16 January 2003 Edition
A critical engagement with Europe
In the latest of a series of conferences designed to open up debate during the process of policy formulation, over 70 activists gathered last Saturday in the Felons' Club to discuss Sinn Féin's approach to the European Union. The debate centred on a draft policy document produced by the Policy Review and Development Department. The conference provided the time and opportunity for individuals to express their views on the arguments put forward in the document. In light of those views, the document will be revised and presented to this year's Ard Fheis, which has the exclusive power to decide party policy.
The event began with the setting of a republican record - Chairperson Tom Hartley actually managed to get proceedings going five minutes early, and sustained a brisk pace throughout the day.
Dublin South-Central TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh started the conference by demonstrating in a very stark fashion the amount of influence that the EU has over Irish affairs. He pointed out that 70 per cent of the legislation going through Leinster House was initiated not in Ireland but in Brussels. Literally hundreds of directives and recommendations a month were coming from the EU to be processed and converted into domestic law. One of the effects of this huge volume of material was that it was virtually impossible to monitor it to see if the resulting laws and regulations were good or bad for the people of Ireland.
The difficulty of trying to keep track of what the EU was up to was made all the more difficult by the fact that TDs were given minimal time to study documents prior to having to make a decision on them. The fact that these directives and recommendations were drawn up by the European Commission (civil service) meant that, in reality, the vast bulk of European legislation was being formulated by bureaucrats with virtually no democratic accountability to rein them in.
The nature of the monolith that we are dealing with was further emphasised by the following speaker, who introduced the main themes of the policy document, stating that there are few aspects of Irish political, social and economic life that the EU does not have a dominant influence over.
At the core of the proposed Sinn Féin policy was the notion of 'critical engagement' with the EU. The idea of critical engagement is based upon the premise that the EU is a reality that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. While the debate about participation or otherwise in the EU remains valid, we have an obligation to address policies that are currently having such a major impact on the lives of Irish people. The conference was taken through how that critical engagement might map out in the crucial areas of European integration, monetary union and structural funding. These topics were also the subject matter of workshops and a plenary session.
A number of key issues emerged from the debate around integration. It was noted that our deep concerns about the consequences of the Nice Treaty are already coming to pass. Bertie Ahearn's weasel words during the campaign about there being no danger to Irish neutrality are daily being made a mockery as Shannon Airport is turned into a staging post for the American invasion of Iraq. It was argued strongly by a number of delegates that, as a practical manifestation of our adherence to Irish neutrality, republicans need to redouble efforts to oppose the war and any Irish involvement in it.
Another crucially important theme in relation to integration concerned EU moves to develop a European constitution by 2005. The creation of pan-European constitution would have a huge impact upon Irish legal and political structures.
It was agreed that critical engagement with the EU on the nature of that constitution needed to start now. It was the responsibility of Sinn Féin to tell the Irish people just what was being planned for them, so that when the time came for a referendum on the European constitution, there would be widespread knowledge of exactly what was involved, thus making it harder for establishment parties to get away with the lies and half-truths that they will inevitably churn out.
The debate about monetary union, and specifically the euro, displayed a notable convergence among those who spoke on the issue. At the heart of the debate was a tension between two factors. On the one hand, Sinn Féin had rightly opposed the introduction of the euro in the 26 Counties on the grounds that it undermined national sovereignty by transferring control of our currency to a body that has no immediate Irish representation. On the other hand, the euro is now a reality in the 26 Counties that cannot be removed easily or quickly. This means that the only feasible way to attain a single currency on the island is for the Six Counties to become part of the Eurozone.
It was further argued that a single currency was a prerequisite to a unified economy, which in turn was an essential ingredient in political unification. While pointing out the anti-democratic nature of euro management, it was argued that it was no more anti-democratic than the Bank of England's control of currency in the Six Counties.
Structural funding also caused considerable concern. It was pointed out that in 2006, the level of funding from Europe was going to decline drastically, which would have dire effects upon the voluntary and community sectors, and the more disadvantaged areas of the island unless there was a domestic political commitment to fill the void. Once again, the need for Sinn Féin's critical engagement in terms of information gathering, campaigning and the co-ordination of local groups was seen as a crucial part of a political struggle, the outcome of which would affect the lives of many Irish people.
Following these highly informed debates, Sinn Féin Chairperson, Mitchel McLaughlin concluded the conference. Underlining the importance of critical engagement, Mitchel argued for a policy-by-policy approach to the EU.
He noted that each policy could be subjected to a strict set of criteria, which would include whether or not the policy had been arrived at through democratic dialogue, whether its outworking was transparent and subject to democratic accountability; whether it was materially beneficial to the less well off, whether it had the potential to promote Irish unity, and the degree to which it compromised national sovereignty or local democracy.
On the basis of how a policy stood up to such criteria, a decision on whether to support, oppose or take a qualified approach to that policy could be made.
The event began with the setting of a republican record - Chairperson Tom Hartley actually managed to get proceedings going five minutes early, and sustained a brisk pace throughout the day.
Dublin South-Central TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh started the conference by demonstrating in a very stark fashion the amount of influence that the EU has over Irish affairs. He pointed out that 70 per cent of the legislation going through Leinster House was initiated not in Ireland but in Brussels. Literally hundreds of directives and recommendations a month were coming from the EU to be processed and converted into domestic law. One of the effects of this huge volume of material was that it was virtually impossible to monitor it to see if the resulting laws and regulations were good or bad for the people of Ireland.
The difficulty of trying to keep track of what the EU was up to was made all the more difficult by the fact that TDs were given minimal time to study documents prior to having to make a decision on them. The fact that these directives and recommendations were drawn up by the European Commission (civil service) meant that, in reality, the vast bulk of European legislation was being formulated by bureaucrats with virtually no democratic accountability to rein them in.
The nature of the monolith that we are dealing with was further emphasised by the following speaker, who introduced the main themes of the policy document, stating that there are few aspects of Irish political, social and economic life that the EU does not have a dominant influence over.
Neutrality
At the core of the proposed Sinn Féin policy was the notion of 'critical engagement' with the EU. The idea of critical engagement is based upon the premise that the EU is a reality that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. While the debate about participation or otherwise in the EU remains valid, we have an obligation to address policies that are currently having such a major impact on the lives of Irish people. The conference was taken through how that critical engagement might map out in the crucial areas of European integration, monetary union and structural funding. These topics were also the subject matter of workshops and a plenary session.
A number of key issues emerged from the debate around integration. It was noted that our deep concerns about the consequences of the Nice Treaty are already coming to pass. Bertie Ahearn's weasel words during the campaign about there being no danger to Irish neutrality are daily being made a mockery as Shannon Airport is turned into a staging post for the American invasion of Iraq. It was argued strongly by a number of delegates that, as a practical manifestation of our adherence to Irish neutrality, republicans need to redouble efforts to oppose the war and any Irish involvement in it.
European constitution
Another crucially important theme in relation to integration concerned EU moves to develop a European constitution by 2005. The creation of pan-European constitution would have a huge impact upon Irish legal and political structures.
It was agreed that critical engagement with the EU on the nature of that constitution needed to start now. It was the responsibility of Sinn Féin to tell the Irish people just what was being planned for them, so that when the time came for a referendum on the European constitution, there would be widespread knowledge of exactly what was involved, thus making it harder for establishment parties to get away with the lies and half-truths that they will inevitably churn out.
Eurozone
The debate about monetary union, and specifically the euro, displayed a notable convergence among those who spoke on the issue. At the heart of the debate was a tension between two factors. On the one hand, Sinn Féin had rightly opposed the introduction of the euro in the 26 Counties on the grounds that it undermined national sovereignty by transferring control of our currency to a body that has no immediate Irish representation. On the other hand, the euro is now a reality in the 26 Counties that cannot be removed easily or quickly. This means that the only feasible way to attain a single currency on the island is for the Six Counties to become part of the Eurozone.
It was further argued that a single currency was a prerequisite to a unified economy, which in turn was an essential ingredient in political unification. While pointing out the anti-democratic nature of euro management, it was argued that it was no more anti-democratic than the Bank of England's control of currency in the Six Counties.
Structural funding
Structural funding also caused considerable concern. It was pointed out that in 2006, the level of funding from Europe was going to decline drastically, which would have dire effects upon the voluntary and community sectors, and the more disadvantaged areas of the island unless there was a domestic political commitment to fill the void. Once again, the need for Sinn Féin's critical engagement in terms of information gathering, campaigning and the co-ordination of local groups was seen as a crucial part of a political struggle, the outcome of which would affect the lives of many Irish people.
Following these highly informed debates, Sinn Féin Chairperson, Mitchel McLaughlin concluded the conference. Underlining the importance of critical engagement, Mitchel argued for a policy-by-policy approach to the EU.
He noted that each policy could be subjected to a strict set of criteria, which would include whether or not the policy had been arrived at through democratic dialogue, whether its outworking was transparent and subject to democratic accountability; whether it was materially beneficial to the less well off, whether it had the potential to promote Irish unity, and the degree to which it compromised national sovereignty or local democracy.
On the basis of how a policy stood up to such criteria, a decision on whether to support, oppose or take a qualified approach to that policy could be made.