The Lisbon Treaty: The Socialist Party View

Here follows an interview with Stephen Rigney of the Socialist Party, Parliamentary Assistant to Joe Higgins MEP

Sum up for us, in 30 words or less (or as brief as possible), why the Socialist Party is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

We believe that the Lisbon Treaty enshrines the concept of the free market, the privatisation of healthcare and education and the "race to the bottom" in wages and conditions, while giving a huge impetus to the militarisation of Europe. It is a continuation of the same failed policies that have resulted in this economic crisis.

Why do you think unions like SIPTU are in favour of the treaty?

Well, we'd draw a very sharp line between the rank-and-file membership of unions like SIPTU and the leadership who support the Lisbon Treaty. The leadership's support for Lisbon is directly related to the fact that they have no faith or confidence in their membership to get active and to organise against attacks on wages and conditions. They are committed to the idea of Social Partnership, where workers should not rely on their own strength and ability to demand decent pay and conditions but that they should seek agreements with the bosses to be given a few scraps off the table, while big business dines on a five course meal. Despite the fact that Social Parternship has been blown apart by this recession, they are still hoping that they can cobble together some sort of deal on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will come info force if Lisbon is passed. They hope that somehow the rights in the Charter will give legal protection to workers in pay and conditions and this will prevent employers from introducing pay cuts and job losses and force them back to negotiations. On a superficial level, the CFR contains many fine phrases and articles about workers' rights but in practice, the European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of occassions that the rights in the CFR are subordinate to the rights of the market and the rights of big business to make profits. The Charter itself, along with its official explanations are very specific and clear about the limitations of fundamental rights, when they interfere with the running of the market. In fact, by enshring the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it will actually only re-inforce the limitations on workers rights and the vicious anti-worker rulings of the ECJ. Despite the conservatism of the union leaderships and their wishful thinking, the only road that will be left open to workers to defend pay and conditions will be to take industrial action and get organised.


Joe Higgins MEP made a great point the other day when he said that part of the treaty (which says that alcoholics and drug addicts should be involuntarily 'confined') goes against the Mental Health Act 2001. Why has no-one else, even on the No side, picked up on this?

There are a lot of important points in this debate which unfortunately have not really featured in the discussion or in the media. The No side has had an uphill battle throughout the campaign in trying to fight their corner and put forward their ideas. The blatant bias of the mainstream media has meant that the Yes side has received a lot more coverage and it's made it very difficult for the No side to get all their points across, particularly when those issues are outside of the "key" issues of workers' rights, militarisation, the democratic deficit and public services. it's just unfortunate that more important issues like this one do not coverage.


We're all hearing a lot about the minimum wage and that it could be altered; what, if anything, in the Treaty could change our minimum wage?

The Treaty itself will make no direct change to the minimum wage. Claims by Cóir that it will do so and reduce the legal minimum wage to €1.84 not only confuse and muddle the real debate on the content of the Lisbon Treaty and what it means but also provides ammunition to the establishment to paint the No side as liars. These claims are an absolute distraction.

There has been an ongoing attempt by big business throughout Europe to lower wages and conditions by forcing workers into competition against each other through a "race to the bottom". The rulings of the ECJ in the Viking, Ruffert and Laval cases are a very significant confirmation that the EU elite are in favour of these policies. The ECJ rulings effectively said that trade unions have no right to take industrial action against companies "posting" cheaper labour from abroad if it interferes or makes it more difficult for a foreign company to set-up in another state. The Court also ruled that employers "posting" workers abroad are not obliged to meet industry agreements or norms but are only required to meet the minimum employment conditions in that country. Even more significantly, the ruling against the state of Luxembourg means that national states cannot impose legislation on foreign companies over and above the minimum legal requirements, if it has any detrimental impact on the company establishing a base in that state. This is a very clear sign that the rights of workers to decent pay and conditions is subordinate to the right to make profit. By setting the minimum wage and not industry standards and agreements as the only bar that has to be reached by multinationals, the minimum wage is quickly becoming the maximum. Lisbon and the Charter will do absolutely nothing to prevent this as the rights contained in the Charter are limited and based upon the rights contained in the other European Treaties. These are the same Treaties that the ECJ based its judgements on!

What does the Socialist Party make of some of the more right-wing elements of the No campaign like Coir and Libertas? Is this an uneasy alliance, or do they raise some valid points?

As I said above, the outlandish claims of groups like Cóir are an actual distraction from the real debate. These groups all have their own axe to grind around issues that have no real impact on the lives or ordinary working people and in certain cases, around non-issues that the Lisbon Treaty does not even concern. They've attempted to turn this debate towards a narrow nationalist outlook on Europe and in the case of UKIP, this is an attempt to whip up racist ideas. Unfortunately, the media and establishment have tried to elevate these groups as the leaders of the No campaign in an attempt to dismiss the entire No side as extremist or anti-European groups. By responding to their strawmen arguments and elevating them as real issues, they can easily knock them down and attempt to portray all the No arguments equally as strawmen.

We cannot choose who is part of the No side but we will continue to run our own campaign, independent of these groups.

Finally, why is Joe Higgins the only MEP opposing the Treaty?

Ultimately, all the other MEPs and their parties are proponents of the status quo in Europe, one where the rights of the market and the rights of profit and big business are king. They offer no alternative to this kind of Europe and the capitalist system that it's based around and so inevitably they have to row behind the Treaty.

The Socialist Party stands for a different kind of European Union, one that's based on the rights of workers and young people to a decent job, decent pay and decent conditions. We support a Europe that's based on democratic socialism, where industry and production is run on the basis of providing goods and services to people, not on providing exploitation and profit to big business.

The Lisbon Treaty: The OSF View

This is an interview with Marcas O' Mhaoldomhnaigh, Ógra Shinn Féin National PRO.

Can you sum up, in 30 words or less, why OSF are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty?

Ógra Shinn Féin are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty because if passed it would result in a

further militarized EU where smaller states have less say. While further undermining workers rights it

also contains a Revision Procedure which would allow heads of state remove vetoes in particular areas in the future.

We've all seen the Sinn Fein posters about increased militarisation in the EU if the Treaty is passed.

Explain briefly how the Treaty will enshrine militarisation if it is passed.

If passed the Lisbon Treaty would require member states to increase their military capacities.

The treaty also states that in the event of "armed aggression" being directed at a member state then all

other members states are required to intervene or provide assistance (Art.188R). This undermines Irish neutrality.

However this is not all, the Treaty also talks about "assisting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories".(Art.28)

This part is particularly disturbing as it could justify the use of troops in places like Afghanistan.

Would OSF be in favour of a new Treaty? If so, what would OSF like to see in a new treaty?

ÓSF are pro-Europe and if a new treaty which protected Workers Rights, Irish neutrality and many of the other issues we have highlighted

were to be put forward then I believe we would support it. (Please note I can't say for definite we would as it would have to be put before the SF Ard Comhairle,

however assuming everything we had outlined was protected etc. then I would see no reason why we would oppose it).

A group called Generation Yes has been targeting young people out and telling them to vote Yes. Does the Treaty have anything in it that may specifically concern Youth voters?

First off I would like to say something about Generation Yes. This group has consistently criticized opposition groups by stating that we have not been dealing with the text of the treaty ( http://www.generationyes.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/sfblinkers ) while saying that they have. This is untrue, SF and many of the other groups have consistently dealt with the text of the treaty while groups like GY have resorted to laughable scaremongering such as saying that "Some people think Ireland will have to leave the EU, others think there isn’t a legal way to do this. No one knows for certain what will happen if we vote ‘no’." ( http://www.generationyes.ie/lisbon-treaty-guide/ ). Well perhaps if GY knew anything about how the EU works they would realize that no country can be marginalised under the current EU, nor can we leave unless we actually vote to remove ourselves from the EU. However if the LT is passed then, in the future, a situation where countries may be forced out could arise.

I would also question the alleged "independence" of a group whos first meeting was held at IBEC headquarters in Dublin.

Does the Treaty have anything in it that may specifically concern Youth voters? Why should Youth voters vote No?

The EU certainly concerns youth voters. It is about the future direction of the European Union.

If young people want to see Europe where workers rights are protected, where Irish neutrality is not undermined and where we have a

strong voice in Europe they should vote no. The government had a strong mandate to go back to Europe and demand a renegotiated treaty.

They failed the Irish people in this regard and are forcing them to vote again on the same treaty. Young people should vote no, to allow a better treaty to be negotiated which does not give more power to larger states or facilitate a "race to the bottom" in terms of

publuic services.

For a more democratic and de-militarised Europe, people should vote No.


Many thanks to Marcas O' Mhaoldomhnaigh for his time and patience.

The Lisbon Treaty: The CYM View

I'm starting a series of articles which are interviews with people opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.

First up is Gareth Murphy, General Secretary of the Connolly Youth Movement (CYM).

NF: Sum up for us, in 30 words or less, why the CYM is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty?

GM: The Lisbon Treaty further erodes the sovereignty of member-states and gives further power and policy control over to unelected bureaucrats. This Treaty actually rewards those that have driven the economic crisis that is putting ordinary workers and their families out of work. (Not quite 30 words but that's concise enough.)

A lot of people have a lot to say about the provisions made or not made in the Treaty regarding Worker's Rights. Sum up for us briefly the situation regarding Worker's Rights in the Treaty.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is subject to non-interference with the ‘general interest’ of the EU that is the common market. These rights are therefore not fundamental but marketised –made subject to the market. The unelected European Court of Justice will decide where and when these rights are applicable and when not. We have seen several cases over the last number of years where the ECJ has came down firmly on the side of big business and against workers rights and trade union rights.

What does the CYM make of the intrusion of big businesses like Intel and Ryanair into the debate on the Yes side?

Our NO vote rocked the establishment. Big business and their bureaucrats in Brussels were not at all happy with the expressed wish of the Irish people (just like that of the French and Dutch before us). This time around the YES side is taking no chances so they have pulled out the celebrities and the big bucks to bully citizens into voting a certain way. This is EU democracy at work. Today, as we speak, there are thousands of unregistered and unfiltered lobbyists wining and dining the authors of legislating that increasingly impacts every part of our lives. This is how Europe works and we oppose it.

Similarly, what does the CYM make of the intrusion of the UK Independence Party into the debate on the No side?

There are many different voices on the No side. In Ireland we have trade unionists and peoples voices, we also have a catholic part of the No side and also in Libertas and Declan Ganley a business group against Lisbon.

There are complex reasons as to why people on the right are opposed to the Treaty and UKIP are most certainly on the right. They see some of the anti-trust and monopoly regulation of the EU as intereference in the market and in business and so oppose.

However UKIP and Libertas are correct in identifying the loss of sovereignty that will occur post-Lisbon. UKIP and their allies have also done enormous research into the waste of money and the cost of EU membership to ordinary citizens. This research is useful for all of us to use.

Does the CYM see a future for Ireland in Europe?

Europe is a geographic entity. Whether we like it or not Ireland is part of Europe. We also share many commonalities with the people of the continent and it makes perfect geographic sense that Europe should forge trading and economic links. However the EU is a political project. From day one, and one must only read Monnet and Schumman etc to see, this has been a project to build a federal state without ever telling the people so. It has been about manipulation and abuse.

The CYM are very much opposed to this imperialist (for it cant be anything but that given the federalisation of the large capitalist powers in Europe) state.

There are living and developing examples of alternative means of trading within geographic speheres. Where states come together and agree upon cooperation for mutual benefit. ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America) is a fine example of this.

People of Europe must fight to reclaim sovereignty, reclaim control and step by step build alliances and an alternative means of cooperation based upon the needs of people and not big business.

Many thanks to Gareth Murphy, General Secretary of the Connolly Youth Movement for his time and patience.

54.5 million for Polish Dell plant

The EU, in its wisdom, has decided that now would be a good time to grant Poland a 54.5 million euro aid package to help launch the Dell plant that recently moved to Poland from Limerick (See here).

RTE say; "After an in-depth investigation, the EU competition authority said the aid was compatible with the bloc's rules, despite protests from Ireland, where Dell is closing its factory in Limerick...The Commission said its investigation had shown that job losses in Ireland would not be a consequence of the aid granted by the Polish authorities to the Lodz factory."

Patricia McKenna of the People's Movement says (and I agree with her); “this decision by the European Commission is a slap in the face to Irish workers and exposes the EU’s hypocrisy and disregard for Irish jobs. It is truly ironic that the EU Commission is here in Ireland urging Irish voters to vote ‘Yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty under the guise of jobs and the economy, while it is
allowing new member states like Poland to provide massive financial bribes to companies to move their operations out of Ireland.”

See the full press release by Patricia McKenna here