At first sight the proposed Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union approvingly discussed by EU leaders in Biarritz last week may seem to be a step in the right direction for a European Union which appears increasingly out of touch with the ordinary men and women who live within its borders.
Certainly, any instrument which truly reinforced vital human and civil rights would have my support and that of the my party, the Dutch Socialist Party. The European Convention on Human Rights, to which the Netherlands is signatory and which predates the European Community and extends well beyond even its current borders, is one such instrument.
The global Conventions of the International Labour organisation are another. On a national level, most of the rights embodied in the EDHR are contained within the Netherlands’ Constitution or written into our laws. The new Charter in fact contains no rights which are not already enjoyed by the Dutch people.
The question then is whether this Charter is likely to be an effective instrument for the furtherance of people’s rights in other countries, or for the protection of our own rights in instances where they are not fully enforced or respected.
The answer, unfortunately, is quite clearly ´No`. By its own account, the Charter merely establishes the rights which already exist on the basis of the common constitutional traditions and international obligations of the member states, listing the European Union’s own treaties and legal precedents as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In case this leaves any doubt, Article 51 of the Charter states that it “creates no new competences or tasks for the Community or the Union.”
The language of the Charter is often vague to the point of meaninglessness. For example, under Article 38, Consumer Protection, we read that “The Union guarantees a high level of consumer protection.” What this constitutes is, of course, a matter of opinion. Moreover, the only way consumers can be protected is through strong laws backed up by rigorous enforcement.
Such laws exist to one degree or another in all member states. They are backed up by a body of EU consumer protection measures, some of which are useful, especially when it comes to protecting the rights of those buying goods and services outside their own countries. Enforcement is much patchier and more problematic. Article 38 will do nothing to address this problem.
Worse still are pious declarations concerning pressing problems, declarations which in fact entirely evade the real issue. Article 25 on the Rights of Older People states that The Union recognises and honours the rights of older poeple to lead a worthwhile and independent life and to participate fully in communal and cultural life.” Yet the sine qua non of such a right is a reasonable income, which many retired people do not enjoy and which nothing in the Charter will bring any closer.
Rights without the resources needed to exercise them are no rights at all.
The dishonesty of the whole Charter exercise is revealed whenever anything potentially controversial is dealt with, in particular anything dealing with the rights of workers. Thus Article 27 guarantees that “workers or their representatives (must be) …. informed and consulted (i.e. regarding changes to their employers’ situation which may cost them their jobs or otherwise affect their positions) … in good time”: Article 28 assures the right to collective bargaining and action; Article 30 sayss a worker can’t be sacked without good reason.
Now, although these rights clearly exist under the laws of the Netherlands, this is not the case with every member state. Nor can it be ruled out that a future government might try to abrogate these rights. Under these circumstances, however, the Charter would be of little use. This is because in every case cited above, and numerous others, the relevant "guarantee” is qualified by the statement that the rights must be “in keeping with Community law and with national legislation and practices.”
In many parts of the EU this is completely self-contradictory. In the United Kingdom, for example, workers have traditionally no rights under law to collective bargaining, and the Charter will not change this. Many countries have laws limiting the right to strike. Despite the fact that Article 28 appears to guarantee the right, it in fact does no such thing.
The right to take action is given only insofar as it accords with national laws and practices, allowing member states to maintain any and all restrictions on these rights.
If the Charter in practice does not extend rights, what is the point of it? As German and Italian leaders have made clear in statement supporting a legally-binding Charter, its aim is to be a further major step towards the creation of a European superstate, with its own constitution overriding those of the member states in the same way as EU laws now take precedence over those made by our own national parliament. Once again, integration takes place not openly, and under democratic control, but little by little, and by stealth.
The people of the member states have never been asked if they want an EU army, yet major steps have already been taken in this direction. Most of us were never consulted about the single currency. The Charter extends the interests of the Union into areas, particularly criminal law, which have always been strictly under the control of national governments.
In reality, every step of integration hands powers from elected national institutions and those answerable to them and gives it instead to remote, unelected bodies such as the European Commission, the Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. The Charter is just one more stone laid in the foundations of a European superstate.
Integration has delivered no new rights, and the Charter, as its latest expression, is no different. On the other hand, it has abolished the Dutch people’s right to have any influence whatsoever on the interest rates that determine our country’s economic development, or to choose a government which pursues any economic policy not in keeping with monetarist orthodoxy; it has greatly undermined the political choices available to us, for example in restricting the possibilities for social ownership, forcing vital public services into competitive markets, and insisting that measures to protect the environment or public health comply with internal market measures to facilitate trade within the Union.
Instead of a new and unnecessary Charter, in reality a pretext for further centralisation of power, the European Union Council of Ministers, rather than creating a new and unnecessary instrument, should join its member states in signing the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the EU as an entity should accede to the European Social Charter, not the EC document which goes by the same name, but like the ECHR a Council of Europe agreement extending beyond the EU.
This would offer inhabitants the same protection from abuse by EU institutions as they now enjoy in relation to their own governments, as well as underlining workers’ and citizens’ rights and expressing solidarity with people in countries where such rights are under constant attack. Finally, articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty should be amended to include an explicit reference to accession to these instruments, as well as to the fundamental Conventions of the International Labour Organisation.
What I would really like to see is a broad debate as to whether such a Charter is necessary and desirable, or if there are better alternatives. Instead, we have once again arrived at a vague, unsatisfactory and contradictory document through an equally unsatisfactory process about which most EU inhabitants remain completely unaware.

NOTE: quotes from the Charter are translated from the Dutch version, and so the wording may differ slightly from the official English text.