Prionsias de Rossa responds to Mary Lou McDonald's comments on the EU Constitution 2005-03-19

The European Constitution is a creditable attempt to provide that passport, for Europe's democracies at least, and shows how other regions of the world could regain control over key areas of decision-making.

Intrinsic to the European Union is a social market economy underpinned by the four freedoms, movement of people, capital, goods, and services, all of which is governed by Member State governments, Ministers and MEPs. Each treaty change has not only further integrated our economies but also painstakingly constructed an increasingly democratic system of overarching European governance.

There is broad political agreement amongst most parties on objectives – democratic institutions, prosperity, equality, cohesion etc. But there are deep differences on how these should be achieved. Those on the centre-right claim "a rising tide lifts all boats" and those of us on the centre-left argue that economic, social and environmental policies must be addressed in an integrated way to achieve prosperity, quality work and a good work/life balance for all citizens and not just for those "with a boat".

As the European Trade Union Confederation, representing 50 million workers across Europe, concluded in its endorsement of the Constitution "globalisation, the power of multi-national capital, and the need to combat neo-liberalism mean that trade unions and civil society need a developing EU with strong social values – the advantages the Constitution brings for working people and citizens are real and certainly an improvement over the present provisions."

Opponents of the Constitution like Mary Lou McDonald disagree fundamentally with this project because they cling to the notion that democracy and economic regulation has no validity outside the nation-state. They pretend otherwise because they know that their position would be seen by most people as completely counter-intuitive to their day-to-day experiences.

So I am not surprised that they end up nit-picking over isolated phrases to seek to defeat a major advance for Europe's citizens.

At the risk of boring your readers, could I repeat for Mary Lou's benefit that Article 122 in Part III provides for the first time a legal basis enabling the adoption of Union laws guaranteeing public services which is a longstanding objective of the European Left and of European trade unions and one of the Constitution's main achievements.

The "ten key articles" to which she refers are carryovers, almost verbatim, from existing treaties and must be placed in the context of surrounding articles and also, the new horizontal clauses that govern their application. For example, Article III-315 clearly states that external trade policy must comply with the principles and objectives of the Union's external action, and all trade agreements must comply with internal rules and policies (ie not just competition). These are completely new provisions. Two other horizontal clauses are also of relevance here. Article III-292 commits the Union to fostering the "sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries with the primary aim of eradicating poverty". Article III-115 states that all Union policies must take all of the Constitution's objectives into account. These objectives are clearly spelt out in Article I-3 and include full employment, social inclusion, justice and protection, anti-discrimination, territorial cohesion etc.

Article III-278(7) commits the Union to respecting Member States' responsibilities for the definition and management of their health services and the allocation of resources. The Union's role will continue to be limited to assisting national actions to protect and improve health standards and to working with Member States on public health threats. In this context if our health services continue to decline, it will be the result of decisions taken by the governments we elect, not as an outcome of supporting the European Constitution.

Mary Lou dismisses the mechanisms provided to ensure that Union actions comply with the Constitution's values, objectives, procedures, and policies – with legal redress to the European Court of Justice for example under Article III-325(11). But as in all democracies it will mainly be the elected representatives, alongside civil society who will 'police' compliance.

She ignores the fact that Ireland continues to have an opt-out (or an opt-in if it chooses) on all decisions on defence and that all major decisions will continue to be taken unanimously. The references to NATO are a simple recognition of the fact that 19 of the 25 Member States are NATO members.

Mary Lou dismisses the major advances in democratic accountability: greater decision-making powers for MEPs; increased powers for National Parliaments; the Citizens' Initiative; the obligation for Ministers to debate and vote in public; the election of the Commission President by MEPs; greater political accountability of agencies like Europol, etc. She ignores the legally binding Protocol on Subsidiarity.

In the final analysis the most fundamental error its opponents make is to assume that the Constitution "displaces" politics. It won't be the detail of Part III that impedes the possibility of securing what Mary Lou accepts as the Constitution's positive objectives, but the political choices we make in elections. The Constitution enhances the potential to create a more just and equal society. Of course the political outcomes will depend, as ever, on how active our citizens are in defending their rights and deciding what kind of society they want.

prionsias de rossa