The EU Constitution and a NO vote

Scotland's Jane Carolan Chair of the union's Policy Committee, analyses what the EU Constitution means.

Britain could face a referendum on the EU Constitution in less than a year, and many trade unionists are beginning to look at the detail of the deal on offer for the first time.

As the chair of UNISON's policy committee, the Constitution has been on my desk for a while longer and we have been having an internal debate on the key issues we face. As a result the NEC have placed the issue on the Conference Agenda recommending that the union takes a "NO" position. This is a discussion to be had about public services, trade, the economy and our role in the world.

I think this is a serious discussion, one in which we will inevitably find trade unionists and Labour supporters on both sides of the fence. The problem that I, as a UNISON member, have with the EU Constitution is that it takes powers away from the people we elect, and gives them to EU institutions where democracy is far too weak and, incidentally, institutions where the Right currently dominate.

Under the Constitution, the EU Commission gains new powers to influence our spending on public services. Peter Mandelson as Trade Commissioner is given new powers over the EU's international trade negotiations on health and education. It commits member states to spending more on defence and it would also have big implications for civil liberties, with powers such as intelligence gathering for security agencies - Perhaps that's why Condoleezza Rice recently announced that if she had a vote she would vote 'yes'.

The problem is that most of the Constitution consists of policy articles laying out what EU policy will be - not, as you would expect in a constitution, just how the system works. Policy should be up for debate in a democratic political process - not set in stone by a Constitution.

In particular economic policy should be made by elected politicians with regard to prevailing circumstances; however the Constitution tightens the economic planning framework that the European Commission uses to reduce public spending in member states.

It is important that we focus on the Constitution, not on the issue of our membership of the EU itself, as some 'yes' campaigners suggest. It is not a choice between the Constitution and "unfettered capitalism". Europe will not collapse if the UK votes 'no'.

Scare stories of this type have been used before in debates on the EU. Remember how we were told that millions of jobs were at risk if we didn't sign up to the single currency? We now have growth and jobs, and the Prime Minister has just ruled out membership of the euro for another Parliament.

The French debate on the EU Constitution appears, from this side of the Channel, to be remarkably similar to the debate in Britain. On the 'no' side there are trade unionists and Labour voters saying 'no' to a liberal Europe in which ordinary people are excluded.

But on the 'yes' side there aren't positive arguments, just negative campaigning. People who do not want this Constitution are told that they are the only ones in Europe to call for a rethink. 'No' campaigners in Sweden are told they are alone in Europe.

The same happens to Danish 'no' campaigners, and those in the Netherlands too. But we cannot all be alone. The smears and the spin won't work now. The EU Constitution is bad deal for the labour movement. That's a good enough reason to vote 'no' and demand something better.

headlines . top