Archive for category EU Law
Workers of Europe Unite You Have Nothing to Loose but…a Midly Social Democratic Reformist Treaty!
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law on September 4th, 2009
One of the more genuine civil society groups to emerge from the Trade Unions is The Charter Group. As the names suggests they see the legal status Lisbon proposes for the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty as a major step forward for workers.
Not a great victory for the workers as they march across Europe; yet not a charter for neo liberalism either. Just a step forward.
In fact, it is rare for the language of left or right to predominate in the basic law of any state. Most independent academics note that the history of the EU has been one of a compromise between the forces of Christian Democracy and Social Democracy: a compromise, which secured a single market combined with a high degree of social protection.
In terms of Ireland, practically all socially progressive legislation has emanated from Europe, such as equal pay, maternity leave, the working time directive etc. Yet it is not the various treaties per se that deliver these measures into law. Rather it is the political make-up of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which decides this agenda even if the Treaty is a prerequisite to make it possible.
With Joe Higgins now in the campaign as an MEP, I suspect we may hear lot more about these issues. He has argued that Lisbon is a “charter for neo liberalism and privatisation”. Recently, at the National Forum on Europe, I invited Joe to do a search of the PDF of the consolidated version of the treaty to find the word privatisation.
Guess what: it’s not there!
Now competition is and always has been a competence of the EU (think airlines, telecoms what we paid years ago and what we pay now). This is the power that allowed the EU fine Microsoft, one of the largest corporations in the world!
In actual fact, Lisbon changes little in this respect. So if people are opposed to EU competition policy they need to start the campaign to repeal the current treaties, which effectively means leaving the EU.
However there are new provisions in Lisbon relating to workers rights and various progressive issues. And the Charter is the most obvious. It is now given the full legal force of treaty law.
I will try to avoid over egging my argument here. The charter is deliberately limited to the EU institutions but also, importantly, to the member states when they are implementing EU law.
The other major area of controversy and debate in this area is a series of recent European Court of Justice rulings on issues of workers rights. Here Higgins and Coir would both have us believe that our entire system of social protection will be removed. Yet all these cases were taken under the treaties as they stand today.
Of course it is not even true that the current treaties led directly to these cases (For Ruffert, Laval, Viking and Luxembourg: see the Charter group’s case file).
In truth, it was the transposition of the Posting of Workers Directive into domestic law that gave rise to the problems in mainly Scandinavian countries who have different systems of labour market regulation. Ironically, it is Ireland’s legally enforceable minimum wage is one of the reasons why the same rulings could not have been made in relation to similar cases here!
So then the question is whether such rulings are more or less likely under Lisbon. Certainly the elevation of the Charter to the same level as the treaty suggests things will change if Lisbon is passed. It also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights: a very progressive legal instrument.
The Treaty also contains, for the first time ever, a commitment to public services (Art 14 TFEU & Protocol on Services of General Economic Interest) and full employment (Art 3 TEU). These were both key demands of the left in the European Convention, which drew up the previous Constitutional Treaty. So all in all Lisbon is one of the most progressive treaties that the EU has produced.
Maybe some people just need to look at it in a little more detail.
First published on Slugger O’Toole http://www.sluggerotoole.com/How to Amaze your Friends Down the Pub
Posted by Michael in Charter Fundamental Rights, EU Law, Security and Defence, The campaign on August 20th, 2009
Have You Read it? The most common question journalists ask politicians about the Lisbon Treaty. The answers became symptomatic of the problems in the Lisbon One campaign, here were a bunch of lazy politicians telling us all to vote for something but couldn’t be bothered to read it themselves. Fair enough, if you set yourself up to sell something in today’s PR conscious world you should have a grasp of it. Vincent Browne likes to jump on this bandwagon calling the Treaty impenetrable and impossible. However there is more going on here than meets the eye. The now departed (from the Lisbon campaign at any rate) Declan Ganley waved around what he called the Lisbon Treaty implying it was somehow secretive and hidden. Of course what he had in his hand was actually a propaganda tract from Jens Peter Bonde, a strange bedfellow as a former Danish Communist.
Anyway the news is you can very easily read the Treaty. I’ll say that again, you can very easily read the treaty. Now like everything this needs to be put in context. As most people know EU Treaties have been made by amending the original treaty of Rome. I’m happy to say this is ridiculous and leaves the EU open to accusations of secrecy and garbled euro legalese of which Vincent Browne is so fond. What really matters here is what is in the treaties now and what will be there after we vote. As it happens this is of course available online. Indeed you can have what the treaties will look like if Lisbon is accepted, the current treaties with changes, additions and subtractions in different colours and the actual Lisbon text . The first two are thanks to the Institute for International and European Affairs, I think all sides of this debate recognise the excellent work done in compiling these although I have to declare an interest having worked there some 12 years ago! Links are here http://www.iiea.com/publications?offset=10&max=10&sort=publicationDate&order=desc unfortunately they are no longer free but were in Lisbon 1, not sure why that is. Richard Corbett MEP has them here for free http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/annotatedtreaties.pdf …not sure about intellectual property rights and all that but it’s a public site.
The treaties are set out in chapters with headings….I know, I know its sooooo complex! I intend to go through most of these headings looking at the changes and the issues involved in the coming weeks. For the moment I will stick to some introductory comments
The first thing people will notice is we are actually talking about two treaties or a set of amendments to two treaties. The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The latter is effectively the treaties to date with their amendments (single market, freedom of movement etc.) and the former more political and cross cutting principles.
Brother Kelly used to tell me not to use a small word when a large one will do. The EU has taken this up with gusto leading to all sorts of chaos when it comes to the numbering of articles and sections in the treaties. The method of amending treaty after treaty leads to a constant renumbering. Having the two treaties doesn’t help either. The Lisbon Treaty itself contains a note on numbering which is adhered to by the IIEA and I think should be used by everybody. So if you want to amaze your friends down the pub with “Oh yeah I read that” keep logging on!
Durchgebratenes Deutschland
Posted by Michael in EU Law, The campaign, Uncategorized on July 21st, 2009
Well it’s not many times we say that but reading the judgement of the German Constitutional Court (in summary form at least) gives some very clear insights into EU integration and the Lisbon Treaty. It should also be noted that, around the internet anyway, the judgement has received plaudits form Lisbon yes and no supporters alike.
Most importantly of all the Karlsruhe Court audited Lisbon and the process of EU integration from a democratic standpoint an area where both often come in for unfair (in my view) criticism. The court places a huge emphasis on the concept of conferral which is of course more explicit in the Lisbon Treaty.
It has made some pithy summaries of how EU democracy works and how it does not
“in some fields of policy, the European Union has a
shape that corresponds to that of a federal state,
i.e. is analogous to that of a state. In contrast,
the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain
predominantly committed to the pattern of an international
organisation, i.e. are analogous to international law;”
The Court is clear that Lisbon does not create a superstate and maintains the foundations of integration in the member state. It even has some interesting points to make about EU and U.N. involvement (the latter in the field of peacekeeping and military operations)
“it is a voluntary, mutual commitment pari passu, which secures
peace and strengthens the possibilities of shaping policy by
joint coordinated action”
For those who believe Lisbon will lead to the sky falling in the Karlsruhe judges opine
“The authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union
pursuant to Article 23.1 GG is, however, granted under the condition that
the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained on the basis
of a responsible integration programme according to the principle of
conferral and respecting the Member States’ constitutional identity, and
that at the same time the Federal Republic of Germany does not lose its
ability to politically and socially shape the living conditions on its own
responsibility…It is not a federal state but remains an association of
sovereign states to which the principle of conferral applies. ”
Key to the German courts ruling was that the democratic nature of the EU principally through the European Parliament was not enough to “compensate” for powers that Germany had and was giving up but that critically the solution to this lay in changes to national law and practice in Germany and greater involvement of it’s national parliament.
The Irish courts have dealt with similar questions but obviously in a different context given our constitutional set up. The Crotty case was of course the seminal one which is believed to require a referendum on all EU Treaties in Ireland; however this also bears some more analysis. Crotty was principally decided on the issue of European Political Co-operation (the forerunner of CFSP) and the courts narrowly held that this was a new and innovative area for the EU and therefoe not envisaged by the accession referendum. Whether all treaties since would have passed or failed this test we will never know because the decision to have a referendum was made.
Politically the issue of parliamentary involvement in EU matters and legislation has figured in debates here although perhaps not enough in public debate. The interregnum between Nice 1 and 2 saw work in this area and the National Forum on Europe gave the subject a few outings. A new EU scrutiny Act was introduced and an Oireachtas Committee is dedicated to the task. Many may wish for more an if they do they need to look to Dublin not Brussels
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html