Independent Media Centre Ireland     http://www.indymedia.ie

Lisbon Treaty - Aid and Trade

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report author Thursday April 24, 2008 18:22author by Liz C - CAEUC

Report on Wed. 23rd Global Development Meeting

Comhlamh hosted a meeting on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for Global Development. This was a really good discussion with a very high level of informed debate. Presentations were given by no and yes advocates and specialists in trade, aid and development. The format was 10 minutes for each speaker followed by clarification questions and then a general question and answer session. The purpose of the discussion was to bring up issues around the impacts of the Lisbon Treaty, particularly on Global Development, including aid and trade.

This meeting wasn't a no or yes meeting but a place for people to discuss the issues that ate rarely being touchd on in the mainstream media where the Treaty debate has been limited to sure the treaty is only making the EU more efficient and there's nothing to worry about or fears over tax harmonization. Obviously I'm campaigning on the No side but will attempt to report what each speaker said as best I can. Anyone who was there please feel free to amend or add.

Barry Finnegan from the Campaign against the EU Constitution kicked off the discussion. He said that the main changes in the Lisbon Treaty are trade in services, including health and education, ( opens these up for privatization) and removes all barriers on Foreign Direct Investment ( which means governments cannot stop or limit the influx of money from any country for any reason.) Barry said that if the Treaty goes through that we will lose our current veto on health, education, and audio visual and cultural services. Up to now changes in these areas have required unanimity which the Treaty changes to Qualified Majority Voting. This is significant because these services have up to now been protected from privatization. On trade Barry said that trade liberalization is prioritized over development goals so that where the two clash, liberalization wins out as it is at the Treaty's core. (The EU Commission has exclusive powers to negotiate trade deals which is done by majority vote which means that the Irish government cannot veto a trade deal.) Barry responded to a question on trade deals saying that Ireland can't form bilateral trade deals. We are not allowed to. ( I think this means we could not have a special trade relationship with a developing country or offer fairer trade terms.)

Deirdre De Burca, the Green Party EU spokesperson said she is voting yes primrily because she believes a strong EU is needed to combat climate change and deal with migration and that the EU has the most progressive environmental policies compared to the U.S. Japan or the emerging economies such as Brazil and China. She said that the Treaty is flawed and that are definitely aspects that are not satisfactory, including trade provisions and the promotion of militarization but that on balance she believes the Treaty to be in the national interest. When asked she defined national interest as the interests of all groups, women, business etc. She accepted that we lose a veto on services except where a country can prove that competition would severely disrupt the governmetn's ability to provide services. She said that if the Green Party were in opposition that they would probably be campaigning against the Treaty but pointed out that this was her personal opinion. She welcomed the formalizing of the European Council as a institution of the EU. This body formulates strategy and policy direction. She pointed out positive effects that membership of the EU has had so far, including environmental legislation that our own government would have been slower to adopt. She asid when deciding how to vote that we should look at the EUs track record. She said that it is better to be on the inside to reform the EU, which she said is in need of reform.

Olive Towey from Concern pointed out that the EU is the single biggest aid donor in the world , giving 60% of the total aid and is Africa's biggest trading partner. Olive gave a powerpoint presentation on specific clauses in the Treaty, including Article 10A relating to 'consistency and coherence' between development goals and othe EU areas such as trade. She was asked about the wording of the clause which 'takes development into account' but does not make this mandatory or give it primacy over economic interests.
She said that these clauses give a legal basis for challenging conflicts of interest. She did not know offand what enforcement mechanisms there are or if a case could be taken to the European Court of Justice.

Aoife Black, Trocaire's EU Policy officer, spoke next saying that the Lisbon Treaty places poverty reduction as a primary objective which gives it a legal basis. EU aid has sometimes been undermined by trade policies, such as the Comon Agricultural Policy. or by foreign policy interests or by African Partnership Agreements whereby aid can be tied to buying goods, including weapons, or further trade liberalization. In te Treaty member states have to co-ordinate their aid.( this has been a key NGO demand as aid has been haphazard and not always delivered promptly.) However, the term 'independence' has been left out of the Treaty, which would forbid tieing aid to foreign policy objectives. She said that NGOs are currently fighting for a separate Development Commissioner.

The next speaker was Andy Storey from AFRi who said that the free movement of capital and trade liberalization are constitutionally enshrined in the Treaty in which case it doesn't matter whether or not that is coherent with development objectives. Economic, services and Foreign Direct Investment liberalization are mandatory while development goals are not. Andy spoke about militarization saying that the Treaty edges closer to a common defence policy. Article 28A statesm that there is an obligation of aid and assistance if a member state is attacked. There is also a widening of tasks that EU forces can get involved in including military advice and assistance and helping to combat terrorism including in a third state.( Does that include non-EU states?) He said that the possibilities for military interventions are wide and pointed to Chad as an example of the implications as Irish peacekeeping forces have been sent working with French forces that have been propping up the regime there. This is politically sensitive and he thinks rebel groups are unlikely to differentiate between Irish and French troops. Permanent structured co-operartion is his third concern as subsets of EU countries could get involved in military interventions without the support of the rest of the EU and without a UN mandate. Ireland would not be able to veto such missions or prevent EU resources being used in them. Article 28A makes it mandatory for member states to increase military funding although there is no provision for fining states who don't comply.

The last speaker was Conall O'Caoimh. His presentation can be viewed at www.slideshare.net. Comhlamh's aid and tradespecialist, who talked about a democratic deficit in the EU which he says will widen if the Treaty is passed. Article 10A states that there will be a progressive abolition of restrictions to international trade. These include non-tariff barriers. Developing countries are not exempt. They are in fact being asked to remove all trade barriers and remove regulations allowing only businesses that work in partnership with local companies to operate.Conall said that the Commission proposes trade agreements and the EU Council says yes or no . The EU parliament and national governments are excluded from decision making but are periodically informed.( while commissioners come from each country currently they are government appointed not elected.) Similarly only the Commission can propose laws while the EU Parliament writes the legislation but can't propose laws. Cpnall says he wouldn't have a major issue with the loss of veto on health and education if there was a corresponding strengthening of accountability but he thinks the Treaty provides less accountability not more.Comhlamh lobbied for the EU parliament to have a role in negotiating trade agreements but this was dropped in the final version of the Treaty. He pointed out that a passerelle clause means that areas that are exempt from liberalization can later be out to QMV.

The other speakers then added comments. Barry Finnegan asked why we would want to tie ourselves to a free trade agenda when we don't know what the future holds, saying he wants governments to be free to choose to change economic policies. He asked if Irish aid could be tied to EU aid and if so would we have to attach conditions. Aoife said the independence of our aid policy, which is untied aid, would not be affected by the Treaty. However we would not have control over the money we oput into a common EU aid budget. She said that the 'coherence' clauses will ultimately be down to political will.

Deirdre said that the EU is looking for a 20% reduction in emissions and must have the power to do so. However She said that it is harder to exercise democratic control at EU level than at international level and that it will be difficult to see how the militarization of Europe will be used. Conall added that the EU has done a good job of social policy over the last 50 years but that it wasn't allowed to make foreign policy or military decisions and based on its record regarding Kosovo, Chad and its lack of action on Palestine that he is not confident. He also said he thinks the EU development agenda is shrinking as it moves from 'soft' to 'hard' power. A speakers from the floor asked why Deirdre de Burca has changed her mind about the Treaty form when she campaigned against the Constitution. She replied that being in government has changed her mind and that she is looking at the Treaty from a different perspective, that of the national interest and that she also believes it is necessary to combat climate change. Jean from the Debt and Development Coalition suggested that the issues raised at the meeting could be brought together and circulated both around the development community and to a wider audience. A few people volunteered.

( on a personal note a few of us were discussing the likely outcome of the referendum. i asked 2 people at random who were having a few pints watching the football knew how they're voting hoping that they wouldn't say what referendum? The first guy said he's voting no and the second said he's Fianna Fail. off the record a speaker said that of all the meetings they've spoken at about 70% of the audiebce has been concerned or isintending to vote no despite, or maybe because of the lack of information and debate.)
:)

Related Link: http://www.caeuc.org

Comments (6 of 6)

Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6
author by Feeling sickpublication date Thu Apr 24, 2008 21:43author address author phone

"She (Deirdre de Burca) said that if the Green Party were in opposition that they would probably be campaigning against the Treaty but pointed out that this was her personal opinion."

"A speakers from the floor asked why Deirdre de Burca has changed her mind about the Treaty form when she campaigned against the Constitution. She replied that being in government has changed her mind..."

It's not exactly rare to see someone in Ireland sell out their principles. What is rare in general is to see them state is so bluntly and so publically.

author by John Meehan - CAEUC (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty)publication date Fri Apr 25, 2008 18:26author address author phone

That's another good report from Liz - it would be good if activists going to similar meetings followed her good example.

Here's a statement issued at this meeting by the CAEUC (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty)

VOTE NO to the Lisbon Treaty

Reasons to Reject an Anti-Development Deal

Will the Lisbon Treaty change Irish participation in European Union and related structures for the better or for the worse?

The treaty has loads of fine words.

Article 10a(2) explicitly lists amongst the objectives of the Union’s external actions “sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty”. Article 208 states that “Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty”

If you think about it, there were some lovely words in Fianna Fáil’s 2007 general election manifesto about a “world class health system” – but that’s a sick joke for people on today’s lengthening hospital waiting lists.

We should not be hoodwinked by fancy talk – we should ask ourselves : does the EU practice what it preaches when it comes to its external actions and development policy?

What are the EU’s goals, especially in relation to developing countries?

A significant signal in the Lisbon Treaty concerning the EU’s relations with developing countries is contained in Article 56, which states that “within the framework of the provisions set out in this chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.”

In other words, the central thrust of EU policy towards the global South is to ensure completely unfettered capital mobility regardless of the impact on poor countries (or on the people of Europe itself). If the Treaty is ratified, free movement of capital could not be challenged no matter what the end results are for development.

The overarching commitment to liberalization is made very clear by Article 188b, which commits the EU “to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers”. The point is further emphasized by Article 188d: the EU’s negotiating stance will be based on “the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation.” Constitutionally ensuring that the EU’s negotiating stance in international trade negotiations must be exercised in the pursuit of liberalization (of capital and of trade in goods and services), will not advance the interests of poor countries.

The overall thrust of EU external policy is based on a narrow concept of economic self-interest and a commitment to neoliberal (often anti-developmental) principles.

VOTE NO to the Lisbon Treaty

Campaign Against EU Constitution (Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty) :

Find out more about the Lisbon Treaty. Visit our website, or come to our meetings, get involved in the campaign. Help us by contributing to our poster fund.

Next meeting: Wednesday May 7, 20.00 in the Teachers’ Club, 36 Parnell Square.

www.caeuc.org

Related Link: http://www.sayno.ie
author by liz c - CAEUCpublication date Fri Apr 25, 2008 20:41author address author phone

I've remembered a few more questions and answers. Someone asked why the EU needs to increase its military capacity. Deirdre de Burca replied that it will be necessary for humanitarian intervention and that Climate Change is going to cause problems. I wasn't too clear on this one, Deirdre maybe you can reply because it seems to me that when climate change causes mass migration the aim of the EU army will not be to assist but to lock Europe down and prevent migrants from entering. Andy Storey said that the EU army will be used to fight future resource wars and that we will find ourselves increasingly tied to NATO.
(The way I see it Europe doesn't have much in the way of energy sources and one of the stated competences of the EU in the Lisbon Treaty is 'securing energy supply.' How exactly does the Commission plan to do that? It appears that like the U.S. the EU heads of state are looking at an energy crisis combined with mass migration and have decided that the best policy is to seal their borders and grab the remaining resources at the expense of the world's poorest people. a more rational response might be to attempt to alleviate the effects of climate change and drastically cut-back on energy usage while engaging in fair trade and giving useful untied aid to the poorest countries while actually dropping their illegitimate debt.) Someone else pointed out that the Irish government is using the EU as an excuse for pushing through unpopular legislation. Someone asked how developing countries feel about further trade liberalization.Barry read out a statement from a number of Latin American groups rejecting it and a statement from a group of UK NGOs rejecting the Lisbon Treaty because of liberalization provisions. Someone asked for suggestions on how to decide what way to vote on the Treaty. The speakers agreed that it is a judgement call for every individual. ( the great thing about a referendum is that it goes beyond party politics. there is no party whip. it's an individual conscience decision.) I know there were more questions but I don't remember them all. please add them if you were there. This meeting was filmed so will hopefully end up online.

author by Nostradamispublication date Fri Apr 25, 2008 21:41author address author phone

One only has to look at the EU's fisheries policy in relation to West Africa to see were things are headed. For a tiny proportion of the EU's fisheries budget, handed over to some dodgy governements in the region, factory ships from europe (including ireland) have been given a green light to to wipe out the regions entire marine fisheries through ruthless uncontolled industrial fishing practices that have wrought well documented destruction to these valuable natural resources elsewhere around the world. Already coastal communties from Morroco to Benin are feeling the affects of this with the local small scale. sustaineable fishing industry noticing a steep decline in catches which is causing a signficant increase in poverty. Ironically this has lead to an increase in numbers of emigrants fleeing these countries trying to get into europe by any means possibly

author by Alan Bunburypublication date Sat May 03, 2008 20:44author address author phone

I think that a lot of the left are missing this important qualification on the pro-competition clauses in the Lisbon Treaty; that a State will not be obliged to abide by the pro-competition clauses if it can prove that doing so would damage the ability of the State to provide a public service. In fact, it would appear that a State may be obliged to intervene in order to prevent a public service from failing. the Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty on the Function of the Union (I think it's that treaty anyway) to read as follows:

"Without prejudice to Article 3a of the Treaty on European Union or to Articles 73, 86 and 87 of this Treaty, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Union Community and the Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of this Treaty, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions."

What this section says to me is that member states must make sure that "services of general economic interest" (public services) do not fail or become ineffective due to financial conditions or restraints. It basically obliges member states to prop up public services financially where there is a danger of these public services failing.

author by Tech1.0publication date Tue May 06, 2008 23:44author address author phone

Undistorted competition (leading to privatisation of purposefully underfunded public services) is re-introduced via Protocol 6.

Protocol 6 is a text of an equivalent reach to the treaties and makes more explicit the objectives of the Union:”the interior market as it is defined in article 3 of the treaty on the European Union is equipped with a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted”.

This is how undistorted competition is reintroduced in the Union’s objectives from where it had seemingly disappeared.

Also, the so-called “fundamental” rights remain subordinate to such dispositions as “free and undistorted competition”, as these ‘rights’ do not create “any competence or any novel task for the Union”

check out,

http://www.voteno.ie/resources/attaccritiqueofreformtre...y.doc

"Competition

The press made a big deal of Nicolas Sarkozy’s “success” in getting the reference to “free and undistorted competition” taken out as an EU goal. This is certainly a symbolic victory for those fighting for the No against the TECE, and symbolic victories have their significance because they legitimize a struggle. But will this have any concrete consequences whatsoever?

The principle of free competition remains embedded in numerous articles of the treaties. Let us take, for example, Article 105 of the TFEU, which remains as it is, and which underlines the “principle of an open market economy with free competition.” It is also at the heart of most European legislative agreements that are still in effect, especially those to liberalise public services.

Finally, to avoid any ambiguity, Protocol 6 of the Reform Treaty restates clearly the applicable principle: “the internal market as set out in Article [I-3] of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted.” Article [I-3] is about the objectives of the Union. Undistorted competition is thus reintroduced in the Union objectives, from where it had seemed to have disappeared.

To drive the point home further and to underline that this is not a theoretical objective, Protocol 6 provides that “the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties.”

It is clear that the right to competition remains as powerful as ever. It remains the organizing principle of the Union, a prescriptive part of the standards, a real “constitutional” right that mostly degrades the other European texts to mere declarations of intent without any practical operational impact."


also,

The Charter of Fundamental Rights ( Part II of the proposed
http://www.tuaeuc.org/charter.doc

Fundamental rights may be limited in the interests of the market

[...]

But in a democratic society politics is connected with the contestability of what counts as the common good. On the EU level, however, the common good is identified instead with the good of the market and a fixed idea of utility. The market becomes in effect the substitute for democracy, and human rights become marketised.

[...]

The right to strike is not guaranteed

[...]

A real threat to public services and state companies

The Charter guarantees “freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law.”1

This is qualified in the Union’s objectives: “The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.”2

In effect, this imposes a treaty obligation to establish a neo-liberal economic model, something that is normally the subject of contestation between competing political parties or ideologies.

This neo-liberal stricture is further strengthened by the Union’s commitment to “the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers,”3 and by the legally binding Protocol 6, which states that, “considering that the internal market as set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted . . . the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”4

And, just to ensure undistorted competition, the Council can do what it likes and can extend the scope of the Treaties in all areas, with the exception of common foreign and security policy, as long as the European Parliament approves.5....


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87310

Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.