Madam, - I regard it as my civil duty to refute some of the disingenuous claims made by Anthony Coughlan (November 11th) on the EU Constitution.
He makes the misleading claim that none of the national parliaments in member-states had any prior input on the constitution. Yet the laudably representative convention which drew up the constitution included democratically appointed delegations from each national parliament.
Mr Coughlan also reissues his erroneous battle call that the constitutional treaty will establish a federal union and a superior legal system.
The legal debate should be put to bed once and for all. In the areas in which the Union has competence, EU law already takes precedence over national law and has done so since before we joined the EEC. It is largely thanks to the precedence of EU law that much of our antiquated and chauvinistic laws were reformed in the 1970s and 1980s, with equality law being one obvious example.
The notion of the constitution establishing a European federation, regardless of either Mr Coughlan's or the unpopular Guy Verhofstadt's utterances, is grossly flawed. Mr Coughlan clearly has little grasp of the concept of federal democracy. While the member-states agree in the constitution "to confer competences to attain objectives they have in common", these competences fall far short of those even in a confederation, which would be a more accurate slur.
I would challenge Mr Coughlan to name any federation in which the constituent states retain control of foreign policy, taxation, etc.
One hugely positive aspect of the EU Constitution, to which Mr Coughlan draws attention, is that the confusing jumble of treaties and successor treaties will finally be made more coherent. Any attempt to demystify the EU is to be praised, as it is only by making the EU intelligible to all European citizens that they will be properly convinced of the positive and crucial role the Union plays in their lives. - Yours, etc.,
RICHARD MORE
O'FERRALL,
Foxrock,
Dublin 18.