EU constitution is one of the all-time great exercises in democracy
1. His insinuation that there is even the remotest similarity between the unelected totalitarian dictatorship which ran the former Soviet Union and the European convention which produced the draft constitutional treaty beggars belief.
Unlike the politburo, the European convention drew its members from all sectors in European society in its deliberations: governments, parliaments, political parties, civil society, businesses, social partners, academics and non-governmental organisations.
The draft constitutional treaty, which the convention produced after many months of meeting in public, will now be referred to the citizens in member states for ratification through either a referendum, as in Ireland, or by a vote of parliament depending on what the constitution of each sovereign nation requires. In total, the process of producing the constitutional treaty has been one of the largest exercises in democracy in history.
2. The EU is not about to become a ‘state in its own right.’ Since the Treaty of Rome came into effect in 1958 European laws have always had primacy over national laws in areas where the member states have agreed to transfer competence to the European institutions because they judged that to be in their own collective interest.
The constitution has neither changed nor added to that legal situation.
3. It is not true to say that by giving the EU legal personality it will become a state in its own right and will be empowered to sign international treaties independent of the member states.
Mr Flanagan appears to overlook the fact that the EU is its member states and can have no independent existence without them.
The member states, as far back as the Treaty of Rome, conferred on the European commission the responsibility for conducting international trade negotiations on their behalf but thereafter, individually, they signed the outcome. Now the EU will do so collectively. Hardly the abolition of the nation state, as we know it.
4. Mr Flanagan has no basis for saying that the constitution will establish a prosecuting magistracy or a federal police force.
He may be thinking of the introduction of an EU prosecutor whose primary function will be to recover money illegally obtained from the EU budget, or increased co-operation between national police forces and national judiciaries, both of which will continue to enforce the laws within their own jurisdictions.
5. Mr Flanagan lists a number of areas where the constitution gives powers to the commission.
With the exceptions of foreign affairs and defence, those he mentions are already the subject of exclusive or shared competence between the commission and the council, which represents the member states. He is wrong to include either foreign affairs or defence in this list as both will remain the exclusive domain of national governments.
6. Mr Flanagan says the constitution states: “Member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the union ceases to exercise, or chooses no longer to exercise, its competence.”
This selective misquotation distorts the real picture. The constitution text states that “the union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the member states in the constitution. Competences not conferred upon the union in the constitution remain with the member states.” This could hardly be clearer.
7. In attacking greater cooperation between the member states on foreign policy and defence Mr Flanagan would appear to be out of step with the findings of a Eurobarometer poll conducted in February.
When asked who should take decisions on ‘foreign policy towards countries outside the European Union,’ 20.5% of respondents in Ireland stated a preference for the government taking such decisions, but an overwhelming majority of 69%, declared that such decisions should be taken jointly within the EU. When asked should there be ‘one common foreign policy among the member states of the EU towards other countries,’ 61.4% stated that they would support it, and only 19.5% were against.
Significantly, on the question of whether there should be ‘a common defence and security policy among EU member states,’ 52.8 % supported the idea while only 24.5% were opposed.
It should also be stressed that, contrary to his assertion, there is no provision in the constitution for “EU military forces,” fledgling or otherwise. The fully independent forces of the respective member states can take joint actions from time-to-time when they decide to do so.
Participation is left fully to the discretion of each sovereign member state. This was already the case before the constitution was drafted. In Ireland, participation is decided on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, using the triple lock mechanism of a UN mandate, Government decision and Dáil approval.
8. Finally, Mr Flanagan contends that “the charter of fundamental rights will make huge new areas of national life subject to European rulings, including family relations, employment rights, social policy and anti-discrimination law.”
I would respectfully suggest that Ireland’s experience of EU membership has been overwhelmingly positive in the field of employment and social policy with the promotion of equality, anti-discrimination measures, workers’ rights and health and safety, all emanating in large parts from EU legislation.
His allegation of EU interference in family relations is baffling, unless he is referring to the Article 7 (which stipulates respect for private and family life) and Article 9 (which reaffirms the right to marry and to found a family).
Peter Doyle
Director
European Commission Representation
18 Dawson Street
Dublin 2.
