Treaty Background
Lisbon copperfastens the rights of foreign contractors from other member states to employ labour here at their local rate rather than the national minimum wage pertaining in the target state.
In Febrary this year the Labour Court in Dublin said ‘It seems reasonably if not absolutely clear to the Court that contractors from other Member States could exercise their freedom to provide services in this jurisdiction under the EC Treaty at the same rates and conditions of employment as apply in their country of origin’.
This was under even the existing treaties! Lisbon does nothing to redress this but rather strengthens this pro-employer/market position as Lisbon gives the new European Union and the European Court of Justice exclusive competence in such affairs: Art. 2B 1(b) gives the EU exclusive competence in ‘the establishment of competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market’. This means that it can overrule national governments who take measures which distort market ‘freedoms’.
In addition the Lisbon Treaty reasserts the right to free movement of workers.
Given the ECJ's rulings in various cases from Laval to Ruffert to Viking where it found in favour of the 'market' over workers' rights we can expect ever more such rulings from the ECJ.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is often cited as some means of protection from the court but it contains Article 52 which provides a 'get-out clause' allowing the rights of individuals/workers to be subjugated in favour of the rights of the 'market': 'it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market'.
So the EUCFR can't help workers' rights when there is a 'conflict' with the market as the cases cited above evidence.
What we need to do is reject Lisbon and then revisit the existing treaties and amend them so that workers' rights assume primacy over the market.
The Lisbon Treaty like the EU Constitution contains provisions for the new EU to implement a regime for the control of personal data. Art. 25a states that the 'Council shall lay down the rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Member States' and 2. 'European laws or framework laws shall lay down the rules relating to the when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of this Chapter, protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by and the rules relating to the free movement of such data'.
We already have an EU directive specifying the retention of personal data-emails, texts, phone records- for a period of 3 years.
The Lisbon Treaty also contains provisions for the new EU to issue ID cards if it deems it necessary. It can also assume responsibility for passports or 'any other such document'. Art.62 3: 'the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document'.
Militarisation
The Lisbon Treaty militarises the EU even further requiring increased military expenditure by member states, incorporates the European Defence Agancy EDA into the treaties for the first time and and makes provisions for the new EU to evolve increasingly towards a common defence policy.
Article 28A c3 states 'Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities'. While yes campaigners have stated that there is no compunction on member states to increase military expenditure they fail to explain how a country like Ireland with a relatively modest and lightly equipped army can improve its military capability without spending more money on it. Unless we are to be given the weapons and equipment for free so we can fight their wars for them.
To those who claim the warnings of an EU Army and an eventual common defence are scaremongering take a look around you and read the treaty. In the words of the outgoing EU High Representitive Javier Solana-former NATO secretary General in his previous job-writing in the latest publication by the EU funded European Union Institute of Strategic Studies: We must have the personnel and capabilities-both civilian and military-to back up these political ambitions'. He went on 'Striving for greater European Defence integration and co-operation is a corollary of this'.
The European Defence Agency EDA
Lisbon formally incorporates the EDA-European Defence Agency-into the treaties for the first time in a new article Art 28. The Lisbon treaty provisions relating to the EDA were originally contained in the EU Constitution whose provisions were drafted by a working group which included alongside politicians representatives of two of the largest EU military equipment suppliers BAE and Thales.
A good article written by Vincent Browne on the subject in IT 29/09/09
Neutrality
Article 11 1. is amended as follows: 1. 'The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence'.
Art 28A (a) links the CFSP explicitly with the CSDP: 'The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy'.
Art 28A (b) 2.'The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.'
The treaty also contains a clause that is tantamount mutual defence: 'If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power' Art.28 A(c)7.
while the treaty specifically alludes to the status of some members as NATO members and respects their position it makes no reference to the position of 'neutral' states such as Ireland. (c) 3.
The Lisbon Treaty is proposing that the new EU become a military alliance also. How can a country like ourselves that is neutral remain neutral in this new EU? We will have moved from essentially a trading bloc to a political bloc to a military bloc.
The 'legal guarantees' 'secured' by Ireland at the Brussel's summit in June of this year-in the form of a Decision by the European Council-to insert a protocol attached to a future-sometime-EU treaty does not in the words of the Council itself 'change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon' and further 'are fully compatible with the Treaty' - direct quotes from Brussels Presidency Conclusions.
So whether the 'guarantees' have any legal basis-they are referred to as clarifications in the Presidency Conclusions document-seems a moot point. The 'guarantees' have and can have no effect on the treaty as stated.
The government didn't accept during the first referendum campaign that there were any issues of concern surrounding these areas within the treaty.
Now one of the main arguments put forward by them and others on the yes side is that a yes to Lisbon will secure the areas covered by the 'guarantees'; taxation policy, the right to life, military neutrality and education and the family.
If there are concerns about the impact The Lisbon Treaty may have on these areas well surely the best thing one could do is reject the treaty and avert the danger.
A no vote is the ultimate protection for these areas and indeed for all the other provisions within our constitution Bunreacht na hÉireann.
Read the Brussels European Council Presidency Conclusions here.
Lisbon makes no overt reference to privatisation of public services such as health, education, water provision, waste management etc. Instead they like to talk of 'market 'liberalisation' of 'services of general economic interest'.
If they so decide countries could be forced to sell off their public services to private interests all in the name of 'competition' and the 'market'.
Another avenue towards the privatisation of public services can be found in the changes made to how trade issues are dealt with under Lisbon.
At the moment each member state has a veto on any trade deals that might be undertaken by the EU.
After Lisbon the absolute veto in this area is gone replaced instead by a mechanism which allows a member state request a unanimous vote on the issue-the request may not be acceeded to and could ultimately end up in the ECJ for decision. Hardly a reassuring scenario.
So a trade deal brokered by the EU which included a necessity for EU member states to open up their markets could occur.
Could occur? It will occur.
Already the vultures are circling. As IBEC recently stated 'The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment'.
There will no doubt be plenty of overseas vultures eyeing up the services here also.
The Lisbon Treaty contains a whole new set of proposals for amending the treaties in the future-the so called self-amending provisions. Up until now treaty changes were discussed and agreed by the member states' governments at IGCs or Inter Governmental Councils. They then went for ratification to each member state and all states had to agree to the change just like Lisbon. The new provisions allow the national governments, the European Parliament and the European Commission to propose treaty changes to the European Council. Its decided by a simple majority there whether to take the proposal forward or not. If approved the Council convenes a Convention which includes a 'conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to this Treaty'.
This is referred to as 'the ratchet clause' or the 'pasarelle' meaning footbridge in french. Its EU constitution equivalent was called the 'flexibility clause'.
What is agreed at convention then goes for ratification to the member states but crucially unanimity is not required as Art.48 5 states It states 'If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council'.
Fisheries
Lisbon extends control from Brussels over our fishing industry even further. Art. 49C 3 'The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt the measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on European regulations or decisions on fixing prices, levies, aid and the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities. quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities'.
Ireland, her fishermen and her coastal communities have been sold out completely by the Common Fisheries Policy and EU policies that have treated fishermen as criminals.
The fault though must be laid squarely at the feet of successive administrations here both FF and others who have simply rolled over to the powerful interests in Brussels from some of the other member states.
Indeed given the estimated value of fish that have been taken in 'our' waters since 1973 estimated at €200,000,000,000-yes that's billion-the scandal isn't confined to the fishing communities here.
This is a national issue effecting us all. We cannot continue to give away our natural resources in such a fashion. A thriving, sustainable fishing sector with tertiary processing would create thousands of new jobs, revitalise our coastal communities and put some much needed revenue into our national kitty.
The new EU also takes for itself 'exclusive competence' ie member states follow their policy completely in 'the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy' Art.2 B 1.(d).
Given the EU's poor track record in protecting fish stocks and encouraging a sustainable policy it is again worrying to see them taking more control.
Agriculture
The Lisbon Treaty contains just a couple of references to agriculture but these could be crucial for farmers.
The animal rights provisions inArticle 13 6b specifies that 'In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries.. policies' there is an obligation to 'pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals'.
This means farmers could face a raft of new regulations and administrative work as small businesses already do from the EU.
Everyone is in favour of protecting animal welfare especially farmers but the thought of a Brussel's controlled red tape bureaucratic nightmare is worrying.
Farmers have serious concerns about The Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately some of the farming organisations such as the IFA adopted a stance in favour of the treaty without a proper debate and before getting approval from their members.
This has prompted one IFA branch secretary in Balinalee James Reynolds to set up the Farmers for No anti-Lisbon group. He has been joined by hundreds of others since. As Paddy Boyhan of Farmer for No says 'People at the bottom are going to be worst hit. Farmers depending on agriculture alone are on low income as it is, and now they have to deal with higher levies, the withdrawal of REPS and the suckler cow scheme,' Mr. Boyhan said. 'All the things we're depending on are going down the swanny'.
The Lisbon Treaty will do nothing to help Irish farmers and reverse the incessant decline in farm numbers.
The IFA has exhibited once again that it is all too willing to side with the EU Commission, agribusiness interests and GM food lobbyists in direct opposition many of its members' and the country's interests.
Visit GM Free Ireland for comprehensive information and videos about GM (Genetically Modified) food.
Article 63 a 1 states that 'The Union shall develop a common immigration policy... shall adopt measures for a common European asylum system comprising (a) a uniform status of asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union'.
Lisbon if passed will mean that there will eventually be a common immigration and asylum regime throughout the new EU.
There have been ongoing plans in the EU Commission for tax harmonisation evidenced by the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base or CCCTB. The head of IBEC the employers' body here Turlough O'Sullivan said 'I am absolutely convinced this [CCCCTB] is a trojan horse to bring in common tax rates.
Lisbon doesn't make any mention of this or overt references to tax harmonisation except that it opens the possibility of EU interference in national indirect tax rates if 'indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to promote the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition'.
State aid by member states is also curtailed further in the treaty and new sanctions against transgressing countries introduced.
Article 108[88] states that 'The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the internal market'.
3. 'The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid'.
Responsibility for Direct Foreign Investment or DFI control by the EU under an expansion of the Common Commercial Policy
Commissioner Issue
There has been a lot of froth spoken about the issue of Ireland retaining its commissioner. During the first referendum campaign the government played down the significance of the loss of the commissioner and was happy to support the change proposed in Lisbon to limit the number of commissioners from 2014.
Now following the referendum defeat they are pro retaining the commissioner and see it as vital for Ireland. So much so that they secured a commitment at the June summit from the European Council to keep the commissioner for every member state 'provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force' (Brussels Presidency Conclusion Institutional Issues 2).
A couple of questions arise here: why did the government suddenly realise the value, as they now see it, of retaining our commissioner? Had they not considered the issue properly before in the negotiations on the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty?
If the European Coucil can decide at Brussels unanaimously to retain a commissioner for each state then why can't they do it anyway rgardless of whether Lisbon 'enters into force or not'?
The yes side tell us that only a yes vote can secure our commissioner. Wrong. A decision at a council meeting would suffice á la Brussels.
Regarding the ability of commissioners to act in their member state's national interest the fact is that the commissioners' ability to act in their own member states' interest alone is prohibited in Lisbon under Art.213 'The Members of the Commission shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Member States shall respect their independence and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks'.
And also in Article 18(2) 'the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity'.
Given the neutered status of commissioners in regard to their ability to do anything that could be considered favouring their member state and the bar on member states trying to influence their business it seems the heat generated by this issue is unwarranted.
Given the huge loss of independence and control inherent in the treaty generally lamenting the loss of our commissioner is akin to an innocent man being thrown into jail and then complaining about the view from his cell window.
Article 100 paragraph 1 states 'Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy'.
Article 174 commits the EU to: “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change”. For the first time combating climate change is explicitly stated as an EU Treaty objective. In a new Energy Title, Article 176a (1) would commit Union policy to aim to: “promote energy efficiency and energy savings and the promotion of new and renewable forms of technology”.
The Treaty by giving it a legal basis is an indication of the EU’s collective concern on the issue. The problem is that much more than a legal statement of intention is really needed for a climate change U-turn. Critics say it is simply aspirational.
There is little time left to solve this critical issue. Heads of governments whether in the EU or not need to tackle the issue properly before it is too late. Their record thus far doesn't inspire much confidence.
Everybody whether a no or yes voter can agree on the need for measures to save our planet and improve our environment. What impact the provisions in the treaty will make is debatable. There is no reason why progress on climate change has to be made within the confines of the new treaty. Foreign & Trade Policy Article 9E establishes the new post of an EU foreign minister who 'shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy'.
The name of the new post is the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The original post the High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security policy is replaced.
The new EU foreign minister will be able to address the UN on the EU's ie 'our' behalf under article 19(b) (3).
A common EU foreign policy is doomed to fail given the competing interests of the various countries internationally.
The recent moves to articulate a common position whether over Iraq or the EU's failure to condemn the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 are cases in point.
Ireland should practise an independent foreign policy based on ethics, justice, human rights and environmental protection.
The new EU while paying lip service to these ideals continues to give Israel preferential trading status with the EU despite their horrific and illegal treatment of the Palestinians, continues to support the trade of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and continues to attempt to foist Geneticlly Modified GM food on the people of Europe-who have consistently indicated their opposition to them-for the benefit of large multinationals such as Monsanto and Bayer.
Trade Policy
The new Article 24 states 'The Union may conclude agreements with one or more States or international organisations'. Coupled with the removal of the veto(unanimity) this means that the EU can now agree trade deals with for example the WTO without our consent. Given their track record this is really worrying.
Article 61 3 states that 'The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures.. and, if necesary through the approximation of criminal laws'
Regarding the Judicial Cooperation provisions (both chapter 3 and 4) in the new Article 65 section 1. it states that 'Such cooperation may include the adoption of measure for the approximation ofthe laws and regulations of the Member States'.
Article 69B 2. states that 'directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas concerned'. Article 69 E establishes the European Public prosecutor's Office.
Article 69 F details measures to enhance Police Cooperation 'The Union shall establish police cooperation involving all the Member States' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences'. It goes on in 2.'For the purposes of paragraph 1, European laws or framework laws may establish measures concerning: (a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information'
Clearly the EU wants to coordinate and harmonise laws and law enforcement throughout the EU and take more control of it.