Madam, - Ruairi Quinn's letter of November 16th was interesting both for what it said and what it did not say. It contained a fairly standard conception of the EU as a result of "transfer of competences". It was more interesting in that it did not point out that the body which gets to decide which competences have been transferred is the European Court of Justice. The idea that the judiciary do not interpret provisions beyond all recognition would be touchingly naïve in a first-year law student. It is a little bit frightening in a TD.
To illustrate the difficulty: most people did not believe that abortion was covered in the treaties to date. The European Court of Justice decided otherwise when it said abortion was the provision of a service.
Ireland rushed to derogate from this ruling. It remains to be seen if the reaction would have been so swift had the question touched simply on a minority interest rather than a national concern.
To quote from American legal dramas: Mr. Quinn certainly told the truth but he did not tell the whole truth. . .I had better not bring God into it, had I? - Is mise,
DONAL COFFEY, Washington and Lee Law School, Lexington, Virginia, USA.
Madam, - The letters from Laurence Cleary (November 15th) and other pro-EU Constitution letters before it, including those from Government Ministers, seek to rubbish the advocates of the other side instead of providing thoughtful replies to genuine arguments. I will confine this letter to two simple points that deserve clear and unambiguous replies.
The first is that we need an honest admission that in each successive treaty since the Treaty of Rome, additional powers or competences have been given over to the EU. This latest treaty is no exception. It aims to give the EU supremacy over more than 40 new policy areas, in addition to the 35 areas granted in the 2003 Nice Treaty and the 19 areas in the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty. These facts contradicts Mr Cleary's claim "that most of the sovereignty-robbing provisions have been effective for nearly half-a-century".
If the proposed EU Constitution is implemented, it will be almost impossible to identify any area that will not be subject to direct or indirect intervention from the EU. With its Passerelle provision, European politicians will be free to take over any areas that remain.
Secondly, what kind of EU do we want for the future? A continuation of the present inter-governmental structure, or a developing EU superstate as advocated by France and others? It is obvious from the document itself and from the EU enthusiasts promoting it that the proposed constitution is laying the foundation for the superstate option.
Perhaps we want to be ruled by a EU superstate. If so, we should vote for this constitution. It is not acceptable, however, to have this constitution promoted on the basis that it would not lay the foundations of a EU superstate. - Yours, etc.,
DICK HUMPHREYS, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.
Madam, - The European Union does have primacy over national laws, but only in policy areas where the national member-state Governments of Europe have conferred such a power on the European Union.
For example, the EU does not decide our tax rates. The EU does not decide when Irish troops serve abroad. This is because EU governments have sought to retain power over a variety of policy areas which they feel are of a national interest.
However, the EU does have primacy over national laws in a number of policy sectors.
For example, the citizens of Ireland and of Europe can invoke the EU equality legislation to protect their rights in Irish courts. The EU has been to the forefront in promoting equal pay for equal work legislation and in improving health and safety standards in the workplace. Any citizens of Europe who feel their rights are being discriminated against can enforce those rights under EU legislation in Irish courts.
This is only right and proper. If EU legislation is enacted and agreed by EU Governments, it should be enforced in Irish courts.
The new EU Constitutional Treaty clearly spells out where the different lines of demarcation lie between the powers of the European Union and the powers of individual member-states. - Yours, etc.,
EOIN RYAN, MEP, Vavasour Square, Dublin 4.