Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Linkedin button

Skip to content

Monday, Feb 6th 2012


The Labour Movement Should Be Under No Illusions About Where Its Interests Lie

Statement from Eamon Gilmore as part of Labour’s campaign to get the Irish people to vote yes in the second Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty has won support from the overwhelming majority of Socialist parties across Europe and from the European Trade Union Confederation (which groups together virtually all trade unions across Europe). This support derives both from the general context in which Lisbon has arisen and from specific legal changes that it would bring in.

Regarding the general context, a key feature of the EU is that, while we have a common market, we also lay down common rules to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Indeed, that is what most European legislation is about.

The EU has adopted legislation on gender equality, equal pay, anti-discrimination, social dialogue, health and safety at work, information and consultation of workers, protection of temporary agency workers, working time and many other aspects of workers’ rights. It has done likewise on consumer protection and environmental standards. Having Europe-wide rules affords better protection and prevents companies playing off one country against another.

Lisbon will make sure that the EU’s legislative procedures continue to deliver. This is vital if we want to avoid the European market being an unregulated free-for-all, left entirely to market forces and multinational companies

Regarding specific changes that the treaty would bring in, these include a commitment to defend and strengthen the European social model that is stronger than in the previous treaties. It talks of creating a “social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress”. The need to “combat social exclusion and discrimination” and to “promote social justice and protection” are highlighted as priorities. The Union will be legally required to promote equality of women and men, solidarity between generations and the protection of the rights of the child.

The list of founding values of the Union has been widened to include the principles of human dignity, equality and the protection of persons belonging to minorities, as well as pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, and equality of women and men.

Underpinning this is a commitment to social dialogue involving trade unions and management at a European level and the establishment of a ‘Tripartite Social Summit for Growth and Employment’. The contrast this provides with the American model of capitalism could not be clearer.

New provisions requires the Union to respect public services, including the way they are organised and financed by member states, in order to ensure that public services are able to fulfil their duties.

Some say that the most important innovation is the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. This Charter sets out the civil, economic and social rights that define European citizenship. These include the right to fair and just working conditions, the right to workplace information and consultation, the right to collective bargaining and collective action (including strike action), the right to social security and social assistance, the right to equality for men and women, and the right to freedom from discrimination.

The inclusion of the Charter gives it legal force for the first time and allows the European Court of Justice and the courts of the member states to enforce its provisions. Although it will apply only within the field of EU law – that is, it will bind the European institutions and the member states when implementing European law – this body of law is in itself considerable. The existing body of European social legislation on working time, consultation, equal pay and parental leave, among other things, will be entrenched with the status of fundamental rights. The Charter can also be invoked as a guide for future social legislation, developing new proposals to give its principles direct effect.

Of course, the treaty does much else. It provides greater clarity as to what the EU can and can’t do. It streamlines the institutions to avoid gridlock in a Union of 27 and eventually more countries. Above all, it increases democratic accountability by strengthening both the role of national parliaments and that of the European Parliament in vetting EU decisions.

This is the background against which the left must judge the treaty. For the reasons outlined above, it should be clear that it represents a progressive step towards a more democratic, effective and social Europe.

It is, of course, possible to argue that the treaty does not go far enough in promoting positive integration and enabling the European Union to pursue a more ambitious social and political agenda. What is not credible is to imagine that the effect of voting it down in a referendum would be to force Europe’s leaders to come up with something better. The only people who would benefit in this scenario would be those who wish to reverse the gains that have already been made and to weaken the EU’s capacity to act as a force for social progress. That is why the treaty is so strongly opposed by the far-right and by economic neo-liberals in the UK and elsewhere.

The referendum on the treaty is a battle over Ireland’s and Europe’s future. It will pit those who want to strengthen Europe’s distinctive social model against those who want the EU to be weaker, unable to regulate markets or provide leadership on environmental standards and leaving Europe to the mercy of an unregulated market forces.

The Labour movement should be under no illusions about where its interests lie. We must vote Yes to a treaty whose values and objectives set are ones that are shared by Labour movements across our continent.

Eamon Gilmore TD
Leader of the Labour Party

Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

  1. Comment by: AMG

    Sep 30th 2009 at 22:09

    Labour continues to be wilfully self-deluding, not only about its commitment to Lisbon, but about its own ethos, which has long since disdained solidarity with workers in favour of currying favour with corporate capitalism.

    If the EU were committed to human rights, it would have incorporated the EU Charter into its laws. Deputy, you may not be aware of this, but we already have a charter of fundamental rights. We do not need a Charter to tell us we have rights. The Charter is a piece of sheer fraud. It incorporates, for the first time ever in a statement of rights, a “right to provide services”, a “right to do business”, and even “balances” the right of workers to strike with the right of businesses to strike, a fact you choose, for obvious reasons, to ignore.

    Contrary to your spin and selective quotation of fine-sounding sentiments, the Treaty gives legal personality to the EU and commits it to the unrestricted movement of capital, labour and commodities, the same free market policies which have brought the country to its knees, and which you and your party have helped to support.

    Another little fact you do not mention is the amendment to the Constitution which is proposed: it commits the country to EURATOM, the European Atomic Energy Community, and states that Ireland shall have no say in this policy. The Treaty commits Europe to the widespread adoption of nuclear power. This policy will be implemented solely by the Commission without consulting national parliaments.

    Let me remind you that the great EU you speak of had nothing to say about the invasion and destruction of Iraq, one of the worst war crimes for the last 50 years. The EU did not comment on Ireland’s support for and facilitation of the war, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. The EU did not object to Ireland’s being a transit point for depleted uranium munitions. The Treaty obliges Ireland and the other EU countries to support military operations carried out inside and outside the borders of the EU.

    That reminds me. The Labour Party had remarkably little to say about the Iraq War and the Government (and opposition) support and praise for it. So much for dignity, equality and the other empty phrases to which you give lip service. It also has nothing to say about NATO’s vicious campaign in Afghanistan, which also involves EU members.

    Labour, once again, stands shoulder to shoulder with the Government, espousing the same failed policies and mouthing the same empty, hypocritical slogans. And it has the nerve to hector the Irish people about where their interests lie!

  2. Comment by: Brian

    Oct 1st 2009 at 12:10

    If there was any doubt remaining about whether Labour still represented the Irish Left then Gilmore has vanquished it.

  3. Comment by: Robert McCann

    Oct 1st 2009 at 14:10

    Of course Eamon Gilmore is ‘in a way’ correct in all the things that he ’spells out’ with regards the Lisbon Treaty. However what he fails to do, either by design because of his and his party’s aliances with the political elite or thro political niavity (I’m not sure which is the greater sin!) is to ‘read between the lines’ of the text contained within the Lisbon Treaty.
    For example ‘adopting legislation’ in favour of workers rights is not quite the same as ‘enacting’ legislation in favour of workers rights. A ‘commitment to defend and strengthen the European Social model’ is not quite the same as a ‘guarantee’ to defend he European Social model. ‘Combating social exclusion and discrimination’ is not the same as ‘eradicating’ social exclusion, ‘promoting social justice and protection’ is not the same as ‘ensuring’ social justice and protection. And with regards the EU’s charter of fundemental human rights it is my understanding that each country can in many ways water this down to suit their own political agenda and in Ireland we have not by political inclination leaned towards the side in favour of those less able, and the figures are damming. CORI estimate that there could be as many as 700,000 people in this country defined as the working poor. The Elderly are most likely to suffer hardship in their twilght years and we have the shameful spectacle of thousands of ordinary hard working folk queing down the streets to claim thier rightful benefitsand entitlements.
    I desperatly want to vote for this treaty. I believe that it is probably the only show in town. However I do not think it goes far enough in terms of social justice and in terms of helping those less able.
    Mr Gilmore and his party suffer as a result of being part of a political golden circle who pay themselves incredible salaries and benefits and to be honest if I was in their position I would probably ‘take the money and run’. But I can also put my hand on my heart and say that I would do with less in favour of those in more need. Discuss…

    After all I can promote a boxing match but if I dont like the opponenent I can call it off…

  4. Comment by: Proposition Joe

    Oct 2nd 2009 at 09:10

    It will pit those who want to strengthen Europe’s distinctive social model

    So, Europe has a distinctive social model now?

    Where would I find that model, here in Ireland? Across the water in the UK? In Slokia or Romania? Or only Denmark?

    Seems to me we’ve many different social models in Europe, and its kinda lame to pretend otherwise.

  5. Comment by: Audry

    Oct 3rd 2009 at 17:10

    So, Europe has a distinctive social model now?

    Where would I find that model, here in Ireland? Across the water in the UK? In Slokia or Romania? Or only Denmark?

    Seems to me we’ve many different social models in Europe, and its kinda lame to pretend otherwise.

    Well it might be in it’s laws, this culture you can’t find. As in “in our culture we disallow threatening workers with wage differences based on gender.” In some countries you see this is not disallowed, and in fact quite normal. A very nasty social model there.

    A social model is not: a cheeky poser, a frequently photographed and outgoing pretty woman, nor is it cooking styles, nor accent or dialect. It is the rules of social interaction. You might be positing that some people break the rules, but that hardly disproves the model.

  6. Comment by: Proposition Joe

    Oct 4th 2009 at 10:10

    @Audry

    I think we’re ad idem on what constitutes a social model.

    I’d dispute though whether there is a single distinctive European social model, rather there’s a patchwork of quite different models ranging from laissez-faire to highly intraventionist.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Sins of the Father

Sins of the Father:

Tracing the Decisions

That Shaped the Irish Economy,

by Conor McCabe

from The History Press

Now Available as an e-Book.

Subscribe by Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Irish Left Review on Facebook

Best of the Web

  • The Greek debt workout will establish a benchmark for sovereign debt haircuts across the Eurozone

    I tried to reduce the size of this quote, but I kept on leaving important stuff out. The whole article is a must read, particular the point made earlier that the negotiations being finalised now between the ECB and private bond holders will ‘establish benchmark terms for other struggling Euro sovereigns as well. Thus, it is possible that the valuation of sovereign debt across all Euro nations will be established in relatively short order’. Anyway, this article by a couple of ‘humble investors’ provides plenty of clarity.

    We have not reached the end of history. Mankind evolves, as does capitalism and its many brands. But not that much. An objective look at our modern economic ecosystem shows clearly one unified global banking system that is actually made stronger by predictable, publicly aired tensions among competing political and economic theorists and practitioners. As long as lawmakers and we, the people that must obey them, continue quarrelling among ourselves, those that control money are free to do as they like. When the people revolt against the symbols of political power (storm the Bastille, storm the winter palace), then the people succeed in forcing those that control money to alter the political structure. Only when lawmakers take steps to limit bank system access to the nation’s resources by indenturing the factors of production (dumping tea overboard, storming the Eccles Building), can the nation’s capital shift back to the people.

    Today we have an oligopoly of central banks issuing the world’s baseless currencies and, by having successfully promoted substantial household and sovereign debt assumption, can now dictate resource allocation and fiscal policy terms. Against this power there is fragmentation - (mostly) democratically elected officials overseeing republics of generally obedient populations. Lenin knew; “by continuing the process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens”. John Maynard Keynes himself agreed: “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.

    We argue that indebted governments have ceded that power to banking systems without conscience or public accountability. If the global banking system has ultimate power over how global wealth is perceived, (as it does), and it is the only institution powerful enough to keep indebted governments in control of their societies, (which it is), then the only reasonable strategy for an independent investor is to think like a Rothschild. Don’t fight the Fed - bet on it.

    No comments »
  • Protest at cuts in small rural schools Dublin, 1st February 2012

    Hundreds of teachers, parents and school children came from all over Ireland to protest at Minister Ruairí Quinn’s proposed cuts to small schools in Dublin when the Dáil was debating the bill.

    No comments »
  • Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for fracking companies in the world

    Very important point made by Natural Gas Europe here (posted on Shell to Sea) about the licencing agreement around Shale Gas (Fracking) and needs to be understood in the context of the news today that Tamboran Resources initial exploration in  north Leitrim has found that they could ultimately reach 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, worth $55 billion at today’s prices. Meanwhile Pat Rabbitte has asked the EPA do an environmental study, but this is very, very unlikely to veer from the assessment of the European Commission consultancy study on licensing hydraulic fracturing which found that there is no need for specific new legislation governing the mining activity.

    Besides the environmental impact, the financial cost of both that gas line and the potential shale gas excavation has caused consternation. Currently, Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for companies in the world. Companies in Ireland are, in most cases, required to pay only 25 per cent corporation tax, a much lower rate than most other countries with possible shale gas reserves; Ireland also does not require companies to pay any royalties to the government on saleable gas. Tamboran, Lough Allen Natural Gas and Enegi may be required to pay between five and fifteen per cent over this rate, but, even at a higher rate, the gain for the government will be lower than for most other countries in comparable situations. Pundits and protestors alike say that the government is effectively giving away a valuable resource, owned by the Irish people, to outside companies, for very little in return.

    2 comments »
  • Conflict of interest is so deeply embedded in Ireland, no one seems to notice

    The cops were very swift to close down the demonstration in the NAMA building that  Unlock NAMA occupied on Saturday the 28th. They haven’t been as swift though to investigate Anglo Irish Bank. A big blow to that investigation is due, apparently, to the fact that the cop leading it went to work for Bank of Ireland. It is not unusual for people from the fraud squad to move into the private banking sector, we are told, just as we were told that it isn’t unusual for people to move from the regulators office or the Central Bank (when they were separate bodies) to the boards of private banks. Unlock NAMA revealed that the building they occupied was in a very bad state of repair. Add to that the difficulty in establishing that it was a NAMA building at all, considering that it was added to the foreclosure list incorrectly. This should open up discussion on what is happening to all the other NAMA buildings, at the very least. At the most there should be uproar about the massive stock of properties that NAMA controls the loans of which is being allowed to rot and devalue. These properties are being held on to simply to try and artificially hold the price on property and provide the means for future speculation.

    Senior garda fraud specialist retires to work for Bank of Ireland

    The senior garda detective who was in charge of the Anglo-Irish investigation for 18 months took early retirement at the end of last year and is now working with Bank of Ireland, it has emerged.

    Former detective superintendent Pat Collins, 52, was regarded as the Garda’s top expert in corporate fraud investigation. He spent much of his career in the Fraud Squad and before taking charge of the Anglo investigation he spent time on secondment with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement working with its director, Paul Appleby.

    Former colleagues say his departure — on full pension after having served 30 years in the force — will be a major blow to the investigation.

    Coveney adviser’s patriotism stressed to secure special pay

    Elsewhere, Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney is in the news for asking for a €130,000 salary for his special advisor Fergal Leamy, a former chief executive of Greencore USA. The cap as we are well aware after all the breeches of it is €92,672. Leamy didn’t last long, despite Coveney pleading that he was desperate to do the state some service he left after four months. He got an offer from an equity firm in the London that he couldn’t refuse. However, the story also reveals that Simon  Coveney’s brother, Patrick Coveney is chief executive of Greencore. Of course Greencore has a long and controversial history, which Shane Ross referred to as a template for the worst excesses of corporate Ireland, a close rival to DCC.

    No comments »
  • Can We Still Write Big Question Sorts of Books? | David Graeber

    David Graeber and the model of his ‘popular’ yet scholarly book Debt: The First 5000 Years

    So: what was to be the model for a big questions sort of book, and how to write a book that would still be scholarly, but not academic?

    This is what I came up with:

    Of all the models I considered, the most amenable turned out to be the approach adopted by Marcel Mauss. This might seem odd. especially because Mauss never actually wrote a book; he’s mainly famous for a series of essays. Yet many of these essays-not just the Gift, but his essay on the person, techniques of the body (where he coins the term “habitus”), sacrifice and magic-really have had a profound effect both on all subsequent scholarship, and, to differing degrees, political and social debates ever since. Mauss had an uncanny ability to ask the right questions-often, questions he was the first to pose, and which have become mainstays of theoretical debate ever since. His was also an appealing model because Mauss was both a serious, committed activist (he was especially active in the French cooperative movement), and a scholar of remarkable erudition. His problem-and this, I suspect, is why he never did write a proper book, despite numerous attempts-was that he was also almost unimaginably disorganized, and therefore, terrible at exposition. I suspect if alive today he would have been quickly diagnosed with severe ADD.

    1 comment »
  • Irish ‘SOPA law’ another under the radar attack on digital rights by a craven government pandering far too easily to corporate interests

    Very strong and accurate piece from Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times today, making no bones about the motivations behind the changes in copyright law that Sean Sherlock and the Irish government are trying to sneak in. It’s odd at a time when the SOPA law in the US, which is similarly motivated to the Irish law, has just been dropped.

    FOR THREE governments in a row, “short-sighted” and “sneaky” seem to have become the relevant terms in operation when bringing in controversial, high-impact legislation on digital issues.

    In the past, from the government’s perspective, this approach has worked well in shoving in poorly drafted, unscrutinised law on the controversial area of data retention, giving the Republic one of the most severe, internationally criticised, anti-business retention regimes in the world.

    This time around, the Government is trying again to use secondary legislation - a statutory instrument requiring no discussion and no debate in the Oireachtas - to (supposedly) protect intellectual property for a narrow band of hard-lobbying entertainment industries.

    For despite what the ‘hard-lobbying entertainment industries’ might say internet piracy is not killing off its profits. That assumes for a start that the amount produced is static, which given the amount of ‘content’ flooding towards us each day is absurd.

    But more importantly, there is evidence (from numerous mainstream studies and reports) that industry claims about piracy decimating revenue, jobs and creativity are vastly overstated. A careful analysis of such claims by Julian Sanchez on Ars Technica ( iti.ms/wT8l02), picked up and further discussed by Forbesiti.ms/xQJXhg), indicates piracy has actually had only a minor impact on these industries.

    The record industry in the US, for example, has about double the new releases it had a decade ago, when piracy was barely on its radar. The film industry also has more releases now than in pre-piracy days and its most pirated movies are also those that made staggering box office profits. Sanchez cites evidence that the music industry is making back profits lost to piracy through “complementary purchases” such as concert tickets. And a recent report issued by a US anti-piracy lobby group rather farcically indicates its clients are doing quite well, thank you.

    3 comments »
  • Davos dilemma | Michael Roberts

    The majority of those at Davos think that Capitalism isn’t working, but don’t feel there is a need to change anything because its working rather well for them. It’s up to those not in the 1% then to change it.

    The strategists of capital are attending their annual jamboree in the snow playground of the super-rich in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Many of the top 0.1% of income earners are there. And this year the main theme is whether capitalism works and is fair.

    Capitalism is in crisis - and this time the word ‘crisis’ is not hyperbole. Even the 2600 attendees at Davos recognise that. According to a survey by the financial broadcaster, Bloomberg, almost 70% of those asked believed that the capitalist system is in trouble, with 32% saying it needs “radical reworking”. Less than 20% reckoned ‘free enterprise’ is working. Most Davos 0.1 percenters are really worried that this failure of capitalism to work could lead to ’social instability’ in one form or another.

    And more than half who were asked at Davos thought that inequality of income and wealth under capitalism was damaging economic growth. But only one in five wanted any urgent action on the issue! It seems that greed triumphs over economic logic - or should we say, class interest rules

    No comments »
  • The Promissory Notes | Tom McDonnell

    Economist Tom McDonnell of TASC provides a brief primer on IBRC promissory notes, which is available on Slideshare. Click here to view it in it’s own web page.

    No comments »
  • Michael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer about the Irish Economy| 7th of January

    Michael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Behind the News in a detailed 30 minute discussion about the Irish economy which was posted on the 7th of Jan. The second half of the show is given over to a discussion with Jodi Dean about Occupy Wall Street and ‘demands’. It’s also worth reading Jodi Dean’s article on Occupy Wall Street and the Left which was published today on Critical Legal Thinking.

    MP3 Link.

    [display_podcast]

    No comments »
  • What are bankers doing inside EU summits? | Corporate Europe Observatory

    Important information here on the extent of bank lobbies influence in the resolution of the Greek debt crisis, particularly when it comes to plans which require ‘private sector involvement’.

    At the Euro Summits in July and October 20111, crucial decisions “to save the Euro” and “to save Greece” were made. It was agreed to restructure Greek debts and banks were asked to accept a ‘haircut’ to their profits to avoid a Greek default and the risk that some banks might default as a result. In Summer 2011, the press was full of stories about the informal negotiations between EU leaders and the banks about the level of private sector involvement in restructuring Greece’s debts.

    The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a lobby group established in 1983 by the biggest banks and financial institutions in the world to deal with the question of sovereign debt2, became the EU’s interlocutor on the Greek debt issue. Its proposals -described as ”offers”- received red carpet treatment.

    No comments »

Link Archives »

Authors