The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed has called for a No vote in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum, saying the provisions on employment are totally inadequate.
A No vote should be followed by a renegotiation of the treaty to improve its measures against unemployment and social exclusion, the INOU general secretary, Mr Mike Allen, told a press conference in Dublin yesterday.
Unemployment in the EU in 1995 was 10.8 per cent, and that high unemployment level was due to European policies, he said. "There are 31/2 million fewer jobs in Europe than there were in 1991, at the time of the Maastricht Treaty,"
Similarly, there were 49 million people living in poverty in the EU in 1990, and by 1994 this had risen to 62 million.
"How does the Amsterdam Treaty react to these challenges?" he asked. "It gives them a mention and then, quite simply, flunks them."
The new employment chapter in the treaty drew largely on existing non-binding agreements, he said. "This gives legal standing to things that were already being done - and being done to little effect.
"The employment chapter writes in stone the deflationary, monetary policies which have deepened unemployment during the 1990s. Employment generation is seen as entirely about `supply-side measures', interventions to improve the employability and flexibility of workers. There is no consideration of measures to stimulate the demand for workers."
He also criticised the inclusion of "competitiveness" in the treaty as a core task of the EU. While competitiveness was important, "its elevation to be a goal in itself represents a serious defeat for a balanced economic and social policy".
If competitiveness had to be taken into account in the formulation of all EU policies, many proposals in the social policy area would fall, he said.
It was possible to argue that control of the tools of economic management should be retained at national level or that they should be controlled at European level.
"What you surely cannot argue is that we should hand over all our powers to a European Central Bank so that it has the strength to face up to the power of international capital but give it no responsibility to work for the thing that most concerns the citizens of Europe, decent secure employment." This was the present situation.
The EU should have a stated commitment to full employment, should link this commitment to other economic goals, introduce a social audit and include the voluntary sector as a social partner.
The forces in Europe which had supported stronger action on unemployment had been strengthened since Amsterdam, he maintained. If there was a No vote "there is no danger that the gains that ordinary working people, the unemployed and marginalised gained in Amsterdam would be lost if the treaty had to be renegotiated.
"We will certainly lose ground in the face of a complacent, acquiescent Yes. We would gain ground in the aftermath of any rejection."
Opposition to the treaty by the INOU was difficult to understand, the leader of Democratic Left, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, said yesterday at the start of the DL campaign for a Yes vote.
"I'm baffled by the INOU's call because I can see no rationale for them calling for a No vote other than to say it's not enough, but to vote against it because it isn't enough is foolish. You bank what you get and you fight for more," he said.