Opponents of the Amsterdam Treaty are having great difficulty in finding fault with its provisions on employment and other aspects of social policy. They are reduced to saying that these are inadequate.
I also would prefer if there were stronger provisions on employment, if the social policy aspects were even more progressive. However, I accept that they do constitute progress and it is perverse to oppose them because they do not go as far as one would like. Opposition on this basis is a bit like saying you will not visit any country because you cannot see all the world at the same time.
The Amsterdam Treaty is worth supporting for many reasons but, I would argue, mainly because of the potential of these new provisions. If implemented, the treaty will mean improvements for employed people, for unemployed people and for people with disabilities.
The improvements are relatively small, but they are stepping stones in the right direction and they can be built on. We in the Labour Party and the Party of European Socialists would have liked more improvements, but we are on the road to a more socially inclusive Europe, to a Europe where human rights, workers' rights and the rights of unemployed people will be respected to a greater extent than before.
The EU has already had a major role to play in training and social employment. Structural funds have been used extensively to provide enhanced training facilities for Irish workers and Irish unemployed people. Putting the promotion of employment into the treaties will mean that, even if structural funding is not as significant as it has been in the past, the aim of a high level of employment will continue to be a major issue within the EU.
Just putting such an aim into the treaty will not produce jobs. It will, however, ensure that the powers that be in Europe have to constantly address the issue. Experience has shown that this usually produces results.
I would point out that previous treaty provisions were not very explicit, and yet they have been used to make major progress. We started with a very simple aspiration to equal pay for men and women; we now have a quite advanced equality policy. We started with a broad aim to promote the preservation of the environment; we now have extensive legislation on that issue. We must ensure the same happens with the new employment provisions.
It is sometimes conveniently forgotten that much of our progressive social legislation was spearheaded by Europe. I would argue that we would not now have equal pay and equal opportunities for women, equal treatment in social security, working time regulations, four weeks' annual holidays, extensive health and safety laws for workers if we were not members of the EU. The Amsterdam Treaty makes modest progress on social policy issues such as social exclusion, social dialogue and anti-discrimination.
It is a matter of some pride to me, as someone who has promoted this issue for many years, that for the first time there will be a specific treaty basis for social exclusion programmes such as the poverty programmes.
These programmes, initiated by Frank Cluskey in the 1970s, have proved to be very important for Ireland. They were small, but they provided examples of good practice and were responsible for the major community development schemes which are giving new hope to many communities in Ireland.
The treaty also strengthens the provisions for dialogue between unions and employers, which has already proved successful in promoting better worker protection legislation.
"Social dialogue" is one of those Euro-phrases which people find hard to grasp, but the best illustration of it is the paternal leave which will be available to Irish workers later this year. Social dialogue provides an example of potential realised. This was introduced into the Maastricht Treaty simply because governments could not agree on major social issues. It was thought that the social dialogue would get them off the hook and not be very important. It has taken a few years, but the process has now proved that it can deliver.
The new anti-discrimination clause in the Amsterdam Treaty is there because the Irish Labour Party, in government, strongly promoted it and succeeded.
The perversity of the opponents of the Amsterdam treaty is at its worst in relation to this clause, which has been welcomed in particular by people with disabilities and by older people. They see it, rightly, as an opportunity to improve their economic position, to remove discrimination and ensure equal opportunities at work.
Yet somehow it has been transformed into something which they say will lead to the legal recognition of gay marriages. The EU simply has no competence in the area of marriage law; the anti-discrimination clause applies to those areas in which the EU has competence, i.e. largely the economic area and workers' rights.
If you do not believe that people with disabilities should have equal opportunities then just say so; if you think older people should be excluded from the workforce, then argue your point of view. But please do not insult us with pseudo-arguments presenting wild impossibilities.
Finally, I want to warn against the notion that it is all right to vote No on May 22nd so that we can negotiate a better deal later. This is based on the entirely false perception that Denmark did that after its first Maastricht referendum. There was no change in the Maastricht Treaty as a result of the Danish rejection; the Danes later accepted exactly the same treaty which they rejected first time around.
Bernie Malone is a Labour Party MEP for Dublin