Madam, - Mr Charlie McCreevy has been appointed an EU Commissioner, yet he states (The Irish Times, January 13th) that he intends to play an active part on behalf of the Yes campaign in the referendum on the proposed EU Constitution.
While Mr McCreevy, like any civil servant, will have a vote in the referendum as an Irish citizen, is it really appropriate for him as a supranational public official to campaign in such a fashion?
Is it compatible with a proper appreciation of his role as an EU Commissioner?
EU Commissioners take an oath to put the EU's interests before any national interest when they take up their jobs. Whether Commissioners are Irish, Italian or Danish does not mean they are there to work for Ireland, Italy or Denmark.
They may like to think that expanding the EU's power and functions is identical with their own country's interests, but it is not necessarily so.
The EU Commission has no role in the ratification of EU treaties, which are exclusively a matter for the member-states. Yet the Commission, which has the exclusive right to propose European laws, is very much an interested party. It will gain a great increase in its own powers at the expense of national parliaments, member-states and their citizens if the proposed EU Constitution is ratified and a further 60 or so national vetoes are abolished.
As an EU Commissioner Mr McCreevy is paid a substantial salary for his services in implementing the existing EC/EU treaties, but surely not to campaign for the ratification of new ones? If he can devote time and resources that should be spent on Commission business to political campaigning in the Irish referendum, what is to stop other Commissioners from doing the same?
If the principle of Commission interference of this kind is accepted as regards Mr McCreevy or his colleagues, what is to prevent the Commission using its huge financial and personnel resources to interfere in a one-sided fashion in the Irish and other member-state referendums, against the principles of constitutional fairness in referendums laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1995 McKenna case, and quite possibly in violation of European law as well?
In 1998 it took the threat of legal action by a local citizen to prevent the European Commission Office in Dublin from disseminating large amounts of one-sided pamphlets in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum under the guise of providing objective information on that treaty. The Commission may have such an information function after a treaty is ratified, but surely not before. Should not the Irish people be permitted to make up their minds on the EU Constitution without outside intervention of any kind from the EU Commission or its Commissioners, even such an estimable one as Mr McCreevy?
As the decent man he is reputed to be, he should surely think again. - Yours, etc.,
ANTHONY COUGHLAN, Secretary, The National Platform, EU Research and Information Centre, Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9.