This Thursday the Irish will say what kind of Europe they want: either an integrated Europe, able to operate under the Community method, with common policies based on solidarity, or an essentially inter-governmental Europe based on cooperation and free trade (see this column of yesterday). Each people has the right to choose and it must be fully aware of its choice. European integration is not obligatory, and every opinion has to be respected.
What is logical and what is not. Honesty is, however, essential. In my opinion, it is not always there. Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty because one does not share any particular arrangement or because it does not fully reflect one's preferred political stance demonstrates a mixture of ignorance and naivety, and sometimes fanaticism and dishonesty. It is to ignore the significance and successes of Community treaties, the principal aim of which was to ensure that there never again could be conflicts such as those which, over the centuries, have torn our continent apart. It is to ignore the common agricultural policy (CAP) which allowed the European community astonishingly quickly to eliminate risks of food shortages (in the immediate post-was period, we had starving children here, in our countries: how many countries across the world still dream of imitating us!), and the structural policies which brought economic recovery and prosperity to Spain, Ireland and others. It is not for the treaties to dictate what the common policies contain and how they operate: common policies evolve and change according to circumstances - the CAP is constantly being re-worked; new policies come about in response to needs; budgetary guidelines are set every five years. Why should we neglect the fact that we live in a democracy? What is in the policies, apart from the general aims and guidelines, is not set by the treaties, but depends on the choices of peoples, and so the outcome of elections. The Lisbon Treaty will improve the way the EU works, making it more democratic and opening up new possibilities. We need an integrated Europe.
Rejecting this treaty because one's preference is for an inter-governmental Europe is a perfectly logical position. But the reasons for this preference are not always the ones given - far from it. As Yann and Muriel de l'Ecotais wrote about the French rejection of the draft Constitutional Treaty, the referendum in France “crystallised all forms of opposition: to capitalism, to free trade, to those in power at the time, to regulation of woodpigeon hunting, to Polish workers, etc”. Today, things are even worse. It is instructive to read through some of the stances against the Lisbon Treaty.
The wrong reasons for a “group”. I have right in front of me an anti-Treaty diatribe published at the start of April in the Brussels newspaper “Le Soir”. The title resounds: “Not this Europe! Not in our name!” the list of the “group of signatories” has something screwball, almost surrealist, about it: the opinions expressed are those of organisations such as, “The Lisbon Treaty Resistance Group”, “Brussels Committee for Consultation of the People”, “Our Tuppence Worth”, “Swimming against the Tide”, in other words, the opinions of no doubt estimable persons who, in fact, represent themselves plus a few companions or followers. Added to these are a few political movements which have virtually no voters any more (Communist Party, An alternative Left, the Revolutionary Communist League), a couple of university junior lecturers and Attac/Wallonia/Brussels. Of course, we all have a right to express our opinion; the views expressed in this column are those only of the writer. But the signatories listed above cannot claim to speak on behalf of peoples, and demand arrogantly that their ideas and positions be imposed by the European Treaty. Their opinions are as valid as anyone's; but in a democracy, we have to persuade others by our arguments, and form a majority.
The first task is to avoid falsehoods. As an example, may I take the text I have to hand, since the arguments of all those who do not base their opposition to the treaty on a separatist or anti-European ideology are similar. Here is a flavour of these arguments. According to the above-mentioned group, the Charter of Fundamental Rights “is a massive step backwards” from what already exists, because it does not recognise the right to strike or the right to abortion and contraception.
The right to strike exists throughout the EU. As for abortion, some peoples oppose such a right. Is it up to Europe to impose it on them? Beyond genuine fundamental rights, each people should be left to make its own choices, let us respect national traditions and convictions. Sweden has just opposed a European regulation on divorce, taking the view that in this area the only laws it should apply are its own (see newsletter 9677). Every member state recognises the usefulness of certain European standards, for example maintenance allowance.
But with divorce, abortion and contraception sensitivities vary. The new treaty offers the possibility of setting up enhanced cooperation between those countries which want it; it is more democratic.
The most disturbing point in the argument of the Group is, clearly, the lies, and they are many. It states that, in the new treaty, services of general economic interest would remain “subject to competition rules, forced into de facto privatisation”. This is totally false (I will come back to this later). It also states that “there are no proposals for tackling environmental challenges”, when, in this area, Europe is a world leader. (Difficult) negotiations are underway, in full compliance with institutional mechanisms, on the detail of the applicable legislation. It is impossible to put into a treaty all the measures to be taken, measures which change as situations develop, knowledge increases and scientific discoveries are made. A treaty should contain principles and set procedures. The new treaty is clear on this issue and contains a number of innovations which extend the number of matters reserved to Europe and its ability to act, and which strengthen decision-making procedures. What there is already allows Europe to play a leading role, and it does not hold back; industrial circles believe that it sometimes goes too far. The principles are clear and the powers of the institutions considerable. Implementation depends on the electoral choices made by people. The Group disregards the rules of democracy.
A totally ineffective position. One further point has to be taken into consideration, and it is vital: the effectiveness of the “No” in achieving the objectives set out. In summary, those who oppose the new treaty challenge (and it is their right to do so) certain aspects of the treaties currently in force, in the belief that: 1) the role and significance of services of general interest are not stated clearly enough or protected; 2) the environmental and climate change challenges have not been taken into consideration. On both these points the new treaty, as we have seen, does exactly what the signatories want (not because of them, of course, but thanks to the broad movement of genuine political forces and thanks to the growing awareness of the people).
What will happen if the Lisbon Treaty falls? A double failure: the current texts will remain in force and any improvements that were to be introduced will be lost! This is true not just in the two areas mentioned, it goes for everything. The list of improvements the new treaty will bring is long. It gives the European Parliament the power to play a full part in agricultural decisions and in decisions on trade policy, making the EU more democratic; it makes enhanced cooperation really possible; it increases the possibilities for action on the environment; it gives civil society more clout. Some may think, and this may be a good thing, that the innovations do not go far enough and that pressure has to be maintained for more to be obtained. But is it worth destroying what has been achieved and saving current arrangements? This would be a fine example of blindness, if not political stupidity in action! Unless, that is, it is not all just a painful effort to win a little visibility and clout when either the one or the other does not exist or has been lost.
The truth about “public services”. In conclusion, let me return to services of general economic interest. This is a battle launched 20 years ago by Jacques Delors and Karel van Miert, and vigorously conducted by the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty is, on the level of principles, the crowning glory. For the first time, a European treaty states that these services are a fundamental part of the European model of society. It acknowledges “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”. That is why they have to be able to operate “on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions”. They are subject to the rules of the treaty, particularly competition rules insofar as the application of these rules does not prevent them from fulfilling, in law or in fact, their specific missions.
The comments of a lawyer: “This provision indicates that the fulfilment of a public service mission can prevail over the application of European rules, including those on the internal market and competition”. Subsidies become legal and the universal service (the obligation that good quality services are provided to the whole population throughout the whole land at reasonable rates) is compulsory. It is there, written out. Some points still have to be cleared up and some problems remain. It will be up to those politicians elected by the people to complete the work. The Lisbon Treaty, if approved, will provide solid foundations on which to set the building. If it is rejected, however, the current texts will remain valid. (F.R./transl .rt)