The protection of workers’ rights in the EU and the implications that the Lisbon Treaty will have for this has received considerable attention over the campaign. In recent days, Joe Higgins MEP has argued that passing Lisbon will “copper-fasten anti-worker rulings” of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). I would argue that he is fundamentally incorrect. Up until now, rights such as the right to strike have not been explicitly mentioned in the Treaties, which generally are more supportive of business. If the Lisbon is passed, the ECJ will now have to take account of workers’ rights when balancing against the rights of big business.

It’s important to distinguish between what has happened in the past, and what changes the Lisbon Treaty will make.

Concern has been expressed about a number of ECJ judgments dealing with workers’ rights. Three of these  (Laval, Ruffert and Commission v. Luxembourg) concern the Posting of Workers Directive, which sets out the rules for a company in member state A sending some of its employees to work in member state B.

The Posting of Workers Directive makes it very clear that if a national minimum wage is set out in national legislation, workers posted to that country from another member state must be paid that minimum wage. As such, the Vote No posters claiming that Lisbon will lead to a minimum wage of €1.84 are completely untrue. In Laval and Ruffert, the national legislation (in Sweden and Germany respectively) did not clearly set out the minimum wage. As a result, the countries lost these cases. Action is already being taken in Sweden to change the law to ensure this situation doesn’t arise again.

Another issue concerns collective action and the right to strike. At present, nowhere in the Treaties is a right to strike protected. If Lisbon is passed, it will give legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 28 of the Charter enshrines workers rights to take collective action including the right to strike.

This question of a right to strike came up in the Viking and Laval cases. In both of these cases the ECJ balanced the rights of workers against the right of companies to provide services in another member state. While Article 28 of the Charter was mentioned briefly in both cases, the ECJ couldn’t actually apply it as the Charter does not yet have legal effect.

As a result, the ECJ was balancing the very strong protection of the rights of companies against the current much weaker position of workers. Unsurprisingly, trade unions across the Member States were not happy with this approach. However if Lisbon is passed and the Charter is given legal effect, its strong protection of the rights of workers will enable the Court to be much more vigorous in protecting workers’ rights when these come into conflict with the economic rights of companies.

Lisbon also sets out the new objectives of creating “a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social protection” along with “combat[ing] social exclusion and discrimination” and “promot[ing] social justice and protection” (Article 3.3 TEU). This is the strongest ever statement of social values  in the Treaties and will also have to be applied by the ECJ.

Finally, the Citizens’ Initiative, which allows 1 million citizens sign a petition calling on the Commission to pass a law (Article 11 TEU), will be of real benefit to trade unions. As these organisations often have links across a number of countries, they are well placed to organise an initiative on important issues. If they are not happy with the current interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive, the Citizens’ Initiative will give them an opportunity to suggest to the Commission how to reform it.

Far from “copper-fastening” disregard for workers’ rights, Lisbon will significantly strengthen their position as against those of big business. In fact the term “copper-fastening” is only used because there is nothing in the Treaty which can be said to undermine workers’ rights, so anti-Lisbon campaigners have to focus on existing legislation. However these existing laws will actually be positively, not negatively, affected by the Treaty’s provisions. To increase the protection of workers’ rights we must vote Yes on October 2nd.

Roderic O’Gorman lectures in European Union Law and Irish Constitutional Law in Griffith College Dublin

In a community as large as the European Union it can be hard to give citizens a voice.  However, the Lisbon Treaty will do just that. It gives one million citizens the right to petition the European Commission to suggest laws on issues they feel are important (Article 11 TEU). This is the most direct means by which EU citizens can participate in European governance. There is no other initiative that could permit such a direct form of citizen participation.

One million signatures may sound like a tall order but, in an era in which people keep in contact with 400 of their closest friends via Facebook, Bebo or Myspace, it is not an unattainable goal. The citizens will also have to come from a minimum number of member states (Article 11 TEU, Article 24 TFEU), meaning suggestions for laws must have wide cross-country support. Additionally, citizens’ suggestions do not automatically become law — the Commission has to put forward a proposal for consideration by our national representatives. This may seem like an empty gesture, but, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. The population of the European Union is huge – almost five hundred million people. It would be monstrously undemocratic if one million of those people, a measly 0.2% of the population of the EU give or take, could impose laws on the rest of us simply because 1 million people had an axe to grind and were able to wield a pen.  Thus, the citizens’ initiative allows for participative democracy without being itself undemocratic. A final safeguard ensures that like all aspects of European law, any suggestion by citizens will only be considered if it is in an area in which the member states have decided to give the EU the power to legislate.

The citizens’ initiative provides unprecedented access for us, the people of Europe, to the EU’s law-making process — more than any national government in any member state. If we want to increase the input of citizens into the EU’s democratic process, we should vote YES to Lisbon.

One of the most enduring perceptions that exists about the EU is that laws are not made by the member states acting together to tackle common problems but are imposed by champagne-quaffing, caviar-guzzling Eurocrats. This is clearly a wildly distorted picture, but it sometimes feels like the current legislative processes within the European Union do not allow for much input by national parliaments. However, two of the protocols annexed to the Lisbon Treaty will change that by significantly increasing national parliaments’ say about what goes on in Brussels. These are the Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union and the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality.

Lisbon reinforces the EU’s respect for the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 TEU). This means that if the member states are best placed to deal with a particular issue, the EU will leave them to get on with it. The EU only legislates in areas that cannot be effectively tackled at the national level – for example climate change or cross-border crime.  With Lisbon the European institutions will have to explain why they think that the measures in question are best taken at European rather than national level (Article 5 of the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality). This is a big step forward as it requires the EU to justify why it should adopt the legislation rather than the member states. Our TDs will be better equipped to evaluate draft laws, as they will no longer have to second-guess the EU’s reasons for adopting the legislation.

Once the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, all draft laws will be sent to the national parliaments of the member states (Article 2 of the Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union). They will then have eight weeks to consider the legislation and if they are concerned that it infringes the principle of subsidiarity it can send a “yellow card” to the EU institutions — a reasoned opinion setting out their concerns which must be considered by the institutions that drafted the law (Article 6 of Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Article 3 of the Protocol on the Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union).

Additionally, if one third of the national parliaments think that a measure goes beyond the EU’s remit then it must be reviewed (Article 7.2 of the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality). Whatever the institution that initially proposed the law finally decides, it must give reasons for its decision.

This procedure dramatically enhances the role of national parliaments in the EU, by allowing them a direct input into the EU’s legislative processes.  It makes national parliaments the watchdogs of the European Union. Indeed, this role is explicitly assigned to the national parliaments by Article 12 TEU (as inserted by Article 1(12) of the Lisbon Treaty). It also gives European citizens two opportunities to be represented in the legislative process. Not only will we be represented by our elected MEPs at a European level, our elected representatives at a national level will also have a direct input into what laws are passed in Europe. So don’t believe those who tell you that Lisbon will reduce the role of national parliaments in the governance of their own states. In fact, Lisbon it does the exact opposite, making the EU more democratic than ever before.

Socialist Party MEP Joe Higgins last night called for a ‘No’ vote to Lisbon to punish the government for their handling of the financial crisis. In the same breath he described Cóir’s poster slogans about the minimum wage “a serious distraction away from the points our party is making.”

Mr Higgins can’t have his cake and eat it. People’s anger with the government about their management of the economy is understandable, but it is just as much of a “distraction” in the Lisbon debate as Cóir’s blatant lies about the minimum wage.

We need to distinguish between a desire to send a message to the government and our long-term interest as a nation. However tempting it may be to kick the government, and however easy for opportunistic Eurosceptics to take advantage of this frustration, we must not let this get in the way of what will actually help us out of this crisis – the creation of jobs and attraction of foreign investment that passing Lisbon will mean.

Now is the time to focus on what impact Lisbon will actually have on real people’s lives – in the areas of economic stimulation, workers’ rights and crime, to name just a few.

At the same event Mr Higgins’s Socialist Party conceded that voting ‘No’ to Lisbon would not “move things forward” in relation to pay and conditions for workers. This is what we actually need to be debating. We need to be discussing Article 3.3 TEU which provides for the creation of “a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social protection” along with “combat[ing] social exclusion and discrimination” and “promot[ing] social justice and protection”. This is the first time that social objectives have been set out so clearly in EU law. That is what is what we need to keep sight of in this debate.

Helping our economy recover, creating jobs and protecting workers’ rights is important. Punishing the government in a way that will punish every citizen of this country for many years to come is not.

Irish people are crying out for a real debate on the facts – not the cheap shots being offered up by No campaigners at present. Generationyes.ie is where you can find these facts. Watch out for our piece on workers’ rights which will go up in the next couple of days.

The reforms articulated by the Lisbon Treaty strengthen democracy at both the Irish and European level. They provide for the retention of an Irish commissioner, a more democratic, effective and cohesive Union legislative process, more power for our Irish MEPs and greater input into EU lawmaking at the national level.

Lisbon means we keep our commissioner. Many Irish people were rightly concerned about the loss of Ireland’s commissioner at the time of the last referendum. For a small country like Ireland, this was a big concession. This time around, the guarantees won by the Irish government mean that we must vote Yes to keep our commissioner. If we vote No we will lose this right. There is a simple reason why this is the case: under the current rules, the first Commission to be appointed after the number of member states reaches 27 has to be reduced to less than the number of member states. We reached that number in 2007. However, the new Article 17.5 TEU of the Lisbon Treaty allows the European Council, acting unanimously, to alter that number. Our government fought for and achieved this unanimous agreement. This means that unless we pass Lisbon, we lose our right to a commissioner. Former Irish commissioners like Peter Sutherland and Patrick Hillery have served Ireland well in the past. Passing Lisbon will keep our place at the table.

In a rapidly changing world, Europe has to be able to make decisions quickly. Under Lisbon, the European Council - the gathering of the heads of states or governments of all Member States and the President of the Commission - will meet twice as often as they currently do (Article 15.3 TEU). This means that problems like the financial crisis will be dealt with quickly, decisively and democratically. It means that there will be more opportunities for our elected representatives to speak on our behalf at the European level, and because the Council will now meet in the open, therefore a greater say for us in EU policies. The changes in Lisbon are not about changing the way that Europe makes decisions. Yet the financial crisis has shown us that now, more than ever, Europe needs to be able to rise to the world’s challenges.

Voting Yes will also mean that your MEPs can serve you better. Forty new areas need the approval of our directly elected European representatives under the co-decision procedure (Article 294 TFEU). This means the agreement of both the Council and Parliament is required for a proposal to become law. Under Lisbon the Parliament gains substantially increased powers, and is placed on an equal footing with the Council. This means that more power goes directly to Mairéad McGuinness, Proinsias de Rossa, Marian Harkin, Brian Crowley, Joe Higgins and the other MEPs who answer to YOU.

However, our MEPs are not the only Irish representatives who are empowered by Lisbon. National parliaments are granted an expanded role in the legislative process of the EU by the Treaty (Article 12 TEU; Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union). Under Lisbon the Dáil is given greater powers of scrutiny and a longer time period to examine draft EU legislation. All draft EU laws will be sent to the Oireachtas to discuss publicly. The Treaty also enables Ireland to bring actions to the European Court of Justice when it thinks Europe is legislating in areas it is not entitled to. The EU may only make laws where the action of individual member states is insufficient (Article 8 Protocol on Subsidiarity).

Lisbon delivers clarity by laying out exactly where the EU can and cannot act. At the moment there is no clear line in the sand beyond which EU bodies cannot act; Lisbon draws that line in a way agreed by all the states. Article 5 TEU states that the Union shall only act within the limits of competences conferred on it by the Member States. These specific areas of competence are laid down in Title I of the TFEU and provide much needed clarity for national parliaments for determining whether the EU seeks to act beyond its jurisdiction. This major reform enables the Oireachtas to act more effectively in keeping Union bodies in check if it considers this necessary.

Voting Yes brings the Union closer to ordinary people. The Treaty obliges the Union to respond to a petition signed by a million people across Europe (Article 11 TEU). Petitions have long played an important role in activism through the work of organisations such as Amnesty International. In the age of Facebook and MySpace, it has never been easier for people to come together on an important issue. It also means that we don’t always have to rely on the politicians to take the first step: we can act ourselves on the things we care about. This provision has the potential to transform democracy in Europe by ensuring that everyone has a voice.

The Lisbon Treaty’s provisions provide greater power to our elected government representatives, to our directly elected European Parliament representatives and also, to us, Irish people. Lisbon now represents a better deal for the people of Ireland; it ensures an Irish voice at the table, it enables more effective decision-making, more coherent policy programs and greater scrutiny and examination of European decision-making. Of all the reasons to vote YES to Lisbon, we think that the improvement it makes to the quality of our democracy is one of the best.

If you want a strong Ireland in Europe, and a strong Europe in the world, Vote YES on October 2nd.

Sinn Féin’s Aonghus Ó Snodaigh said on Friday that Generation YES were “naive” for believing that Lisbon was “crucial in the fight against poverty“. We think Aonghus Ó Snodaigh is arrogant for thinking he knows more about development policy than the Chief Executive of Concern and the Director of Trócaire. We know it’s crucial because that’s what the experts told us.

Tom Arnold from Concern said that Lisbon is important because “In a world where the combination of man-made and physical disasters is increasing and will probably continue to increase, it is important that Europe equips itself with the policy framework to respond to that”. Tom believes that the new vote “is of crucial importance”. Justin Kilcullen, Director of Trócaire and Chairperson of Concord, which represents 1,600 development NGOs, has noted that “the Lisbon Treaty makes poverty reduction the main objective of EU development policy. That means the €46 billion of aid money the EU gives annually cannot legally be used for purposes other than tackling poverty”.

We don’t think it’s naive to suggest that when the worlds’ biggest donor of overseas aid makes poverty the most crucial aim of its development policy and introduces new policies to ensure European countries work together to further these aims that it is a good thing.