Judge the constitution, not Labour's stance by Brendan Barber
Judge the constitution, not Labour’s stance
Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary
Some people find Europe’s new constitution an easy issue. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Michael Howard and Nick Griffin did not have to think very hard before they said no. And in the yes camp will be everyone who takes their line by pager, claiming a famous victory for the Prime Minister’s red lines over the encroaching European threat.
No one in the trade unions will find either side of this argument very attractive. What most of the no campaign object to about Europe is precisely why trade unions are generally in the pro-Europe camp. Euro-sceptics moan about red tape and regulation, while we welcome better rights at work. They celebrate US capitalism, red in tooth and claw, while we welcome a distinctly different European approach that combines social protection with wealth creating markets.
Yet government ministers have gone out of their way to distance themselves from the traditional labour movement case for Europe. The government red lined the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it might lead to better rights for people at work. Ministers tell employer audiences that Britain needs protecting from Europe because it has decent protection at work as a core objective. Not only is the UK currently blocking major European initiatives to improve workplace rights such as protection for agency workers, their stance on the Working Time Directive is to actually weaken it.
But much of the macho talk of red lines has been bogus. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was never going to lead to the kind of changes in UK employment law that the Murdoch press claimed. We may want the UK to come into line with basic ILO minimum standards on the right to strike, but the Charter was never going to do that.
So if we were to judge the constitution on the quality of the arguments made on either side in the UK, our response would probably be to say a plague on both your houses, next question please. But despite the real trade union anger at the government’s negotiating stance, that is not what we are being asked to judge. Instead we must look at what the Constitution actually says. Even after UK government vandalism, will it be good or bad for people at work, not just in the UK but across the European Union?
That requires us to do two things. First of all, unlike many of those who have committed their votes already, it requires us to study what it actually says and what it will mean in practice. This is no easy matter when discussing a lengthy legal text.
Secondly we need to discuss it with our European colleagues. They too have their own domestic issues, but it would be a real weakness if as internationalists we could not reach an ETUC common position on the constitution. Joint action by the ETUC across the EU has been one of the reasons why we have achieved so much from Europe. We end that unity at our peril.
There are certainly some good things in the final document. Proposals for an EU foreign minister for example will appeal to those who want Europe to challenge US foreign policy more effectively when it is acting unilaterally or on a neo-con agenda.
Importantly the constitution commits the EU to operating through a process of social dialogue, and it gives a special and guaranteed role to the social partners. Unions are therefore given permanent access to decision making - rather different than our experience of the long nightmare of Thatcherism.
That will make Michael Howard’s life much harder. He wants to strip out employee rights as part of his renegotiation. Now he will have to get agreement from every other EU country to change these progressive parts of the constitution.
This is not to say the constitution is perfect. It promotes the economic approach that has given us a Stability and Growth pact that puts the emphasis on the ‘stability’ and not on the ‘growth’. Yet the constitution also commits the EU to full employment and the social market.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, though still there, has been downgraded. Its real status is not yet fully clear, and will need to wait for first real test cases. But almost certainly both the euro-sceptics and the government have been wrong, as it will neither do as much as the sceptics say - or as little as the government claims.
It will not lead to big advances in employment rights overnight After all it has been around since the 2000 Nice summit. Since then, the European Court of Justice has been using it to clarify existing laws. On the other hand its incorporation into the Constitution may now allow the Court to go further, and apply its terms to areas where domestic laws are inadequate. It would therefore be wrong to dismiss it. And as a declaration of fundamental beliefs for the EU it is a bit more stirring than circulars about the common agricultural policy. Hatred of it will be a main driver for the no camp.
Of course we need to reach judgement about its detailed terms, but we must also think through the wider politics of the referendum. There is little disagreement among unions that Europe in recent years has been a crucial ingredient in protecting and extending employee rights.
We will not like some of the government’s arguments for a yes vote in the referendum. If they lose it will undoubtedly harm them, and some may well say that serves them right. On the other hand it will also boost almost every interest group and political stance that is hostile to trade unionism and the European social model.
Europe is far from perfect. Not everything it does is right. But at its core remains a social bargain that is anathema to the alternative US model of capitalism. It recognises that market forces create wealth, but also inequality and social upheaval from which its citizens should be protected. Even at a time when the political majority across the EU comes from its right, we still get a constitution that talks of social dialogue and full employment. Lionel Jospin put it well when he talked of the need for a market economy, but not a market society.
If unions decide on balance that we will support the constitution, we will reserve our right to put a distinct trade union argument, and not be subsumed into a government and business led campaign. We want a people’s Europe, not one just for business and bankers. That will continue to be our guiding principle. If that makes us awkward allies for a yes campaign, then so be it.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox