The article by John Rogers (Irish Times, May 19th) on the Nice Treaty is an example of how two people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at two completely different conclusions.
While I agree with many of his criticisms of the way the EU operates, unlike John Rogers I will definitely be saying Yes to Nice. I believe Nice benefits both Ireland and Europe by facilitating enlargement and through the attached Declaration it offers a means whereby the citizens of Europe can actively engage in reforming how the Union works.
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with John Rogers's critique of the limited role played by the Oireachtas in European decision-making. The Oireachtas, and consequently the Irish people, have little or no idea of the positions adopted by Government ministers in Council. There is no obligation on ministers to take any account of the views of the Oireachtas before departing for Brussels.
This weakness results in farcical situations such as the one last year when the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ms de Valera, complained about European legislation "undermining" our culture. She failed to point out that she had missed every single meeting over the previous 18 months of the Culture Council which considers such (supposedly offending but unnamed) legislation.
Where I differ from John Rogers is that this inadequate "marking" of Irish ministers on European business should lead voters to reject Nice. This democratic deficit in Dublin can be remedied by reforming the Oireachtas, not by voting No to Nice. Other countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark have addressed this issue successfully. The Danish parliament's European affairs committee plays a very effective and transparent role in holding its ministers to account on European proposals.
Detailed proposals have been drawn up by the Labour Party and form a major part of our recently published policy statement on Europe, "Good for them, Good for us - the Nice Treaty and Beyond".
Qualified majority voting (QMV), which John Rogers criticises, has been a staple feature of Council decision-making since the Single European Act in 1987, when he was the Irish attorney general. Under QMV, a country sometimes finds itself in a losing minority. However, strenuous efforts are made by all countries, and particularly by the Commission, to ensure as many countries as possible are satisfied. If a minister finds himself or herself isolated, it is more often due to a bad negotiating strategy. Research shows that Germany, the largest member-state, is the one which is most regularly on the losing side on QMV.
From a Labour Party point of view, increasing the areas for qualified majority voting is very much to be welcomed. Last October for example, the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, was alone in threatening to veto new European legislation banning all forms of discrimination at work as this required a unanimous decision within Council under the current rules.
Nice now introduces QMV for some anti-discrimination measures, making it more difficult for conservatives to oppose similar progressive measures in the future. With QMV, we win more often than we lose. Consequently, we have never sought to have any measure "returned" to unanimity from QMV during treaty revision negotiations.
John Rogers also suggests that the reweighting of votes within Council will make it easier for the larger member-states to form blocking minorities. Nice ensures that decision-making in Council continues to be biased in favour of the smaller member-states.
Based on population, Ireland currently has three times as many votes as it should have, whereas Germany has only half. Under Nice, Ireland will have two times as many while Germany will still have only half. Of course, given the size of its population (82 million compared to our 3.8 million), Germany will naturally have more votes than us.
At the moment, the five largest countries have almost 80 per cent of the population but hold only 55 per cent of the votes. In a 27-member EU, 21 will be small states; the six largest will have 70 per cent of the population but only 49 per cent of the votes.
Furthermore, no measure will get through unless it wins the support of a majority of the member-states.
The European Parliament and the Council now share co-decision powers over roughly 70 per cent of all European legislation. The major omission remains agricultural policy. Under co-decision, no measure can take effect unless both institutions agree.
Nice strengthens democratic accountability by bringing 11 further areas under co-decision. Indeed, all of the areas moving to QMV which John Rogers has expressed concern about are coming under co-decision. While an Irish government could be outvoted on these issues in Council, the Council will have to agree its decisions with the European Parliament. Irish voters will therefore have a more direct input into these decisions through their MEPs and the political groups to which they belong.
John Rogers's ultimate rejection of Nice seems to rest on the changes it introduces to the Commission and again I believe he overstates his case.
When the next Commission takes office in 2005, the five larger member-states will each permanently lose one of their two current commissioners, but each member-state will continue to nominate one commissioner until the number of members reaches 27. The EU will then decide, by unanimity, on the size of the Commission.
No country can be excluded permanently from the Commission and the process must treat each member-state equally and fairly and must reflect the geographic and demographic range of all the member-states.
REFORM of the EU has a considerable way to go. This is accepted in Nice, which has a very interesting Declaration attached. In my view, this is one of the most significant and positive aspects of Nice. This Declaration provides for a deeper and wider debate about the future of Europe involving national parliaments, EU institutions, national governments, trade unions, business and civil society.
Such a debate would cover issues such as the division of powers between Ireland and Europe, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (opposed by some No campaigners) and simplification of the EU treaties.
I am an enthusiast for this reform process. The Labour Party has proposed the establishment of a parallel Irish forum on the future of Europe. This would be modelled on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and would be given the task of holding a fundamental debate, over the next few years, on how we want to see Europe evolve. The forum would meet in public, throughout the country, and take submissions from all shades of public opinion. Its work would feed into a proposed convention at European level.
That process, I believe, would be more fruitful and healthy for our political, economic and social well-being than the recriminations that will definitely arise if we reject Nice.
Proinsias De Rossa is an MEP for Dublin and vice-president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament
