Democratic control over whether a member-state or the EU decides to privatise public services must be maintained, insists Eamonn Crudden
One thing is clear; acceptance of the Treaty of Nice will severely limit the right of elected representatives to regulate vital public services.
The treaty proposes changes to the EU's Common Commercial Policy (defined under Article 133 of the Treaties of the European Union) which will alter our system of democratic accountability. It will remove the Government's right to veto international trade deals to do with services privatisation. Also, it will remove the right of the European Parliament to be consulted.
Patrick Smyth in yesterday's Irish Times comments that "measures to introduce competition into areas dominated in the past by state monopolies" will continue "because they are in tune with the economic philosophy of the member-states". This is ideology masquerading as realism.
Democratic control over whether or not a country or the EU decides to privatise public services must be maintained. What else is our vote for?
The General Agreement on Trade in Services is currently being negotiated through the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Its contents are secret and once signed it is irreversible. Any issues relating to interpretation will only be finally resolved at the WTO court, known as the Dispute Resolution Mechanism. It will be out of the hands of European courts.
The European Commission originally argued for its right of "sole competence" over the services industry, i.e. to exclude the parliament and remove the veto from member-states, as far back as 1990. EU governments rejected these demands. The European Court of Justice subsequently reaffirmed the member-states right of veto and the parliament's right to be consulted on the text of GATS. This system of checks and balances was written into the Amsterdam Treaty.
The current legal position in the EU is that if we (the EU) are to sign a final version of the GATS it must be brought out into the open. We must be allowed to see it and the European Parliament must be allowed to have a consultation on the full text of the agreement. After this parliamentary consultation, the European Council of Ministers must unanimously agree to accept the contents of the GATS agreement.
GATS documents relating to the EU promises to privatise and remove government regulation were leaked from the Commission and published in the Guardian last March. These documents clearly showed that the Commission intends to ask all WTO member-states to open up the water sector (including water collection, purification, distribution and wastewater treatment) for international competition and to remove and reduce government regulation over large parts of the energy sector and various other sectors, including postal services, retail, tourism and transport.
Mary Harney recently, relying on 1.3(b) of GATS, attempted to calm fears about 133 and services privatisation. However, European Court of Justice rulings are often used to settle WTO disputes. In May 1999 the Commission told the WTO, "These provisions (of Article 55 of the EU) are similar to those of Article 1.3(b) of GATS which excludes from its scope services 'supplied in the exercise of governmental authority'. There are no examples in the European Court of Justice jurisprudence where the court found that an activity would fall under the scope of Article 55."
For example, the EC challenged Italy's monopoly on jobcentres. Even though this was a public monopoly with no private sector competition, and even though Italy maintained the monopoly was a matter of public policy, the European Court of Justice agreed in 1997 with the EU and ruled Italy's jobcentres programme was a violation because it was "liable to affect trade". So much for Ms Harney's "government authority" argument.
Patrick Smyth mentions Des Geraghty arguing that privatisation is driven by national governments - a ridiculous assertion at a time when the UK is being pressurised in bilateral GATS negotiations to guarantee never to renationalise the UK railways and to open up their health and education services to further liberalisation.
France was pressurised at the spring summit of EU leaders in Barcelona this year into agreeing to the liberalisation of its energy market. This has led to a wave of strikes in France in recent weeks.
The political agenda formulated at the spring summits in Lisbon, Stockholm and Barcelona is aimed at making the EU the most "competitive" trading bloc in the world through, among other measures, making workforces more "flexible".
This is seeking to weaken the power of unions throughout Europe and moving workforces from the public sector to the private sector. Ireland is the world's most globalised economy and one where the government and unions should be holding on to any control they have on the economy and on services. Instead they are helping undermine democracy in the EU.
They have failed to tell us that under Nice we will not get to see what services we're promising to privatise and what services we're promising to remove government regulation of, until after the GATS is signed (in secret by the Council). The legal framework of GATS currently includes some 169 areas and subsectors of the service industry, sectors as diverse as: education, water, passenger transport; taxation, urban planning; midwives and nurses; agriculture and forestry; all insurance and insurance-related services, consumer credit and entertainment services.
The new Article 133 was not suggested by the European public and was opposed in the European Parliament. It is part of the process of "corporate-globalisation", which means a reduction in democracy for the sake of the profits of large international companies.
For Irish democracy, for a democratic Europe, for our fellow Europeans in the candidate countries, we must maintain the status quo and vote No.
Eamonn Crudden is a film-maker and a member of the Article 133 Information Group.