SCAEF Bulletin

May 2008

On 8 March the government defeated the key amendment to the EU Treaty bill that would have committed it to a referendum.

 

29 Labour MPs defied the whip as did a number of Lib Dems.  But it was not nearly enough.  The amendment was lost by a majority of 63.

 

The Treaty now goes to the House of Lords.  There remains some possibility that the Lords might send it back to the Commons with an amendment demanding a referendum.  But both Labour and Lib Dems peers will be whipped to vote against.

 

“Neck and Neck”

In Ireland a referendum on the Treaty will be held on 12 June.  Here the odds are much more even.  An Irish Times poll in March found 64 per cent still undecided and only 26 per cent committed to vote YES. Bookmakers, currently taking bets on the outcome, say it is likely to be neck and neck.

 

The Left, significant sections of the trade union movement, Sinn Fein and the Irish peace movement are calling for a No vote.  All three establishment parties, Fianna Fail, Finn Gael and Labour, are calling for a Yes vote – as is the media. But they have the liability of being responsible for a collapsing economy held to ransom by high interest rates imposed by the European Central Bank.

 

“A crisis for the EU”

Supporters of the Treaty are saying that if it is rejected the EU will be plunged into crisis.  However, as Ian Davidson MP said at the STUC conference, a crisis is just what the EU needs at the moment.

 

It is clear that as soon as the Treaty is ratified, we will be hit by a raft of anti-working class measures: the Health Directive which will open the NHS to competition, the Flexicurity policy and the full implementation of the Services Directive under the anti-TU terms of the three EU Court of Justice decisions, Viking, Vaxholm and Lower Saxony.

 

Together, these will do severe damage to the trade union movement across Europe.  So we will either have a crisis for the EU or a crisis for the Labour movement and its attitude to the EU

SCAEF Bulletin

New challenge by EU Court of Justice to TU rights 

 

On 4 April the EU Court of Justice issued a new challenge to trade union rights when it declared illegal a law of the German state of Lower Saxony which states that public contracts can only be awarded to companies which pay their employees the minimum wage as agreed in regional collective bargaining agreements.

 

The state law was declared to be contrary to the EU treaty principle of ‘free movement’. The case had been triggered when a Polish subcontractor, paying its workers less than half the agreed wage, was ruled ineligible for a contract.

 

The ETUC described this decision as ‘another destructive judgement’. Unite general secretary Derek Simpson called the judgement ‘by far the most damaging" of a series of ECJ rulings undermining the unions.  He said, "This decision effectively means that foreign companies working here in the UK, or in any other European country, can flout domestic laws and collective agreements with regard to pay. This is a recipe for disaster and, if applied in the UK, will cause massive industrial unrest and threaten the delivery of major infrastructure projects including the Olympics site

 

The decision follows the Viking and Vaxholm decisions in December that removed immunity from unions involved in any trade dispute on terms and conditions involving a company from another EU country.  Any action to defend local collective bargaining was judged to be in conflict with the principle of ‘freedom of establishment’.  In March British Airways sought to use this judgement in British law to halt industrial action by BALPA.

Brendan Lee, Secretary of Youth and Student CND, writes on EU militarisation

 

 

Any final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will be a huge setback for all those who value peace and democracy.  In terms of its military aspects, the treaty retains the main provisions of the EU Constitution. Article 28 (3) affirms that, “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.” 

 

The meaning of this is clear for the new member states, which are being forced to upgrade all their military hardware in order to ensure ‘interoperability’ with the major European players.  Similarly, for those Member States (such as Britain ) which already possess state of the art killing machinery, any moves towards disarmament would run entirely counter to out obligations under the Treaty. Under Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty, Britain is committed to “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” 

 

 

In terms of this sustained military expenditure, the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear who is to reap the financial benefits.  The treaty calls for the formalisation of the European Defence Agency (EDA) in the structures of European Treaties.  The EDA, which came out of a European Commission document entitled “Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy”, was established in 2004.   The role of the EDA under the treaty will be “to identify operational requirements, to promote measures to satisfy those requirements, to contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, to participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and to assist the Council of Ministers in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.”  Essentially, the Lisbon Treaty seeks to formalise the creation of a European military-industrial complex on the same scale as that of the US.

 

‘A more assertive Union role’

It is often suggested that the development of a coherent European defence and security policy, as promoted by the Lisbon Treaty, could be used as a counterbalance to the imperialist interests of the US.  However, the reality, unsurprisingly, is very different.  The Lisbon Treaty Protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation refers to NATO as “the foundation of the collective defence of its members” and remains “convinced that a more assertive Union [EU] role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance [NATO], in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements [sharing EU/NATO assets]”.

 

It is quite sobering to consider all of this in the context of the US missile defence programme, which will involve basing US early warning radar systems and interceptor missiles in two new EU members as well as Britain.

Main Feature