Permitting the free movement of peoples througout all states would spread the consequences of the inevitable migration of workers equally across the EU, writes Justin Barrett
IN general, the media in Ireland give developments within the European Union scant attention outside referendum campaigns, an unsatisfactory circumstance given that 70 to 80 per cent of national legislation finds its origin in Brussels.
Editors will, of course, reply that a sufficient level of interest is not present among the readers and listeners. Maybe, but the consequence nonetheless is that the electorate faces into referendums with a great deal of blank spaces on very basic questions such as what is the Commission, how is it appointed, what powers does it exercise, and the same for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
Occasionally, however, a relatively minor incident occurs which is illustrative of a much wider truth. Such an incident occurred recently in Britain, where a grocer was arrested and charged with a criminal offence. He had the audacity to sell, in his small shop, bananas by the pound and not by the kilo.
It would require a detailed treatise on the development of the EU in recent times to illustrate the important point this case makes so very simply. It has come to be called the "democratic deficit", the tendency of unrepresentative and unaccountable powers in Brussels to impose arbitrary and often absurd regulations and pursue their enforcement with totalitarian vigour.
The vague consciousness of something drifting out of control and in the wrong direction accounted in no small part for the rejection by the Irish people of the Nice Treaty on the first occasion. That the people's decision in the only member-state to hold a democratic vote should be flouted by the holding of a second referendum can only reinforce this unease, which is shared throughout the member-states of the current EU and is increasingly unnerving to the peoples, if not the governments, of the applicant states. One year ago, Dick Roche, while a lowly backbencher, shared that unease when he said: "To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront."
No amount of name-calling and misdirection by the Government can cloud the fact that the Nice Treaty itself is a continuation of, rather than, as it should have been, the opportunity to correct some of these serious problems. The Nice summit ought to have concentrated on the need for more democratic accountability before we expand the Union to include the peoples of eastern Europe.
It could have brought forth proposals as to how the principle of subsidiarity, given lip service in the Maastricht Treaty, could be practically applied. Instead, we got a treaty not for the enlargement of the Union, but one for the enlargement of the power and influence of the bigger states. What sense does that make? In the judgment of John Bruton, "very little".
The Nice summit produced "enhanced co-operation", allowing eight or more states to proceed in creating a core group, without unanimous approval, creating a multi-tier, multi-speed EU with first and second, and possibly third-class membership. And it continued the process of centralising power in Brussels by surrendering the veto in over 30 new areas, including the rules of structural and cohesion funding.
The Nice Treaty was, above all, a missed opportunity, and by voting against it the Irish people registered, on behalf of the disenfranchised throughout the Union, the concerns they so strongly shared.
We did not vote against the EU, much less against Europe, but for a better Europe than the one envisaged by the Eurocrats.
In recent weeks the Government has concentrated its already floundering campaign on guttural abuse. Words like "xenophobia" are casually cast about in an effort to conceal the incompetent management of our foreign affairs by the current minister.
It has been suggested that the No to Nice Campaign is opposed to the free movement of peoples throughout the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, we have strongly requested that the Government should not have acted unilaterally in this matter, and should even at this late stage insist on such free movement throughout all the member-states.
In such circumstances, the consequences of inevitable migration of workers from eastern Europe would be spread across the EU equally, bringing benefits, not problems. Instead, they have recklessly and irresponsibly decided to allow other states to exercise a derogation for up to seven years, while we do not. Only Denmark, Holland and Sweden have done the same, and this is already in doubt in Holland, while the Swedish prime minister recently said that his country had enough immigrant workers for the next 10 years. There are 15 doors to the EU; they should all be opened at once, whether, as we would prefer, immediately, or after two years, five or seven.
Over the coming weeks, we will hear much talk of giving the applicant countries the same opportunities as we received, the same fair deal. The No to Nice Campaign agrees wholeheartedly. Nice, however, was not that deal: it was concocted in advance of enlargement to ensure that the arrival of a number of smaller states will not prevent the larger states from continuing to exercise the overwhelming influence on decision-making. To paraphrase, it's bad for us and bad for them.
Ireland has, broadly speaking, benefited from our membership of the European Union, but the vote on Nice is not about that past experience, it's about what kind of Europe we want for the future. We have the opportunity to preserve the progress we have made, to build upon it, and share it with others. The people should not have to speak twice to be heard, but if we must, we should say it louder.
Justin Barrett is a leader of the No to Nice Campaign