexicurity, ECJ rulings and mass privatisation and it should be rejected like the renamed constitution itself.
Attacking your right strike: "Absurd" and "ludicrous" is how leading trade union law firm Thompsons described recent European Court of Justice judgments in two test cases which claimed that strike action offended European Union rules.
According to Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons, the cases - known as Viking and Vaxholm respectively - are far more restrictive than even the anti-union laws brought in by successive Tory governments in the 1980's. The first case involved Finnish ferry company Viking Line, which attempted to reflag one of its ships to Estonia and replace Finnish seafarers with cheaper Estonian labour. Protesting against this clear social dumping, Finnish workers attempted to launch strike action. Viking then began legal proceedings and the European Court of Justice has sat on the case for over three years. The Vaxholm case similarly began after Swedish trade unionists attempted to prevent Latvian firm Laval paying poverty wages to Latvian builders working in the Swedish town of Vaxholm. The ECJ has now declared in both cases that EU rules on the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour gives private firms protection against collective action by trade unions. In other words an employers' right to "freedom of establishment" trumps the right to strike. Richard Arthur of Thompsons said that the ECJ rulings ran roughshod over trade union rights which have been almost universally recognised in numerous international treaties for many decades. "Tory anti-union legislation only restricted the right to strike by introducing stringent procedures in order to carry out industrial action. "However, the European Court of Justice has now given itself the opportunity to scrutinize the legitimacy and the proportionality of any given dispute and the effect on the employer," he said. Furthermore, in the Vaxholm case, the right to strike is superseded where an employer complains that the union is seeking terms and conditions in excess of the minimum provided by the Posted Workers Directive. This highlights the fact that the Posted Workers Directive is designed to remove obstacles to the freedom of firms to provide services abroad - not to provide social protection for workers. In fact, it is a mechanism for exporting low pay to other member states. You may say, well at least the right to strike is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, right? Wrong. Article 28 of the Charter, appended to the renamed EU constitution, says workers may 'take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action'. But an Explanation in Declaration 12 also qualifies this by stating: 'The limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices'. Moreover, the entire Charter can be suspended at any time to protect the 'general interests' of the EU or, of course, if it interferes with 'the smooth operation of the market'.
Presently, only Ireland is holding a referendum on the renamed constitution. It will probably take place in May or June 2008.
Le Pen invitation causes political storm in Ireland
French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen and his deputy, Bruno Gollnisch, have been invited by the law society in one of Ireland's main universities to speak ahead of the referendum on the renmaed constitution. The federalists in Ireland have been running a long campaign in the media trying to get the Le Pen to come to Ireland to try to discredit the democratic movement.
The EU Constitution would contribute to the continued decline in the manufacturing sector we have witnessed in Britain over the last thirty years.
A recent TUC report revealed that government support for UK manufacturing is the lowest in Europe and that the UK has lost 750,000 manufacturing jobs since 1997 due to 'low levels of government support and chronic underinvestment'. However, under the EU constitution, all state aid would be directly controlled by the Commission and the rules enforced more vigorously. This would make it significantly harder to direct UK government investment into essential industries and services. All substantial government procurement and manufacturing investments and transfers have to be open to private competition across the member states. A good example of how EU rules and unaccountable institutions undermine UK manufacturing is the closure of Peugeot's UK plant in Ryton, Coventry in 2006. The closure of Ryton and the shift of production of the French company's cars to Slovakia was not an 'inevitable' casualty of 'globalisation', as Prime Minister Tony Blair weakly tried to claim, but was a direct result of EU policies. Problems began for Ryton in 2002 when the UK government agreed a request of state aid from Peugeot- to be approved by Brussels - of around £14 million, so that the company could build its 207 model in Britain. Inexplicably, the European Commission sat on the request for two years - by which time Peugeot had switched 207 production to France and now to a new factory in Trnava, Slovakia. An investment in the skills of Coventry's engineering workers of over £190 million was withheld because it took two years for Brussels to approve a state subsidy of just £14 million. As a result, over 2,300 more UK manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Meanwhile, since 2003, million of euros of EU state aid have been pumped into the new Peugeot/Citroen plant in Slovakia. In other words, while Brussels sat on the UK request for state aid, it was pouring funds into upgrading the Trnava site and its surrounding infrastructure. The Slovakian government realising the critical importance of building manufacturing capacity offered Peugeot £73 million in subsidy, free land, The closure of Ryton and the shift of production of the French company's cars to Slovakia was not an 'inevitable' casualty of 'globalisation'construction-financing, local infrastructure enhancement, a 10-year "tax holiday" and local labour training subsidies - all approved by Brussels. A Single Programming deal between the Commission and Slovakia also gave massive EU funding for transport links near the site. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) now says that Peugeot cited "proximity of quality transport links as one of the critical factors in picking Trnava". PSA/Peugeot-Citroen already plans to expand capacity at Trnava to 500,000 cars by 2009. The Financial Times explained: "by 2008 Slovakia will be turning out 1 million cars a year - compared with 1.6 million in Britain this year. The reason is simple. The average gross wage a month for a car worker in Slovakia is £350 - compared with about £2,000 a month for assembly line workers at Ryton." The impact of the European Union as the regional arm of multinational big business in relocating manufacturing to low wage economies has been much underestimated. To some trade unionists the EU seemed once to be the solution to our problems, not the cause. In fact EU policies are driving down the cost of wages by relocating manufacturing to lower wage economies in order to compete in world markets. Some trade unionists have also fallen for the illusion that UK manufacturing and millions of jobs are somehow dependent on EU inward investment or reciprocal trade. This is simply untrue, as Britain has a large accumulated trade and services deficit with the EU, whereas we have a trade surplus with non-EU countries. A strong, wealth-creating, industrial plan is also ruled out by current EU policies as the EU focuses industries in particular regions and imposes tough procurement rules. Under these rules any major work, particularly if it involves manufacturing production, has to be put out to tender on the European market, so that effectively protection of domestic industries becomes impossible. All EU Treaties are based on the free movement of labour, capital, goods and services, not on protection of labour rights, regulation of capital, maintaining skilled manufacturing jobs and protecting and expanding public services. For instance, the trade union movement wants a publicly owned railway network. To achieve this we would not only have to renationalise the network, but also to rebuild and restock the machine tools, plant and skilled labour, which have been lost from UK train manufacturing since privatisation. Similarly, if we wanted to ensure that we had a merchant fleet again. The ship-building sector would have to be reopened. To achieve this we would need to reopen the coal mines and take back steel into public control. The EU would be the main obstacle to achieving any of this and would become less likely if Britain signs up to the renamed Constitution against the wishes of the electorate.
One of the greatest concerns is that the constitution would effectively turn the EU into a state in its own right, constituting a single legal, economic and military area governed by EU rules. Such moves would fatally undermine democracy in the member states and transfer huge powers to EU institutions.
Labour MP Gisela Stuart was Tony Blair's representative on the Convention which drew up the original Constitution. However, she denounced the Constitution for its lack of democracy when it finally appeared. She now warns that the new treaty would incorporate the European Council - the summit meetings of EU heads of government - into EU structures for the first time, imposing a legal obligation on EU leaders to "promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" rather than those of member states. The European Council was originally set up in 1974 as an informal intergovernmental forum for heads of EU member states to meet. Under the Renamed Constitution it will, in effect, become the "Cabinet" of the new government of Europe. Stuart argues: "It used to be that leaders met in order to co-ordinate the interest of the nation states. Under this new structure, that body where heads of state meet will become subordinate to the Union's interests. "They will now have a duty to represent the interests of the Union, not the interests of the member state. It's a consolidation of the way the Union works into a structure which is much more like a government," she says. We will all become citizens of the EU state and citizenship of the new EU state would be the higher political and legal authority. EU law would override national law in any case of conflict between the two except, of course, trade union rights which are covered by national laws under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In other words, draconian Tory anti-union laws would still be in place in the UK.Gisela Stuart also says that the new treaty is essentially the same as the original EU Constitution. "The main constitutional arrangements, such as giving the union a single legal personality so that it can enter into treaties itself - that's all still there," she says. The new treaty would hand the EU its own legal personality and distinct corporate existence for the first time. This would enable it to sign treaties with others states and to be different from and superior to its member states, just as the United States is different from and superior to California, Kansas. etc. It would also enable the new EU to have its own foreign minister and diplomatic corps, its own public prosecutor and federal police force and take over all the powers and institutions of the existing European Community. This will increase the amount of laws that enjoy no electoral mandate within member states. Moreover, infamous undemocratic EU practices, such as the unelected Commission having the monopoly right to initiate new laws, is set in stone under Article 1V-444. As a result, unelected bodies will have control over most aspects of our political, economic and social life and legislative framework. Article III-188 and Protocol 4, Chapter 3, Article 7 also confirms articles are designed to insulate the European Central Bank and the management of the euro from any democratic pressure. For instance it says "when exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by the Constitution and this Statute, neither the European Central Bank, nor a national central bank. shall seek or take instructions from Union(EU) institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. The Union institutions .. and the governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank". So even if the policies being pursued by the ECB are having devastating effects in relation to a member states economy, its elected government and representatives in the European Parliament are forbidden to try and pressure for a change of policy. This is the situation that now confronts the people of Germany who are experiencing five million unemployed and an interest rate that is too high. All this will further contribute to the growing sense of political alienation that voters feel towards both the EU and the political system in general. Such levels of disillusionment will lead to the growing appeal of opportunist far right wing groups and feed the poison of chauvinism and racism.
For the first time the Constitution gives the EU powers to intervene in public service provision. For instance, Article III-220 says that: 'In order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union (EU) shall develop and pursue its action leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion".
The lack of clarity in these articles gives the EU the right to, among other policies, demand that a member state cut public spending or restrict entitlement to certain state provided benefits. The European Commission famously urged Gordon Brown when he was chancellor to cut £10 billion from the government's projected spending increases in order to reduce the UK's public sector borrowing requirement.In any dispute between a member state and Brussels over the interpretation of an article, the European Court of Justice, which exists to promote EU integration, will have the final say.Article III-278 will also give Brussels the right to engage in action aimed at 'improving public health, preventing human illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health'. The Commission will gain the right to establish 'guidelines and indicators. periodic monitoring and evaluation'. It should be remembered in this context, that the European Central Bank has speculated that the range of free services offered by the NHS may have to be curtailed because of their allegedly inflationary potential.Although some member states may spend more as a percentage of GDP on 'health services' none have achieved the scale of free services won in Britain and many of their costs are on the administration of costly insurance schemes. Exporting privatsation The constitution also permits the imposition of such policies on countries outside the EU through the trade and investment agreements the EU concludes under its Common Commercial Policy. It lays down as one of the objectives of the EU "a highly competitive social market economy", but there is no definition of the term "social market".This is a term taken from the German Constitution and, in EU speak, means little more than maximising capitalist competition. Article III-147 of the constitution states that "a European framework law shall establish the measures in order to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service.' It goes on to say that "priority shall as a general rule be given to those services which directly affect production costs or the liberalisation of which helps to promote trade in goods". The political commitment of the constitution to the creation of a market economy across the EU is confirmed by Article III-148 which commits member states to: "declare their readiness to undertake the liberalisation of services beyond the extent required" by Article III-147. "To this end, the Commission shall make recommendations to the member states concerned", it says. All these rules remain in the Renamed Constitution. Permanent neo-liberalism The constitution of any normal state lays down the framework for political decision-making. Those decisions are left to political debate between the parties, abiding by the constitution's rules.However, the EU constitution is different. It enshrines a particular economic system based on an extreme neo-liberal ideology to be imposed on 450 million Europeans. The constitution turns the fundamental principles of "free competition" across national boundaries into constitutional objectives, to be enforced by the EU Court of Justice. It enshrines as a constitutional principle the extreme monetarist economic policy of the European Central Bank, whose sole brief in setting interest rates and controlling the money supply of the eurozone is to ensure stability of prices, not maximise economic growth, foster employment or advance social cohesion.It would be like signing up to permanent Thatcherism. As a result of these policies the eurozone is now one of the world's economicblackspots. Even the pro-EU constitution Minister for Europe Denis MacShane recently admitted that he would "under no circumstances" have supported euro membership. Article I-8 of the constitution states that "The currency of the Union shall be the euro." If the constitution is adopted, all EU member states will in effect be constitutionally committed to abolishing their national currencies and joining the ailing eurozone, even though 13 of the present 25 EU members still retain their national currencies.
On top of the provisions to privatize services within the EU, the commission has also launched a Health Directive to create a new "single market" in healthcare.
The Mail and Guardian noted that the plan is supported by the Conservatives who claim that it would extend 'patient choice'. A leader in the Telegraph suggests that the Directive "is a natural extension of the single market into the public sector and could have the most profound implications for the way health care is delivered here." The Mail suggested that "this would be a huge first step towards total freedom of choice about where to have treatment - giving a welcome boost to competitive and efficient privatised medicine into the bargain". So much for Tory opposition to the EU constitution.UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis stressed that the proposals for healthcare provoke a "race to the bottom" for staff pay and conditions in the health service. He says that the change will give bosses the green light to ignore the minimum wage and sensible working hours for staff, with part-time women workers the most likely to suffer. The British Medical Association also warns that the proposals "undermine every member states' right to decide what is in the best interests of its patients and its healthcare systems".
Hard-won pension rights for workers are under attack across Europe, sparking mass protests and general strikes. What is less well known is that European Union institutions are behind these attacks.
EU institutions have long been imposing an EU-wide strategy to dismantle pension systems, drive down wages and cut public spending. This strategy was initially drawn up by the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), a corporate lobby group of multinational companies and employers.In other words, the sight of greedy British employers closing down final pension schemes or our government attacking public sector workers' schemes are not simply independent acts of callous stupidity. They are part of a systematic onslaught by European capital on workers' pensions throughout the continent. The unelected European Commission and its endless anti-worker directives are the real source of many of our problems. The rules of successive EU treaties, from Maastricht to Amsterdam, are exerting downward pressure on public sector spending across Europe. This has led to constant attacks on living conditions and pension expenditure. Pensions are deferred wages and represent a lasting social commitment to the well being of workers. Yet, within the short term aims of the planned European Single Market, there is no place for workers' long term security.EU-backed employers are also putting on serious pressure to privatise public services, including health and education and pensions. Pensions 'crisis' explained Britain has 75 per cent of the EU's total occupational pension scheme assets, amounting to approximately £750 billion. This occupational wealth has been put aside to pay present and future pensions and represents the equivalent of 81 per cent of Britain's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By comparison, occupational pension provision in Germany represents just 16.3 per cent of its GDP, with equivalent figures for France at 6.6 per cent, Italy at 2.6 per cent and Belgium at 5.9 per cent. Britain's pension funds hold record levels of overseas stocks and shares. The average fund now has 28 per cent of its assets invested elsewhere with some funds having as much as 50 per cent. In the meantime, Britain is in desperate need of investment. EU directiveNow Brussels has legislated to grab the rest by further liberalising national investment rules for pension funds and enabling big transnational companies to provide pension plans for staff, reducing costs by millions per year. The EU directive on pensions enables a financial institution in one member state to manage company pension schemes in other member states. This simply results in the exit of more capital from this country. The cost of occupational pensions has increased by some 50 per cent over the past eight years. This has not come about by accident or because workers are living a couple of years longer during retirement, but because it has been planned by the Treasury in two key stages. Tory cutsIn 1995, the Tory-run Treasury began looking at ways to meet the EU convergence criteria for the euro as required by the Maastricht Treaty and the 1996 Stability and Growth Pact (a pact which even former EU commission president Romano Prodi described as 'stupid'). As a result, it reduced government debt by curtailing the use of the UK financial gilt market. A gilt is a promise by the government to pay interest on a loan, which it has raised from the capital markets, with the loan becoming fully repayable at the end of an agreed period, ie gilt-edged security. At the time, the government said that it was reducing the national debt. What it really meant was that the government was no longer able to help finance its revenues through the issue of new gilts because it would contravene the public borrowing parameters laid down by the EU. The result was that the supply of new gilts ceased, whilst at the same time the demand for them increased, especially for those of 15 year and 20 year duration. Longer term gilts have always been ideal financial instruments to underpin occupational pensions when in payment. This is because people retiring at age 65 tend to go on living for a further 15 to 20 years. Unsurprisingly, the price of the remaining gilts issued in the market prior to 1995 have since rocketed, to the extent that the cost of, for example, a subsistence level of pension of £7,500 per annum payable to a male aged 65, now requires at least £100,000 of capital to match the financial liability whilst in payment. The policy of no longer issuing new gilts has continued since 1997 and so it is small wonder that the cost of pension final salary guarantees has increased in the manner they have, hence employers want to ditch them. Minimum funding requirementAnother way of meeting EU public spending rules was the introduction of the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR), conceived in 1995 at the time the Treasury decided to dry up the gilt market. The MFR is a method of measuring the solvency margins of an occupational final salary pension fund. It was put in place to gauge the impact that the government's reduced borrowing requirement would have on our pension funds. In other words: create a problem, measure it and then call it a 'crisis'. Since 1997, the MFR has identified huge deficits in occupational pension provision. Once identified, the employer then has to make good the deficit by paying in large amounts of capital to make up the shortfall. In practice, what happens is that the MFR acts as an excuse for the employers to wind up their final salary pension commitment. This makes the MFR a convenient hiding place for the employer.It is also a distraction away from the government's failure to issue gilts, and shifts attention from the fact that throughout the 1980s and early 1990s employers were boosting their profits by taking surpluses from our pension funds in the form of 'pension holidays'. Big business rulesIn 2000, the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) had a summit on the future of European capital and produced a report on pensions to lobby the EU's own Lisbon summit. The report, European Pensions: An appeal for reform, urged Brussels to order member states to lift retirement ages, stop early retirement and encourage individuals to save for their retirement through tax breaks and private pensions schemes. "If they are not reformed soon, public pension systems in many EU member states pose a threat to the competitiveness of the European economy", the report said. The EU dutifully complied by agreeing the 'Lisbon agenda' and began to harmonise national pension strategies. "Member states have to prepare for the challenge of accelerated demographic ageing which will make it more difficult to provide adequate pensions in a financially sustainable way," the European Commission declared. In December 2001, a set of eleven common objectives for the modernisation of pension systems were adopted as a basis for closer cooperation in accordance with the 'open method of coordination'."Member states submitted their first reports on their strategies for securing adequate and sustainable pensions in September 2002. No sooner had the ERT employers spoken in 2000, an EU Report on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions appeared which echoed the ERT with the simple objective of making us work longer and harder for less. Working harder for longerThe key issue for trade unionists is that these co-ordinated policies require employees to work harder for longer and for less in retirement. Here are the key paragraphs from the report explaining the attack on workers' pensions throughout Europe. "Achieving the general employment targets set in Lisbon will not be possible without increasing the employment rate among older people. This makes it necessary to adapt pension systems and other aspects of tax/benefit systems to encourage people to remain in work longer". To force older people to remain in work current age discrimination law is going to be used cynically to raise the age of retirement for all. The EU report goes on to link the pension issue to public spending. "Achieving high employment levels will, in many cases, not be sufficient to prevent a substantial increase in public expenditure on pensions as a proportion of GDP. "Significant reform measures targeted at the parameters and structure of pension schemes (eg benefit levels, eligibility conditions, indexation of pensions, retirement age, relative weight of the different pillars etc) have been highlighted by member states and many of these are already being implemented - although further progress may be required in many member states". Single European MarketBy 2003, the EU issued a new Directive 2003/41/EC to force pension funds to comply with the Internal Market principles of free movement of capital and free provision of services. It allows pension funds to manage occupational schemes for companies established in another member state and allow a pan-European company to have one pension fund for all its subsidiaries. Employers liberalised the pension fund market and ensured that all states attacked pensions. Employers told the EU in 2000 to reduce the cost to the state and employers of pensions generally. The EU then tied in national governments to the agreement in 2001 and each national government, including our own, obeyed the orders and started to attack pensions. The attack has escalated since then. The future"The government has proposed an increase in the normal pension age of public sector schemes from 60 to 65". This quotation comes from the UK Government's 'National Reform Programme' published in October 2005 by the Treasury (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk). It represents the UK government's response to the Integrated Guidelines package endorsed by the EU Council in June 2005. This section of the National Reform Programme is headed 'Extending working lives'. The same section also reports that from 2010 the earliest age at which a company or occupational pension can be taken will be increased by five years. The 2005 UK response is available on the DWP website: www.dwp.gov.uk/resourcecentre/policy_strategy/nsr2005.asp. The response document is designed to meet the requirements of the updated Lisbon Action Plan issued by the Spring European Council 2005 [SEC (2005) 192]. Under the heading 'Develop active aging strategies' it requires member states to ensure the 'suppression of early labour market exit'. These proposals were incorporated in the proposed Directive on Occupational Pensions. The UK response supplies detailed answers on steps to increase the working age and ensure more workers contribute to private pension schemes. There is no mention of any increase in the state pension. Fighting backPensions are under attack because corporate capital across Europe no longer wants to pay for the needs of retired workers. Corporate lobby groups are using the remote corridors of EU institutions to fulfil this goal. As a result, unions across Europe must fight to defend pensions and resist the implementation of EU diktats which no electorate in Europe has voted for.
One of the 50 areas in the Renamed Constitution where all vetoes are removed and control is effectively handed to EU institutions is in transport matters.
The EU has long desired a single transport policy controlled by eurocrats and not the member states. In 1957 the newly-founded European Commission established a plan for a common transport market run on the basis of "free competition" and the "principles of the market economy" as written into the Treaty of Rome. On the basis of this plan, on May 13 1965, the Council of Ministers adopted a decision to harmonise and introduce competition in the transport sector. A good example of how 'competition' is being forced on to the transport sector is Council Directive 91/440/EEC introduced on July 29 1991. This directive "requires member states: to grant the rail companies independence from government and introduce commercial management techniques; and to separate the management of infrastructure from transport management". This infamous directive established a historically unprecedented liberalisation model, instituting a dangerous "vertical split" separating rail infrastructure from the operation of rail services. It stipulates:
1) operational autonomy for railway operators
2) separation of the infrastructure from service operations (as an absolute minimum - although not exclusively - for accounting purposes)
3) open access for international undertakings
4) introduction of track access charges and a sound financial basis for railway operators
This was exactly the basis for John Major's Tory privatisation of British Rail in 1996. The Railways Regulation 1992, which began rail privatisation, was introduced under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to comply with directive 91/440/EEC. However, this EU-sponsored rail 'liberalisation' model has proved disastrous in Britain. Privatisation of rail infrastructure maintenance directly led to the catastrophic deterioration of track, causing the deaths of many passengers and rail workers. Private train operators' record profits are siphoned directly from public subsidy, there is a perpetual squeeze on rail workers' pay and ticket fares continue to rocket, making Britain's railways the most expensive in Europe. Despite the introduction of 91/440, the path followed by other European member states has differed radically from the UK government's wholesale adoption of the Commission's privatisation model due, in large measure, to the disastrous experience in the UK. The poor operational safety and financial performance of the UK privatised rail sector arose directly from the "vertical split" model advocated in 91/440. This EU-sponsored rail 'liberalisation' model has proved disastrous in Britain. The idea that competing train operating companies can compete for slots in track use is clearly limited as train path scheduling on the fixed track infrastructure has limited flexibility. Nevertheless, in 2005 EU transport ministers agreed to 'liberalise' domestic railway networks by 2010. The refusal to recognise these fundamental flaws is a long-term characteristic of European Commission thinking on rail 'liberalisation'. The financial problem of the EU "vertical split" model is that train operating companies cannot possibly absorb the true cost of the infrastructure. So this model relies on a valuation determined by low track-use charges which can be realistically borne by train operating companies. This means that the extra investment required must come from sources other than those private companies operating the network, i.e. the taxpayer through subsidies and fare- paying passengers through ticket price hikes. The Commission has delivered a bewildering stream of Directives, white papers and 'rail packages' to open up national railways to market competition. As a result it is on a collision course with elected governments who increasingly see Brussels model of rail privatisation as a recipe for compromising safety and the decline of rail. If the Constitution is imposed, national governments will no longer have the power to veto rail privatisation and other measures regarding transport.
The constitution proposes a big increase in EU police powers. Article III-276 will enable the EU to extend Europol's 'structure, operation, field of action and tasks'.
This covers the collection and storage of information relating to European citizens and 'investigative and operational action'. Human Rights group Statewatch has expressed concern at the prospect of Europol - whose officers are immune from criminal prosecution - being granted enhanced powers. Under Article III-274 the Constitution will also enable the EU to establish the office of a 'European Public Prosecutor' that 'shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States .' in relation to'serious offences affecting more than one Member State and of offences against the Union's financial interests'. Bizarrely, Article II-112 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives the EU the right to restrict all the rights listed elsewhere in the Charter. "Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by the law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms... limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others", it says. Because of the insertion of this article, it is not clear which, if any, of the 'rights and freedoms' contained in the Charter would be legally protected as a consequence of the document being passed into law. Immunity for EU officials While the Constitution extends the scope of the EU to limit the civil liberties of ordinary EU citizens, Article III-434 grants Commission employees, MEPs and others legal immunities from criminal prosecution. The Protocol of the Privileges and Immunities of the European Community, Chapter V, Article 12 states that: "In the territory of each member state and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall: (a) ... be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office". Such moves would hand huge powers to EU officials as well as making it harder to investigate issues such as fraud, which is already endemic with the EU bureaucracy.
Militarising the EU: One of the articles of the Constitution allows for the death penalty to be introduced "in time of war or of imminent threat of war".
The constitution certainly gives plenty of scope for conflict. Put bluntly, the constitution develops an armed wing for the EU, complete with its own military-industrial complex, which will fight resource wars in the interests of the biggest European military powers, namely Britain, France and Germany. Moreover, Tony Blair's foreign policy guru Robert Cooper openly promotes a new form of direct European military colonialism. He claims that this new imperialism will require us to get used to "double standards". "When dealing with old-fashioned states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era - force, preemptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself," he says. For Brussels this means developing an EU rapid reaction force that will carry out military operations in the interests of "Europe". EU Chief of military staff Lieutenant General Rainer Schuwirth insists for that to develop "national governments have to give away their authority over their army" and EU must be "deepened", as envisaged within the EU constitution. If brought into force, the constitution will demand that member states "actively, unreservedly and loyally" support a single foreign and military policy. This power is, of course, one of the major attributes of a state, along with a head of state, a single currency and a framework of law. The constitution provides for all these attributes despite the fact there has been no popular call for them to exist at all. The constitution also formally ends the military neutrality of Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Austria, also without asking the citizens of those states. The text replaces the Nice Treaty provision that the progressive framing of a common defence policy "might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide" with the provision of the constitution that it "will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides". Article 1.40 lays down that "before undertaking any action on the international scene each member state shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council," constitutionally precluding member states from conducting an independent foreign policy. The constitution does allow for sub-groups of states, ie the most powerful ones, to use EU institutions for closer military integration amongst themselves in a mechanism known as "structured cooperation". The constitution does not require EU military actions to be in accordance with the United Nations Charter, which is the foundation of international law. In other words, the EU reserves the right to ignore the Charter if need be. In order to become a global superpower, the EU is working closely with the United States while also developing its own military capability to operate independently of Washington. For instance, currently the EU is seeking to undermine the US monopoly in satellite positioning technology. Washington's GPS system is being challenged by the EU's rival system called Galileo which is designed to be operational by 2008 with multiple military applications. Counterweight or imperial partner? Many pundits have promoted the belief that the militarisation of a nascent European superstate will be a force for good, capable of reining in the excesses of US imperialism. However, leaving aside the problems inherent in binding 25 separate countries with very different international policy outlooks and interests to advance, it should not be assumed with EU enlargement that a persistently anti-Bush majority exists in Brussels. Many of the governments of the east European entrants supported the illegal attacks on Iraq. Moreover, EU foreign policy tsar Javier Solana has declared that EU military force should be used, alongside the US, against any sovereign state to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, thereby retrospectively sanctifying the illegal attacks on Iraq. "We should be able to sustain several operations at the same time. We must develop a culture that fosters early, rapid and robust intervention" he says. He claims the EU/US western alliance is a "formidable force for good in the world". So much for the nebulous European political and military "counterweight" to Washington. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament recognises the dangers of EU militarisation and recently voted to oppose the EU constitution. The constitution also sets up a new Armaments Development Agency, which the Foreign Office admits will promote higher military spending by EU taxpayers. Interestingly, the pro-EU group Britain in Europe appointed a new chairman in 2005, the far right wing ex-Tory MP Antony Nelson. As Tory trade minister, he approved export papers for Hawk jets to Indonesia and had a history of giving succour to the Apartheid regime. He expressed "distaste" at the BBC's screening of the Mandela tribute concert in 1988 and described the ANC as "terrorists". He is presently in talks with several weapons manufacturers to win financial backing to fight for a yes vote in any referendum on the EU constitution. The companies being targeted by BiE's fundraisers include French arms manufacturers Thales, Franco-German arms giant EADS and US arms firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Now why would these arms companies pour funds into campaigns to promote the EU constitution? Could it be that the plans for a European army, a single EU foreign policy that must be "loyally" supported and the development of a lavishly state-subsidised military-industrial complex might just be in their interests? To understand the politics of EU militarisation, it is necessary to listen to the voices of target nations in the resource-rich but grindingly poor un-developing world. Namibian President Sam Nujoma has clearly defined this new European military strategy: "These Europeans, they have formed a political union and again they want to get our raw material without paying us." Articles relating to EU militarism Article I-16 states: "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity". Article I-41: "The common security and defence policy ... shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on assets civil and military. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union."Article III-309: "The tasks referred to in Article I-40 (1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means".Article III-311 founds a "European Armaments, Research and Military Capabilities Agency".Article 11-62 (explanations) states the death penalty can be introduced "in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war"
TUAUEC obtained this brief document by the Irish pro-democracy group People's Movement which outlines how the EU'S Charter of Fundamental Rights undermines trade union rights across the EU.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights could subvert our trade union rights
and does not guarantee the right to strike
Fundamental rights may be limited in the interests of the market
Should the proposed renamed EU Constitution come into force we would rely on the European Court of Justice to rule in favour of citizens or workers if a dispute arose between them and their government regarding the interpretation of any of the measures proposed in the Charter. In this instance the court would become the forum of last resort, and its findings would have force throughout the European Union. However, the European Court of Justice has already made it clear in at least two cases that the fundamental rights recognized by the Court are not 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 organization of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community .
and in a later case stated that
it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market .
It is clear from these precedents that the “fundamental rights” that would be conferred on us by this renamed Constitution would not be fundamental at all but could be varied or restricted in the interests of a “common organization of the market” or to advance “objectives of general interest pursued by the Community.”
In a democratic society, restrictions on the exercise of human rights must be prescribed by law and must be necessary to safeguard the common good. It follows from the reasoning of the European Court of Justice that, as rights are subject to limitations, restrictions on the EU fundamental rights are also legitimate, and that the European Union acts as a state in restricting those rights.
But in this instance the limitations on human rights are justified by reference to the objectives of the Community and in particular the organisation of the common market. National constitutions and the European Court of Human Rights allow those restrictions on fundamental rights that are considered to be necessary in a democratic society. But in a democratic society politics is connected with the contestability of what counts as the common good. On the EU level, however, the common good is identified instead with the good of the market and a fixed idea of utility. The market becomes in effect the substitute for democracy, and human rights become marketised.
In General Provisions Governing the Interpretation of the Charter (i.e. the Charter of Fundamental Rights), article 112 states explicitly that limitations may be placed on the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter. Echoing the judgement of the European Court of Justice, it states that these “limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union.” The important question in these circumstances is, what are “objectives of general interest”—and could they possibly be commercial interests? Could citizens’ and workers’ rights really be limited in the interests of market forces?
The general interests recognised by the Union are elaborated in Declaration 12 of the Treaty. This Declaration is not in itself legally binding but assumes a legal importance in the Charter, which makes it clear that “the Explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall be given due regard by the Courts of the Union and of the Member States.” This constitutionally binding condition would require courts to take the Explanations into account in formulating judgments. These Explanations are cleverly presented in a non-binding Declaration but are then made legally binding through article 112 (7) of the Charter, quoted above.
“General interests” are presented in the Explanations as the objectives set out in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, entitled “The Union’s Values” and “other interests” protected by specific provisions of the Treaty, as for example article 4, which obliges the Union to “respect . . . Member States’ . . . national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional” and “their essential state functions, including . . . maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”
The interpretation of “identity” in this article is not benign, nor does it aim to foster a sense of cultural or national identity. Instead it looks towards essential state functions, and primary among those under this Constitution would be the smooth functioning of the market. Indeed it stipulates that “the Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.”
Elsewhere the Treaty records the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but Protocol 5 qualifies this accession by stating that “the accession of the Union shall not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions.”
Further restrictions to protect “other interests” are envisaged in articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty on European Union, which confer specific rights on workers, such as freedom of movement and the right to accept offers of employment actually made, but then imposes limitations that are “justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” There is no Explanation, so adjudication is left up to the European Court of Justice, a body noted for its practice of “competence creep,” through which it constantly endeavours to extend its areas of competence and those of the Commission.
It is apparent that the requirement to “act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition” imposes a constitutional imperative on the method of organising the market; and should those who seek to change this economic model begin to gain significant support the “general interests” of the Union could be protected and fundamental rights varied by Union or national legislation. This in turn would be supported by the European Court of Justice. Those who would oppose the privatisation of public services in the Union might suffer similar sanction.
Prohibitions on imports, exports or goods in transit may be forbidden under the Treaty, on the grounds of “public morality, public policy or public security”—none of which are defined. Campaigning groups that might challenge aspects of Union policy and that might wish, for example, to import supporting material from abroad could be subject to this article. It would also be illegal to campaign against any of the measures in the Charter.
Ominously, member-states might also take such measures as they considered necessary for protecting the essential interests of their security which are connected with the production of, or trade in, arms, munitions, or war materials. There is no legal certainty surrounding the term “security,” and therefore it is likely to enjoy the widest possible application in its restricting of collective action. It could be used, for example, to protect trans-national corporations in Ireland that supply hardware or software to the arms industry (and which contribute significantly to the Irish economy).
Any challenges to the interpretation of these provisions made to the European Court of Justice would be so costly and time-consuming that most rulings would be enforced by default. Fundamentally, this article is so wide-ranging as to potentially impose severe limitations on freedom of movement. By contrast, the Treaty provides that there would be no restrictions on the movement of capital within the Union, or between the Union and third countries.
The right to strike is not guaranteed
Trade unions throughout the European Union have praised Article 28 of the Charter, which appears to grant the right to strike, and it has been used by the affiliates of the European Trades Union Congress as a means of drumming up support for the Treaty. However, the operation of repugnant legislation at the national level would not be influenced by the Charter. Though the article states that workers may “take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action,” the Explanation in Declaration 12 qualifies this by stating that “the limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices, including the question of whether it may be carried out in parallel in several Member States.”
And there is a sting in the tail: “subsidiarity”! The Charter directs that “the provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the member states only when they are implementing Union law.”
“Due regard for the principle of subsidiarity” is spelt out in the case law of the European Court of Justice in the following terms: “It should be remembered that the requirements flowing from the protection of fundamental rights in the community legal order are also binding on member states when they implement community rules . . .” This means that draconian labour legislation already in force in a member-state can be preserved under the subsidiarity clause, while on the other hand the Union can limit labour rights in order to satisfy the “objectives of general interest” of the Union. It’s a win-win for business interests and the big corporations.
A real threat to public services and state companies
The Charter guarantees “freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law.” This is qualified in the Union’s objectives: “The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.” In effect, this imposes a treaty obligation to establish a neo-liberal economic model, something that is normally the subject of contestation between competing political parties or ideologies. This neo-liberal stricture is further strengthened by the Union’s commitment to “the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers,” and by the legally binding Protocol 6, which states that, “considering that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted . . . the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.” And, just to ensure undistorted competition, the Council can do what it likes and can extend the scope of the Treaties in all areas, with the exception of common foreign and security policy, as long as the European Parliament approves.
When the commitment to an “open market economy” is read in conjunction with the right to conduct a business in accordance with community law, great doubt is cast not only on the future of state enterprise but on sections of the civil service. If, for instance, a payroll contractor decided that they would like to compete with the Revenue Commissioners in the provision of tax returns for PAYE workers, and the Government refused to co-operate, an appeal to the European Court of Justice—especially if the contractor could be shown to provide the service at a lower cost—would ultimately be successful.
ECJ Case 4/73 points to limits to this right, in stating that it should, “if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the community.” This seems fair enough, but when it is read in conjunction with the Union’s objectives outlined above it leads to the inevitable conclusion that our state companies and public services would be at increased risk.
Some general comments on the Charter
• The renamed EU Constitution provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights—a purely political document that was approved by the EU presidents and prime ministers at the Nice summit in 2001—would be made binding in EU law and therefore become superior to national law in the event of any conflict.
• Giving the European Union the power to decide our rights would bring the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—in effect the High Court of the European Union—into virtually every area of society. This body is already notorious for “competence creep”—for using its case law to extend EU power and the boundaries of its own jurisdiction to the greatest extent possible, reducing in the process the power of national courts, parliaments, and constitutions.
• The Charter seeks to impose uniformity of rights throughout the European Union, despite significant differences in values between countries. The underlying logic is to make economic expediency and the smooth operation of the market the criteria in matters of human rights.
• The renamed Constitution says that the European Court of Justice will judge on human rights only as they relate to the legislative and executive operation of EU institutions and the member-states when implementing EU law. These areas are now very extensive.
• The Charter permits limitations on the rights and freedoms it sets out in order to meet “objectives of general interest recognised by the Union.” But if a right is “fundamental” it must be valid in all circumstances.
• The Charter lists social and economic rights, such as the right to health care, education, and social and housing assistance; yet article 51 states: “This Charter does not . . . establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in other Parts of the Constitution.” If the European Union has no power or resources with which to provide, or oblige the provision of, these benefits, it is peculiar that they are included in the renamed Constitution. On past experience, however, we know that the absence of a Treaty basis for some of the rights listed may not be sufficient to prevent the European Court of Justice from imposing obligations on member-states to apply all the provisions of the Charter, even in these unexplored legal waters.
The People’s Movement campaigns against any measures that further develop the European Union into a federal state and to defend and enhance popular sovereignty, democracy and social justice in Ireland.
NOTES on items that might be of interest if you want to look further.
. Hubert Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, C-5/88, summary, para. 2, and grounds, para. 18.
. Kjell Karlsson and Others, C292/97, grounds, para. 45.
. The Lisbon Treaty or renamed Constitution was created by amending the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, now known as the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFU). The two documents, with their declarations and protocols, comprise the Treaty.
. The statement that the Charter will be legally binding will now be inserted in article 6 (1) of the Treaty on European Union, replacing article 1:9 of the Constitution. This avoids reproducing the text of part II of the Constitutional Treaty in the text of the renamed Constitution while producing the same legal effects.
. Now to be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in title VII of the Charter, governing its interpretation and application, and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter that set out the sources of those provisions. This is a change of title only.
. Declaration Concerning the Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The declaration covers thirty-five pages.
. Article 112 (7).
. Declaration 12, article 52
. TEU, article 6, grants the charter itself “the same legal value as the Treaties.”
. Article 102.
. TEU, article 6.
. TFU, article 27.
. TFU, article 57 (3).
. Charter, article 114.
. TFU, article 296 (1a).
. TFU, article 57:3.
. Case C-292/97, grounds, para. 37.
. Charter, article 16.
. TEU, article 3a.
. TFU, article 118.
. This was article 1:3 (2) of the Constitution, on the Union’s objectives, but was changed at the insistence of M. Sarkozy. It stated: “The Union shall offer its citizens . . . a single market where competition is free and undistorted.” Its removal was lauded as a win for social democracy, but this important statement is now included in a legally binding protocol annexed to the Treaty, where it has precisely the same legal effect while allowing proponents to maintain that it is not in the Treaty.
. Article 308 states: “If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.” Furthermore, TFU, article 249B (TEC), empowers the Council of Ministers by majority vote to give the Commission the power to make laws—so-called delegated regulations—supplementing or amending so-called “non-essential elements” of European laws or framework laws. The catch is that the Commission decides what is “essential.”
No comments:
Post a Comment