ANTHONY COUGHLAN,
Sir, - EU Commissioner David Byrne complained at the National Forum on Europe recently about alleged misinformation being put out by the No side in last year's Nice Treaty referendum (The Irish Times, March 22nd).
One wonders whether Commissioner Byrne and those who agree with him believe that the objective of encouraging an informed citizenry has been advanced by the Government's decision to remove from the Referendum Commission the function of setting out the Yes side and No side arguments in future Irish referendums. This was done by an amendment to the Referendum Act which was pushed through all stages of the Oireachtas in one day last December, with only one day's notice. It was on the eve of the Dáil rising for the Christmas holidays, when there was likely to be minimal attention paid to it by the media or the public.
Whatever criticisms one might make of the Referendum's Commission's advertising in the Nice and earlier referendums, at least its information on the Yes and No arguments had to be related to the constitutional amendment proposed, and reflect genuine differences of judgment as to its consequences. The commission's advertisements, which were paid for by public funds, could not bring in irrelevant matter, invent facts, use scare stories and unrealistic promises, or urge a vote for one side because such-and-such an interest or so-and-so was on the other.
There are no such constraints on the private advertising that will henceforth have a free field on such occasions. Is this really an advance for Irish democracy and for encouraging an informed and politically educated public? Is not this change, made by stealth in our referendum law pre-Christmas, truly a democratic outrage?
In assessing Commissioner Byrne's remarks, one should bear in mind that the EU Commission has a significant vested interest in the ratification of the Nice Treaty. Nice's abolition of the national veto in some 30 policy areas means that the Commission becomes the sole proposer of EU laws in those areas, which obviously increases its power. Other Nice Treaty proposals have the effect of moving the Commission towards becoming an embryonic EU Government.
These include Nice's provision removing from national governments and prime ministers the final say in deciding who will be their national Commissioner. Under Nice this is to be done by majority Council of Ministers' vote, rather than unanimously. Governments also lose their veto on the appointment of the Commission President, who will henceforth be able to shuffle and reshuffle Commissioners after appointment, much as a national prime minister can shuffle a cabinet.
This replacement of unanimity by qualified majority vote will have the effect, if Nice is ratified, of ensuring that both the President of the Commission and individual national Commissioners must be congenial from the outset to the qualified majority on the Council, which means effectively the EU's big-state members.
Couple these provisions with the Nice Treaty's proposals for a rotating EU Commission in an enlarged EU and the fact that the ultimate size of the Commission is still undecided, and one can see why former senior Irish EU official Eamon Gallagher and lawyer John Temple Lang told the Forum on Europe in a submission that they regarded Article 4 of the Nice Treaty Protocol on Enlargement as "a serious flaw" in the Nice Treaty, and in no way necessary to facilitate EU enlargement. As Mr Gallagher said to the Forum, "If the principle of one member of the Commission per member-state is given up now, you will not get it back later."
This is one reason why "good Europeans" should be pleased that Nice was rejected in Ireland, for it gives the opportunity of deleting this proposal in a revised EU Treaty, before it is too late. - Yours, etc.,
ANTHONY COUGHLAN,
Secretary, National Platform,
Crawford Avenue,
Dublin 9.