Latest 04.06.2008
There Is NO Irish Veto on Global Agricultural Trade Deals (Barry Finnegan)

During the current Lisbon referendum campaign, numerous politicians, business and think-tank leaders and spokespersons have repeatedly asserted that EU Member States, including Ireland, have a veto on whether or not the EU signs up to a WTO free-trade deal on agricultural goods. Barry Finnegan, from the CAEUC group has shown, definitely, how this is not true.

There is no current provision within EU law for vetoing an international trade agreement with just agricultural goods in it. In addition, Finnegan has shown that the automatic veto on free-trade agreements in essential public services, which Member States currently enjoy, will be lost under the Lisbon Treaty.

An international free-trade agreement that consists exclusively of agricultural and other 'manufactured' goods, such as the current World Trade Organisation (WTO) deal being negotiated, cannot be vetoed. It can only be decided on by a 'qualified majority' vote by the EU Council of Ministers.

There is no current provision for vetoing an international trade agreement with just agricultural goods in it.

The only reason an international trade deal in agricultural goods could be vetoed is if it were part of a package of free-trade measures that involved in five special areas: Educational services, Health services, Social services, and, Cultural and Audiovisual services.

Currently, (pre-Lisbon) EU Member States have an automatic, no-questions asked veto on entering any of these areas into the global free-trade system. In other words, they could reject an entire WTO deal.

Lisbon would remove the automatic veto on international trade agreement in these five special areas and replace it with an undefined and very difficult to imagine set of circumstances, where a Member State could argue that they should be allowed to retain a veto in one or more of these five special service areas.

The Yes side argue that there is a protection clause in Lisbon, Artlcle 188c, 4(b) to protect public services.

Article 188c, 4(b) states that "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them", the veto remains.

However, it would be difficult to see how much more "seriously disturbing" our national health system could get. And as for "prejudicing the responsibility" of the government to deliver these Educational services,

Private companies are making profits building primary and secondary school extensions, private companies print the children's school books, private companies build 'social housing' (sic), private companies carry out medical operations on public patients through the 'National Treatment Purchase Fund' and private companies provide secondary school services and third level college places and courses.

So in these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine how any WTO free-trade deal would "risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver these services" .

In all of this debate, one simple question remains for the Yes campaigners: If you do not want trade in public services why surrender the veto? The only reason to remove the veto on trade in healthcare or education is to make it easier to push through privatisation.

For a more detailed and comprehensive analysis see Barry Finnegan's (CAEUC) document.