EUROPEAN DIARY: As the Convention on the Future of Europe moves into its closing days, most attention will focus on the final shape of its proposals to reform the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Denis Staunton reports
But there are other parts of the draft constitution that cause concern in different parts of the Union and which could become fraught issues during the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) that begins later this year.
For the Government, the most neuralgic policy issues concern tax harmonisation and closer co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. Ireland's member of the convention's praesidium, Mr John Bruton, persuaded his colleagues to drop a proposal that would have abolished the national veto on corporate tax rates.
The Government is concerned, however, about a draft article concerning tax fraud: "When the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, establishes that measures on company taxation relate to administrative cooperation or combating tax fraud, it shall adopt, by a qualified majority, a European law or framework law laying down those measures, provided that they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition."
The Government is determined to remove the reference to "distortions of competition", in case the wording could be used to target Ireland's low rate of corporate tax, which many other EU countries view as unfair competition.
The Government is more relaxed about the draft articles on justice and home affairs, including proposals to improve judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
"Judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union shall be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and shall include the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States," the draft constitution says.
The EU could agree minimum rules concerning the mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States, the definition of the rights of individuals in criminal procedure and rights of victims of crime. All these rules would be decided by qualified majority but if the EU wants to make rules for additional areas of criminal procedure, member-states would have to agree unanimously.
The Government is pleased that its representative at the convention, Mr Dick Roche, tabled a successful amendment stating that the new minimum rules would not prevent any member-state "from maintaining or introducing a higher level of protection for the rights of individuals in criminal procedure".
The EU could set minimum sentences and common definitions for the following "cross-border" crimes: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
"If the approximation of criminal legislation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, a European framework law may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned," the draft constitution says.
Eurojust, a body set up two years ago to co-ordinate the work of judges and prosecutors throughout the EU, would be able to initiate prosecutions and to oblige national authorities to pursue such prosecutions. If all EU member-states agree, a European Public Prosecutor could be appointed "to combat serious crime having a cross-border dimension, as well as illegal activities affecting the interests of the Union".
The Government is uneasy about this proposition, although Ireland will be able to veto any proposal to make the appointment. Some other member-states fear that the proposals on judicial co-operation represent the start of an EU judicial system with harmonized definitions of crimes and minimum sentences.
In a submission to the convention, the Dutch government representative, Gijs de Vries, warned that it may be impossible to limit the scope of harmonisation to cross-border crimes or offences that affect the Union's interests.
"The unintended side effect is that it almost always affects other aspects of criminal law, which has consequences for the national administration of justice. The reason is that each Member State has only one system of criminal law. Harmonisation in respect of certain crimes relevant for the Union therefore by definition must also cover all similar national crimes," he wrote.