Two serious false statements in today's, Friday's. Irish Times re. Eu Constitution

international | eu | opinion/analysis Saturday May 28, 2005 13:21 by Anthony Coughlan via imcer - THE NATIONAL PLATFORM EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE

by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and the paper's European Correspondent, Denis Staunton:

Two false statements on the EU Constitution in today's Irish Times -

In his article supporting the EU Constitution in today's Irish Times
(P.16)Taoiseach Bertie Ahern makes one quite inaccurate statement. He says
that the EU Constitution "includes significant new powers for national
parliaments."


The EU Constitution includes nothing of the kind. The Constitution would
remove over 60 further national vetoes on top of those already removed by
previous EC/EU treaties. Half of these would be in new policy areas where
the post-Constitution EU, not National Parliaments, would henceforth make
the laws. The other half would substitute qualified majority voting for
unanimity in making EU laws in relation to policy areas that are already
with the EU. This means that National Parliaments and Governments would
lose their power to decide matters for some 60 policy areas.


The EU Constitution does not give National Parliaments a single new power.
Its Protocol on Subsidiarity provides that National Parliaments must be
informed in advance of proposals for new EU laws, and if one-third of the
25 Parliaments think that a particular proposal goes too far and they
object to it, the proposal must be "reviewed" by the Brussels Commission,
but the Commission and Council of Ministers can still go ahead with it.
Contrary to what Taoiseach Ahern claims, this clearly is not a "significant
new power" for National Parliaments. It is not new, for National
Parliaments can object already. It is not a power, for they can object all
they like and the Commission can go on ignoring them. What National
Parliaments get in this provision of the Constitution is more like a new
right to be ignored.


If the Taoiseach wishes for a proper national debate on the proposed EU
Constitution, as he says he does, he should not himself make such
fundamental misrepresentations regarding what is in the Treaty.


Under the heading "No vote will not kill constitution"(P.11) the same
paper's EU Correspondent, Denis Staunton, makes a seriously inaccurate
statement which could well mislead the Irish public regarding what could or
should be done following a posssible French or Dutch No vote in their
referendums. He writes: "According to the constitution, if at least
four-fifths of the member states ratify it by November next year and the
others are unable to do so, 'the matter will be referred to the European
Council' of EU leaders."


Contrary to what Denis Staunton states, this is NOT "according to the
constitution". The EU Constitution contains no such provision, and even if
it did, how could States be bound by the provisions of a document that is
not yet ratified?


What Mr Staunton misleadingly refers to as "part of the constitution" is a
political Declaration, No.30, which is attached to the Constitution but is
not legally part of it, and which was adopted by the Intergovernmental
Conference that drafted the final Treaty-cum-Constitution. This
Declaration reads as follows: "The Conference notes that if, two years
after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,
four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member
States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the
matter will be referred to the European Council."


Note that the Declaration states that "IfSfour fifths of the Member States
have ratified." This is not the same as an obligation on them to proceed
with ratification if one Member State has said No and the others decide to
respect that No. States are free to abandon the ratification process if
they choose. The terms of this Declaration, which is not itself a Treaty
or legally binding, make quite clear that the decision by other EU States
to ignore a possible No vote in France or the Netherlands and to proceed
with their ratifications as if a French or Dutch No could be reversed or
over-ruled, is a purely political matter, but has no legal imperative
behind it. It would be merely an attempt by EU politicians, bureaucrats
and propagandists to bully the people of the country concerned.


This is to contemplate the kind of outrageously undemocratic behaviour that
Ireland's political elite engaged in when Irish voters rejected the Nice
Treaty in June 2001. When that happened Taoiseach Bertie Ahern could have
told his EU partners that he wished the ratification process to stop to
take acount of the Irish people's vote. Instead he went to the EU summit
in Gothenburg the weekend afterwards to apologise to his EU colleagues in
effect for the way the Irish had voted, told them to ignore that vote and
to go ahead with ratifying the Nice Treaty. He promised that he would
re-run the referendum and get a different result by changing the referendum
rules and securing their help in due course to threaten, bully and cajole
the Irish electorate a second time around.


French Prime Minister Raffarin has stated that there will be no second vot
e
in France - thereby showing more respect for his people than Taoiseach
Ahern did for his - and showing also that, unlike Mr Staunton, he is aware
of the legal/political significance attaching to a Treaty Declaration.
The only reason for Taoiseach Ashern proposing to hold a referendum in
Ireland in the event of a French or Dutch No vote would be that he
contemplates us joining in a general EU exercise of bullying or trickery
vis-a-vis French or Dutch voters, just as their politicians helped
Bertie Ahern to bully and cajole us in our Nice Two referendum.


Denis Staunton dredges up some Professor of Politics in Edinburgh -
presumably the holder of some Jean Monnet ideological chair - to state,
quite falsely, that there is an obligation under international law for the
EU Member States to continue trying to ratify this Treaty when one State
has rejected it.


There is no such "obligation". Where could such an obligation come from?
The Declaration referred to is not an international treaty and imposes no
legal obligation whatever. It is a statement of intention in hypothetical
circumstances: namely, that the 25 Governments would discuss the matter if
four-fifths of EU States did not ratifiy the Treaty. But that does not
amount to a requirement that they should go ahead with their own
ratifications while ignoring No votes in some countries, contrary to what
Mr Staunton and his Edinburgh Politics Professor imply. That would be a
political decision, a decision by politicians to ignore a people's vote. It
would be quite typical of the arrogant EU-elite, but let us not pretend
that it would have some mandatory legal force behind it.


It is surprising that such an experienced correspondent as the Irish
Times's Denis Staunton does not seem to know the difference between a
Declaration attached to a Treaty, which is a political statement but not
legally binding, and a Treaty's substantive Articles and Protocols, which
are. If Mr Staunton had enquired a little harder he might have found
someone properly qualified in international law who would have been be able
to tell him what was in the EU Constitution and what was not, and who could
explain the legal/political weight that attaches to political Delarations
annexed to treaties.


One suspects that Mr Staunton is merely echoing and seeking to drum up
support for the policy line now being pushed by the eurocrats of the EU
Commission and by the many eurofanatics and eurobullies across the EU who
want to ignore a possible No vote by the people of either France or Holland
in their referendums, so as to keep their precious EU Constitution project
on the road, from which they stand to gain much personally themselves.


This is playing politics and making EU propaganda, not good journalism.
It us unfortunate that so many European correspondents who "go native" in
Brussels seem unable to tell the difference.


Signed: Anthony Coughlan