The Treaty of Nice will form the basis on which the institutions of the European Union will function in the next decade.
In "Eurospeak" this is called "Deepening the Union". Ireland has a right to say No to these proposals. In saying No to Nice we are saying No to unacceptable proposals for the functioning of the EU. We are not saying No to new members or to enlargement, which is called "widening the Union". Regardless of the outcome of the Nice Treaty, each new member will agree an accession treaty with the EU. In its structure the EU is closest to a federation of nation-states. Each state is entitled to equality and parity of esteem, irrespective of its size or economic importance. The automatic right to have a Commissioner is vital. Ireland, because of its small representation in the European Parliament and its tiny voting strength in the Council of Ministers, would be much more adversely affected than larger member-states if it were to give up this right. Not only would Ireland have lost the automatic right to a Commissioner, but when it is our turn to have one, he or she will be chosen by the President of the Commission, not our own Government. EU Commissioners currently hold a number of portfolios which are too complex for them to take effective responsibility for. This has led in the past to charges of incompetence in dealing with fraud. Increasing the number of Commissioners does not adversely affect function; the reverse is the case. The Nice Treaty allows a core group of member-states to form an elite inner circle using the institutions of the EU. They have hijacked the EU institutions and this will mean not only that the more powerful states will make the real decisions but also that some states will become second-class members in not being allowed any real participation in some aspects of the Community. The applicant countries of Eastern Europe will be offered a second-class membership in such a two-tier Europe. EU laws are normally in the form of Directives which are proposed by the European Commission after wide consultation. They are amended by the European Parliament and agreed by the Council of Ministers. They are then implemented into member-state law allowing for national differences and after discussion and debate in the national parliaments.
Currently the role of national parliaments within this system has become confused. While the European Parliament has be come adept at making the Commission accountable by scrutinising EU legislation, problems arise with the accountability of the Council of Ministers. In theory it is accountable to member-state parliaments but in practice most of them are simply informed after the event of the position taken by their ministers in agreeing particular legislation.
An important plank of accountability is therefore lost and this is compounded by the secrecy with which the Council operates. In order to have accountability people need to know what is happening. This requires openness and access to both documents and records of decisions, particularly by the member-state governments in Council. The Council's unreasonable secrecy makes this impossible.
This was recently compounded by an attempt to have all EU documents relating to NATO classified, even those referring to NATO documents. The reluctance to make rational changes that would make the Council of Ministers more ac countable is dangerous and eroding much support for the EU.
In a few instances EU law is made by a draconian instrument called a regulation, which is akin to a decree, imposed on member-states without debate in the national parliaments.
They are inflexible, which means they are imposed without regard to local or national conditions. There has been a worrying increase in the number of regulations. The most recent ex ample is a regulation on the liberalisation of telecommunications networks to which the Irish Minister, Mary O'Rourke, was opposed, yet the regulation went ahead. It is a matter for concern whether ministers really have a grip of the decisions they are agreeing to in Brussels, given their responsibilities at home. Such is the density and complexity of much legislation that it is in practice agreed by the Minister's permanent representative in Brussels. What exactly happened in the question of the regulation on matrimonial matters which was raised by former Attorney General John Rogers? What are the economic implications for families who could have expected to be generously treated under Ireland's divorce law but who might now have to accept the much more limited provision under, for example, UK law? Statements last week from Brussels and Paris on EU taxation policy have raised controversy. There is a logical case to be made that there should be no interference in tax policy with out full equality of representation and indeed a commitment to social welfare transfers between member-states. This would be unthinkable to most of the richer member-states. The EU, which brought former enemies together for peaceful co-operation, is now being militarised. This is a frightening prospect. European Commissioner Loyola de Palacio is aggressively promoting nuclear technology as the answer to climate change. Renewed impetus to nuclear technology and even a nuclear arms industry in Europe should be unthinkable. The evidence is that it is not.
The kind of late-night dealing in smoke-filled rooms that finalised the Treaty of Nice was the unacceptable face of the EU and is not worthy of a Union of 350 million people. Nice was frankly a shambles, with the outcome for Ireland that we lose our automatic right to a Commissioner. In Nice the conflict and the disarray became so apparent that a new inter-governmental conference was agreed. Tomorrow: Prof Rory O'Donnell of UCD argues for the Treaty of Nice, while Caoimhghin O Caolain TD (Sinn Fein) argues against