Madam, - Anthony Coughlan's letter of March 18th contains some misinterpretations of the EU Constitutional Treaty.
In the first instance, he is wrong to be dismissive of the new powers conferred on national parliaments by the treaty's protocols on national parliaments and subsidiarity (the principle that decisions must be taken as closely to the citizen as possible). These new powers represent significant advances, for in the current situation there is no obligation on member-states or on the Commission even to inform national parliaments about draft EU laws, still less to grant them any role in their enactment.
Mr Coughlan's argument is that all parliaments can do is "request governments to refer" to the Court of Justice any law which is viewed as breaching the principle of subsidiarity and that there is no new power for national parliaments here. Mr Coughlan may wish to look at Article 3 of the protocol on national parliaments which states that "national parliaments may send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion on whether a draft European legislative act complies with the principle of subsidiarity".
Article 7 of the protocol on subsidiarity refutes the argument that national parliaments' opinions will be ignored. On the contrary, it states that the Union's institutions "shall take account of the reasoned opinions issued by national Parliaments or by a chamber of a national Parliament".
After such a review, the Commission, or other European bodies from which the draft legislative act originates, may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft with the proviso that "reasons must be given for this decision". In addition, the Commission has to submit a report every year on the application of subsidiarity. It will be up to national parliaments to decide how best to wield their new influence, but what is clear that there is no way in which the national parliaments can be ignored.
Mr Coughlan draws a distinction between governments referring a breach of subsidiarity to the Court of Justice and parliaments requesting governments to do so.
In the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, Article 8 makes a clear legal distinction between actions brought by member-states acting on their own behalf and actions brought on behalf of their national parliament or a chamber of it. The point is that the protocol gives national parliaments teeth to enforce their rights through the Court of Justice. Furthermore, under the Constitutional Treaty, all national parliaments must be notified individually, and must be given six weeks to respond.
As for Mr Coughlan's view that Europe's leaders would ignore dissenting views of their parliaments, it would be politically untenable for any leader of a country to refuse to recognise the strongly held views of that country's parliament. Certainly, in this country any Taoiseach who did so would pay the price at the doorsteps at election time. There is no surer way to bring Europe closer to the people than to involve national parliaments much more in the EU's debates.
With regard to voting procedures, Mr. Coughlan skims blithely over the fact that every individual national parliament has a veto over a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (the passerelle procedure).
Most misleadingly, he states that parliaments cannot object in this way in relation to certain matters to do with foreign and security policy or the EU budget. But a specific passerelle provision in relation to CFSP differs from the main passerelle provision by requiring unanimity. And the Constitutional Treaty explicitly states that the passerelle procedure cannot apply to decisions with military or defence implications.
Mr Coughlan's interpretation of the proposed population-based voting system as a justification for big-state power fails to recognise the balance of power between large and small states which has existed in the EU since its inception. Realpolitik would suggest that over-representation of the 18 small states that have less than half the population of the EU would not be sustainable in political terms.
He also fails to recognise that since the EU is the outcome of agreements between states, it is a form of dual democracy, indirectly through member-states' politicians at home and in Brussels, directly through our European parliamentarians and now, in a post-Constitution world, through our national parliamentarians as well.
Therefore the Treaty, drafted by a Convention made up of national politicians of 25 states and agreed by their governments, cannot give Mr Coughlan a European super-state - but it can deliver a more accountable Europe.
The concept of democracy as government of the people by the people is, of course, endorsed and also enhanced by the existence of a constitution drawn up by a European Convention of governments and parliamentarians on behalf of its citizens and states of Europe, and subsequently ratified by member-states in accordance with their individual procedures - in our case by referendum. - Yours, etc.,
GARRET FITZGERALD, Dublin 6.