A report of the EU Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) Information Conference held at the STUC Centre on Friday 29 February 2008

The Conference

Phil McGarry, STUC President, chaired the conference proceedings. Just over 40 delegates registered to participate in the debate, and there were five guest speakers.

Conference Contributors

Grahame Smith the General Secretary provided a brief introduction to the issues, indicating that the STUC welcomed the opportunity to host the debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, gave a spirited contribution, where he stressed that the debate was not just about the Treaty, it was about the whole European project. He was very critical of the UK Government’s policies and actions on Europe, arguing that the CBI has been given a veto on new social legislation that has come from Europe. He was particularly damning of the UK Government’s block on the Temporary Agency Workers legislation, and its arguments that the right to strike is not a fundamental right. John’s contribution is attached as an annex to this paper.

Kathleen Walker-Shaw, the GMB’s European Officer, expressed her union’s concerns at where our Government is taking us, and where it is taking Europe. She set out concerns on the free market, liberalisation agenda, and of the “political decisions” being taken by the European Court of Justice. She called the UK Government’s opt out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights scandalous, and considered the UK’s negotiating on the EU Reform Treaty as a major misjudgement. Kathleen indicated it is vital to send a clear message to the UK Government on our opposition to its European policy, and that we should be allowed to do this through a referendum. She was critical of the fact that the UK Government is attempting to forge ahead with ratification through Parliament, and is even trying to squeeze the level of debate held in the Parliament.

David Martin MEP said that we must not confuse our frustration at the UK Government with the Treaty. He argued that this Treaty was the most modest of all previous Treaty reforms, and was really a tidying up exercise. He set out how the Treaty makes functional reforms to make it work better. David stated that the Treaty improves democracy in that it ensures more EU law is subject to co-decision between the Parliament and the Council, and it provides for national parliaments to first have a say as to whether legislation on particular issues is necessary. The Treaty ends the complex budget procedures and the UK will actually strengthen its power within the Council of Ministers. He identified efficiency measures in the creation of a chair of the Council of Ministers, rather than rotating the chair between 27 members; in the merging of two foreign policy representatives into one single representative; and in reducing the Commission from 27 to 18. The Treaty says it will respect Services of General Interest, which David argued, should be used to protect public services. He argued that the EU is vital to enable states to work together to tackle issues such as climate change, global poverty, international terrorism, and to enable us to compete with the US and China.

Ian Davidson stated that opposing the Lisbon Treaty does not mean automatic opposition to the EU. He expressed his concerns that the Treaty would allow a free fire zone for international capital. He underlined the fact that he was elected at the last General Elections on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. Whilst the EU has had a rethink following the defeat of the Constitutional Treaty, the content of the Reform Treaty is the same. The only people arguing it’s not the same are the UK Government, because they are afraid to put it to a referendum, as they are afraid they would lose. Ian argued we should be opposing the Treaty because it creates a head of state in the EU President supported by a bureaucracy that will give momentum for centralisation; and the creation of an EU Foreign Minister and harmonisation of foreign policy will supplant that of EU states. He argued the Treaty weakens national parliaments and reduces powers to block legislation. Ian stated that the left should oppose the Treaty because of the threat of the Health Care Directive, and because our industrial disputes could be determined by the European Court of Justice. He said that the expansion of EU powers is worrying for democracy, and believes that powers should operate at local levels, not in Brussels which is remote, unaccountable and influenced by the corporate lobbyists.

Richard Arthur, Head of Trade Union Law at Thompsons Solicitors in Bristol, gave an excellent presentation which considered the Viking and Laval cases entitled “Viking and Laval: A collision waiting to happen”. He first considered the purpose of the EU, identifying it has two purposes one is economic and one is social. He noted that in these two cases the economic interests and social interests clash creating conflict. He concludes that the role of the European Court of Justice in these cases is concerning, in that it does not give the right to strike any supremacy. In response to questions he suggests that the decisions may impose an extra layer of scrutiny on trade union industrial action, which is deeply alarming. Richard’s full paper as presented at the Conference is attached as an annex.

Plenary Discussion

Each speaker responded to a number of questions following their presentations. There was also a plenary debate with a number of contributions from the floor. Points raised in this discussion included:

• Fears the Treaty will impede the right to strike

• The need for workers and citizens to have a say in this matter in debate and in a referendum

• A discussion on the primacy of EU law

• The fact that the UK Government has led the privatisation agenda, Europe cannot be blamed for everything and EU laws did not direct the UK to sell off the railways

• Concerns at social dumping in the Irish Sea

• Alarm at how the EU was used to force a tendering process of Scottish ferry services, and the waste of £15m

• Concerns that EU laws led to privatisations of UK railways.

Conference Outcomes

The Conference provided an invaluable opportunity for a range of expert speakers to present their views to delegates, and facilitated excellent discussion on the issues. It was noted that there will be a debate on the EU Reform Treaty at the STUC Congress in April 2008.