Paul Murphy MEP

INTO must vote yes for industrial action

Paul Murphy MEP — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:22:33 +0000

The following is a press release issued by Joe Higgins TD and Paul Murphy MEP, both from the Socialist Party, in response and in support of Irish National Teachers’ Organisation members looking to engage in industrial action against legislated pay cuts, and against austerity policies.

Responding to the many e mails that have come into his office from Primary School teachers in Dublin West since the clear rejection of the Croke Park 2 proposals by a clear majority of INTO members Joe Higgins TD said:

“I am happy to reassure INTO members in Dublin West and beyond that I and my party will vehemently oppose and moves by the government to legislate for pay cuts as their response to the no vote from teachers and the vast majority of public servants across the board to Croke Park 2.

“However it will be the actions of teachers and public servants in general that will count most in terms of protecting pay and conditions and pressuring the political establishment to back off. A resounding Yes vote in the industrial action ballot being conducted by the INTO and other unions will make it clear to the government that teachers are deadly serious when they say that they have had enough of austerity.

“To those who emphasise the hardships that strike action can bring the point has to be made that the alternative of not offering sustained resistance to the previous pay cuts, USC, pension levy, and lower starting rates and pension conditions for new entrants since the crisis began has resulted in a decimation of income. The appeasement strategy of most of the trade union leaderships to date has been a failure. A change of direction is needed and the desire for such a change is evidenced in the rejection of Croke Park 2.”

Paul Murphy MEP added

“The representations we have received from INTO members set out a number of bullet points calling for ‘a better fairer way’ most of which we would support as minimal steps in the right direction as an alternative to the austerity agenda although the Socialist Party would go much further in terms of repudiating the debt and taxing the wealth and assets of the rich.

“I would say to INTO members that there is no basis for them to feel compelled to give up another cent of their pay nor alter any condition of employment for the worse. The logic of the latest negotiating process being overseen by Kieran Mulvey of the Labour Relations Commission is one of seeking agreement on cuts in some other form. This has to be rejected.

“Finally the Socialist Party calls on public service workers and their unions to view the property tax and the threat of deduction of this tax from salaries as another austerity measure and an attack on pay. The INTO should support the struggle of the Campaign Against Home and Water Taxes as being consistent with opposing Croke Park and all austerity measures.”

Stability Programme Update proves austerity is for bondholder’s benefit

Paul Murphy MEP — Wed, 01 May 2013 08:51:53 +0000

The release of the latest estimates from the Department of Finance in the Stability Programme Update illustrates in cold figures in whose interests austerity is being implemented. The figures prove that society and the economy are being destroyed so that the bondholders will be repaid.

The estimates indicate that the government will have a primary surplus of almost €1 billion in 2014. In other words that the government will take in around €1 billion more in tax revenue than it pays on public services. So much for the mantra by right-wing politicians, echoed by large sections of the media, that the state is broke and too much is being spent on vital public services.

The deficit exists because the state continues to pay massive amounts of money in servicing national debt. In 2014, this will amount to around €8.5 billion. This turns an estimated primary surplus of almost €1 billion into a deficit of around €7.5 billion. It is time to call a halt to these payments to bondholders – with an immediate moratorium on payments of national debt and payments to bondholders by bailed out banks. The vast bulk of this debt should be repudiated, with a debt audit commission established to ensure those with proven need, such as pension funds and working people, are repaid and that the rich bondholders pay for their crisis.

Notes: Relevant figures available on page 22 of Stability Programme Update. The relevant figures are the ‘Underlying General Government Primary Balance’ (surplus of €945 million) and the ‘Underlying General Government Balance’ (deficit of €7.545 billion). The Department of Finance has previously argued that these figures are more accurate than the ‘Exchequer Balance’ figures, e.g. in Table 1C of the Stability Programme Update December 2009.

In addition to the payments on the national debt included in the Stability Programme Update, around €5.9 billion in payments to bondholders by bailed out banks will also be made.

It should also be noted that the estimates for 2014 do incorporate the imposition of an additional €3.1 billion in cuts and taxes in 2014. The Socialist Party will in the run-in to the Budget 2013 produce a document illustrating a socialist alternative to the imposition of these taxes primarily onto working class people.

EU-US Free Trade Agreement: Race to the Bottom of the Atlantic

Paul Murphy MEP — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:46:34 +0000

Here is an article on the EU-US Free Trade Agreement and a video of a debate from the European Parliament in which I took part alongside other MEPs debating the agreement which can be viewed here

A lot of ink has been spilt in the mainstream media, praising the role a free trade agreement between the EU and the US could play in pulling the two economies out of the crisis they are engulfed in. Richard Bruton outdid himself in the Sunday Business Post on 14 April 2013, claiming “abolishing restrictions in the EU’s services sector alone could boost EU GDP by 2.6%.” Three days later a press release from him claimed that the whole deal could boost EU GDP by a mere 0.5%! Of course, these claims of increased growth, together with hundreds of thousands of new jobs, should be treated with a pinch of salt by those with the experience of the ‘Lisbon jobs’ promises.

These trade negotiations will be carried out in secret, away from any real public or parliamentary scrutiny. Thankfully the draft mandate prepared by the European Commission for the Council has been leaked, although it’s outrageously meant to be kept secret from most MEPs and the public at large. The draft clearly illustrates these negotiations are a means for big business including agri-business on both sides of the Atlantic to push their interests at the expense of European and American working people. They will drive for full liberalisation of public services, and a race to the bottom in terms of regulatory standards. They intend to give privileged access to ‘justice’ to major corporations and may threaten internet freedoms with the potential for ACTA by the backdoor!

EU and US rhetoric

The European Commission as well as the European Council, with the Irish Presidency at its head, are enthusiastic. European leaders have been hoping for a free trade deal with the US since the last attempt to conclude such an agreement failed to materialise in the early 1990s. They are not just focused on the economic consequences either, they also hope that a deal would convey a political signal that goes beyond the immediate implications for trade. They hope that it would indicate a re-commitment of the US to its traditional political partner and by doing so, counter the increasing influence of the emerging economies, and China in particular, on the political and trade arena.

In his State of the Union address on 13 February, US President Barack Obama announced that “we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

Both the recession-ridden EU and US hope that this agreement will help them to trade their way out of the crisis. President Obama, for example, announced in 2010 that he wants to double US exports by the end of 2015. Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade and arch neo-liberal, argued that such an agreement “is the cheapest stimulus package you can imagine.”

The European Commission never tires of repeating that it is external trade that prevented an economically dire situation in Europe from worsening further. Some voices in the Commission suggest that it is the crisis that makes a deal more likely this time around. In an interview with EUbusiness, De Gucht also said that

“for Europe, the income effects of the deal that we are now trying to achieve should be between 0.5% and 1.0% of GDP, meaning hundreds of thousands of jobs… It brings new customers for our producers, cheaper components for our producers and more competition to make all our companies more efficient.”

Some economists are quoted as saying that such an agreement, which would create the largest free trade zone in the world, accounting for almost 50% of global GDP and one third of global trade, could create two million jobs and boost EU-US trade by more than US$120 billion within five years. Were this to be the case, this message would obviously be welcome on both sides of the Atlantic where unemployment rates are high and jobs continue to be lost as a result of low, stagnant or even negative economic growth. This is aggravated by low demand caused by the brutal austerity policies across Europe.

Around 15 million jobs have been lost in the eurozone and the US since the crisis first hit in 2008. Politicians are therefore eager to come up with a “good news story” in the face of increasing mass anger and resistance against their unpopular policies that destroy the future and livelihoods of millions of workers and young people.

However, if all the trade agreements delivered on their proclaimed benefits, the world would be a much richer place than it is! For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement was promised to bring millions of jobs to the US. A recent study concluded that jobs were actually lost. A sceptical approach to such claims is therefore needed.

“No low hanging fruit”

On 3 March, The Financial Times quotes Max Baucus, Democrat Chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee as saying: “This is a deal that must be done, it must be done now and it must be done right.”

However, despite the general enthusiasm for this agreement, both sides admit that the negotiations will be tough and a ‘positive’ outcome is not guaranteed. For now, both sides’ engagement in the talks amounts to not much more than a formal commitment to free trade and a rejection of protectionism, which is rising as a result of the crisis.

Both sides are known for aggressive trade policies that serve their respective industries and big business; they therefore want the scope of the agreement to be as broad as possible in order to allow enough space for trade offs.

A number of issues have been identified as common objectives. These include the elimination of tariffs, a further liberalisation of services and access to each others public procurement markets – which will also mean the liberalisation and privatisation of public services as multinationals compete for tenders from public bodies. In addition, other issues highlighted include the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), regulatory issues and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. These so-called non-tariff barriers include the target of ‘harmonising’ regulatory standards, including health and safety standards, particularly important in terms of agricultural trade – in order to cut costs. In addition, there are likely to be pushes for strong ‘investment protection’ – to give corporations who invest in either market extra rights.

The elimination of tariffs will probably prove to be the most straight forward issue in the negotiations since tariff duties are already relatively low; 3.5% for EU products entering the US market and 5.2% for goods entering the EU market. It is said that the dismantling of tariffs would mainly benefit the crisis-ridden car industry where tariff duties are still higher than average. Intra-industry or intra-firm trade will benefit most from the elimination of tariffs because a substantial part of the transatlantic trade is made up of intra-company or intra-firm trade (page 3 of the IfO report).

According to the Munich based IfO Institute (Institute for Economic Research), 61% of US imports were sourced from the EU subsidiaries of US companies, and 31% of US exports to the EU were calculated to be intra-industry trade. The Commission claims that tariff elimination would lead to a decrease in prices for consumers, but it will most certainly increase the profits of companies operating on both sides of the Atlantic.

Liberalisation of public services

The key ‘offensive’ interest of European big business is to use the agreement to drive for the liberalisation of public services and the reform of the ‘public procurement’ process – which is the means by which public services are contracted out to private operators. In particular they have ‘Buy American’ requirements at a state level in their sights. The draft mandate explicitly states that “the aim of negotiations on trade in services will be to bind the existing autonomous level of liberalisation of both Parties at the highest level of liberalisation captured in existing FTAs, while seeking to achieve new market access by addressing remaining long-standing market access barriers….” This is the kind of trade jargon that has major European corporations such as Veolia, licking their lips.

US Agri-Business and GMOs

One of the most sensitive items of the negotiations will be agriculture, as both the EU and the US not only have a protected and strong agricultural sector but also have different standards when it comes to food safety.

Michael Froman, Obama’s advisor on the international Economic Affairs Council described agriculture as “the elephant in the room”. There seems to be agreement across the political parties in the US that a deal that does not open up the European market to American agricultural products will be dead in the water.

Max Baucus, Chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee commented,

“the elimination of tariffs will be an important piece of any final agreement. But Congress will not settle for an agreement that fails to address the areas likely to yield some of the most significant economic gains – in particular the elimination of barriers to agricultural trade and ensuring that regulatory processes are streamlined and based on sound science.” (our emphasis).

This wording has rightly rung alarm bells for European consumer organisations, as it is a euphemism for allowing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and other restricted products entry. At the moment, regulations on GMOs are much less stringent in the US than they are in Europe. Consumer organisations are worried that a softening of standards would allow for more GMO products to enter the European market. The same applies to hormone treated beef and chlorine-sterilised chicken. Given the experience of the recent horse-meat scandal in Europe, it should be clear that a lowering of standards in the interests of agri-business is the opposite to what is needed.

One may wonder if this is one of the “trade offs” Karel De Gucht had referred to when speaking about the negotiations. Will EU service providers get a better deal in accessing the US market in exchange for hormone treated beef entering the EU market?

There are also many other important issues at stake. Mass protests against the threat to internet freedom killed off ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in the summer of last year and led to an historic defeat for the European Commission. The USA is a signatory to ACTA and already have a more repressive Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement legislation in place, so we may see ACTA like provisions re-enter by the back door. The same applies to data protection.

Trade union opposition – Workers’ rights at risk

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has announced that it is aiming to reach a unified position with the American trade union federation, the AFL-CIO, on priorities for the forthcoming trade talks between the EU and the US. In initial statements, both federations have been very cautious in their assessment of the possible consequences of an agreement. However, they fell short of opposing outright a deal.

One of the reasons why the unions do not oppose the agreement from the outset seems to be that they believe an agreement between two developed countries with relatively high labour and environmental standards (compared to those in developing countries) poses less of a risk of undermining those standards. The AFL-CIO explains that “unlike trade with many other regions, increased trade with the EU offers the opportunity to trade with nations that, for the most part, have active labour market policies and strong social safety nets… Increasing trade ties with the EU could be beneficial”. European Voice describes this as “the strongest American labour endorsement of a trade deal in modern times”.

This is not only a far too optimistic assessment of workers’ and trade union rights in Europe, which are under attack as the crisis deepens, but also creates the illusion that a trade deal between the EU and the US could potentially lead to an upgrading of social and environmental standards. This will not happen in the context of these trade negotiations which are dominated by big business interests.

Their interests cannot be reconciled with those of the working class, Also, with the US government opting out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only, albeit entirely insufficient, binding agreement on emission reduction targets, it does not look as if environmental concerns are very high up on the agenda.

Workers’ representatives will not get the chance to sit around the table and determine the conditions and scope of such an agreement that could then genuinely be beneficial and in the interests of working class people, both in Europe and in the US. The agreement is likely to be used to attempt a ‘race to the bottom’ in workers’ wages and conditions, with a vendetta against workers’ and trade union rights in the name of competitiveness and free trade. Trade unions on both sides of the Atlantic should clearly oppose negotiations in which they do not even have a say.

It is true that the AFL-CIO does not give a blank cheque of support to the agreement. They explain that “any US-EU agreement must not be used as a tool to deregulate or drive down these higher standards.” This is correct. In order to counter those dangers, it will however not be sufficient to “follow the US-EU discussions closely”. It will require an active opposition prior to the start of the negotiations and throughout the whole process.

There are a number of important and very concrete issues that were raised and criticised by ETUC and the AFL-CIO which illustrate the pitfalls of such an agreement for working class people. ETUC for example noted that the US has not ratified International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions on freedom of association and trade union practices, which as ETUC correctly underlines, makes “right to work” (read: the right to break strikes) states in the US attractive to EU-based multinationals.

Privileged access to ‘justice’ for corporations

Another, extremely important aspect which both trade union federations raise very legitimate opposition to is the inclusion of an “investor-state mechanism” in a potential agreement. This is included as a goal in the leaked draft mandate.

An “investor-state” mechanism is an investment protection tool that works in the interest of private capital and restricts the ability of a state to determine policy. If for example, a state was to take any actions to threaten the profitability of a corporation, such as the imposition of improved labour or environmental regulations, or the nationalisation of foreign owned companies, an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism allows the corporation to sue the state for lost profits outside of the regular justice system. The potential outcome of this can already be seen in Canada as a result of its involvement in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Currently there is $2.5 billion worth of claims outstanding in cases taken by corporations against Canada, including one for losses as the result of an imposition of a moratorium on fracking in Quebec!

Lack of transparency in trade negotiations

The pursuit of a big business agenda is also reflected in the process leading up to the negotiations and the negotiations itself.

At a Civil Society Dialogue meeting in 2010, shortly after taking office as EU Commissioner for International Trade, Karel De Gucht explained: “My job description is to open new markets for the European industry and the European Services Sector’”. (Corporate Europe Observatory report, Trade Invaders, page 10)

It is therefore not a surprise that corporate lobby organisations like Business Europe directly influence and dictate the trade agenda of the EU. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a Brussels based NGO:

“Business Europe (BE) is made up of 41 national employers and industry federations and, in its own words, plays ‘a crucial role’ in ensuring ‘that companies’ interests are represented and defended vis-à-vis the European institutions with the principal aim of preserving and strengthening corporate competitiveness.’ While BE is a broad alliance of business across Europe its inner structure reveals it is dominated by the interests of multinational corporations. The Corporate Advisory and Support Group which consists of 60 representatives of multinational corporations plays an important role not only within BE, but in ensuring BE’s contacts with high-level EU officials. (BE is one of the most powerful lobby groups at EU level and is therefore one of the main groups in contact with the Commission.) Due to privileged access to the European Commission it is well-placed to ensure that corporate interests are thoroughly represented in EU policy-making.”

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) on the other hand explained in an article on word trade online that “it and the AFL-CIO, which de facto constitute that labour dialogue between the two partners, have been given little access to advising the Transatlantic Economic Council, unlike the Transatlantic Business Dialogue”.

The close contact of BE with the European Commission means that they have much more power to influence and determine the negotiation mandate for the respective trade agreements. Very often, they are consulted and debriefed before and after every round of negotiations. The strategy is adapted according to their needs. Their access to information is a privilege that even elected parliamentarians can only dream of. Certain MEPs get to see the draft negotiating mandate but those documents are classified as restricted documents and their content cannot be disclosed to the broader public. In meetings between the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament during negotiations, MEPs receive very little information on the content of the negotiations, and at the end of the process, all they can do is vote in favour or against. The content of the deal cannot be changed by a parliamentary process.

The next steps

The European Commission has agreed on a draft negotiating mandate which it has sent to the European Council. It is now up to the European Council to discuss and approve the mandate. Obviously, the European Council is not always one happy family and different Member States – while generally agreeing with the idea of a free trade agreement – may want to change the emphasis and the scope of the mandate. This relates to the different industry interests in the respective Member States, and as a consequence a different emphasis on what sectors should be fully liberalised.

The French government, for example, has already indicated that it wants to maintain the right to a “cultural exception”. This is a mechanism which allows the French government to restrict the number of foreign programmes on French television and radio and also provides subsidies for French film production. In the earlier attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement, the US – on behalf of Hollywood – tried to challenge the cultural exception. So, while there may be some tough talks ahead in the European Council, it is still most likely that a mandate will be adopted which would then allow the Commission to start the negotiations.

The Irish Presidency is extremely enthusiastic about a possible deal and hopes that official negotiations will begin before they hand over the Presidency to Lithuania on 1 July. If that is the case, they will most certainly portray this as an important contribution to their “Jobs, Stability and Growth” agenda they set themselves for the six months of the Irish Presidency. When it was first announced that the EU and US were willing to engage in free trade negotiations, they hoped that negotiations could be concluded within two years. This seems to be utopian. The European Commission has been negotiating agreements with Canada since 2009 and with India since 2007, the deal with Canada is still being negotiated and the deal with India may never materialise. A lot can still change – economically and politically – on a world scale which could call such a deal into question altogether.

Which model of trade?

Very often, socialists and the Left in general are accused of being “anti- trade” when they oppose free trade agreements. Is this the case? Is the Left opposed to a deal that can potentially create two million jobs? Is it true that the Left is opposed to trade in general while – according to the EU Commissioner “trade is an indispensable ingredient of prosperity”?

Let us end this myth. We are not opposed to trade. However, there are different models of trade. The current, capitalist and neo-liberal model of trade is driven by the interests of big business, its “rules” are set and dominated by the giant multinational companies and the governments around the world that serve their interests. According to UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) “value chains shaped by transnational corporations account for some 80% of global trade”. Globalisation has created an ever more integrated world economy and a division of labour across the globe that is unprecedented in history.

In the context of a capitalist economy that is based on competition and the drive for profit maximisation, this means that trade is not conducted in the interests of sustainable development, an increase in living standards or the environment. Big corporations swarm across the globe to exploit raw materials and energy with no regard for local populations and the environment. They search for cheaper ways of production with no concern for labour standards or health and safety requirements.

Policy makers and corporations try to improve their image by talking about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, talk is cheap if none of the guidelines on CSR are binding or enforceable. The EU praises itself for taking the lead in negotiating what they call “sustainable development chapters” in every trade agreement, but again, these also need to be seen in the context of competitive disadvantages EU companies may face vis-à-vis their trading partners. Environmental and labour standards and regulations, which come about as a result of pressure from the labour and trade union movement and environmental organisations, are usually higher in the EU. Therefore, occasionally it is in the interests of the European based corporations that agreements contain certain standards in order not to lose their competitive edge. It does not mean that the EU has a sustainable trading policy.

A different model of trade

There is clearly a fundamental lack of transparency with regard to those trade negotiations. That is another reason why we are opposed to this process. We want a trade policy that is run by and in the interests of the majority of the people that produce the gigantic wealth on this planet but have no say on how and in whose interests this wealth is used. We want a trade agenda that applies the highest environmental, social and labour standards as possible and contributes to the development of society and the protection of the environment.

This will only be possible in a society whose structures are completely different. We defend and fight for a society and trade policy where the drive for profit is replaced by drive for sustainable human development and solidarity. A society that is not constantly undermining the foundation of its own existence but uses its wealth, knowledge and technical knowhow to lift people out of misery and poverty, invest in public research to combat diseases, reverse climate change and preserve the environment as a matter of absolute priority.

EU must recognise Venezuelan election

Paul Murphy MEP — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:46:24 +0000

Paul Murphy, the Socialist Party MEP for Dublin, was among 24 MEPs who sent a letter urging the European Union to recognise the result of the Venezuelan Presidential elections. This letter comes as a response to the accusations of a rigged election, and calls from the Venezuela opposition for a recount. Nicolas Maduro won the election against the opposition leader Caprilles, who lost previously against Chavez in the October elections last year. The Right Wing opposition has accused the current PSUV government of being “illegitimate.” The letter signed by the 24 MEPs calls on the European Union to recognise the following:

Recognize the outcome of the presidential elections held in Venezuela on April 14, 2013 that led to the proclamation of the candidate as president Nicolas Maduro, elected with 7,563,747 votes, 50.75% compared to 48.97%
Appeal to the Venezuelan opposition to recognize the results of the elections,
Urge the European institutions to recognize election results in Venezuela.

Speaking on the issue, Paul Murphy said “The opposition and the hawks in the U.S administration are attempting to use this election result as an excuse to try to destabilise the country, similar to their failed coup attempt in 2002. President Maduro should not seek reconciliation with the right-wing, but should take this opportunity to mobilise the working class against the attempted counter-revolution and to fight for socialism. Much of the economy remains in private hands, these industries must be nationalised, and the massive wealth of the elite must be expropriated and brought under the democratic control of the working class.”

Micheal D. Higgins’ warns of ‘flaw of our times’

Paul Murphy MEP — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:48:35 +0000

President Higgins in his speech to the European Parliament was correct when he stated that ‘the logistical strand of economics which today holds sway and stands as a hegemonic model of economic theory, not only in Europe, is the flaw of our times.’

This ‘flaw of our times’ is the Thatcherite neo-liberal economic model, which dictates that ordinary working people must pay for the crisis in capitalism. It is this ‘flaw’ that drives the European Council to authorise the attempted day light robbery of the people of Cyprus and for the Irish government to threaten the same against public sector workers because they dared to stand up and reject yet more cuts to their wages and conditions.

As the Labour Party is learning the hard way, working class people, in Ireland and across Europe are fed up with those who accept this ‘logistical strand of economics’ that means they have to pay for the crisis while the bondholders get off scot free. This is demonstrated in the collapse in Labour’s support, the significant demonstration against the property tax last Saturday and in the vote by public sector workers to reject Croke Park II.

There is a sharp contradiction between President Higgins identifying this flawed economic model and his praise for the Irish presidency of the EU. The Irish government is an enthusiastic devotee to this flawed hegemonic neo liberal model. It is using its presidency of the EU to continue the process of institutionalising this failed Thatcherite economic dogma. This is shown in its determination to get agreement for the EU’s first ever austerity budget and the conclusion of the so-called ‘Two-Pack’ agreement.

EU-US agreement doesn’t offer win win

Paul Murphy MEP — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:03:25 +0000

· Race to the bottom in environmental and health standards – GMO crops, hormone beef

· Giving corporations privileged access to justice system

· Negotiations to be carried out without real parliamentary or public scrutiny

Minister Bruton and Commissioner De Gucht are trying to paint a rosy view of what a free trade agreement between the US and EU would mean. It is posed as a ‘win-win’ potential deal that would boost EU GDP by 2.6% and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. These figures are effectively plucked out of the air – and changes in every statement they make – to cover up for the real agenda in this free trade negotiation – a race to the bottom in conditions, labour and environmental standards, with liberalisation of public services to the fore.

These negotiations will be carried out in secret, away from any real public or parliamentary scrutiny. Thankfully the draft mandate prepared by the European Commission for the Council has been leaked, although it’s outrageously meant to be kept secret from most MEPs and the public at large. The draft clearly illustrates the real agenda here – one shaped by the interests of big business rather than working people on either side of the Atlantic.

It states that the aim of the negotiations will be the ‘highest level of liberalisation captured in existing FTAs’. This is a mandate written for big business interests who want liberalisation and privatisation of public services. The driving interest for US agri-business in these negotiations is to bring down the European ‘barriers’ to hormone treated beef and GM crops. The Commission wants a broad negotiating mandate so it is able to trade away these regulatory standards in exchange for EU corporations getting access to the lucrative market in public services in the US.

The draft mandate also proposes an Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism. What this is about is giving major corporations privileged access to justice, above ordinary citizens, where they feel their rights as investors are infringed. One only needs to look at the impact of this procedure in Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the moment, there is $2.5 billion worth of claims outstanding in cases taken by corporations against Canada, including one for losses as the result of an imposition of a moratorium on fracking in Quebec.

This free trade deal threatens the interests of working people in Europe and the US. It should be opposed and fought by the trade union movements on both sides of the Atlantic, together with environmental campaigners. In the Parliament, it will be met with the opposition of my political group, the European United Left.

EPA Breaks EU Environmental Directives

Paul Murphy MEP — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0000

The Environmental Protection Agency and Limerick County Council have broken a number of EU Directives in granting a renewed licence to the controversial Aughinish Alumina Plant in Limerick.

In a letter to the Cappagh Farmers Action Group who have campaigned against the environmental, agricultural and health effects of the plant, EU Commissioner Jean Francois Brakeland has confirmed that the plant was granted a renewed licence despite it not having a waste management plan in place or an emergency plan. This is a disgrace. A similar plant in Hungry in 2010 caused an environmental disaster when the red mud which is a product of the process leaked into the Danube causing a massive environmental disaster and killing 10 people.

However, this light touch regulation is no surprise when you consider that the head of the EPA, Laura Burke has said “The Environmental Protection Agency should not be racing to prosecute business for not complying with environmental licences and regulations”. This is an incredible statement, and exposes the neo-liberal approach to environmental issues that is held by this government, it is prepared to throw safety and regulations out the window to protect the profits of big business.

If there was a spill from this plant similar to the one in Hungry, it would be a catastrophic environmental disaster. The plant sits on the banks of the River Shannon. The spillage would destroy the river and thousands of acres of farmland the length of the river. It would decimate fish stocks and have a massive effect on health in the area.

The letter from the Commission is below:

‘No’ vote puts Labour Party on the ropes

Paul Murphy MEP — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:05:12 +0000

Workers in Ireland not passive supporters of austerity

Labour will seal electoral meltdown if they attempt to push through pay cuts

Speaking following the ‘No’ vote on the Croke Park II deal Paul Murphy MEP commented:

“I warmly welcome the decisive No votes from SIPTU, the INMO and the INTO announced this afternoon, which alongside the No votes from several other unions have killed off Croke Park II and has knocked the government and the troika onto the ropes. I congratulate those union activists and leaders who campaigned against this disastrous deal.

“Internationally the government and the troika like to give the impression that workers in Ireland are passive supporters of austerity policies. This vote and the large protest in Dublin against the hated property tax last Saturday have dramatically exposed this lie.

“This vote is a key turning point, public sector workers have had enough of austerity, which has meant pay cuts and the destruction of the services they deliver. It shows that they are not prepared to take any more and are prepared to stand up to the bullying from the government, the troika, and the media together with strong pressure from the conservative trade union leaders.

“Any attempt to legislate for pay cuts must be met by effective industrial action to defeat this weakened government. The Labour Party claims to be the party for working class people and the trade union movement. This lie has been well and truly exposed with their viscous austerity policies. Should Labour attempt to force through pay cuts for public sector workers, it should be made absolutely clear to them that it will seal their fate and guarantee electoral meltdown in local and European elections in 2014.

“This year marks the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Lockout. Then, workers rose up against attacks on their living standards and discarded the old conservative trade union leadership in the process. If the union leaders fail to mobilise now against austerity policies they should face a similar fate as their pre-1913 counterparts.”

Blackmail to demand more austerity

Paul Murphy MEP — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:50:54 +0000

The announcement by Olli Rehn that the unelected European Commission has opened ‘excessive imbalance procedures’ against Slovenia and Spain is significant. It represents a step up in their blackmail campaign in demanding more austerity measures. It also demonstrates the impact of the extra powers that have been given to the Commission.

The fact that they also mention a further eleven countries which they will continue to monitor is indicative that they are trying to set an example. Like a blackmailer biding their time, they are waiting for the respective governments to publish their ‘National Reform programmes’. This is simply saying to them, ‘you introduce austerity or we will do it for you.’

The Irish Presidency should be held responsible for continuing this process of enshrining Thatcherite economics into law, most recently in reaching agreement on the so-called ‘two-pack’. This hands more power to the Commission to demand the re-writing of national budgets if they don’t contain sufficient austerity. It also introduces a new level of ‘surveillance’ and ‘supervision’ i.e. diktats demanding cuts and attacks.

This is latest example in what has been one hundred days of the Irish Presidency spending millions wining and dining Europe’s elite while the rest of us suffer the results of these meetings! The protest against the property tax at the EU Finance Ministers meeting on Saturday can play an important role in the struggle against austerity in Ireland. We cannot allow these architects of austerity to be hosted by Minister Noonan without demonstrating to them that working people in Ireland are suffering, angry and prepared to fight.

EU Austerity Budget – Cuts Cuts Cuts

Paul Murphy MEP & Kevin Henry — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:35:26 +0000

The Irish government has made much of the fact that it now holds the EU Presidency, chairing meetings of the European Council. It has been proudly proclaiming success in negotiating a new EU budget for 2014 to 2020 (the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework – MFF). What they don’t say, however, that in the position of Presidency, they are pursuing the same austerity policies that they implement in Ireland – imposing unprecedented levels of cuts to the EU budget.

Two weeks ago the European Parliament voted for a resolution that rejected, in its current form, the proposed MFF. The proposal comes from the February summit of the EU Council and was a product of horse trading and negotiations between the EU’s 27 heads of state.

This Summit was presented as showdown between Hollande on the one hand and Merkel and Cameron on the other. In reality, it was a discussion on how far to stick the knife into workers and poor people, with Herman Van Rompuy, backed up by the Irish Presidency, presenting a draft proposal for a second round of cuts. This was then amended to reflect the various political pressures on the heads of states. Despite these competing pressures, all heads of states feared an open conflict over the EU budget that would rattle the markets at a time they seemed to be calming. They also no doubt feared such open division could give confidence to workers and those opposed to austerity that they face a divided enemy and give impetus to new struggles.

The Council however, was not a meeting of equals and those who wanted more cuts won out. Countries’ rebates (repayment of funds) were largely protected and Denmark was granted a rebate for the first time. This resulted in a proposed budget with a figure of €960 billion, which amounts to 3% of cuts and this was just the upper limit of financial commitments, the summit also agreed only €908 billion in actual payment obligations.

Socialist Approach to EU cuts

The cuts to the overall budget however only tell part of the story. The nature of the programmes proposed also have to be examined. This can only be done in a limited way at present as the details of the various headings still have to be broken down by the Commission. In doing so, the approach of socialists is a million miles removed from those representatives of big business who have attacked the “backward looking nature of the budget” – code for saying cuts should be placed elsewhere.

Likewise our approach is at odds with who those who oppose the cuts in the budget because it weakens the EU project or the “EU’s political priorities.” Our approach is to fight to defend those aspects of the budget which are of genuine assistance to working class people while opposing hand-outs to big business and funding for anti-social projects such as the armaments industry and the militarisation of Europe’s borders.

Globalisation Adjustment Fund

The five main headings in the Budget cover a broad range of issues and the various programmes still have to broken down by the Commission. The funding for those larger programs outside the main framework of the budget demonstrates what these cuts will mean. For example, the European Solidarity Fund which is used to provide assistance to EU member states when large-scale disasters occur has been cut by 50%.

The cuts to the Globalisation Adjustment Fund are also illustrative of the anti-worker nature of this budget. This fund, which offers extremely limited and delayed support to workers and communities including Dell and Talktalk workers in Ireland who suffer mass layoffs, will be cut by 70%. This programme has faced sustained attack in the course of the crisis with the rules making it harder for this fund to be accessed. Now they are using the discussion on the new budget framework to brutally cut it.

“A toolkit to help growth and jobs?”

It has been repeated that this is a budget for “growth and jobs.” Eammon Gilmore for example has stated that this budget is a “major part of the EU’s toolkit to help growth and jobs.” They point to the increased funding of €34.1 billion to the heading “Competiveness for Growth and Jobs” as justification for this optimism. However, compared to the Commission proposal there is a massive reduction in funding to the tune of €38.7 billion, reflecting the pressure from some member states not to cut other headings as brutally.

Infrastructural projects have received much less funding than expected. The Connecting Europe Facility which is tasked with developing transport, energy and the digital sector has been cut from €73 billion to €29 billion. Particularly hit is the funding for transport and the development of broadband which on the Council proposal will receive one billion euros compared to the Commission proposal for €9.2 billion.

Other capital intensive projects have also been brought into this heading rather than being funded separately. Socialists have concerns about the nature of some of these projects and we argue for a ban on such projects being used for military purposes. Their inclusion in this heading also serves to artificially boost the figures as the total funding left over for other projects is €92 billion, with an upper limit set at €125 billion .

This includes Horizon 2020 – funding for research, hailed by the Irish Presidency as important for growth. But it is now only expected to receive €71 billion compared to the €80 billion asked for by the Commission and €100 billion asked for by the Parliament. It will also include part of the funding for ‘Erasmus for all’, which is expected to be at the same level as its predecessor or have a certain increase.

However, in previous years, even that amount not been enough to maintain these programmes throughout the year. In 2011 and 2012, for example, extra money had to come from other projects to cover costs. They also merged several Erasmus and training programs together to form the new ‘Erasmus for All’ which will face increased pressure to maintain the various aspects of training that have been provided in the past.

Cohesion funds: From Carrot to Stick!

The argument that this is a growth budget is particular undermined by the cuts to Cohesion Funds, which will see a decrease of €30 billion when compared to the previous MFF. This is simply a cut in funding to poorer parts of the EU. Some have argued that the cuts to cohesion funds should be allocated on the basis of richer countries not receiving anything for their poorer regions. Some, including the British Tories, have called for cuts to cohesion funding to be applied to the ‘richer’ countries; in reality this would mean that poorer areas in countries such as Spain, Italy or Ireland would not be able to access these funds.

In this heading is also included the proposal for funding to tackle youth unemployment, whereby countries with a youth unemployment rate above 25% will receive a portion of the €6 billion set aside from cohesion funds and the European Social Fund. In reality this is a PR exercise. The main role of the European Social Fund is to tackle unemployment and the main role of Cohesion Funds is to tackle inequality within the European Union. The amount itself is relatively small compared to the €21 billion advocated as necessary by the Independent Labour Organisation.

All the heads of states in the Council have done is allocated money that is meant to deal with unemployment to specifically with youth unemployment. There is no new money involved! Worse still, there is a risk this could be used to push so-called ‘activation programmes’ like JobBridge in Ireland which provide a cheap source of labour for big companies and do nothing to create real jobs.

Other items in this heading includes funding for the PEACE 4 programme and money allocated to Northern Ireland for the community sector. Despite the recent sectarian tensions, this money has been cut by €75 million and is now down to €150 million for the seven year period.

Macroeconomic Conditionality

These funds, with the exception of those to tackle youth unemployment are now tied to ‘Macroeconomic Conditionality’. This is yet another extension of the authoritarian neo-liberal approach that increasingly characterises the approach of the European Commission in particular. Now, cohesion funds will be used as yet another weapon to try to push austerity and right-wing economic policies across Europe.

With ‘conditionality’, the EU Commission will have the power to intervene to stop funds for project if the feel the government isn’t meeting certain criteria including being in “excessive deficit”. This can be only overturned by the European Council voting against this recommendation with a qualified majority, i.e. needing the opposition of the larger countries. The purpose is clearly to further institutionalise neo-liberal policies across the EU as a whole, particularly for those countries who aren’t affected by other measures such as the Fiscal Treaty.

“A green budget?”

The main bulk of the budget cuts are from the Common Agricultural Policy. Here there is a proposed €37.8bn in cuts, that will mean by 2020, CAP will amount to 27% of the EU budget compared to being over 40% at present. This has been hailed by some as demonstrating that the budget is a forward-looking budget.

Socialists of course opposes the massive hand-outs to big agri-business and landlords, for example the Queen of England, who received €0.5 million in CAP payments in 2009. Currently 80% of direct payments go to just 20% of farmers. However, by and large the cuts in CAP will not affect them but will add to the failure of the European institutions and governments to deal with both the environmental crisis and the crisis in rural communities at a time when 34% of farming households in Ireland are now classified as economically vulnerable. We have dealt with the effects of the cuts to CAP elsewhere.

The environmental issues are not limited to the cuts in CAP. The final conclusions document of the summit states that 2O% will be allocated for action on climate change. However, in reality little is really being committed to the fight against climate change except the maintenance of the LIFE+ program, a programme that co-finances environmental projects.

Another issue linked with agriculture is the question of food aid. The amount of food aid distributed to people in Europe has reached levels not been seen since World War II. In Spain alone at least one million people are receiving food aid from the Red Cross. This hasn’t stopped the Council proposing cuts to the European Food Aid Program, a programme launched to support the most deprived people. The €500 million annual budget will be reduced to €300 million from 2014 to 2020 and will affect over 18 million people.

Fortress Europe

The next two main headings in the budget labelled ‘Security and Citizenship” and “Global Europe” both receive increases in funding. From the point of view of the Council, the Commission and the main political forces in the European Parliament they have been given less attention because they are relatively uncontroversial. Socialists however oppose many items funded in these headings.

For example in the “Security and Citizenship” heading, we are opposed to the massive funding that goes into the FRONTEX projects used to co-ordinate the border security across the EU, creating a Fortress Europe. This project has come under scrutiny from a range of NGOs as it has violated basic rights of refugees and asylum seekers. In terms of Global Europe, while we support the elements that are connected with genuine development aid, we oppose those aspects which push for EU enlargement and commit the “European Neighbourhood” such as North Africa to projects that serve the interest of European big business and not the ordinary people in these countries by pushing the liberalisation of markets.

The final heading is administrative costs for the functioning of the EU institution. For legal reasons, such as commitments to pensions, the EU Council was unable to cut it in the way they wished. However, the increase that was agreed is minimal when one considers the coming enlargement of the EU. Political leaders have tried to portray this as cutting the bloated expenses in the EU – unfortunately not! In reality this is about cutting the wages and salaries of ordinary staff in the EU in the same way they have done in their countries as opposed to cutting the salaries and expenses of MEPs, top civil servants and commissioners.

European Parliament’s Opposition

The leaders of the European Parliament have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the current proposal. This was seen in the large majority for a resolution in the Parliament which was extremely critical and stated that it rejects the budget as it currently stands.

There is nothing new in the idea of the European Parliament being ‘in conflict’ with the Council on budgetary issue. The EU has a long history of it. The very idea of Multiannual Budgets itself emerged from a series of budgetary crises following conflicts between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers in the 1980s.

While the Parliament and Commission do have a certain interest in larger EU budgets, this is in no way a principled opposition to the cuts. In reality they are opposed to the fact the Council has went beyond its main competence in terms of setting the budget headlines and funding. They are using the opposition in the Parliament as a leverage for negotiations, but it is for very limited ends including demands for a mid term review of the budget and maintenance of the flexibility mechanism (the ability to move funding not spent on one heading to another) rather than opposition to the cuts themselves.

This of course, means that the battle to defend those necessary programmes must be linked with the struggle against austerity imposed by the troika and national governments. It is also means building a political and socialist alternative that can challenge the bosses’ Europe.