Madam, – Claire O’Donoghue (July 11th) is mistaken in her description of Art.352 as one of the “myriad anti-democratic provisions of the Lisbon Treaty”.
This revised article is an amended form of the existing Article 308 which already provides a basis for the adoption of measures necessary to attain one of the EU’s agreed objectives where the treaties do not provide a clear legal base. At present such measures have to be approved unanimously by national governments.
In recent years Article 308 has been used to enable Europe contribute (€30 million annually) to the International Fund for Ireland, to establish the Vienna-based European Agency for Fundamental Rights, and to freeze funds belonging to persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia. It is also used to provide EU support for town-twinning schemes.
Similar measures could be agreed by unanimity under the revised article but the Lisbon Treaty proposes four important reforms in its use which make for greater transparency and accountability. Firstly, the commission must draw Dáil Éireann’s attention to all proposals based on this article. If the Dáil and other national parliaments feel the proposal impinges on subsidiarity they could use the new subsidiarity protocol set out in the Lisbon Treaty to activate a full review of the measure.
Secondly, MEPs would acquire a veto over all proposals based on this article.
Thirdly, it could not be used as a backdoor to harmonise member-states’ laws where the treaties exclude such harmonisation (eg in education).
And fourthly, it could not be used in relation to the common foreign and security policy.
Contrary to Ms O’Donoghue’s concerns, this is a practical example of how the Lisbon Treaty gives a greater role in European decisions to directly elected representatives at national and at European level and better defines what Europe can and cannot do. – Yours, etc,