The Irish Times debate: Should an EU treaty contain a social dimension? No says Maria Cronin of IBEC. Yes says Robin Hanan of the Anti-PovertyNetwork
NO: Throughout Europe, there is some unease at the remoteness of EU institutions. Next year will see very dramatic enlargement of the Union and we need new thinking if that unease is not to increase. The key is to keep power at the most local, practical level and only delegate upwards to the Union those powers that are demonstrably better administered across national borders.
For example, it makes sense to have a single currency. It does not make sense to have a battery of very prescriptive Europe-wide social legislation that ignores deeply-rooted cultural differences between nations. And what is appropriate for a large economy will not necessarily suit the needs of a smaller one.
In its work on a new treaty, the Convention on the Future of Europe should be very careful about what is specifically inserted into the constitutional text. The reformed EU should be closer to its citizens, easier to understand and should have the flexibility to develop for the next generation and beyond. The practice as well as the principle of subsidiarity should be vigorously pursued.
The EU today has extensive powers to act in the area of social policy, powers that have evolved over years in successive treaties. Currently these competences can be exercised through legislation, whether adopted by EU institutions through the normal legislative route, by the EU Social Dialogue process, or by the Community supporting and co-ordinating the policies of the member states.
Existing powers allow the Union to establish important minimum social standards; these can then be supported by more comprehensive measures at a national level. This is a good compromise that works well - the process has delivered significant social progress in Ireland and it is difficult to see how it could be improved by any more specific constitutional provisions which have the potential to create rigidities rather than flexibility.
While the social dimension will obviously continue to be an important part of the EU, it is important to balance social objectives with the need for economic development and competitiveness. The granting of any excessive or arbitrary powers to the Union in the social policy field could easily have a serious effect on the Irish economy. Ill-conceived provisions could ultimately have the counterproductive effect of actually undermining economic progress and job security both in Ireland and across the Union.
Allowing for cultural diversity and national norms there are areas where a common European system is neither possible nor desirable. We believe that the primary driver for social reform should be at national level, using our well-established structures of social partnership and allowing for full considerations of national specificities important to our small, open economy.
The new EU Constitution is about making sure that the appropriate, and not the maximum amount of powers, are entrusted to the Union. For this reason social policy ought to remain guided by the specific needs in the various member states. Real social progress must go hand in hand with economic progress and high levels of competitiveness; this must be facilitated by responsive public policy and not stifled by rigid, inflexible social harmonisation.
The EU's Lisbon Process balances objectives of social reform with the needs of competitiveness and the environment. It is a process to which all governments and social partners have subscribed. As a process, it exists outside of any EU Constitution but yet it has true potential to deliver improvements in living conditions for citizens.
We should focus on delivering our social policy objectives in real terms by promoting this process rather than signing up to further binding and far-reaching commitments in the social field, the ultimate legal implications of which might not even be fully clear today.
Maria Cronin is director of strategy and EU affairs for IBEC
YES: The Convention on the Future of Europe, which is drafting the first EU Constitution, aims "to bring Europe closer to its peoples". To do this, it needs to listen to the issues which concern people and affect our lives.
A recent Eurobarometer poll asked people what should be the priorities for the EU. Ninety per cent named "fighting poverty and social exclusion".
It says something about the remoteness of many EU leaders that none of the 10 original working groups in the Convention was allowed to look at social issues. It took a campaign by NGOs and trade unions, and the only "back-bench rebellion" by Convention members so far, to create the working group on "the social Europe".
The European Union is one of the richest regions the world has ever known. Nevertheless, it contains 58 million people living in poverty and this number is growing. Figures cannot fully describe the variety of social exclusion and suffering and the daily struggles for human dignity and rights, but they can give us some idea of the scale of the problems.
Poverty and social exclusion are not inevitable. They are linked to the development model underlying EU integration and to deliberate political choices.
One of the clearest expressions of these choices is in the EU treaties. They lay down in detail the rules on internal trade, budgetary and monetary controls, agriculture and competition, but do not balance this with protection for social rights and standards.
It is generally agreed that solutions to poverty and social exclusion are best developed at the most local level, with the participation of people affected. It is also clear, however, that local solutions are only possible if they are backed up by resources, strategies and agreed standards at national, European and even global levels.
Since the second World War, much of Europe has had a relatively high level of social solidarity compared to other rich regions of the world. This is now under threat from globalisation, the integrated European market and monetary union and the enlargement of the EU. There is a danger that, without effective counter-balances, social standards will spiral downwards as countries compete to attract investment by cutting taxes and social protections.
At the Lisbon summit in 2000, the fight against poverty and social exclusion was identified as a key element in modernising the European economic and social model. This has led to detailed objectives and targets, but without legally binding policies there has been little real change.
The EU Constitution needs to name social justice, equality and the eradication of poverty as objectives of the Union and include legally binding social rights.
It must also spell out the mechanisms to make this a reality, strengthening the largely informal "open method of co-ordination" which drives anti-poverty policy at present.
Constitutional changes alone will not create the new balance needed between social and economic policy. The convention's members can, however, provide the political lead and the constitutional mechanisms for a Europe without poverty and social exclusion.
Robin Hanan is co-ordinator of the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) Ireland and a member of the Observer Pillar of the Irish National Forum on Europe
Next week: Should we support a pledge to defend others if they come
under attack? Gay Mitchell v John Gormley