Madam, - Contrary to what Ruairí Quinn TD states (April 18th), the proposed EU Constitution would abolish some 70 national vetoes and transfer the relevant policy powers or decisions to the EU and its institutions.
Nearly 40 of these would enable the EU to lay down laws or take decisions by majority vote on matters that do not fall within its competence at present.
They include electing the proposed new EU President and Minister for Foreign Affairs, adopting and implementing decisions in foreign policy, creating an EU diplomatic service, establishing military subgroups of EU states, defining cross-border criminal offences and sanctions, adopting public health, incentive measures and laying down EU laws in relation to space, energy, tourism, sport, public service training and intellectual property rights.
The remaining 30 or so national vetoes which the Constitution would abolish refer to matters where laws or decisions that, at present, require unanimity would be taken by majority vote.
Ruairí Quinn is being disingenuous when he says that these are not extra powers given to the EU.
The existence of a unanimity requirement means that national parliaments, governments and citizens can decide whether they wish to be bound by EU laws in the area concerned or not. Once unanimity is replaced by majority voting, member-states lose their veto and countries and their citizens may find themselves having to obey willy-nilly laws they have opposed and which may be unsuited to their circumstances.
For example, majority voting instead of unanimity would facilitate the EU in deciding the boundary between public and private services, which is relevant to privatisation policy, and exercising much wider powers than at present in relation to civil law matters, increasing the powers of Europol and Eurojust, adopting incentive measures as regards cultural policy, etc.
Ruairí Quinn persists in trying to make out that national parliaments get increased power in relation to EU law-making under the Constitution when this is just not so. National parliaments have to be informed of proposed EU laws and if one-third of them state formally that they regard the laws as going too far, the proposals must be reviewed, after which they may be dropped, amended or continued with. The Commission and Council retain full control. National parliaments may complain, but they do not get extra power.
Mr Quinn is deluding himself if he thinks the EU Constitution is a defence against globalisation rather than a charter for globalisation in the European area. Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the Union and the rest of the world. Under the heading "Economic Policy", Article III-178 lays down that "the Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources."
People may consider such provisions good or bad, but it baffles me how Ruairí Quinn can make out that they would help "to civilise globalisation by a worldwide projection of European values". - Yours, etc.,
ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 3.