Listen to NEAR fm's half hour summary of the debate>>
View photos for this session via the Forum's Facebook page>>
Opening of session by Chairman Maurice Hayes
Close of session by Chairman Maurice Hayes
THE PLENARY SESSION COMMENCED ON THURSDAY, 15TH MAY 2008 AS FOLLOWS:
Welcome to this 97th plenary session of the National Forum on Europe. I have a particular problem today and I would ask people's forgiveness in advance, if I am even more beastly than usual, and that is that I promised Ruairi Quinn, who has an engagement in Belfast and has to catch the twenty past one train, that I would get him out of here at ten to one and he has very decently agreed to put up with that. So we will go ahead as quickly as we can. It might limit the number of speakers and I certainly hope that it might limit people's loquacity so that I can get more speakers in.
Today's meeting is the fourth in our series of thematic discussions on aspects of the Treaty of particular importance to Ireland. This is Ireland and Social Europe: The Implications of the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legal status which the Treaty gives to the Charter seems highly significant by the supporters of the Treaty and during today's discussion we hope to be able to tease out in detail its implications for Ireland.
We are delighted to have with us two guest speakers who are particularly well placed with their case for and against the Treaty in terms of these issues. I welcome them for two particular reasons, if my memory serves me right it was Mr Ruairi Quinn who first had the idea of the National Forum on Europe and of course, it was taken up by the other parties in the government since. Mr Joe Higgins has been a member of the Forum since the first meeting and a very regular attender and makes valuable contributions to our debates.
Ruairi Quinn is a Labour Party TD representing Dublin South East, first elected to the Dáil in 1977, was leader of the Labour Party from 1997 to 2002, has served as Vice‑President and Treasurer of the Party of European Socialists since 1998. During his ministerial career he held senior portfolios including Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Labour. He is also Chairman of the Irish Alliance for Europe, which is represented in the Forum's Special Observer Pillar.
Joe Higgins is a member of the Socialist Party. He represented the Dublin South West constituency from 1977 until 2007. He is an active campaigner against the Lisbon Treaty and, as I said, regularly makes contributions to Forum meetings on issues affecting the rights of workers.
Today's proceedings are being streamed live on the website and a web cast will be available and, of course, there is also .....tá fáilte róimh siúd, más mian libh labhairt as Gaeilge.
The translation from Irish is on channel 1, but I think it is prefixed if anybody wants to use it. So as to make the most use of the time we have, I now call on Mr Quinn to take the floor.
I am pleased to be here today and to thank you for the invitation. I represent the Irish Alliance for Europe, which is an organisation that represents a large number of non party organisations and individuals in this country that are actively campaigning for a yes vote on the 12th June. We essentially represent Irish civil society, business, trade union members, farmers, environmentalists, lawyers, academics and students amongst others. I am here to talk today about Ireland and social Europe, the implications of the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
When the European community was created in the wake of the Second World War, its founders knew that their primary goal was to heal the conflicts between nations, secure peace and prosperity and put an end to the suffering and devastation that had characterised previous decades.
The economic foundations were laid to secure lasting peace for the generations that would follow and prosper as a result. These foundations and their vision for a European project have materialised into over five decades of economic and political stability, peace and prosperity. During this time the framework for a social Europe emerged and it has been an unchallenged success story throughout the 20th century. Its underlying goal within society is one of solidarity and cohesion with the aim of the social well‑being of all European citizens. Central to the idea of social Europe is that we can have both a prosperous economy and a fair society.
At the earlier stages of the European project the need for a social dimension was recognised and it became the task of the community, through the economic expansion, to foster and promote the growth of employment and to raise the living standards of all citizens in the Member States. A social dimension has always been the guiding principle of the construction of a common market.
Over the decades, through successive treaties and the signing of the Charter of Social Rights in 1989, Europe has warmly embraced what has become known as the European Social Model. The development of new technologies and the globalisation in the 1990s, led to the Commission's adoption of the White Paper on European Social Policy. Central to this were new and fresh ideas to increase employment growth, competitiveness, training and education. Outdated models and policies were abandoned to embrace this new and next stage in the European social model.
The changes we have seen in Europe over the last 50 years have been, quite frankly, spectacular. I remember at the age of 21, as a third year architectural student, taking a Lambretta 150cc scooter all the way from Ireland down as far south as Rome. I remember the arduous task of researching and planning the journey. I was part of that generation that when lucky enough to get the opportunity to travel to Europe, had to spend my time dealing with visas, travellers cheques and constant currency changes.
In contrast, I distinctly recall my time negotiating the establishment of the single currency. I remember clearly one morning before I left to come to this building during the Irish Presidency of 1996 amusing to myself that my two year old son would probably get his first pocket money in Euros and that is what actually happened. This exciting new continent was to be his future and the future of the generations that followed. It has been a remarkable transition and evolutionary process of increased opportunities and unprecedented prosperity. I have no doubt that the free movement of people and the single currency have played and will continue to play a huge role in this metamorphosis.
One of the core aims of the Union is to provide the framework whereby all of its citizens will maximise their earning power and prosperity.
Social fairness is an ideal that has been a cornerstone of European socialist thinking in my entire time involved in the European and Irish Labour Movement. I am proud to say that this mind set has moulded the thinking of the European Union throughout its history. Job creation and economic growth have, at all times, been mirrored by a social conscious philosophy.
The evidence for this can be seen in this country more so than anywhere else. 35 years ago we were a proud people as we are still today, but we were a poor people which, thankfully, we are no longer. This transformation into a dynamic prosperous and forward looking nation was no accident. We embraced the European ideals and we made them our own.
There is much talk in this Forum and others about the economic contribution we have received but, from my perspective, this pales into insignificance when compared to the social framework and ideals that our membership over the last 30 years has seen us adapt and embrace.
As this country's first Labour Minister for Finance, it would be wrong for me to completely ignore the financial statistics, especially in like an awful lot of statistics we see and hear in their simplicity, they paint a picture of an unprecedented transformation never before seen in any country of the developed world.
Over the last 20 years Irish exports have risen from just over 30% of GDP in the early 1980s to over 100% now. The period from 1973 to 2003 saw €58 billion in the Common Agricultural Policy structural and cohesion funds. This is the equivalent of €15,000 for every man, women and child in this country. The education and training of our young people was hugely supported by the European Social Fund. Community training projects and social employment schemes were established by myself during my time as Minister for Labour during the 1980s with essential European funding.
Under the 2000‑2006 European Social Funds, Ireland received €1.1 billion to invest in a number of labour market, education and training iniatives. A real social Europe is one where all can find work, provide for their families and achieve a high quality of life.
Europe, however, is being confronted with rapid social change and challenges such as climate change, the trafficking of women and children, cross border crime, the drugs epidemic, to name but a few. In the last ten years half a million women and children were trafficked into Europe. In the last twelve months €50 billion worth of drugs, illegal drugs were imported into Europe by criminal gangs who, for years, have profited from human misery, the destruction of our communities and the undermining of our social fabric. And you could walk 500 metres anywhere from the centre of this room in any direction, north, south east or west, and you will encounter that yourself directly.
Unchecked globalisation is intensifying competition from markets around the world. When we look to Asia we see the emergence of India and China as the next great economic powers. We as citizens of this great nation, in partnership with all of our brothers and sisters across the 27 sovereign states that make up the EU, are facing collectively an array of potentially devastating challenges. These new 21st century challenges were foremost in the minds of the authors of the Lisbon Reform Treaty. Europe is also facing the demands of changing family and working patterns, demands for new skills, mobility and diversity and increasing inequalities as well, to mention but a few.
The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in an address to the Social Agenda Forum last week, highlighted the need to shape a modern social agenda for Europe. He stated that a social reality check was needed to confront the modern realities that today child poverty is as much an issue as poverty in old age. Generational inequalities mean that young people do not have access to secure jobs, housing and generous pensions. He highlighted the need to reinforce the Lisbon Strategy as an agenda that empowers and equips Europeans for a globalised world and an agenda based on shared European values.
In the face of national, European and global challenges, I believe that it is now time to equip the European Union with the necessary tools to deal effectively and efficiently with these challenges and threats collectively. The Lisbon Reform Treaty will strengthen Ireland's and Europe's ability to meet these challenges head on and come out the other side a greater, more united socially democratic continent where people are prioritised and the most vulnerable in society given every opportunity to achieve self‑actualisation.
The Treaty offers a vision of a democratic and accountable Europe with the citizen at its centre, a Europe where the rights of the citizen are foremost and a Europe that can make a real difference to the lives of real people.
A post Lisbon Reform Treaty Europe is, in my considered view, a social Europe. The Europe of the Lisbon Reform Treaty is a social Europe, founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. This Treaty, more so than any other piece of European legislation in its history enshrines social protection into the very core of all the Union's activities.
This Treaty within Article 2 contains a social clause which must be taken into account when drafting and implementing all EU legislation. It is specifically refers to, and I quote: highly competitive social market economy, full employment, the promotion of social justice, the combatting of social exclusion, equality between men and women and the protection of the rights of the child.
The European Trade Union Congress succeeded in having Article 136.A inserted into the Treaty which states, and I quote:
The Union will recognise and promote the role of social partners at all levels taking into account the diversity of national systems and shall facilitate dialogue between the social partners.
The Treaty also recognises the role of the tri‑partite social summit for growth and employment which seeks to ensure the effective participation of social partners in implementing the EU policies contributing to social dialogue. People talk in this country about the choice we face between as being as closer, or as close to Boston or Berlin, choosing either an open successful economy or adequate social provision. In my view, that is a false choice. This Treaty offers a chance to have the best of both worlds; a truly successful economy that delivers the potential for a European wide prosperity in a new social model that puts the rights of the citizen at its very heart, a chance for social consensus and progress. And we have that model of society in parts of the European Union as we speak today. The Nordic countries are simultaneously among the most competitive nations in the world with the highest levels of social protection and we can go where they currently are if we want to and this Treaty will help to us get there faster.
Through the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this Treaty envisages a Europe of equality. With the passing of this Treaty, the Charter will be enshrined into European law making and will be one of the most extensive legally binding statements of human rights and citizens' entitlements. To quote, if I may, the Irish Human Rights Commission, and I quote:
The central importance of the European Charter of Fundamental rights is that it assures the traditional distinction drawn between civil and political rights on the one hand and the economic, social and cultural rights on the other and places all such rights on the same footing, thus elevating the status of the traditionally neglected rights within the community.
If the economic and social rights of citizens are not vindicated, then, in my mind, their civil and political rights lose an awful lot of their real value.
The Charter aims to strengthen the rights of all European citizens. It offers an unprecedented level of protection to all of us in terms of our basic rights at all levels, the impact of which I believe very few of us have even come closely to correctly estimating. It will impact on all elements of our daily lives as European citizens and its presence will be felt throughout all of our lives from infancy to maturity. Its spectrum, frankly, is simply that immense.
I am a proud Socialist today to be calling on the people of Ireland to vote on something that seemed such an impossible dream a few short decades ago. Certainly the idea back in 1977 when I was first elected to Dáil Eireann the idea of a Charter that will have such a range of rights of equal standing would have been incomprehensible to the people who were elected to that Dáil.
The social imbalance that existed in this country prior to our joining the European Union has, in many ways, thankfully, been eradicated. We as workers have benefited from a portfolio of European social legislation, the full gambit and impact of which would have taken far more than my time allows to give time to deserve, but I will give you one example. In the mid 1980s there was legislation that ensured that workers whose companies who went into liquidation had their rights and their pension entitlements guaranteed and they were put at the top of the queue as preferred recipients of money along with the tax Revenue Commissioners, which was something that came from Europe and would certainly not have been generated either in the Department of Labour or in the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Suffice to say in areas as broad as working time, health and safety in the work place, the protection of young workers, parental level, equal pay, greater equality, social security, anti‑discrimination, workers rights and countless other areas, were it not for our European Union membership we would not be the great person centered nation that we now are. We as a people can be justifiably proud of the socialist agenda which, via our European membership, we have been able to wholeheartedly encompass into our legislative framework.
Just two weeks we had an opportunity to celebrate this alongside our European colleagues on May Day. I am glad and proud that as my time as Minister I was the one to introduce that particular Bank Holiday to mark this international day of social solidarity and progress.
As I mentioned before when touching upon the areas covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I emphasised their life‑long significance. Any true socialist will tell you that a social Europe is about a lot more than workers' rights. It is about making the lives of all its citizens from the very youngest to the most mature as pleasant and as fulfilling as they can ever want them to be.
As a continent we still have a long road to travel to achieve this goal. However, the enshrining into law of the Charter in the context of a socialist journey will be akin to Neil Armstrong's first step ‑ one small tick in the yes box for us as voters will result in one giant leap towards the completion of the social model for Europe.
There has been much talk about social dumping, a race to the bottom and other such negative language used by some on the no side who, for their own reason, do not want to see the social model of Europe achieved. They talk eloquently about legal cases of which either they have little or no understanding, or as seems to be case with at least some, they fully understand, however they choose to mislead others in the hope to the scuttle the completion of the European social project.
The Viking case is a classic example of this. It is touted out by the no side in this campaign as an example of the evil monster that is the European Court of Justice. I wonder at any stage are they going to admit what the ruling in this case truly was? That is the ECJ ruled in the Viking case that it is a fundamental right of European citizens that where their livelihood is threatened, direct action is acceptable and a well established route for them to take.
The Charter goes far beyond this in several core employee rights areas. I am very conscious that early next week Congress will be deciding whether or not they will be taking a position in relation to the Treaty. I would strongly urge them to come out and vote for a yes vote. This Treaty, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, playing such an integral role in it, gives our workers unprecedented rights.
Our membership of the EU has been very good for the working women of Ireland as well, in particular this has given our legislature a social conscience. It is important that we rise above the scare mongering and lies peddled by the no side and for all us, both inside and outside the trade union movement, to ask just one simple question: Will a yes vote on June 12th be beneficial to all the citizens of Ireland? The answer to these questions is a clear and resounding yes.
The next four weeks the onus on each and every one of us is to ensure that a yes vote is secured because if we don't, we will witness the sorry state of Irish workers voting against something which offers them so much.
Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joe Higgins, please.
So thank you for the invitation. I don't have a script. That is not a mark of disrespect to the gathering, it is just I usually speak from notes. I also do intend to address some of my remarks in Irish later on and again, for ease of reference, the channel for people who are not bilingual is number 1.
Now, Chairman, I welcome the fact that finally we can get down to a debate on very specific issues arising out of the Lisbon Treaty. And I do hope that by the end of today's debate that we can have clarity on a number of the crucial issues that arise with regard to social Europe, particularly the future of our public services and, indeed, the implications of Lisbon for the rights of working people in Ireland and throughout Europe.
Obviously good quality public services available to everybody would be fundamental to any concept of a Europe that was run in the interests of its people of the big majority which is what I understand by a social Europe. So the question is: Does the Lisbon Treaty have implications for the organisation of public services in this State and in the European Union generally? And if so, what are those implications?
Now I say that the provision in the Lisbon Treaty contained in the Articles under the heading the Common Commercial Policy have very far‑reaching implications and the most important changes are contained ‑‑ and I am going to be very specific in my references and I invite those who respond to be specific also ‑‑ in Article 188.C of the Lisbon Treaty. 188.C replaces Article 133 in the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. And Article 188 outlines the rules which govern a market being created in a trade in public services.
Now most people here will know the procedure which is contained in Paragraph 3 that the European Union Commission is mandated to conduct negotiations with international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation, and to propose agreements on foot of those negotiations which will then, following a vote, be binding on Member States. These proposed agreements can include provisions concerning trade in health services, in education and in social services. And paragraph 4 stipulates that for the negotiation and the conclusion and, therefore, the implementation of agreements referred to in Paragraph 3, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. That is a major change. It removes the protection afforded in Article 133 of the second Treaty where it is very clear that the consent of each Member State is required to open up a trade in cultural and audio visual services, in education, social and human health services.
Now, it is true that the qualified majority vote requirement is raised to unanimity and, therefore, a veto in a number of specific instances. In the field of trade in cultural and audio visual services where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity and in the field of trade in social education and health services where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.
On those cases I say those are very high thresholds, number 1. And I say, number 2, that in disputes the European Union Commission and the European Court of Justice cannot be relied upon by working people throughout Europe to protect their interests in these services. Those bodies are strongly biased towards neo liberal economic policies and outlook. They do believe in the privatisation of public services and they do not believe that the privatisation of public services in any way interferes with those services.
Now, let's cite for one minute, Cathaoirleach, where the categorisation of our public services as commodities to be traded in the capitalist market place is good or bad. Leave aside whether it is good or bad that transnational corporations, American and European based, should have an entitlement as a right to be able to muscle in to our public services like health, social and education. Can it at least be acknowledged that the effect of Article 188 does allow a qualified majority vote to impose an opening up of these services to encroachment from these private entities?
Now if Article 188 does not mean that, then what does it mean? And don't make an assertion about that, give me chapter and verse.
I know there is one organisation at least that agrees very strongly with me on this, no less than the employers and business organisation IBEC where they said in a submission to this Forum On Europe in April:
A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalistation, such as health, education, transport, energy and the environment.
Now if somebody believes that it is fine that our people's health should be a commodity to be traded on the stock exchanges then they won't be too worried about these particular changes. I do believe that it would be a disastrous direction, however, that the provision of our public services should be traded like sacks of spuds or bags of coffee on the international markets.
Now it is true that we do have a government, Fianna Fail, the PDs and the Green Party that is pro privatisation, that has already handed over crucial public enterprises to be sweated on the world's stock exchanges with detrimental results for citizens, for services and for the workers in those enterprises. We have a government that is currently tearing the heart out of community hospitals, proposing the closure of acute wards and removing emergency services under the guise of having better services in larger regional centres, which, of course, is a deception, because while arguing this line and downsizing community public hospitals the former Taoiseach and the current Minister for Health and other ministers have been busily turning the sods and opening small private hospitals in the very locations where the public hospitals are being wound down.
So the agenda here is quite clearly centralisation as a cover for privatisation. But the fact that the present government is trenchantly pushing a privatisation agenda does not mean that we should say well it does not matter what the Lisbon Treaty says or does, it is happening anyway. Because the Irish people can kick this government out, hopefully we might get an opportunity before four years certainly, and they have that opportunity.
But whichever government, as long as we have a veto, the people in encountering a particularly obnoxious proposal coming from the trade agreement could at least mobilise massive support in such a government to invoke the veto and to protect a particular public service; similar in a way to the 1990s when a mass mobilisation of ordinary people, the tax payers, forced the government to abandon the domestic water tax, which the outgoing Minister for Education Hannifan said would be seven or eight hundred Euro per household had it been invoked. Quite a burden on working people. And undoubtedly where increased pressures for privatisation of our water supply would also have followed that. We prevented that.
Now a social Europe suggests a Europe that is run in the interests of the big majority of ordinary working people and communities; a society where human solidarity and community solidarity takes precedence over the profit of private corporations. The reality of the actual European Union that we have is that it is an economic unit that is dominated by powerful multinational corporations, those organised, for example, in the European Round Table of Industrialists bringing together 40 of the biggest multinational corporations within the European Union; powerful organisations like Siemens, Nestle and Heineken, household names all of which wield massive clout with regard to the economic policy, and virtually have written the economic policy over the past period of years. And that is a reality that the advocates of Lisbon do not like to bring out in public ‑ who really is calling the shots.
And we also have this idea that the European Union in its economic policy outside its own borders, particularly with poor countries, is a very benign organisation. Well I invite you to look at what has happened in many African countries in the last six months, from Senegal to Mali to Burkino Faso where people in their tens of thousands have been out protesting trying to stop the imposition of horrific trade agreements being imposed by the European Union, the effect of which in one country would be to make Nestles powder milk cheaper than the local milk produced by the small producers locally.
Now, a cháirde agus a chathaoirleach, ba chóir go mbeadh cearta lucht oibre bunúsach in aon caint faoi Eoraip Sóisialta. Le fiche bliain anuas anois, tá an próiséis domhanda, ar a ghlaoigheann muid “globalisation” air, caipitliceach. Ag ionsaí an bun‑prionsipeal, ba cheart go mbeadh pá agus túrastal cóir agus cearta ag lucht oibre, socraithe de réir dlí nó de réir socrú idir ceardchumainn agus fostóirí, ag ionsaí coinníollacha, cearta oibre agus ag ionsaí an nós gur ceart go mbeadh pinsin ceart ag gach oibritheoir chomh maith. Ar dtús, thosnaigh sé seo, leis na comhluchtaí áirithe ag tabhairt isteach oibrithe nua, ar coinníollacha agus ar phá níos lú, ná na daoine a bhí ann cheana féin, ar próiséis ar a ghlaoigheann muid “Yellow Pack” orthu. Agus anois, tá sé sin leagaithe amach mar ionsaí fiachmhairthe mór‑thimpeall na hEorpa, ar cearta pinsin, go mór‑mhór i lucht oibre agus ní tionscail briste bochta atá á dhéanamh seo, ach tionscail agus comhluchtaí ollmhóra, cosúil leis na bainc agus na comhluchtaí móra airgeadais.
We had, as well, speculators, major developments profiteering on the backs of young working people needing homes at the same time as crass exploitation of migrant workers in particular was going on in the very sites where those profits were being made. I am not even referring to the horrific industrial type exploitation, industrial scale exploitation of Gama but the exploitation of workers through the accession states in particular. So how social is a Europe that allows that type of exploitation and what will Lisbon do, if anything, to halt what we call the race to the bottom?
Now I welcome any fundamental right that we can possibly win, but the claims that are being made about the Charter of Fundamental Rights being incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty are not sustainable. The Charter of Fundamental Rights are not rights that are not so fundamental after all when it comes down to brass tacks. Many of the rights look good on paper but actually mean little in terms of being legally implementable. There is the right that we should have quality healthcare, but according to conditions established by national laws and practices.
In Ireland that rights means that you may languish on a trolley for days as an old, infirm and sick person, but if you are rich you can have a quality health service.
And very importantly, people must look at Article 52, the scope of guaranteed rights where it states clearly:
Rights recognised by this Charter which is based on the community treaties or the Treaty on the European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those treaties.
And the explanation that I have not time to read out, but that comes from the European Union itself that should be read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights is very clear that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, and that is exactly what has done in the court cases.
Now Ruairi rather arrogantly and dismissively referred to the recent court cases like Laval, Viking, et cetera, and was insulting, which I will ignore, towards people who have pointed these out as major problems for working people. We have had Laval, which I think everybody knows about, where the European Court of Justice did endorse the under payment of migrant workers in Sweden. More recently we have had case on April 3rd given by the European Court of Justice the Rueffert case in Lower Saxony in Germany where the European Court of Justice clearly backed a Polish subcontractor paying less than half of the going trade union rate in that State and repudiated the attempts by local authorities in that area to prevent the exploitation of migrants workers.
Now a yes advocate stated in a debate that I had that the Laval judgment could not happen if the Lisbon Treaty is passed. Now this is crucial and we must clarify this today. And the Chairman of the Referendum Commission Judge Iarfhlaith O'Neill seemed to imply the same when he spoke on RTE Radio on the News at One yesterday when Sean O'Rourke put it to him in relation to the Laval ruling regarding Swedish unions, they were told yes, you have the right to strike but you don't have the right to impede foreign workers to earn money at lower rates than your members are paid. And Judge O'Neill replied: But I mean the ‑‑ and then there is an inaudible word ‑‑ of the Laval case is that that was decided on pre Treaty. Laval does not effect what will happen if the Treaty is passed. And the learned Judge gives the impression there that the Lisbon Treaty would have or cause a different outcome in the Laval and then in the Rueffert case also. That is quite wrong. That is absolutely wrong. And people should read the Laval judgment for themselves. Paragraph 91 is very clear and it takes into account and specifically mentions the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So it is already in their minds actually, although the right to take collective action must therefore be recognised as a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of community law, the observance of which the court ensured, the exercise of that right may, nonetheless, be subject to certain restrictions and it mentions community laws and national law and practices.
So Judge O'Neill and the Referendum Commission are quite wrong to imply that the passing of Lisbon would fundamentally alter the situation. I think the Referendum Commission, Cathaoirleach, should be very careful that they do not become involved on one side of the argument on the Lisbon Treaty. And on this side I am sorry to say that the Judge did stray over the line on this particular occasion, and strayed badly over the line, in my view, and that needs to be clarified and it needs to be corrected.
And less it might arise later, I should state an interest here but it does not determine the criticism I am making of the learned Judge, he did send me to Mountjoy Jail for a month a few years back, but that was purely coincidental.
The fact is that the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees in Ireland €8.65 an hour in terms of wages or whatever the registered agreement in the construction industry provide and nothing more. Now I would like clarity on that and if people challenge that, please show me where I am wrong and where you are right.
Finally, Cathaoirleach, and by the way, and Ruairi, I am sure you have read it or you should have, the European Trade Union Confederation was coruscating in its criticism of these judgments. I haven't time to read the quotes, I have them here. But I mean I am sure you wouldn't dismiss that body as, and if I may so, arrogantly as you do maybe the likes of myself with regard to what the implications of those particular judgments are. It is coruscating in what it says and it says that it compromises the attempt to protect migrants workers.
Finally, Cathaoirleach, the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the hands of the European institutions, the Commission of the European Court of Justice puts the interests of business and profit quite clearly before the rights of workers. And it is manifestly clear from the judgments that have been given. Working people in Europe cannot rely on those institutions, neither can they rely on the promises now being made about the Charter of Fundamental Rights within the Lisbon Treaty. They can rely on their own organisation's strength and mobilisation and a no to Lisbon by the Irish people will send a powerful message that our public services are not commodities to be traded, handed over to profit seeking corporations for their profits and their shareholders rather than for the benefit of our people. And that we want instead a truly democratic, a truly social, which in my view means a socialist society where those services and workers' rights are determined by the wishes of the vast majority of our people who are ordinary working people; not determined by the massive profit driven corporations that dominate so many activities of the European Union at the present time. Go raibh maith agaibh. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much. As I explained earlier, I am going to have bring the guillotine down at 12.30 in order to give the speakers ten minutes each to respond. So I would appeal to people to be as focused as they can. Now we will maybe set an impossible par of two minutes. Now if you are good you can a drive and a chip and putt in that and if you are very good you can get a drive and a long putt, but it would help if people would do their east best to keep to that. So Minister Roche, please.
I wonder could, and I will just actually confine my comments really to questions. The first point is I wonder would Deputy Quinn agree with me that the presentation made by Mr Higgins now has been extraordinarily misleading, particularly on the issue of Article 207 as it will be in the Treaty. Because while he has, of course, quoted the first part of that Article, Article 207.3, he has, as ever, forgotten to mention Article 207.4 which clearly says and I quote:
The Council shall act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the field of social, education and health services.
And makes it clear that there is, in fact, an estoppel through the requirement of unanimity.
Secondly, I wonder would Deputy Quinn agree with me that additionally, of course, public services are given special status in the protocol, which again was conveniently overlooked by Mr Higgins. And, of course, the protocol services of general interest affirms that the provision of the treaties do not in any way effect the competences of Member States to provide to Commission and to organised services. And I quote from, specifically from page 194/195 of the protocol on the services of general interest.
And I wonder finally would Deputy Quinn agree with me that the continuous presentation of parts of articles is not just disingenuous, it is mistruthful and it is intended to confuse the Irish people? And if we are to have a debate on this, surely we should give the people all the facts.
I would like to ask Joe Higgins a couple of questions. Does he not recognise ‑‑ just very quickly ‑‑ does he not recognise that the Charter gives the right to information and consultation? Does he not recognise that the right of collective bargaining is entailed in there? Does he not recognise that it gives protection against unjustified dismissal? Does he not recognise that fair and just working conditions are dealt with in the Charter? And, above all, does he not recognise the huge benefits to Irish workers right across the public and private sector since 1973: equality of pay; equal treatment for men and women; equal treatment on social security; minimum safety and health requirements; protection for pregnant workers, part‑time workers, fixed timeworkers and so on? Does not recognise any of that as being something that came positively not from domestic argument but from Europe? Thank you.
MS OWEN: Thank you very much and I, too, would like to thank both ‑‑
SPEAKER: Chairman, given that Mr Quinn has to leave early, all the politicians and the people, they have had a chance to (inaudible). Wouldn't it be appropriate to let a few (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't. It does not come into the procedure.
SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: That's right, yes. There will be plenty of other opportunities I am quite sure. Ms Nora Owen, please.
And I wanted to ask Ruairi Quinn the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is extremely welcome and I want to ask him about the various contentions that have been made that certain things can happen in Ireland that will change our laws like regarding abortion, euthanasia, those issues. Is it not the case that the European Court of Justice is going to be bound by both the competences in the treaties and with regard to national laws and that those who have raised these concerns, maybe with very good reason because that is the way they interpret the Charter, that they are wrong in their interpretation?
And I want to just remind Joe that he quoted Article 52 number 2 about, under the conditions within the limits defined by the treaties, but he did not go on to quote article subsection (6): Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter.
So that if there are things that you want changed, I would, with respect, say to Joe Higgins it may be that you have to lobby here at home and have laws here changed because the Court of Justice cannot ignore what is happening in this country. So if we have a particular rule about the payment of minimum wage, then that has to be taken into account if anybody takes an account and nothing less can be paid in that case.
I wanted to also just say that I am old enough to remember a time in the early '70s when not a single person in some of the sections like deserted wives, prisoners' wives, women who were subject to domestic violence had any laws at all protecting them and we saw all those laws coming in.
Finally could I just say Article 188 under the world trade talks there are three areas, two of them are qualified majority, but under services there has to be, as Dick Roche has said, unanimous votes. So are you saying, Joe, that Angela Merkel and Jose Barroso, who spoke to us here, both of whom made it quite clear that nothing in the Treaty changes the WTO negotiations and the EU stance will depend on a unanimous decision because one section of the discussions are bound by unanimity and once there is one section of the discussion bound by unanimity, the whole package has to be agreed unanimously? That is my understanding of Article 188 and I just wonder if it is the reason why you don't think that is the understanding. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: There is a bit of good news. Mr Quinn has agreed to remain and we will get him to Belfast by whatever means we can, short of ‑‑ and if Alban is going up the road you could give him a lift, Alban, could you?
But anyway that takes the heat off and I am happy enough to go on until about the usual time, which tends to be a quarter past or half one. And I do apologise to Minister Roche for having had him ration his time, but I am sure he will make up the deficit some time again.
Now Mr Joe Costello, and I must say I think we should express our appreciation to Mr Quinn. (Applause)
Mr Joe Costello, please.
DEPUTY COSTELLO: Thank you very much, Chairman. And I will compliment the two speakers. Joe Higgins always puts forwards a well argued cogent case and I want to compliment him on that. I think Ruairi Quinn, above all people in this country, has got very, very strong credentials in relation to the European Union. Not only, Chairman, was he the man who came up with the idea of the National Forum, he was also the man who, as Minister for Finance, dealt with our corporation tax arranging the twelve and a half per cent. And he was also, I believe, the person who came up with the idea of the Euro as the name for the coinage for the currency of Europe. So clearly he is a man who has strong credibility and credentials and involvement in the whole European project.
A couple of questions. Can I ask Ruairi if you would agree that the entire Treaty, the Lisbon Reform Treaty has, in fact, got a theme running through it which is the theme of the social model? That in its values and principles at the very beginning, both in terms of the internal European Union as well as the external relationships, in terms of the social clause, in terms of the social dialogue, in terms of the social partnership, in terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and indeed in terms of its international challenges, if you like, in terms of the eradication of global poverty and the sustainability of the planet, that there is a particular social theme running right through.
Secondly, can I ask in relation to Joe Higgins, Joe did quote for us Article 188.C of the Common Commercial Policy, but Joe made no reference at all to Article 188.A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, R of Article 188 as well. And I think he should put it context when he is talking about the entire article, it goes right down to 188.R. And I don't want to go into the details of that, but certainly in relation to what Minister Roche said in terms of the Council acting unanimously is a key aspect of it.
And the final point I make is in relation to the Charter. And again we have had the issues of Rueffert and Viking and Laval and none of us are going into them at this particular point, but it was not just the Referendum Commission that said that these would have been dealt with differently, I am specifically referring to Laval, but Commissioner Spidla, who is the Commissioner responsible for employment has put that on the record as well. And remember also that the Referendum Commission has already pronounced on tax, which was one of the major issue of Libertas Ulick McEvaddy and categorically stated that they were wrong. They have also pronounced on neutrality and categorically stated there was no infringement on Irish neutrality in this area, Joe, which is another issue that you have been very strong on saying that there is.
And could I also say in conclusion that the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation John Monks very strongly argues for a yes vote in this particular Treaty and that the Charter and the social clause would be beneficial in dealing with issues that come up in relation to the past in terms of the Rueffert, Viking and Laval cases.
It seems to me, Joe, that you always look for perfection and in looking for perfection you miss out on what is good, in this particular, case in this Treaty.
CHAIRPERSON: Bronwen Maher, please.
The treaties have slowly but surely given over a lot of powers to Europe and we have seen how Europe has benefited Ireland hugely. But I see there is a democratic deficit here now in that the citizen and political parties are not debating and showing how important our voting is at parliamentary elections and the European elections next year, how important this will be in the future because so much of our decisions are being made in Europe. I think we need rigorous debate at the European elections next year so that we put MEPs in Europe who will copper fasten and protect all we have gained for the social Europe.
We need more robust debate in our parliaments here, in the Dáil and in the Seanad because we're assured, for example, that neutrality and tax will not be affected, but these will only be protected if we have robust defence in the Dáil and the Seanad on these issues. And at the Council in Brussels and in the European Parliament and in the Commission we must have robust defence of all these things that we have achieved, because, without doubt, I believe Lisbon will bring in much more loosening of workers' rights because of its commitment to advancing market competition. And there is real wriggle room there in the future for picking out what we have achieved. The danger is not Europe, the danger is us here at home. Our parliamentarians and our members of parliament have to be strong in defence of these issues.
And just a final comment, I feel a lot of the arguments about market competition and workers' rights, the workers' rights seem to be only defended if it does not affect the economy and the same arguments have been used continuously over the environment here. We will advance climate change issues once we don't interfere with the economy. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Eoin O Broin.
CLLR O BROIN: Thank you very much, Chair.
I have to say I don't recognise the European Union that Ruairi Quinn talks about and it is probably because I am looking a different parts of it. I suppose two of the startling facts over the last decade or so that I think show a very different or cast a very different light on the type of European Union we are living in is the fact that today there's more than 70 million people across the European Union living at risk of poverty. And when you actually look at the distribution of wealth, particularly the distribution of income over the last 30 years, but particularly in the last ten years, the shift of percentage from capital to labour has grown, not reduced. So we are living in a more unequal Europe as well as one that has larger numbers of people at risk from poverty.
And the reason is, of course, very clear. Both at a Member States level and at a EU level over the last decade and a half we are seeing the abandonment of the types of social European values that Ruairi very clearly articulated in favour of a much more narrowly defined notion of economic competitiveness. And that is a fact borne out by all of the figures.
On some of the specific points. Dick Roche mentions Article 207. Now I have both the Lisbon Treaty in its original form and its consolidated form. Article 207 does not deal with the issue that he says it deals with. It actually deals with the permanent representatives. He is referring to Article 118 Section 4 and not Article 207 and it does not surprise me considering neither he nor his Taoiseach seem to have read the Treaty from cover to cover, as Brian Cowen admitted only a number of days ago.
MINISTER ROCHE: Read it into the record.
CLLR O BROIN: I will indeed, Minister.
MINISTER ROCHE: Read it into the record.
CLLR O BROIN: I will indeed, Minister. My point is this, the specific phrase that you referred is in Article 188.C Section 4 and it is very clear, and I am going to respond to Nora Owen on this because I think it is important. The absolute veto that this State and all other Member States currently have with respect to services such as health, education and social services goes. There is a very restrictive veto, and Joe read out the clause of it, which talks about the risk of or seriously disturbing the delivery of those services at Member State level. So the absolute veto goes, which means the kind of deal that is currently being negotiated at the World Trade Organisation, which many people around this table are calling on the Irish government to veto if it is not in the interests of the Irish economy, will be the lost if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.
I also want to respond directly to the Minister on the protocol. It is interesting there is a statement from the Fianna Fail Press Office yesterday which talked about a protocol on public services. There is no such protocol. It is a protocol on services of general interest. And, of course, part of the debate at the heart of the European Union at the minute is that there no clarity on whether or not services of general interest include health and education and social services. My own reasoned opinion is that they don't. There are other people around the table who clearly think that they do. But for the Minister to suggest that this protocol is a protocol on public services is simply untrue. And I have to say the only protections it gives is to non economic services of general interest, and my view is very clearly things like health and education are not included in that.
I just want to respond also very briefly to the issue of the Charter because I think it is important. You don't just have to listen to Joe's arguments that the Charter won't provide any added value in terms of the protection or promotion of civil rights or, indeed, of social and economic rights. Read the analysis by Eugene Regan, now a Senator and formerly a staffer with the Institute of European Affairs. On their web site he says very clearly in his analysis that it does not add any new rights and it gives no new claims for positive action on social and economic matters. So very clearly both Eugene, who supports the Treaty, and the Institute of European Affairs, which presents itself as independent and has a lot of good research on this, is saying exactly the same thing as Joe is saying.
My final point, Chair, because I know you want me to be brief, is this. If this Treaty was as good for social Europe and workers' rights as Ruairi suggested, then why isn't every single trade union in the country jumping up and down saying it is good for their membership? Two of the largest trade unions on the island, Unite and the TWEU have already come out and said no. There is confusion over the CPSU because Blair Horan in public two weeks ago said they supported it, but there is a press release from six or seven members of the National Executive of his own Union saying that they don't. And we all know from talking to senior trade unionists across the spectrum that they are deeply concerned about what the judgments that Joe Higgins referred to as well as the content of the Treaty. There is no doubt that this Treaty will see the significant undermining of public services and workers rights and I have yet to hear a compelling argument from anybody, particularly on the Labour Party side that can convince me otherwise. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to?
MINISTER ROCHE: Yes. On the narrow matter fact, on page 129 of the consolidated version, which Mr O Broin has not read into the record, I will read it into in the record. It actually says ‑‑
MR HIGGINS: Just so we are on the same page.
MINISTER ROCHE: Sorry, Chairman.
MR HIGGINS: So we are on the same page, Minister, because there is about three or four different.
MINISTER ROCHE: The consolidated version.
CLLR O BROIN: Give us a page number, Minister.
CHAIRPERSON: If people would agree on a text.
MINISTER ROCHE: I just said page 129.
MR HIGGINS: Do it by reference to 188, which is what is in the Treaty.
MINISTER ROCHE: Sorry, Chairman. Sorry, Chairman, if I may because you actually accepted that ‑‑
MR HIGGINS: I just want to be able to read it.
MINISTER ROCHE: Just with regard to Mr O Broin's statement. He made his statement that it was referring to the Commission. You made the statement it was referring to the Commission.
CLLR O BROIN: 207 refers to the permanent representation, I said it refers to permanent representation.
MINISTER ROCHE: You made the statement that it is referring to ‑‑
CLLR O BROIN: Permanent representation.
MINISTER ROCHE: If you actually look at the third paragraph at part 4 on page 129 and quote. It says: The Council shall acting unanimously, and then it goes on at part 4.B it says: In the field of trade and social, education and health services where these agreements, and so on. So what you are saying here to this ‑‑
CLLR O BROIN: You said "and so on", read the full piece of the text, Minister.
MINISTER ROCHE: No, you can read the full text.
MS McKENNA: No, read it.
MINISTER ROCHE: The point I am simply making is that you lied when you said ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: Please don't say lied. You can't tell people that they lied.
MINISTER ROCHE: Well, Chairman, for somebody who has it in front of them.
CHAIRPERSON: I am not going allow you to use language like lying.
MINISTER ROCHE: Okay. He misled.
CHAIRPERSON: It is unparliamentary, you know.
MINISTER ROCHE: He misled. This is not parliament.
CHAIRPERSON: Well it will may not be, but we can try and maintain the same decencies.
MINISTER ROCHE: No, no, Chairman, if I may just finish because you accepted that for reasons which were nothing to do and there is no malign intended, you cut me short in my own presentation. This gentleman has suggested that I was misquoting. I am not misquoting. It clearly says the words "the Council". Those are the first two words and I suggest that if you want to read the balance of the article that is fine, but in the interests of accuracy it says "the Council", full stop.
CHAIRPERSON: What I am concerned about is people working off different texts and if they are it is very, very difficult to get any sort of clarification and I think the Director is prepared to offer some sort of clarification.
MR SHEEHAN: I think the confusion arises because there is a table of equivalencies annexed to the Lisbon Treaty which shows that Article 188 will be numbered in the new consolidated official text as Article 206 and 207 and so forth, and therefore there is just a simple difference of numbering. It is the same Article that, I think, people are all referring to. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Senator Ruairi Quinn, or Fergal. Too many Quinns!
SENATOR QUINN: I am sure he has not been promoted to the upper house just yet.
Two questions briefly. When I go to mass on a Sunday I find a news letter or a newspaper, a free newspaper called Alive. Does Ruairi Quinn take their comments as being, as his words, scare mongering and lies? And I want him to address the concerns of those who read that newspaper about the Lisbon Treaty having an effect on our rights in Ireland in regard to abortion, euthanasia and others other areas like that.
In the case of Joe Higgins, I have been to Eastern Europe quite a lot in the last few months and I understand the views that are being expressed there, which seem to be very much in favour of the Treaty, because they believe it gives the option of using, in the area of trade and public services, and I am thinking here of water, education and hospitals, as Joe Higgins talks it, being stock exchange quotationists rather than necessarily having to do it themselves. Those eastern European countries who had the experience before of not having that option of having to do it themselves find that having an option would be something that would appeal to them. Now am I correct in my reading of it that this gives them an option rather than forces them to have a stock exchange as opposed to a public company quote for this?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Patricia McKenna, please.
MS McKENNA: I find it quite astonishing this morning that this claim about people on the no side only quoting parts of documents and parts of articles, et cetera. It seemed to work okay in the past when the yes side were doing it. And I would ask the Minister to take a look at the Referendum Commission's booklet that was sent out and their websit. There, there was a serious omission in that the actual constitutional amendment we are voting on only a part of it is there, and a fundamental and serious part of is omitted and I would ask you to check that out. That is completely denying the public, number one, the wording of what they are going to be voting on and, number two, the consequences of it.
When you start attacking other people because you don't like the message, you should actually take a leaf out of your own book and follow by example.
I was quite amazed at what Ruairi Quinn said. Again it comes back to the same issue about parts of things. Ruairi says the ECJ ruled in the Viking case it is a fundamental right of EU citizens that where their livelihood is threatened, direct action is an acceptable, well established route for them to take. In other words, that people have a right to protest. But you will also recognise, Ruairi, that in the European Court judgments in the Laval case it was made quite clear that freedom to conduct business took priority over the right to strike.
And this idea that somehow everything is going to be better if we vote for the Lisbon Treaty is a complete misconception. What it will do, it will copper fasten the Laval Vauxhall judgment and it will allow, it to be illegal for governments and trade unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers and I think this is quite serious. It will not only have an impact on migrant workers themselves but also on the workers in individual Member States.
And I think, you know, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is being sold as something that is wonderful. It has been clearly said, I think by Eoin O Brion, that it does not establish any new rights and look at some of trade unions that have already come out against it. The European Court judgments have made it clear that citizens or workers rights are inferior to those of the market and it has unambiguously stated that. And I will quote:
It is well established in case law of the Court that the restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market.
So while the Labour Party, is selling this Treaty and saying that one of their main reasons for supporting it is the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it sounds good, at face value. But when you actually go underneath the surface you can see that it is quite the opposite. I can see why members of the Labour Party and people who are supposedly on the left in this country are a little bit anxious and concerned because they are actually doing a U‑turn on what they stood for in the past and don't really want that highlighted. I think it has to be highlighted and I would say congratulations to Joe Higgins and other people for actually highlighting the consequences not only of the Charter but also of the impact on workers' rights and the right to equality and to be treated fairly and the right for people to have a decent wage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Michael Geary, please.
MR GEARY: I would strongly disagree with Mr Higgins' selective interpretation of the proposed Treaty. I think we keep forgetting that what we are looking at is a consensus reached by 27 members, over a long number of years, on a range of global problems, climate change, energy, trafficking, immigration, poverty, human rights. They all have massive social implications and the proposed Treaty does provide mechanisms where all of these problems can be addressed on a European level which will certainly lead to an enhanced lot for all its citizens.
Finally, Chairman, I would like to clarify and confirm that Chambers Ireland, following an extensive consultation of its 57 constituent chambers where no chamber actually rejected the proposed Treaty, is advocating a strong yes vote by its 13,000 members. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alban Maginness, please.
MR MAGINNESS: Thank you very much, Cathaoirleach.
Could I just say that, first of all, I welcome very warmly the remarks by Deputy Ruairi Quinn. I think it was a very succinct analysis of social Europe, and one which emphasised the transformation in workers' rights, indeed, in rights of many other citizens including women, not just in this State but also north of the border and across the Irish Sea and across the channel into Europe at large. This fundamental transformation should be deeply appreciated by all, including those and is appreciated, I think, by many in the trade union movement, but should be appreciated by members of this Forum.
Now Joe Higgins criticises the Treaty and makes reference to specific aspects of it and refers to changes in the fundamentals of previous treaties. But Joe has consistently opposed the European Union per se, and yet he says that he is relying on aspects of EU law, which he now says should not be changed in order to protect workers' rights. But the reality is this, that workers' rights have grown fundamentally and organically as a result of the European Union and that is something which he does not pay tribute to the union for doing and I think that it is a contradictory argument that he makes in relation to the present Treaty.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a consolidation of what has been achieved and that can be built upon. I believe it will continue to act as a catalyst for creating even greater rights for workers and for ordinary citizens throughout this Union. It is really on that basis that I would challenge Joe to say why he relies on rights that the Union has created, despite the fact he is opposed to the Union, and does not see the value in consolidating those rights and moving forward to create even greater rights for citizens throughout the European Union.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Michael O'Reilly, please.
But I want to just contrast with what we are doing, because Ruairi spoke about social Europe. I think that we are seeing social Europe being diminished, because that has been the story up to this. But I think there is a huge turning point taking place in respect of that situation. Now we are seeing the commodification of Europe. We are seeing very much a market model and what we are doing is we are enshrining in absolute terms the supremacy of the market in a Constitution.
In my opinion, a constitution, if you take the Irish Constitution, the Irish Constitution respects the right of private property. But the Irish Constitution also says its operation should have the regard to the common good. I think that is a very good formula for a social Europe. But that is not what we are voting on. What we are doing is we are enshrining forever in the new constitution the supremacy of the market and we are making workers and consumers subordinate to that situation. I think there are huge dangers in that and I believe that that is the reason why a number of the unions so far have come out against it.
I don't believe that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will support this. That remains to be seen but I don't believe that they will. I think, as I say, unions are very opposed to it.
If this is rejected, we will have a chance to go back and get some of these issues addressed. It also interests me when you look at the question of what we have lost, we have lost the right to have a commissioner. So have other countries. That is true on the same basis. But they have enhanced their votes and strengths in other areas and ours have been diminished. It is interesting that the government are saying that the question of the Commissioner is not important and not a great issue and we should go ahead and vote for it. And I just ‑‑ I will finish on this.
CHAIRPERSON: If you would, please.
MR O'REILLY: If there is a situation where they are now saying that it does not matter, did they really make the case for it in the first place?
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Mr Brendan Butler, please.
MR BUTLER: Thank you Chairman. Thank you Deputy Quinn and Mr Higgins for their presentations.
Just two questions for Mr Higgins. Firstly his point that I would like to know how he could reconcile the fact that he said that Europe is dominated by big profitable business when, in fact, if we look at Ireland it is seen as the success of Europe. It does have 250,000 companies operating Ireland. Those companies have provided 2.1 million jobs. The jobs are the highest paid in Europe. We have the lowest taxes in Europe and we have the highest levels of protection.
But the fact is of those 250,000 companies, 97% of them employ less than 50 people; 90% employ less than ten people. We are a nation of small businesses and I think you cannot reconcile saying Europe is dominated by big business when you look at what has been achieved in this country.
The second point I want to make is your allegation against IBEC in terms of protectionism, the P word that you are putting forward. Do you honestly believe that Irish people ‑ workers, business, any member of Irish society wants to return to a situation where if they want to book an airline flight they can go to one operator, a State company; that if they want to buy a mobile phone they can go to one operator, a State company; that if they want to turn on a TV or radio station, they can go to one operator, a State company? Do you really want a situation where if somebody in this country wants to get their young child minded or get some early care education that they have to have go to a State service which does not provide it? Or do you really believe if any us in this room had an elderly relative who required 24 hour medical care that they would have to depend on the State because the State does not provide that service properly in this country. There is a role for the private sector and every citizen in this country has benefitted from it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Blair Horan, please.
The Executive Council does meet next Wednesday and I will be proposing at the Congress Executive that Congress backs the Lisbon Treaty and campaigns for a yes vote. The reason I will be doing that is that my own union, the CPSU, put a motion to the Congress conference in July last year that linked support for the Lisbon Treaty to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That motion was passed unanimously by the Congress.
In my view, of the five amending treaties we have had since we joined in 1973, Lisbon is the most progressive in terms of workers' rights and the social dimension. The social dimension does have new values to the economic sphere. It introduces a social market aiming at full employment and social progress. It commits to combatting social exclusion, discrimination and promoting social justices. Euro speak for public services is services of general interest. The concern was not trade policy, the concern was EU competition policy and that is protected absolutely by the protocol on public services that has been inserted in this Treaty.
Now the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I believe, is very important, both of its symbolic nature but also the practical effects it will have.
I want to deal, Chairman, just very briefly with the three cases of the European Court that have been referred to. The most important European Court judgment is the Viking case, because that sets out very clearly that strike action is allowed to protect pay and conditions, even though it restricts freedom of movement. That is set out very clearly. The Rueffert case, there are technical reasons behind that so we don't need to deal with that.
The Laval case, can I deal with that? Yes, there are issues that arise out of the Laval case. There are issues we have to negotiate in the pay talks in terms of our own domestic situation arising from that, but the Laval case is very particular.
The Laval workers were not represented by the Swedish trade union. There is no impediment whatsoever for strike action where you represent the workers. In the Laval case the trade union did not have those workers as members. And in Ireland you cannot have a strike situation if you don't actually have the workers being members of the trade union. You can in Sweden. So Sweden was different in that respect.
But, the reason it has been put forward that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would make a difference is this, and I believe that to be the case, if the Charter of Fundamental Rights is implemented and has legally binding effect it becomes a pillar of the Treaty alongside the four freedoms and has to have equal status, which it does not currently have because it is not legally binding. So it will make a difference. There is to question about that in terms of Laval.
Now could I just say about the case that Patricia quoted there a minute ago in relation to the market. That is to do with a dispute over the milk levy in Sweden. It is nothing to do with workers' rights. The European Union Confederation, the Swedish Trade Union Confederations are all supporting Lisbon and the reason they are supporting Lisbon is the social dimension and any issues that will arise in the Labour Court, the ECJ judgments will be helped by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not hindered. To reject Lisbon, in fact, would be to vote for the status quo in that situation. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Una McGurk, please.
Joe, your passionate commitment to the rights of workers, and indeed the plight of workers as evidenced by your highlighting of such well‑known cases as Gama and many others over the years is very well‑known. And I have to suggest that the Laval case, which you have mentioned on so many occasions, as have many other which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lisbon Treaty and, in any event, is unlikely to happen here because of our own laws and the strength of our own trade unions, and I would agree with Blair Horan in what he has said in relation to that.
At present the Charter of Fundamental Rights contains no less than six articles on workers' rights contained within title 4. At present it is merely declaratory and, therefore, not binding on any of the EU institutions, including the European Court of Justice. But when this Treaty is passed, this Charter will become binding on these institutions.
Now do you not think as someone who is so passionate about the rights of workers, that that represents a better deal not just for workers but for everyone of the 500 million members of the EU?
My second question, if I may, sorry, is for Ruairi Quinn. It is in a somewhat different vein, but I know it is a subject, I think, that is close to Ruairi's heart. My question relates to an important issue of economic growth, particularly for Ireland, without which, of course, the concepts of social justice and social fairness cannot be realised and are at risk of being reduced to empty rhetoric. And I am referring, in particular, to a matter that again has been raised a number of times, both within this Forum and outside this Forum, concerning Article 113 of the Treaty and this alleged prospect of harmonisation which could affect our low corporate tax rate.
And would you agree with me, Mr Quinn, that the issue is much more simple and fundamental even than the question of whether or not Ireland has a veto, which it does, in any event, under Article 113; but that the factual position is that all direct taxation, which includes corporation tax, falls outside the Treaties, is not a union competence and can never be interfered with by this or any other Treaty, and that even the question of veto is neither relevant or necessary in that regard? Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Raymond O'Rourke, please.
MR O'ROURKE: I would like to thank both speakers for coming here and speaking about what we could call the European social model.
I want to highlight the issue of social dumping. Both the Laval and Viking ECJ cases, as well as the recent Rueffert judgment concerned the interplay of the Posted Workers Directive 96/71 and the free movement of workers freedom to provide services articles within the existing EC Treaty. The first important point to note, as Ruairi mentioned, is that the ECJ in all these cases has stated clearly that the right to strike collective action is a fundamental right under the EC Treaty. The difficulty lies between the inconsistent national implementation of the Posted Workers Directive in Member States being balanced with the free movement of workers freedom to provide services articles in the EC Treaty. In these cases the Court, contrary to the Advocate General, has sided with EC Treaty Articles rather than the strong social protections listed within the Directive, due to their mixed implementation in different Member States. In simple terms, Patricia McKenna, Sweden and Germany believed that their national collective bargaining legislation was better than EU law. It is as simple as that.
In my own area of expertise, food law, I can cite the same situation occurring in the past. The famous Cassis de Dijon case, if anybody has studied EU law will know, established a mutual recognition principle whereby a food product marketable in one Member State was thereby marketable throughout the European Union in line with the free movement of good articles in the EC Treaty thereby facilitating trade. Since BSE and various other developments, the balance has changed utterly so that now consumer protection is the raison d'etre for European food law, not the internal market free movement of good articles with the EEC Treaty.
Now would the speakers agree with me that with the new social clauses within the Lisbon Treaty, they now offer the opportunity for the European social model to take precedence over free movement of workers and freedom to provide services articles of the EC Treaty?
In future, Member State governments agreeing, as in the case of consumer protection, will have agreed that in any conflict in the internal market that social protection will have a higher priority over free movement of workers and freedom to provide services articles in the Treaty and, therefore, Lisbon is a good deal for workers, pensioners and consumers?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prionsias de Rossa, please.
What strikes me again today, as it did indeed the last week, is the inconsistencies in the no position. We have Patricia McKenna who seems to be arguing from a left perspective against privatisation. She seems to forget that in 2003 she actually tried to push the Commission into privatising parts of the ESB because she disagreed with the procedures which the Irish government and the ESB had put in place with regard to providing certain services. The Commission refused to take the line she wanted them to take on that particular occasion, quite rightly so, because the treaties of the European Union are neutral as regards private ownership or public ownership of companies or property and, indeed, cannot interfere in how the State organises its public services. And this is confirmed yet again in the protocol on SGI.
And I am surprised at Eoin O Broin of Sinn Fein who pretends he doesn't understand what services of general interest means. Services of general interest, as has already been pointed out, is Euro speak , if you like, for public services and they are called services of general interest quite simply because the delivery of public services, as we know them, are extremely different in various Member States and in many Member States are not called public services. So the phrase adopted at European level is social services or rather services of general interest.
Within that category there is also social, or rather services of general economic interest and these are public services which have a commercial content such as Bus Eireann or Iarnrod Eireann and so on. But also, of course, there are social services in there and the protocol makes absolutely clear that the Member State may not be interfered with in how they provide those services, how they organise them and how they fund them. And, indeed, insofar as competition rules have any impact on them at all, Article 16 makes it very clear that those competition rules may not impact on, may not negatively impact on how those services are delivered.
I want to ask Sinn Fein as well, although they are not on the platform, I want to ask Joe Higgins as well, why Mary Lou McDonald tabled an amendment last week in the European Parliament urging the establishment of a system of progressively rising social security contributions or taxes of employers, given the position that they have been screaming from the roof tops here in the last few weeks with regard to protecting corporation tax, et cetera?
And what I want to ask Joe is: does he not accept the assurance from the ETUC, from John Monks where he said: I have never called nor has the ETUC called for a social progress clause to be added to the Lisbon Treaty. I want the Lisbon Treaty adopted quickly by Member States with the introduction of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, with its workers' rights made legally binding. This would have helped with recent cases. To reopen the Treaty at this stage is neither practical nor desirable.
And finally, I just want to make one final point. I want to quote from, a short quote from a book published by Dr Laurent Pech of UCG on the issue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights where he says:
It is worth mentioning a few of these articles where the meaning is the same as the corresponding articles of the ECHR but where the scope of protection is wider. The right to marry and found a family, for instance, covers the same field as the corresponding article in the ECHR but its scope may be extended to other forms of marriage if these are established by national legislation. The Charter also allows EU institutions to eventually extend the scope of freedom of assembly and of association at Union level. Regarding the right of education, its scope is extended to cover access to vocational and continuing training. It is further stipulated that this right includes the possibility to receive free, compulsory education. As to the right of an effective remedy and to a fair trail also based on ECHR, it offers a more extensive protection since it guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court. Similarly in EU law ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: I am anxious to get other people in.
MR DE ROSSA: I am just about to finish. In EU law the right to a fair hearing is not confined to disputes relating to civil rights and obligations, therefore the Charter can be said to offer a more extensive connection than provided for the ECHR.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Liz Davidson, please.
We are here sitting in this wonderful hall surrounded by flags and under that great symbol of peace in Ireland which is the green, white and orange and I was wondering what the speakers might suggest would be our new symbol of Europe to express to the voter that the vision that we will not be trading, as Joe Higgins thinks, the one star spangled banner for another? Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Killian Forde, please.
CLLR FORDE: Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach.
One of the things I found a bit intriguing in general has been this idea, and it is put out by all the parties who are advocating a yes vote, who also happen to be all the parties who had a monopoly on power in the State, is that Europe, we should be grateful to Europe for bringing in progressive legislation on the issues of workers' rights and equality. Where this does not really add up to me is that I don't ever recall anybody preventing us bringing in those rights. And so is that you are saying that somehow we are unenlightened, that your party was unenlightened, Fine Gael were unenlightened or Fianna Fail were unenlightened to ever actually introduce these laws until Europe flagged them to us that they may exist?
You compare the Charter of Fundamental Rights to being as significant as a man landing on the moon. I would suggest you may be right. I think the Charter may turn out to be something similar to the man on the moon it that it will look absolutely great, it will be sold to us as the dawn of a new era, but unfortunately it will turn out to be very, very expensive and ultimately pointless.
I want to address one of the issues in relation to Dick Roche when he finished the remainder of his quote with the words "and so on". Minister Roche, let me try and finish what it actually says, because this is the important part about it.
The Article, which is 188 Part 4, Section C states:
In the field of trade and social, education and health services ‑‑ and this is the important part that you referred to as "and so on" ‑‑ where this agreement risks seriously disturbing a national organisation for such services and reducing the responsibility of the Member States to deliver them.
I am not too sure where you get your certainty from in this issue, because it is actually the European Court of Justice who will decide when those agreements risk disturbing the national organisation, and I think that is a very important point and it rebukes your certainty that you seem to be delivering.
On the last issue, and it is a very quick one. Prionsias asked a question in relation to Mary Lou McDonald. Let me ask a question on behalf of every Irish person I have ever met to Proinsais. Why on earth did you vote not to respect the referendum in the European Parliament? (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Maire Ni Bheaglaoich, please.
MR DE ROSSA: May I answer that, chair?
CHAIRPERSON: If you would.
MS NI BHEAGLAOICH: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirleach.
Tá cúpla cainteoir tar éis......
CHAIRPERSON. .....let this lady in and then I will let you in for a moment. A Mhairéad, yes, anois.
MS NI BHEAGLAOICH: 'Sea. Tugtar Eorap Sóisialta ar seo agus tá labhartha ag cúpla duine mar gheall ar cearta ban agus níl a fhios agam cá bhfuil sé sin sa Chonradh, cearta ban, nuair a chuimhníonn tú ar an méid foiréigeann atá ar siúl sa tír seo, i gcoinne ban, istigh ina dtithe féin. Agus na h‑oispidéil máthaireachas á dhúnadh agus conraí á thabhairt do comhluchtaí camtha, mar Quest, is é sin chun sláinte na mban a chur i mbaol. Agus ba mhaith liom a fhiafraigh de Joe Higgins, cad é an seans atá againn, reifreann cothrom, mar deirtear nach bhfuil sa Chonradh ach cur ar chumas an Aontas Eorpaigh, feidhmiú níos fearr agus ón méid rudaí teicniúla atá cloiste againn, is deacair domsa iad a thuiscint agus gan bacaint leis an bpobal go coitianta. Tá an teanga i bhfad ró‑theicniúil. Agus ba mhaith liom go ndéanfaí simpliú níos fearr ar an míniú. Go raibh maith agat.
CHAIRPERSON: Go raibh maith agat. Now Prionsais, take a minute if you would, please.
MR DE ROSSA: Thanks very much. I should note before I say anything that, of course, Sinn Fein has responded to my question to them as to why they are proposing that corporation tax be raised.
In relation to the amendment which has been raised in the European Parliament by Sinn Fein, I voted against it quite simply because I regard it as an impertinence on the part of Sinn Fein to seek to get the European Parliament to interfere in the Irish referendum.
MS McKENNA: Another twelve voted in favour of it.
CLLR O BROIN: Asking the European Parliament to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum is not interfering, it is simply asking them to respect the democratic expressed views of the Irish electorate.
Ms McKENNA: Yes. (Inaudible) now they let them back in again.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brendan Kiely, please.
MR KIELY: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I am willing to cede the floor to Prionsais if he wants to finish.
MS McKENNA: Oh, yes, of course.
MR KIELY: Of course I am, Patricia.
MR DE ROSSA: Let me finish my point. You get very excited about small things.
MS McKENNA: It is not small, it is very gigantic.
MR DE ROSSA: Patricia, you didn't answer your attempt to privatise the ESB.
MR KIELY: And your vote for the legalisation of drugs.
MS McKENNA: I will come back in. You are the only one that gets the chance here, the no side ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: I think there is one chair in the room and if there is one more than one chair it is very difficult.
MS McKENNA: The yes side go for a second round.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you asked to answer the question. Would you just answer the question without rhetoric.
MS McKENNA: I would like to answer the question too.
MR DE ROSSA: I am making the point that 80% of the parliament voted against it because they did not consider it to be their responsibility to interfere in the Irish referendum process. It is a sovereign process by the Irish people and the European Parliament have no right to interfere in that, no more than they would have the right to say we accept or reject the outcome of a general election in Ireland.
MS McKENNA: You are an Irish MEP.
CHAIRPERSON: You can take that as being asked.
MR KIELY: Thank you very much, Prionsais and Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brendan Kiely, please.
Joe, I don't really know where to start when there are so many conspiracy theories thrown into one pot, but I would bid to you read the Treaty in the same areas and the Articles that have been pointed out by my fellow yes side members.
You have made a number of comments over the last number of weeks, but I just want to take up the WTO move to QMV. And in terms of flipping the coin on this, you know, it is not necessarily having a veto is the best thing for Ireland. There are countries in Europe that have serious issues with our position in relation to certain positions we take and there's certain things that they could veto that we wouldn't want vetoed, yet under a QMV system we will be able to get them through. And that is the positive benefit. And a positive of the double majority is that the big countries cannot gang up on the small countries and vice versa. So I think that is a point that has not been made enough.
In relation to the no side in general, we welcome ‑‑ first of all on the yes side we welcome very much the Chairman of the Referendum Commission and his clarifications in relation to this debate, because we have been listening to issues in relation to neutrality and corporate tax over and over and over again and I find it personally repugnant that it seems to be coming through the no side at this point that the issue of abortion is yet again being dragged into a referendum which has nothing to do with this Treaty.
CHAIRPERSON: If we could maybe stick to today's debate.
MR KIELY: Well, no, Mr Chairman, to be fair, I think I am. And I am nearly finished, I am nearly finished. And I'd appreciate if you don't interrupt me, Patricia. Thank you.
In terms of monopoly or power, these things just don't add up and I have one question for Joe, to try and stick within the one minute.
Joe, I have asked you on numerous occasions for an alternative. What is your alternative? And today you actually articulated something which I have heard you articulate in the past. A truly democratic Europe, which you have in the past said that that is a workers' collective. Now, Joe, I couldn't run my office under a workers' collective, never mind a country or a continent. So I would like you to expand upon what you believe is a truly democratic Europe because I believe that it is very democratic and we believe that this Treaty will make it more efficient and effective and deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Caroline Simons, please.
One thing that has struck me immediately in relation to discussing the aspects of the Treaty is the extreme difficulty in getting everybody talking from the same page. And part of that arises from the fact that we all seem to have different versions of the treaties on which we are being asked to vote.
I, myself, only a few weeks ago, went on the website of the Institute of International European Affairs to produce their consolidated and annotated version of the Treaty, which only became available to Irish people in March, quite late in the day. If you go on the website today, you will find it is a document that is not at all helpful. The consolidated and annotated version of the treaties will show you what the new provisions are and whether they came from the intergovernmental conferences of 2004 or 2007. It will show you the deletions. If go on the site today, you will find simply the document that is the Lisbon Treaty. You won't know what is new and you won't know what you are being to asked to vote in relation to.
I regard that as very serious bearing in mind that this document, everybody has accepted, unless they are completely (inaudible) at this stage, it is largely the same as what appeared in the European Constitution. The French government took the trouble, with an electorate of 41.8 million voters in the two weeks before they cast their votes to send 46 million copies of the Constitution to the voters of France. That resulted in a 70% turn out of their electorate and a massive no vote. And bear in mind that prior to those two weeks in books shops right across the country there were tables laden with books informing the people on the content of that Treaty and why one would vote yes and why one would vote no.
We still have not been given copies of this very difficult to understand document. And it is with absolute agreement then that I read the comments of Jose ‑‑ he is Portuguese ‑‑ Jose Manuel Barroso that shortly after signing the outline agreement he said he was delighted that his son was studying law. Why? Because under this document lawyers will have a beautiful life. There is no doubt about that.
Now in relation to dealing with the particular question we are supposed to be discussing today, we are looking at the fundamental charter. We have Mr Roche up here on my left who has said it gives no new rights. We have Mr Quinn who has said that it is like Neil Armstrong stepping on the moon. This is a fundamental document. And I think absolutely this is going to make enormous changes.
I think we can all agree ‑‑ I am not going ask the question because it is there in the Treaty and we don't have to agree in relation to it ‑‑ that Article 6 says that the Charter will not extend the competences of the Union as defined in the treaties. It is not meant to extend the competences of the Union. And the Charter is addressed to Member States only when they are implementing European law. Those two things are facts. They cannot extend the competence of the Union and Member States only deal with this Charter in implementing Union law. The problem is how do you answer the question when you are actually implementing European union law.
We all know that in this day and age most of our laws were generated from some kind of initiative from Brussels. And we have eminent constitutional lawyers in Ireland who have looked at this document and who are very concerned that even though we are told that the Union will only act within the limits of its competences, we then could ask the question why, if that is the case, is there a provision in the Charter in relation to the right to marry and found a family, because I can't find any EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation.
The reality of this is that we will not know what we are signing up to in this document until we see how the European Court of Justice develops these points and then we will know, maybe ten years from now, what it is we have actually signed to. At this point I feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass talking to Humpty Dumpty. Words mean what I say they mean and that is the European Court of Justice. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: An tOllamh Ó Maolchatha.
PROFESSOR MULCAHY: Traoslaíom don bheirt cainteoirí, go bhfuileadar tar éis díospóireacht bríomhar a chur ar fáil dúinn inniú. Ba mhaith liom, ar dtús, bfhéidir, deighleáil ó thaobh an feallsúnacht de, in ionad dul isteach, go beacht, i ngach líne den chonradh. Nach aontaíonn tú, Joe, go bhfuileamar ag deighleáil, ins an conradh seo, le foghlaim faoi leith, go bhfuil saghas próiséis foghlaimthe ar siúl agus de réir a chéile, go bfhuil ár tuiscint den Eoraip ag feabhasú. Féachamís, ar dtús, ar chúrsaí oideachais, nuair a bhíomar ag obair ar an reifreann i 73, ní raibheamar in ann an focal oideachas a úsáid. An Aire a bhí ann, an uair sin, Wilson, dúirt sé liom: “Ní féidir liom an focal sin a úsáid ins an Dáil, mar níl an Eoraip sásta deighleáil le aon rud a chuirfeadh athrú ar chúrsaí oideachais. Now, tá gluaiseacht mór tar éis a tharlú. “Erasmus” trí míle scoláirí ag dul ó tír go tír gach bliain agus eolas acu ar cad atá ag titim amach san domhan, a bhí i coimhlint agus i cogaidh, leis na blianta anuas. Féach an Social Fund. Is cuimheann liom nuair a bhí mé ag obair shíos i # “Sherriff” Street, do bhí mé in ann an‑chuid airgead dfháil ón Social Fund, chun jobannaí a chur ar fáil. So, tá rudaí ag gluaiseacht ar aghaidh, de réir a chéile. So, táim ag cur an ceist ort: An bhfuil aon rud sa chonradh seo atá maith? Agus an bhfuil tú chun comparáid a dhéanamh leis an cuid de atá maith agus an cuid de go bhfeiceann tú deacracht ann agus a theacht amach agus a rá, ins an comh‑réiteach atá socraithe anois, go bhfuil an rud maith agus go mba ceart dúinn “yes” a rá, “tá” a rá ins an reifreann seo. Go raibh maith agat.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr John Cushnahan, please.
DEPUTY CUSHNAHAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. And can I also welcome both speakers and can I address my remarks to Mr Higgins.
Several times during your speech you said, and I quote roughly, that the EU is dominated by multinationals who have, in fact, written EU policies in this field. I want to ask you how you can square that with the generally accepted view that there is quite a considerable body of EU law implemented in this country, inspired by the EU, under which workers' rights have been protected, defended and enhanced. It would be rather ironic if that law was, as you suggest, written by multinationals.
To deal with the Treaty itself, I don't want to deal in detail with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was very eloquently dealt with by Una McGurk and Blair Horan, except to pass the comment if it is so worthless why was it resisted by the British and Polish governments? But do you not accept that the Treaty under Title 10 contains a social clause under which social issues must be given adequate consideration in the drafting and implementing of all policies? And in Article 152 it makes legal provision for social dialogue and recognition of the social partners.
A final point. You quoted to justify one of your points the European Trade Union Congress and you obviously accept it as the authoritative body defending workers' rights. Are you aware that when the Constitutional Treaty was rejected that they insisted that a number of key social issues, seven in particular, should be included in the Reform Treaty before they accepted it? And, of course, they were satisfied and they did accept it. So if you think they are an authoritative body, are you going to follow their lead?
A final point to Michael O'Reilly, who thinks that we will get a second chance if we reject this particular Treaty. I think that is a very mistaken view. This situation is very different from Nice. We have this Treaty after seven years of delicate negotiations within the EU, which was started in 2001. The circumstances are different. If we reject this, the EU will be in disarray, probably crisis, and they will be reluctant to revisit this issue and it is going to leave Ireland marginalised and friendless in Europe and those that argue there will be a second chance are, in fact, telling untruths.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Michael McLoughlin, please.
MR McLOUGHLIN: Thank you, Chairperson. The Laval case has been mentioned and I think it has been made clear, but it needs to be repeated, that the vast majority of challenges arising from the Laval case are for our domestic legislature. It is to do with how you transpose the Posted Workers Directive and to say it is anything else is missing the point. There are challenges to social Europe and I think the role of the left in the Labour movement is to meet the challenges, not to run away from them if they vote no and keep things as they are, but to rise and meet the challenges that are in the Treaty.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, again the two different versions today. Libertas say you never know what is going to happen, it is going to impose all sorts of things. And Joe Higgins tells us it is window dressing. As I said before, it can't be both. But I wonder would Joe Higgins address what Gerard Hogan said about the Charter, who is a leading eminent constitutional lawyer and he had certain views about the Charter and its impact generally speaking and I wonder would Joe address those?
Can I ask him also about, you talked about privatisation and liberalisation. I think there is a big difference between the two. Can you tell us how many times privatisation is mentioned in the Treaty and which particular Articles outline this implementation of privatisation? Because I have tried to find it and I am having difficulty.
Could I also ask him in terms of liberalisation of competition policy. Does he agree with and support the action of the European Commission against Microsoft recently when it broke up that large multinational dominant player in the market in the interests of citizens or does he disagree with that?
CHAIRPERSON: Anna Visser, please.
Of course, there has been much progress in Europe with the social dimension, but we are very conscious that for 78 million people who remain at risk of poverty in Europe, much remains to be done. And the question then becomes: does this Treaty offer an opportunity in that regard to progress the situation of the daily experiences of those people?
Let me begin by saying that we don't have a position on the Treaty as such formally. We see our role to bring people who experience poverty and the organisations that work with them into this debate so that they can interrogate and assess how this Treaty will impact their lives moving forward. Undoubtedly, there are important elements in the Treaty which have an impact on the future of social Europe, much of which we have already heard about today in terms of the specifics and I won't go into them. But the question we really have is how will the implementation of those provisions impact on people's life and how will people who experience poverty be brought into that discussion and that debate?
We have been holding a series of meetings across the country trying to have that debate with people in the run up to the referendum and we are getting a lot of feed back. And there is a clear appetite amongst people who experience these issues to look at how the European Union affects their lives. In fact, we are having requests for meetings that we couldn't possibly facilitate, given time and resources. But I think what is clear is that people do have an appetite for this type of discussion and it is important that we expand that as much as we can we possibly can.
And in that context I think clearing up some of the confusion, providing information, giving people a context in which they can have those discussions is crucial, particularly when it comes to connecting people to the European agenda. And it is this area that is core when it comes to making sure that people are aware of how the European Union affects their lives and what that means for the future of the European Union. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Alan Coleman and then I will bring in the speakers.
I expected, having listened to Joe Higgins at previous plenary sessions, that he would have chapter and verse today on the down side of this Lisbon Treaty for workers and for people's rights, but really what we got is a comparison of what is in Lisbon with an idealistic, centralised social society which Joe would like to see, and it does not obviously shape up to your ideas of how society is.
But you even have accepted that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does bring some improvements, limited as you say. Limited, I believe, is the word you used yourself. But in no instance did you show where people would be disadvantaged or disimproved in terms of workers rights and in terms of socialist standing in societies as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. In fact, the one criticism you had was that the way these rights, these improved rights, limited as you said, would be vindicated would be through the European Court of Justice, which you characterised as a kind of a right wing tool of communist market society when, in actual fact, the record of the ECJ has been extremely progressive on social issues.
The ending of the marriage ban for those working in the public service here in Ireland came through the ECJ. The ending of the two tier pay system came through them as well. A raft of very progressive social decisions have come from that body and I think the caricature that you made of it today is completely at odds with its performance over the last 30 years. One of the most progressive institutions that we have in Europe here and I think if people will be, could be very comfortable looking to that body to protect the Charter, the rights which they are getting under the Charter that we are getting here today.
And I think it is very interesting now that the Referendum Commission is beginning to clarify issues that have come up in the debate that they are being, you know, there are calls maybe today from Joe to fetter the Chairperson and his communications. I think it is not coincidental maybe that as the Chairperson and the Commission begins to clarify these issues, that this clarification is much closer to the yes position than to the no position and I think that will continue.
And of all the greatest ironies of all was Patricia McKenna calling on our Minister here to step in to speak to the Commission about their publications. I am sure if this Minister or any Minister were to say boo to the Referendum Commission we would have howls of derision from those on the no campaign. (Inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS McKENNA: Sorry, on a point of order. I did not ask the Minister to step in. I told him to take a look at their booklet and their website. I am well aware of the Referendum Commission and how it is established, so please do not misquote me. Four Fianna Fail, three Fine Gael, three Labour, this is a very balanced debate.
CHAIRPERSON: You have provided the clarification that was required. Thank you.
Now, ar an gcéad dul síos, an tUasal Nollaig Ó Maolchatha, mar gheall ar: An bhfuil aon rud sa chonradh seo, nó san Aontas Eorpach atá go maith? Well, mar a dúirt, ó thús, mar shampla, fáiltímis, ar ndóigh, roimh gach ceart, mar shampla, ins an “Cairt um Chearta Bunúsacha”. Ar ndóigh, fáiltíonn muid roimh aon ní a chuireann dlús agus treise le cearta lucht oibre, le cearta an phobail agus le saol níos fearr a dhéanamh dár ndaoine. Ach an rud a bhí ar siúl inniú ná go raibh orainn teacht isteach ar na pointí is conspóidí, maidir leis an Chonradh Lisbon agus iarracht a dhéanamh ar soiléiriú a dhéanamh ar na pointí úd.
Now, Chairman, there was a number of initial contributions from Minister Roche, Nora Owen of Fine Gael, Deputy Joe Costello, and quite a number of other speakers touched on the question of the common commercial policy. And, for clarification, we can say that the Article 188.C which I referred to, which was the initial numbering on the initial documents that we were able to download, will indeed be 207 in the final thing, provided Lisbon is carried, which I am not saying is a foregone conclusion by any means.
Now, let's try and sort this out right here before we leave in the next twenty minutes.
Article 188.C or 207 says in the paragraph 4 that:
For the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3 the Council shall act by a qualified majority.
What are those agreements? Those agreements are made when the EU Commission is mandated by the Council to do trade deals with world organisations like the World Trade, and then must report back to the Council. When it reports back to the Council, as I said, for the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Okay.
The Minister then was quoting further down:
The Council shall act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements (a) in the trade and cultural and audio visual services where they risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity and; (b) in the trade and social education and health services where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.
So, where it is considered that that is not the case, and the EU Commission and most EU governments do believe that the privatisation of services does not jeopardize services, then it is by qualified majority voting. And the protection that was in the old 133 is removed.
Now I can't be any clearer than that. I can't be any clearer than that. And that is a major change and, you know, those people who accuse me of this, that and the other thing, you know, I mean Alban Maginness was suggesting really because I disagree with a lot of directions and provisions in the European Union that I shouldn't really be arguing anything in regard to Lisbon. But if we have a situation and a Treaty comes along and proposes to make it worse and to open up our services to mandatory investment by multinational organisations then, of course, I am going to take a stand and try and stop that happening.
Now, Brendan Butler of IBEC, by the way I didn't make an allegation, Brendan, I just read out what your position is. And you do say if we have an elderly relative who needs urgent care and attention we cannot rely on the State. And, of course, the health service is, unfortunately, in some crisis. But rather than making that worse by inviting in American big business corporations, which is what is happening now, I say we reform those services. We put the necessary resources in and we change the structures that govern them. Get rid of this monstrous bureaucracy of the HSE, democratise the health service by bringing health service workers to the very heart of the running of those services. That is the alternative to saying allow big business in.
And by the way, the protocol does not, does not protect the services like health. It is quite clear from the European Commission and everybody else that health is regarded ‑‑ it is absolutely clear, read the document of November 2007 where ambulance, hospitals, et cetera are quite clearly categorised by the European Union Commission as services of economic interest, which, therefore, may be opened up to investment in a mandatory fashion. That is the reality. Again if I am wrong, please quote where I am wrong.
Now, moving along very quickly, Cathaoirleach. I mean, you see, Dick Roche then says collective bargaining. Of course all these fine rights are in the Charter but, as I said at the beginning, they are circumscribed and limited by many aspects, including by the Charter itself which say that they have to be subject to the treaties and to EU law. And it is quite clear that up until now the European Court of Justice has said in that regard that the right of companies to come in to trade, to make profits, even if it means exploiting workers by contrast with the workers in the country where the migrants workers come to, that is okay. And that is clearly what has happened.
And by the way, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael when you say equal pay and pregnant workers, et cetera and rights, all these were given by Europe. Well you are condemning yourselves because you dominated the politics of this State for the last 80 years. So if those rights were not given, it was you didn't give them so shame on you. (Applause) In fact, it was workers themselves organising and pushing that forced these rights out of the system.
Ms McGurk from Fianna Fail, Laval has a lot to do with the Lisbon Treaty I argue, and other people, Raymond and that spoke about that as well. And I think I made the point at the very beginning that I do not think that having the Charter in Lisbon is going to make a fundamental difference. And let's look for the first rulings of the European Court of Justice, should be it be passed, when disputes arise between the rights of workers to be protected from exploitation and the rights of business.
And by the way, the trade unionists who say in regard to Laval that the Swedish unions did not have those workers on its books. Now that is a shameful approach, I have to say. What happened to Jim Larkin and James Connolly and the solidarity of working people, shamefully Congress years ago, before Blair Horan was ever in it, gave away many of these rights in agreeing to legislation that was brought down the line.
But, you know, out on the Naas Road at this moment there is a major warehouse, a cold storage warehouse that distributes to all kinds of supermarkets and shops where you have 90 Irish workers on €20 an hour and you have 70 migrant workers, agency workers on €10 an hour. They are not doing the same work. The migrants are required to do 30% more than the Irish workers. That is a shameful position and that is a position that is underlined and the European Court of Justice says that is okay. And I am saying ‑‑ it is, yes, it is. It does not forbid it. Excuse me, they are paid the minimum wage 8.65 and that's it.
MS McKENNA: Correct, correct.
MR HIGGINS: You are coming along and you are saying put in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. You are contradicting yourself because you say put in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and we will get all this stuff down the line. Now you are saying but the government here should legislate. Of course it should legislate, absolutely. But all I am saying is that putting the Charter into Lisbon does not make the government here legislate, that is the point, which is what was attempted to be employed.
Now just lastly, Cathaoirleach, because I am over my time and I apologise. The point about ‑‑ many people made goods points that I can't reply to. The point about the veto, Brendan Kiely of the IEA, the point about the veto is this; that even if we have a government that we can trust and frankly I don't trust the current government and I am sure I won't trust the next one as well, but the point is it while the veto ‑‑
MR KIELY: It is called democracy, Joe.
MR HIGGINS: Fine, that is right. And it is my democratic right not to trust them.
While the veto is there and let's say some obnoxious proposal comes from the Council through the negotiations with the WTO, at least we can get a people power movement going to force the government to veto that particular obnoxious proposal. That is the importance of having the veto in these issues.
And the last point is my alternative, you see ‑‑ who asked me this. Sorry I can't read my note. I am a socialist. I am not a Stalinist. I am a democratic socialist. And my alternative is, yes, a social Europe, a socialist Europe. I do believe that the major financial institutions should be publicly owned and democratically controlled. I do not believe that they should be in the hands of small elites. I believe that the building industry, the major players should be subject to public control. I do not believe that people should be allowed, as they have done for ten years, to obscenely profiteer on the backs of young working people trapping them in mortgages for 40 years. And that is the point, Brendan. I am not saying that every small business is a big ‑‑ big business does predominate and small businesses actually suffer from that quite a lot of the time. But they are the players that are determining the quality of life and the difficulty for many, many working people. It is shameful, shameful that these economic interests were allowed to create such havoc for our people if we just take housing alone.
So, anyway, I am saying that a vote no is a statement in regard to these issues. Cathaoirleach, I leave you there. (Applause)
Can I make a couple of observations at the outset and then move to the specific points that need to be addressed and in deference to the time, I am not going to say that I agree with people who have already spoken, if we can just move with that front. So if you are not addressed I agree with you.
I think it is important to understand that what we are doing here is not negotiating the constitution for a single political entity. We are negotiating a Treaty. It is utterly different. Some people on the other side of this debate: why can't we have a simple document like the Constitution of the United States? The Constitution of the United States is an elegant document. They didn't have to write into the Constitution safeguards to respect to workers' rights or with social protection or a whole host of other things. They allowed their own Congress to go ahead and do that in the fullness of time, over time as their society developed.
Our own Constitution did precisely the same. A lot of its contents are aspirational. They trusted the will of the people and the representatives of the people to bring in laws deemed to be appropriate to meet the circumstances of the day. That is what you would accept expect in a unitary state, whether it is a federal state or a representative republic like our own.
We are not in that place in Europe. We are in a place that does not exist anywhere else in the world. We are in a place where 27 separate, independent sovereign states, some of them Republics, some of them now constitutional democracies all with different histories have decided very carefully after, in this instance, seven years of negotiation to say in some aspects of our sovereignty we are going to actually pool it and share with the rest of it but under these conditions. In some aspects of our market economy we are going to open up to foreign competition but under these conditions. In some aspects of our social policy yes, we will, in fact, harmonise but under these conditions. And we have also said: but in other areas of our society, this is for us the Irish people to decide and nobody else will intrude.
And, my cousin Fergal, we have specifically excluded abortion from that consideration. And the previous government that had administration, Nora Owen asked the same question, asked that not only would it be recognised that domestic policy in relation to this highly sensitive area should be excluded from any provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, they accepted a protocol moved by the Irish government of the day to copper fasten and make that explicit. Now this Treaty does not propose in any way to alter or interfere with that protocol. I think I can be no clearer than that.
With regards to the last point that my colleague Joe Higgins raised about the temporary workers out in the Naas Road. If this present government ratified the Temporary Workers' Directive that is on the table in the European Union, Britain and Ireland, to the great shame of the British Labour Party ‑‑ I can understand a right centric government refusing to do it, but the British Labour Party refusing to do it I think is a shame on them. But if that temporary workers' directive was ratified on the terms and conditions that are currently before it as subject to whatever amendment, then what is happening out in the Naas Road would be illegal. You could not, in fact, discriminate on the shop floor between workers of any origin and the whole scam of agency workers would be confined to illegality. And I hope that it will happen.
I want to then move to the no side very quickly and then address some of the individual points. Is there a better Europe? Mick O'Reilly and others say you will send Brian Cowan, An Taoiseach Brian Cowan back into the bargaining place to get a better deal. I just don't think that that is possible. I tend more to the view that John Cushnahan expressed that you'd actually send Brian Cowan into a chamber negotiating on behalf of Ireland in a period of uncertainty and they would all ask him why. And if I can quote Joe Higgins, it was to send a signal about the state of domestic matters that we voted know to a Treaty that has taken seven years to negotiate in terms of rule changes.
I don't think there is a better Europe on the table. I think this is the only available Europe. It is actually plan B, because the attempt, as I think Caroline Simons asked us from Libertas, to have an integrated consolidated document that could be presented to everybody so it could be read. The document that the French government sent to every household in France was one that did precisely that but it was rejected for the following reason, from the colleagues in the French Socialist Party who communicated to me their analysis of its rejection was they read into the Constitution of the European Union a whole set of specific provisions for the regulation of the market, for social policy and for a whole lot of other things that was not in the Constitution of France, that is not in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, that is not in the US Constitution and they said: I don't like this, I am from the left, I don't like that kind of thing. I am from the right, I don't like this kind of curtailing of market mechanisms and so on and so forth. So all of the traded compromises that are embodied in these treaties were put into a consolidated document like the one that IEA has published. And if you are coming from the centre, left or right or middle and you see specific rules that go against your political grain, you say: wait a second, I don't want this. But none of those contained, none of those kind of specific policy provisions are contained in the national treaty, national constitutions. But force majeure, because these are international treaties, they have to be spelt out in an international treaty because these are the conditions on which we will open our market to other people and open up other aspects of our society in what is a unique voluntary union of 27 Member States, possibly soon to grow to 35 if the remnants of former Yugoslavia can come up to the plate of the standards of the European Union and qualify for membership, which I sincerely hope they do, because the alternative is a bit like living in a terrace of houses where the neighbour in the middle of the terrace is allowing their house to go to wreck and ruin with dry rot and we can't force them to tidy it up
MS SIMONS: Mr Quinn, as I said, I don't think you can be that simplistic about the no vote given by tens of millions of French and Dutch.
CHAIRPERSON: Please allow the speaker to finish.
MS SIMONS: I beg your pardon.
DEPUTY QUINN: Okay. Well my socialists friends in France who voted against it and who told me why they voted against it was that it was bad enough to have to vote for Chirac against Le Pen the first time, to have to keep him in the office the second time was a bridge too far and they knew it was crazy. But that is the explanation they gave me.
I think it was ‑‑ I have covered some of the general points. Eoin O Broin from Sinn Fein raised a couple of points about poverty and wealth and other things like the protocol on public services. I just want to specifically address the poverty and wealth thing, and I recognise the contribution made by the EPA representative here.
We have to separate what this enabling Treaty does at European level and what national electorates choose to vote for at national election time. And if a majority of countries currently in Europe, and we have just seen it Italy, decide to vote for right wing candidates with right wing policies freely and openly and democratically, it is their sovereign right under their State to decide what kind of policies they want to introduce. And if they refuse to increase resources at European level so the EPA and the social fund is curtailed, that is an outcome of majority democratic voting. I personally don't like it. I actually agree with you. But your task and mine is to persuade people in this Republic to change their voting patterns, to vote for policies that would address those kinds of problems. So far the left in Ireland has not been that successful.
Now, let's not confuse desirable national outcomes with existing European potentials and many of the criticisms and, indeed, many of the fears are centered around desirable national outcomes and not existing potentials. The enshrining of the market, which was a point that Mick O'Reilly made, and you used the phrase, Mick, a constitution. This is not a constitution.
MS McKENNA: It is.
DEPUTY QUINN: No, it is not. It is not a constitution.
MS McKENNA: It is.
DEPUTY QUINN: It is not. And even the last document wasn't a constitution. Giscard D'Estaing, in his arrogance, insisted in calling it a constitutional treaty. It was never known as the European Constitution. It is specific ‑‑
SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
DEPUTY QUINN: Well I am telling you we may agree to differ and aren't we lucky previous occupants of this building didn't allow people to agree to differ and it is delightful that we, in this Republic, can. But I happen to disagree with you. This is an international treaty because we are sharing things like how we trade in each others markets and how the rules of the market place are common, whether you are in Helsinki or in Athens, then you have to put in the reference to the markets in the document.
I agree very much with the analysis that Blair Horan gave in relation to the Viking and Laval cases and I underpin the conclusions that John Monks and others have come to with respect to this. The European Trade Union Movement and national governments will be better able to deal with the outcomes of Laval and Viking if this Treaty is, in the first instance, enacted and if we subsequently move to deal with some of the social legislation around workers rights which it has revealed. And we are going to have a body of jurisprudence from the ECJ.
Let's just deal with what we do in this country. When the Supreme Court interprets legislation that we enact as legislators and they come out with a conclusion which was not in the intention of the legislators in the first instance, the first thing we do is go back to the drawing board and enact a new law so that the Irish Supreme Court now has a new reference point from the legislators upon which to base judgments. The European institutions of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament have precisely that same avenue of correction, if you like, or adjustment open to them.
I think it was Elizabeth Davidson who talked about flags and some kind of symbolism and I can understand the motivation behind that question. Because all of us are using a language and a vocabulary enfused with a national rhetoric and a nationalist history and a nationalist culture, whether you are an admirer of the Czech composer Dvorak, or whether you are someone who revels in English nationalism in the last day of the Proms, all these cultural references are there. But the nation state is itself only 300 years old. Shakespeare was writing before the English nation state came into existence. And we are now at the frontier of a time when there will always be Irish, there will always be French, there will always be Italians, et cetera, but we are into new territory in relation to the political and constitutional construct that we are making on a densely occupied piece of territory called Europe, where, for our own self interest, to confront the problems that don't recognise borders we have to actually look at how we can make our borders most effective internally, respecting the things that are important to us and pooling together the things that are important to the whole of us.
Now, on the social Europe I would have to say that there is more in this that would provide protections in the future than issues or instruments or potentials that will endanger workers in the future. And the workers don't just work in a market place, they live at home in communities and they have young children and elderly parents and times when they need social care of one kind or another. I believe, and it is my belief, that this Treaty in all of the things that it does, and there is in addressing the democratic deficit as well, Bromwen, this will be a much more democratic Treaty because all of the public and the members here in the Oireachtas will be informed at the same time when a draft law emanates from the Commission. For the fist time ever we will be told at the same time as the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. And if the European Affairs Committee of the Republic of Ireland is unhappy with it or the Oireachtas and if 15 others are unhappy with it, we could put up an orange card and that law gets kicked back to the starting board. It may come back in a different form. We can't veto it, we can't block it out because it is only a proposal, but for the first time not only do we have that right but when the Council of Ministers meet in the Council and are legislating, acting as legislators they will now have to do that in public, like the way we do it in the Oireachtas. That is in the provision at the moment.
So the democratic deficit to which you referred is, for the first time, being explicitly addressed. If you vote no you will not get those provisions. You will not have the right for the Oireachtas to say: Hands up, this is off side; or indeed to see how ministers abroad vote in public as distinct from what they say in private.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. (Applause)
I am particularly grateful to Ruairi Quinn for having rejigged his travel arrangements. I think it changed the quality of the exchange and everybody who wanted to get in got in.
Next week we will be in Clonmel public meeting on Monday with Minister of State Martin Mansergh and Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle member Councilor David Cullinane, and the following day in Wexford with Dr Garrett Fitzgerald and Richard Boyd‑Barrett. And next Thursday, which will be the conclusion of our programme of meetings, a meeting here where we will hear from the Taoiseach Mr Brian Cowen.
Sin a bhfuil ann. Go raibh míle míle maith agaibh go léir.
THE SESSION CONCLUDED
National Forum On Europe, Fóram Náisiúnta um an Eoraip © 2010