Opponents of Lisbon are endangering a vital national interest, writes Garret FitzGerald
MANY OF those involved in opposing the Lisbon Treaty have opposed some or all of the five earlier treaties. Had they been listened to, Ireland would today remain one of the poorest of European countries, whereas we now have a national income level 10 per cent higher than that of the rest of western Europe.
In the next 12 days voters will have to decide whether to be influenced by the arguments of people from the extreme right and left who are attempting to mislead the electorate by distorting or concealing the actual terms of the Lisbon Treaty.
Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty claim that it prejudices our neutrality by committing us to European defence. This is untrue. First of all, the position of the four neutral countries - Finland, Sweden, Austria and Ireland - outside of Nato is protected by a Lisbon Treaty provision (Article 42), drafted by us, which specifically states that the security and defence policy of the Union "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states".
Moreover Article 29.4.15 of our Constitution includes a provision excluding Irish participation in European defence arrangements without approval by the electorate in another referendum, and this will be reinstated by a Yes vote in this referendum.
Furthermore our "triple lock policy excludes Irish participation, even in peace missions, unless they have first been authorised by the UN Security Council, and then get the support of the Government and Dáil Éireann.
Next, tax harmonisation. This treaty confirms our veto on harmonisation of direct taxes, whether corporate taxes or income taxes. The attempt by opponents to suggest that our veto could be overridden by the EU Court of Justice, under the terms of Article 113 of this treaty, is patently wrong, and indeed dishonest, because that Article specifically limits such harmonisation to "turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation".
The No side has also attempted to suggest that the treaty contains a "back-door" measure allowing it to be amended in future in a way that would get around our constitutional provision, under which this and other referendums have been held.
But this new Article 48 procedure, which applies only to internal policies and decisions, and cannot be used to add fresh EU competences, specifically provides that any change of this kind - which would first require unanimity at the EU Council - "shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
Next, treaty opponents allege that it will give the Union power to force us to privatise public services such as education and defence. This has never in fact been an issue, but, recognising that such fears existed, a protocol was added last year setting out reasons why the shared values of the Union include the preservation of services of general interest, as public services are described. The protocol concludes with these unambiguous words: "The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest."
Next, treaty opponents claim that it will deprive us of our power to veto trade agreements. No such change is made in the treaty. All trade agreements, including that currently under discussion in the present WTO round, include combinations of provisions for trade in services, investment, intellectual property, health or education, and/or matters such as transport which is excluded from the Common Commercial Policy. Because internal decisions in all of these require unanimous voting within the Union, every state has, and will retain, a veto in such trade negotiations, contrary to the false claim by treaty opponents. This fact has just been confirmed by the European Commission itself.
Finally the opponents of the treaty claim that the EU undermines workers' rights against social dumping. To justify this claim, they cite several court decisions, but are careful not to cite the wording of these judgments, because this would demolish their case.
For, in these cases at the end of last year, the European Court actually held that the right to strike was fundamental, and that protection of workers' rights against social dumping is a matter of overriding public interest. However the court found itself unable to apply these principles in these cases because of a combination of factors.
In the Swedish Laval case the court was blocked because the way the union had negotiated had made it impossible or excessively difficult for the employer to determine what obligations the union wanted it to comply with. Moreover, the case involved secondary picketing, which would of course be illegal here.
In the Finnish Viking case the court was blocked because the issue of whether the unions were in fact seeking to protect workers' rights had to be determined by the domestic Finnish Courts rather than by the European Court. One might have thought that this assertion of national rights would have been welcomed by Irish treaty opponents rather than denounced.
With such a remarkable record of false claims on their six principal criticisms of this treaty, its opponents now have no credibility, and their tactics, which endanger our vital interest in securing through this treaty a more democratic and effective EU, should therefore be dismissed and ignored.