Those interested in public services should oppose qualified majority voting on trade in services in the proposed EU constitution, writes Brendan Young
Amid all of the talk of the risks to the EU if the new qualified majority vote (QMV) system in the draft EU constitution is not agreed, there is no mention of what any of this voting is about.
Little has been heard about the new areas to be decided by QMV, most significantly, trade policy on health, education and cultural and audio-visual services.
Free-market trade and the Common Commercial Policy are the defining elements of the EU, which has progressively accrued the power to make international trade deals.
Through the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, the European Commission now has the exclusive right to negotiate deals on behalf of all member-states at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and now in the context of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), including in public services such as water and public transport.
These trade deals have serious consequences. The GATS "is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business" declared the EU in 1999.
It is an accumulating process of legally binding international agreements that transfer state-provided services to private companies - the multinational services industry - where profitability is the primary concern.
The GATS is also de-facto irreversible: once agreements are made there is no way back. We challenge supporters of the GATS to show the provisions that allow governments to withdraw from agreements or reintroduce regulation once a service has been opened to GATS. And disagreements in the GATS are dealt with privately by the Disputes Resolution Panel of the WTO, a body of ex-corporate lawyers who make judgments based on WTO rules, not the requirement for public services to meet social needs.
At present, the European Commission draws up a "consolidated" (agreed) list of trade offers for the GATS that is voted upon by the Council of Ministers. This is done by QMV, with the exception of health, education and cultural and audio-visual services for which a unanimous vote is required.
So what's new in the draft EU constitution? Under Titles III-12 and V-III-217 the Commission would get the exclusive right to initiate international trade deals in all services. And bingo, Council of Ministers' decisions on the Commission's trade offers would be by QMV, including those in health, education, and cultural and audio-visual services - with a weak caveat in relation to the latter.
Thirteen of 25 countries representing 60 per cent of the enlarged EU population could decide for everybody. The veto contained in Nice is gone.
Throughout the negotiations the list of services offered for trade would remain secret (as at present) - on grounds of "commercial sensitivity" - until the deal at the GATS is concluded. The deal negotiated by the Commission would then be approved by QMV in the Council of Ministers, or the Council may empower its negotiator to conclude the deal - but in either case it is too late for those who work in or use the services to do anything about it.
The European Parliament would get reports on trade negotiations, but have no power to change them.
This is all very "efficient" if you are the Trade Commissioner, Mr Pascal Lamy, pushing the EU Common Commercial Policy, which seeks "the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services" and "uniformity in measures of liberalisation".
Or if, like Mr Ahern and Ms Harney, you support commercial trade in public services. But it's a bit short on accountability and democracy.
How do we know what services our Government is offering to trade? And what if Irish voters elected a government opposed to such trade - and it was outvoted in the QMV? Why the change from the unanimity in Nice to QMV? Because those who want more trade in services know they face great difficulties getting unanimity.
Mr Lamy was unable to present a "consolidated list" to the GATS talks in March 2003, because he could not get unanimity on offers to open trade in health and education. But getting a qualified majority - where states that wish to protect public provision of these services are outvoted - would be much easier.
The draft constitution proposes QMV for all EU offers to open trade in services at the GATS and a common commercial policy promoting liberalisation of trade in all services. These measures would create a framework for education, health and cultural/audiovisual services to be run by contractors as businesses, a framework which would be enshrined in basic EU law and which democratically elected governments could not change in the future. Is this what we want from a new EU constitution?
We declare our opposition to these services being turned into business opportunities for service-industry multinationals.
Our view is that no public services should be opened for trade in the GATS. When EU trade decisions are being made, we favour unanimous votes in the Council of Ministers on trade in all public services. Member-states should have a veto to protect public services from commercial pressure. Supporters of the draft constitution may say that QMV on these issues is acceptable because other articles will protect national control of health and education. But we would argue that there are contradictions in the draft constitution and that in any conflict of interpretation the Common Commercial Policy will emerge pre-eminent.
It is hard to understand how parties of the left, like the Irish Labour Party, could overlook these contradictions. The draft constitution, which is being championed across Europe, would enshrine neo-liberalism as the doctrine of the EU for generations to come. Those who advocate a social Europe, or who still oppose the commercialisation of health, education or cultural and audio-visual services, must at least insist on unanimous voting on proposals to open trade in these services. They should challenge this draft constitution.
• Brendan Young is a member of the Democracy and Public Services in Europe (DAPSE) group and works with the new Another Europe is Possible alliance.