Why does Article 133 matter?

Thursday February 19, 2004 15:24

by seedot

Bin Collection, Aer Rianta, An Post, CIE, FAS, Bord Failte, ESB - all of these bodies have their futures discussed at the Article 133 meetings. When we want to know what's behind 25% of bus routes being introduced, or the push behind service charges we HAVE to think about these meetings.

The European structures are by their nature remote and complex. After years of horsetrading in treaty negotiations, creation of an entire language ('subsidiarity', 'competences', 'QMV') many see this as the preserve of anoraks and conspiracy theorists.

During Nice II the phrase Article 133 entered the Irish political vocabulary as a short hand for the neo-liberal agenda of the EU. Referring to both an article of the European Treaties (previous to Amsterdam it was article 113) and the comittee which determines the EU negotiating position at international trade negotiations, for the first time the process of negotiating free trade agreements was discussed in the Oireachtas and referred to by campaigners.

But it's still very abstract, and after the collapse of the Cancun negotiations, seems to be even more remote to the day to day concerns of the Irish people. When questions are raised, we are assured there is nothing to worry about - it's all good and anyway there is no way that the WTO or any other body could force the liberalisation of Irish public services - sure don't they say so or their web site. And anyway, with the bin tax, bus and airport privatisation haven't we enough to be worried about with the Irish government without reading or talking about all this EU stuff.

On 29th April 2003, the EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy outlined some results of the Article 133 negotiation process. Since Nice this committee now looked at services as well as goods and, sure enough, had decided that there should be ".. real improvements for foreign services providers in terms of access to the EU market..".
He went on to outline the sectors that foreign providers would have a legal right to enter. These included:

"air transport: the offer includes new commitments on groundhandling and airport management services. "
"The EU offers to open its market to foreign providers on waste water, sanitation and similar services. "

So Mr. Lamy went to Cancun ready to open up waste management and airports throughout Europe to liberalisation - which if agreed at the WTO would prevent any European government from regulating and interfering in these markets.

Now this is what we know about - because of the lack of transparency we're not sure what else has been offered - however we know that a range of other requests were received:
"In terms of sectors, we are responding to requests we received on financial services, computer services, telecoms, transport, distribution, postal and courrier services, professional services, and tourism. " .. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy at the European Parliament, 14 Mai 2002.

Despite this, our politicians assure us there can be no impact. They use two arguments: one that the items are not being discussed, and secondly that even if they are discussed they will not result in forced privatisation because the WTO says so. Mary Harney and Bertie Aherne both used this argument during the Nice debate:

"The GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) expressly provides that
all WTO members can legitimately regulate economic and non economic sectors
within their territory to guarantee the achievement of public objectives. " (Bertie Aherne in the Dail in response to a question by Joe Higins on Water and Post Offices - 16th October 2002, Mary Harney in a statement issued the previous week).

The article 133 Info Group responded: "A close examination of this claim reveals a different and contrary reality. While GATS appears to exempt services supplied in the exercise of government authority, it also mandates that such services be supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers. Since commercial basis is not clearly defined, governments charging any tax or fees could be interpreted as engaging in commercial activity, and essential services could be dragged into a free trade ambit. According to Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, "Since most societies have pluralistic service providers, governments can be accused of being in competition with one or more service suppliers."

So, once this agreement is reached IT CANNOT BE REVERSED by either a national parliament or the EU.

What the Article 133 committee decides affects your bus service, your bin charges, your jobs and our public services. This committee is meeting tomorrow, in Dublin and again on 20th April. They will be discussing our lives. Demand that the Irish Government publishes the content of these discussion. Watch out for further extensions of the power of the Article 133 committeee in the proposed European constitution. Get your union and your representatives to look at Article 133 and how it will impact.

save preference

Comments (5 of 5)

Re. The EU is not a remote body that happens despite us.

by EU Observer

Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:20

Hmmm ... I wonder ....

The later Sir James Goldsmith, wealthy British plutocrat and one-time MEP and EU critic, made the following intriguing comment in his book "The Trap" (published ca. 1994):
"The European Union was built in secret: not through carelessness or casualness, but in a deliberately planned and skilfully executed manner. Claude Cheysson, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Commission from 1985 to 1989, described the mechanism in an interview in Le Figaro on 7 May 1994. He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy, and he went on to suggest that the present problems were the result of having mistakenly allowed a public debate on the merits of the Treaty of Maastricht."

I would have thought that the Irish experience with Nice showed quite clearly that the "people" are allowed to have an input into shaping the EU PROVIDED THAT THEY VOTE IN THE WAY THEY ARE TOLD ......

I don't know what YOU make of that but to me it comes dangerously close to "a remote body that happens despite us."

Why do Trade Negotiations matter?

Sun Feb 22, 2004 03:53

Sean – how will the privatisation of CIE or Aer Rianta come about? You are of course right in saying that this is part of the unstated policy of this right wing, ideological but mealy-mouthed government. Europe is the perfect excuse for the hard decision – but EU regulations say we can’t treat Dublin Bus any different from Stage Coach who have brought this case so the pensioners free travel has to go – not our decision.

But it is their decision. The Irish government is one of the most pro-liberalisation, pro-GATS voices in the EU:

AN EXTRACT FROM LEAKED LOTIS MEETING MINUTES. "Reporting on PricewaterhouseCoopers' staff's recent visit to Geneva, Mark Hatcher explained that the main purpose had been to meet some key developing countries and to talk about PwC's draft model schedule. The Indian Ambassador had given them a warm reception, as had the Pakistani Ambassador. There had also been meetings with Singapore, Egypt, Canada, Chile, Argentina, Australia, the US and the EU. They had got a very positive reaction from Australia. The US Government was supportive behind the scenes. The meeting with the EU Ambassador, however, had been disappointing, with no support even in private. Within the EU, there had been support for PwC's efforts only from the UK, France and Ireland." (LOTIS) Committee Minutes: Thursday, 22 February 2001 click here

There is a big difference in the decision made in the Irish Dail and that made through the GATS negotiation by the (PD / FF influenced article 133 cttee represented) EU. In the Dail thre is a process of ‘recall’ of ‘will of the people’ no matter how diluted. When you deal with trade rules, and hidden machinations in committee rooms in Brussels and Doha and Cancun and Seattle and all the places that we have started to hear of, people don’t get a vote or a say under the system being set up.

Globalisation is not just a catchphrase. It represents a shift in sovereignty from the national legislatures to an international arena where corporations and trade blocs set the rules. So when we want to keep the bus pass, or renationalise CIE or try and figure out how to have a sane and rational attempt to sort out the Telecom Eireann fiasco we get told – sorry under this law, under this treaty, you can’t do that and you voted for all that … remember?

The EU is not a remote body that happens despite us. Our government and our politicians shape the EU policy – and currently those FF and PD ministers are either acquiescing or promoting the “free market—no matter what the consequences for ordinary people.” As part of a weird political anachronism, one of the hiccups a revolution throws up, we get to vote on the EU rules. During Nice we were conned into putting public transport, waste and most government services out of reach of the voters – into the hands of the bureaucrats and lobby groups. Our government will try and get us to do the same for health and education in the constitution.

This is not about providing an excuse. This is about laying the full blame. The free market ideologues in our government will not just destroy one company, or one industry. The Irish government is supporting the creation of a framework that precludes any community in Europe from pooling resources and providing services outside of the market – because it is unfair competition. They will not tell us what they are doing because it is commercially sensitive (I pay the wages of the Irish rep on the article 133 committee – why I am not allowed see anything they do because it is commercially sensitive is a different concept of government to the one I always had). And they don’t expect anybody to believe it’s happening – that’s just paranoid.

If you want to attack the Irish Government over Aer Rianta, ask what the implications of the commitments made by Pascal Lamy on “groundhandling and airport management services “ are for the company. Ask what relevance the Australian requests in education market access have for the HEA and the Irish universities? Then they will lie.

free market

by realism

Fri Feb 20, 2004 17:42

"it will be because Fianna Fail and the PDs are ideologically committed to the free market"

As are Labour, Fine Gael, the Greens, Sinn Fein and most of the independents. All they differ on is how to manage the free market.

You’re playing into the hands of this right-wing government

by Sean Lynch

Fri Feb 20, 2004 17:39

smjlynch at hotmail dot com

If Aer Rianta, An Post, CIE etc. are privatized, it won’t be because of anything the EU has done; it will be because Fianna Fail and the PDs are ideologically committed to the free market—no matter what the consequences for ordinary people. I’ve already seen them trying to blame privatization on the EU (“sure what can a wee country like us do, we have go along with the EU”). By putting forward your paranoid-fuelled arguments, you’re playing into their hands.

Article 133 Demo

by Article 133 Watcher

Thu Feb 19, 2004 19:18

Note......
Article 133: Anti Privatisation Protest
at
Dublin Castle
1pm
Friday 20th Feburary

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Why does Article 133 matter?

Comments (5 of 5)