TUC defers decision on EU constitution

At its annual conference in September 2004, the Trades Union Congress put off reaching a definitive decision on the stance it will take in the planned UK referendum on the proposed EU constitutional treaty.

Following a heated debate on the proposed EU constitutional treaty (EU0308204F), delegates at the September 2004 annual conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted against a 'Euro-sceptic' motion proposed by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and in favour of a statement by the TUC general council, which put off taking a formal position on the constitution pending further consideration of the issues involved.

The RMT’s motion would not have committed the TUC to opposing the proposed EU constitutional treaty, but was strongly critical in tone, arguing that it would transfer control of Britain’s economic policy to 'Brussels' and entrench neo-liberal policies including privatisation. A number of amendments had been put forward by 'pro-European' unions, highlighting the positive impact of the EU in terms of extending workers’ rights in the UK. However, key union leaders, notably those of the 'big four' unions, were keen avoid public disunity on the issue. The RMT was asked to 'remit' its motion to the TUC general council for further examination, thereby avoiding a vote, but the union refused. In the event, the proposers of the 'pro-Europe' amendments withdrew them in favour of the general council’s holding statement, and the RMT’s motion was defeated on a show of hands, with Amicus, GMB and the Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU) reportedly among those voting against the motion.

The general council statement, based on the uncontentious parts of the RMT’s motion and the amendments, reads: 'Congress welcomes proposals for a referendum on the proposed constitutional treaty for the European Union. At long last, a genuine and constructive debate can take place in Britain on the issue. However, it would be inappropriate to take a formal position for or against the constitutional treaty until unions and the general council have had the opportunity to consider it in depth and assess its impact on key issues such as the rights of working people to decent work, the national democratic rights of Member States, public services and equality.'

The debate highlighted the divisions within the trade union movement over the issue of the EU constitution. Earlier in 2004, senior TUC officials had advocated that the TUC should adopt a position of 'critical support' for the constitutional treaty and begin discussions with other interested parties on encouraging a 'yes' vote in the UK referendum expected to be held in autumn 2005 or in spring 2006 (UK0405104F). However, reflecting the leftward shift in the leaderships of a number of major unions, as well as union anger over the 'pro-business' position taken by UK government during the treaty negotiations, the TUC’s executive committee took a more ambivalent view of the proposed treaty, identifying both positive and negative aspects of the treaty.

Even some traditionally pro-European unions such as Amicus are unenthusiastic about the proposed EU constitution. Indeed, there have been reports that the leaders of Amicus and the TGWU are threatening to campaign for a 'no' vote in the forthcoming referendum unless they receive further guarantees from the Labour Party government led by Tony Blair that UK workers will be given the same employment rights as workers in continental Europe.

The TUC has circulated a series of briefing documents on the constitutional treaty for use by unions in deciding their position on the referendum. These include a report by a leading labour lawyer, Professor Brian Bercusson, which argues that the new EU constitution will boost workers’ rights and which TUC officials hope will carry weight with key unions. The TUC’s executive committee is due to return to the issue in the autumn once unions have had more time to discuss the treaty’s terms. However, the prospects of the TUC adopting a pro-constitution policy may depend on whether the government is prepared to give union leaders stronger assurances on its willingness to embrace the 'European social model'. Even then, it is likely that some prominent union figures, including RMT general secretary Bob Crow, will in any event continue to campaign against the proposed treaty.