Constitutional divide

The left is split over the EU Constitution, with Labour calling for a YES vote and Sinn Féin encouraging a NO. We asked MEPs Proinsias De Rossa and Mary Lou McDonald to follow up their recent exchange in our letters pages with a one-on-one email debate

Dear Proinsias,

The debate over the EU Constitution is not between pro and anti-Europeans. It is a debate about different visions for the future of the EU. Those who support the Constitution imagine a Europe in which all markets are liberalised; welfare states undermined; decision making concentrated into the hands of a few; military spending growing; and issues of human rights, social equality and global justice relegated to the position of rhetoric and not backed-up by action.

Those who oppose the EU Constitution believe that another Europe is possible. One where economic growth compliments social and environmental protections; where people are empowered to take part in real decision making; where the EU takes a leading role in promoting peace and ending the arms trade; where human rights, equality and global justice are real priorities.

Voting for the Constitution will lock us into the first framework for decades. Rejecting it will re-open the debate about the future of the EU.

Yours, Mary Lou McDonald

The EU is a union of power-sharing states. We pool our sovereignty to make laws, develop economically, have a common currency, and a common defence (for those who wish to join). We act together internationally when all agree and share wealth and prosperity through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), social and regional policies, etc.

Unless your policy has changed, Sinn Féin's alternative is a "Europe of Cooperating States", where power is not shared.

It's clear to me that Sinn Féin's fundamental problem with Europe and the Constitution is that it provides for the ongoing sharing of Ireland's sovereignty.

Please tell us: how can your wish-list be implemented, unless we share power?

Proinsias,

Sinn Féin's approach to the Constitution is simple. Is it in the interests of Irish people? If so we support it and work to enhance it. If not then we reject it and campaign against it. Does it promote democracy, accountability, transparency, social and economic equality, conflict resolution and global justice? These are our 2004 European election policy commitments.

The problem with the Constitution is that it does not assist in achieving any of these things.

It constitutionalises a wide range of policy positions into its text that work in the opposite direction. Proinsias seems unwilling to debate these issues, and instead focuses on what he perceives to be Sinn Féin's fundamental problem with Europe. This is an evasion, and not a very good one.

So let's focus the debate. Does Proinsias support increases in military expenditure, the armaments agency, foreign policy compatibility with NATO, and the foreign policy loyalty clause? All are central elements of the Constitution.

Yours, Mary Lou

I welcome the development of a common European foreign policy, which for instance supports an independent Palestinian state. Irish troops are taking part in an EU peacekeeping mission in Bosnia right now. I want them to be well equipped and trained, for their sake and for those they are protecting, so I support the necessary military expenditure.

The European and the Irish Constitutions are both committed to peace. But the European Constitution goes further by committing to the United Nations Charter.

Fair trade requires regulation, which free-trade globalisers resist. To apply effective rules transparently we need to globalise democracy. That means sharing sovereignty. But Sinn Féin wants to "dis-integrate" Europe, based on an old-world, ultra-nationalist ideology. So much for solidarity!

Proinsias,

So Proinsias is in favour of increasing military expenditure and the European Armaments Agency, but is unwilling to address the issue of NATO and the loyalty clause.

On the issues of Palestine and peace keeping missions Proinsias' comments are misleading. The Constitution says nothing about Palestine. UN Peace keeping missions do not require an EU Constitution. More worryingly, the Constitution does not insist on a UN mandate for future military interventions.

In an attempt to avoid the real issue in the EU Constitution Proinsias chooses instead to misrepresent Sinn Féin's EU policy. Those interested should read our EU election manifesto on http://sinnfein.ie/policies/document/186 and check the work of our MEPs on the web site to make up their own minds.

As Proinsias raised the question of fair trade let me ask some questions to focus the debate. Does Proinsias support the sections of the Constitution which enshrine the liberalisation of financial transactions, rendering the Tobin Tax an impossibility? Does he support the sections of the Constitution which make development policy dependent on the liberalisation of trade? Does he support the Constitution when it ties development aid to the "the fight against terrorism"?

Yours, Mary Lou

The loyalty provision applies only to decisions agreed by unanimity; if we reject a decision, it doesn't apply. Regarding NATO, the Constitution recognises, like existing Treaties, that many Member States are in that organisation, and that others like Ireland aren't. Again no change.

You also seem to challenge my support for the proper equipping and training of the Irish Army. What a strange position!

Your opposition to the sharing of Irish sovereignty is clear from your website, a fact you try to hide in your correspondence. But you reveal it by basing your hostility to the Constitution primarily on issues that have already been agreed by the Irish people and by mischievously warning of a "loss" of sovereignty if we vote for the new social and democratic elements.

Proinsias,

A common position on Palestine or opposition to the war in Iraq do not need a European Constitution. The Constitution would, however, undermine our ability to determine independent foreign policy on these and other issues.

Proinsias is right in that the NATO compatibility clause is not new, but is wrong to underplay it. The Constitution clearly states that EU foreign and defence policy must be NATO compatible. How can such a policy accommodate Irish neutrality?

The Constitution would also lead to increases in Irish taxpayers contributions to the militarisation of the EU. This has nothing to do with equipping the existing Irish defence forces, but is about increasing the ability of the EU to compete with the US on the global stage.

In terms of global justice the Constitution is very clear. Development aid is explicitly linked to the "fight against terrorism"; international trade is explicitly linked with the liberalisation of developing world markets; and the complete liberalisation of financial markets within the EU renders the Tobin Tax an impossibility. None of these positions are compatible with a global justice agenda.

Moreover, all of these policy positions are "constitutionalised" and can only be changed by unanimity among member states, irrespective of the wishes of the Irish electorate. Hardly a democratic advance.

Yours, Mary Lou

But rather than engage with my counter arguments you repeat your unfounded claims, eg. on development and on NATO-compatibility. It's disappointing that you've refused to explain how your policies can be achieved without states sharing sovereignty. I can only conclude you don't know and therefore, your case against the current EU structure falls flat on its face.

My analysis is that your position is reheated ultra-nationalism masquerading as "social concern". The objective fact is that you share the same narrow nationalist philosophy as Justin Barrett, Jean-Marie le Pen, Robert Kilroy-Silk and the DUP's Jim Allister. The YES side does differ in our social and economic analysis, as is normal in a democracy. But we share a common wish to extend democracy to the European level. European citizens need to be able to control the economic and political forces that have escaped national control. The basic political dividing line in this debate has the centre-right and centre-left on one side favoring transnational democracy, and the ultra-right and ultra-left on the other defending unreconstructed nationalism. Nice bedfellows!

Proinsias,

This is a debate on the EU Constitution and I have outlined progressive left wing arguments against. Sinn Féin shares a platform with Green MEPs like Caroline Lucas, Socialists like former French president Laurent Fabius, trade justice organisations like ATTAC, peace groups like PANA, and youth organisations like Labour Youth. Is Proinsias seriously suggesting that the concerns of these groups are a charade? His own bedfellows, Barosso, McCreevy, Chirac and Berlosconi, leave a lot to be desired. Another Europe is possible and the first step lies in rejecting this right wing, militaristic and undemocratic Constitution.

Yours, Mary Lou

Proinsias De Rossa is MEP for the Labour Party and Mary Lou McDonald is MEP for Sinn Féin. Both are from the Dublin constituency