Spain voters approve EU Constitution

D

Thank you very much for your second reply, it was a big improvement on the first one. While the quote of:

"The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area."

laid my fears of strategic deployment of Irish forces to rest what was really worrying me was the aspect of military spending, however, this fear was laid to rest aswell by Article III-311:

"1. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments
(European Defence Agency), established by Article I-41(3) and subject to the authority of the Council,..."

as this placed the European Defence Agency under the direct control of the Council as the opposed to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Thank you again for clarifying this for me. I hope in future that all our correspondance can be conducted this way.

Roisin Dubh

Thank you again for clarifying this for me. I hope in future that all our correspondance can be conducted this way.

Pleasure

seedot

Roisin Dubh, you're moving the goalposts here.

In response to my use of the word "neo-liberal" you pooh poohed the impact of Nice on privatisation. When I pointed out how Nice had brought us closer to privatisation in a nunmber of areas you at first disagreed, then argued for privatisation.

When I mentioned Health Education and cultural services changing in the constitution you initially informed us that

The vetoes mentioned in the first paragrpah of this quote were already scrapped in the Nice Treaty. You see, this is another example of what I was talking about: the No side bringing up EXISTING parts of EU treaties and claiming that them being restated amounts to "something new" in the new document.

When I pointed out that these areas were in fact new areas which would lose their veto in the constitution you told us that this would enable patients going to other EU countries and qualifications being recognised abroad. These are both straw men - the national qualifications framework has nothing to do with free trade or privatisation - nor has the treatment purchase scheme.

I am not arguing here privatisation is bad - I am saying it is furthered by the EU constitution. If there was to be a democratic vote this would be admitted and those who feel, as you do, that this is a good thing would admit that it will be a key outcome of the constitution and argue for this outcome. Since you accept that

the Constitution recognises that some countries feel there are dangers. That doesn't necessarily mean the dangers exist. Rather, this language about safeguards reflects the view among some of the more protectionist countries like France

Lets acknowledge what is in the constitution, lets have a debate based on that not on the basis that everybody who opposes the constitution is a wrecker or poorly informed or whatever. Until we can admit that there are two views of Europe, that this constitution is very heavily influenced by one view, that the opposing view is strongly represented throughout the continent and in the parliament and that both are legitimate and coherent we will not have a democratic debate. Europe will be poorer if the same tactics as used in previous referenda get it passed this time. I would accept an honest defeat on the basis of everybody acknowledging the constitution as a neo-liberal document - not on the basis of no choice, or having to respect the Spanish decision, or putting one over on the Brits or whatever other approach is being prepared.

Roisin Dubh

Seedot, the document is not just for bosses, as your post seems to imply.Workers rights are clearly protected here too. For example Read Article II-75 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is part of the EU Constitution:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/c_310/c_31020041216en00410054.pdf

Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishement and to provide services in any member state.

3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.

Also, workers are protected from discrimination in Article II-81 as follows:

Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

and Article II-83:

Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.

And if you continue down the page you will find more specific references to the rights to collective bargaining i.e. trade union representation, the rights of the child, the elderly, and the disabled. This is therefore not an ideologically far-right constitution. On the contrary it is balanced and recognises that competition and social-justice are not contradictory to each other, unlike what you seem to think.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seedot

Ok, so we both agree that the economic and trade elements amount to a 'bosses charter' as one of the micro left groups puts it.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights on the other hand is attacked from the right as a mix of social democratic ideals that bring the state into every sphere and are a bad thing for that reason. Given the type of people opposing the charter of fundamental rights (UKIP et al) I would definitely give it the benefit of the doubt.

However Roisin, could you explain the section just after the charter - entitled

GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION
AND APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

Basically this seems to say that these rights are only relevant to the EU institutions, they are not relevant elsewhere. There also seems to be a get out

Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be
provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of
proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary

which would seem to limit the whole 'fundamental' bit of this charter. Limited and very easily overridden may be a more accurate description. Also, where stands the European Convention on Human Rights which at least does apply beyond the limited scope of this charter.

The charter was introduced during the Nice conference and I remember David Beggs, the glorious leader of the Irish Labour movement (sarcasm: ref bin tax statements) giving out about their watering down in that treaty. Of course he only complained in Nice - back home in ireland the charter of fundamental rights (same one) was one of the reasons to vote for Nice.

This reminds me of something you falsely accused me of - presenting something that was in a previous treaty as a reason to support my position on this new constitution?

Look - there are of course good things in the constitution - the preamble is quite a nice bit of prose with its "universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity" - although it does move very quickly into EU verbosity and is much better in the French that these things are really written in. It very quickly "establishes a citizenship of the union" which I take as a whole declaration of statehood - but I don't mind that. (Others may but that would not be my personal bugbear)

But I would still classify it as an unwieldy, ambiguous, neo-liberal piece of crap.

Roisin Dubh

Ok, so we both agree that the economic and trade elements amount to a 'bosses charter' as one of the micro left groups puts it.

I never said the Constitution was a "bosses charter". Whether someone agrees or disagrees with privatisation, that need not amount to an outright opposition to competition being introduced from the private sector to let customers have a choice as to which company they get their electricity, gas, etc. from. More like a consumers-charter, since competition could bring prices down as the companies in the market try to nab customers from each other.

I think you just want to protect the monopoly status of most of the semi-states so that the Unions can run the show and hold us to ransom, Dick Turpin style. Unions should be there to protect the rights of their workers, not to threaten the strike weapon every time, for example, that there is some argument on the ESB board as their was recently with one of the worker-directors. Strike should be a last resort. Sadly, in this country, public-sector unions usually don't see it that way, e.g. ASTI. Monopoly status only emboldens the more militant elements within a union and weakens the pro-compromise elements. Removal of monopoly status brings the union to a sense of actually representing the workers rights, rather than getting caught up in ideological battles about the socialist ideal of monopolies in which the unions call the shots because the consumers are denied choice.

I interpret the Constitution and Nice's reference to the term "liberalisation" as simply increasing competition, rather than of itself leading to privatisation. I interpret the downsizing by An Post as being a result of the loss-making of that firm and the need to return to profitability. The longer the unions in An Post keep holding things up the longer An Post's difficulties are going to continue. Maybe competition will smarten the unions up! (and reduce postage costs for the rest of us!).

I could put a counter-charge that you are trying to protect a "unions Europe", where the interests of consumers play second fiddle to the insatiable demands of monopolistic public-sector unions, who are trying to use their monopoly status to impede every little necessary change e.g. recently with the Health-Board reforms.

which would seem to limit the whole 'fundamental' bit of this charter. Limited and very easily overridden may be a more accurate description. Also, where stands the European Convention on Human Rights which at least does apply beyond the limited scope of this charter.

The charter was introduced during the Nice conference and I remember David Beggs, the glorious leader of the Irish Labour movement (sarcasm: ref bin tax statements) giving out about their watering down in that treaty. Of course he only complained in Nice - back home in ireland the charter of fundamental rights (same one) was one of the reasons to vote for Nice.

This part can be interpreted as being like the "subject to public order and morality" part of Bunreacht na H-Eireann, except being more secularly worded, which I think is an improvement on the pseudo-religious tone of the use of the word "morality" (which was put their at a time when morality was seen as a word relating almost entirely to sex). It is needed to prevent extreme interpretations of the text, e.g. like lawyers arguing that the part opposing racism means that no-one can ever be deported.

seedot

But surely a 'fundamental' right means you have the right regardless. Once you introduce get outs and limits it becomes aspirational rather than fundamental.

Also, again I would ask, was the charter of fundamental rights not part of the Nice treaty - and thus by your arguments irrelevant on whether we should vote for the EU constitution.

(benefits of unions or privatisation , bosses vs. consumers benefits I would see as all off topic for this discussion. The consitution does promote a neo-liberal agenda whether that is a good or bad thing)

Roisin Dubh

seedot wrote:

But surely a 'fundamental' right means you have the right regardless. Once you introduce get outs and limits it becomes aspirational rather than fundamental.

Also, again I would ask, was the charter of fundamental rights not part of the Nice treaty - and thus by your arguments irrelevant on whether we should vote for the EU constitution.

(benefits of unions or privatisation , bosses vs. consumers benefits I would see as all off topic for this discussion. The consitution does promote a neo-liberal agenda whether that is a good or bad thing)

Well the part of the Irish Constitution on freedom of the press "subject to the public order and morality" hasn't stopped Ireland being rated 4th for world freedom of the press.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

With more secular wording this time I see even less of a threat to Irish and European press freedom. On the contrary it might help us find out what the rest of the Stevens Inquiry (Pat Finucane) report says!