Head2Head: YESsays Kathy Sinnott, who maintains the EU has acquired powers that voters could not have imagined when Ireland joined NOsays Éamonn Gallagher, who argues that over 50 years the EU has taken gradual steps to develop politically the European project
When considering this question, I would like you to cast your mind back to the 1972 referendum on whether Ireland should join the European Economic Community (EEC) as the European institutions were then known. The debate centred on the economic benefits of our joining. There would be large subsidies from the European funds and we would have a very large market opened to us. The opposing side did not argue against the economic benefits, but that we would eventually give up our independence.
Now I would like you to consider the state of the debate on the putative European constitution. The argument in favour is still mostly economic, but it no longer has the evangelical quality of the 1972 position, which at the time persuaded 83 per cent of us to say Yes. In fact the voices in support of a constitution are those of the not-so- confident establishment trying to persuade the doubters to continue down the path past the next bend, where things will improve even though they are just not looking as optimistic as had been hoped for.
This is how it is across Europe when opinions are sought; the "European project" is no longer making the citizens and taxpayers enthusiastic. In fact, the Dutch and the French said "Stop pushing us, we want to think about what you are trying to get us to do".
This is the problem: the citizens no longer feel connected to the project. Democracy has been subsumed by a process and people feel that they are losing their say - and they are right.
How do you influence the European Commission in Brussels, the executive arm of the EU, when it is peopled by distant lifetime career civil servants? If they find the national political process in disagreement with their plans, they have only to wait for a change in personnel and then continue with the original plan in six months or six years if necessary
The German government estimated that 84 per cent of its recent legislation was the result of processing through the Bundestag decisions that had already been made in Brussels. That leaves only 16 per cent of its legal acts that were wanted by the Germans themselves. I think the situation in Ireland is not much different.
As an example of differing agendas, consider corporate taxation in Ireland. It is a big factor in our economic competitiveness. We are told we have nothing to worry about because it is said to be outside the competence of the EU to harmonise taxes across national borders, but we also know that the commission wants to harmonise taxes and we know that the "Passarelle clause" in the proposed constitution will allow them to add competences, not explicitly named at present.
Already, I hear of a campaign warming up to harmonise taxation across the entire EU.
A "purely economic union" would at least use money well. Consider the hit-and-miss nature of EU funds provided for projects the EU is promoting. It often seems to be the case that EU funds are used in projects where our environment suffers.
Last month, an experienced parliament staffer brought a delegation from Malta to meet me. I am vice president of the Petitions Committee and this delegation was hoping to lodge a petition against the development of a proposed waste- recycling facility. They assured me that they were not against recycling but that this proposed facility was inappropriate in size and location and designed in a way that would cause serious pollution.
A big investor arrived with a questionable proposal and structural funding, acquired land and was fast- tracked through the approval system in a most unusual way. I commented that it sounded like what happens in Ireland all the time and that I am working with many Irish groups like theirs, fighting inappropriate projects by wealthy investors. The parliament staffer quipped: "Welcome aboard gentleman, what you are experiencing is EU money."
However, let us go back to the question posed: has the EU gone too far from its roots as a purely economic union? These examples show the democratic deficit in today's EU and how far it is now from the people. But consider something even more telling: Commissioner Verheugen estimates that the administrative cost of complying with EU legislation could be up to €600 billion per annum or €1,310 for every man, woman and child in the EU. Hardly an economic union.
You have only to ask fishermen, farmers and the Irish sugar industry how the new expanded EU is going. Or better yet, wait until after the EU takes away Ireland's low corporate tax rate and ask anyone in the country what they think. Once the noise from the stampede of foreign investments being sucked out of the country dies down, of course.
Kathy Sinnott is an independent MEP for Munster
The first preamble to the Treaty of Rome states the determination of the signatories "to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"; the method being a series of economic and social steps as the means towards the objective.
An "ever closer union" is an overt political ambition but the text of the treaty is otherwise so constructed as to emphasise the economic.
This was the typical Jean Monnet approach first deployed successfully in the European Coal and Steel Community, ie set a strategic target involving a limited delegation of sovereignty and let future actions develop organically.
This method was explicitly described in the Schuman Declaration of 1950, drafted by Monnet: "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
In order to examine the Rome Treaty in greater depth, it is useful to see how the enterprise has developed in the last 50 years. For example:
the European Economic Union became described as the European Community (or Communities) and now European Union. These changes in terminology are a conscious removal of the limiting notion of simply an "economic" identity;
from six member states at the outset, the union has now grown to 27 members with more to come, thus unavoidably obtaining greater political influence;
these new members include former communist states and former dictatorships that have chosen democracy as required by the final preamble that calls upon "the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts";
there are increasing demands from the people that the EU should do more in environmental policy, aid to developing countries, human rights and other areas beyond the economic, especially as the United States has developed different priorities, thus ceding international leadership in these areas to the EU;
development has continued through treaty changes, eg the Single Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, and continues with the ongoing debate about a constitutional or institutional treaty that could profoundly change the nature of the European construct. This point is fundamental to an assessment of its future wellbeing.
Much of the commentary favouring ratification of the draft constitutional treaty, or something resembling it, rests on a claimed objective to increase efficiency - as well as a belief that the institutional proposals will achieve this. This is a different objective to that declared by the heads of state and government at Laeken in 2001, ie that "the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".
They agreed that "citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically controlled community approach . . ." and declared that "the European project . . . derives its legitimacy from democratic, transparent and efficient institutions". Such phrases are political and are not far removed from Monnet's aphorism: "We are uniting people, not forming a coalition of states."
However, what is offered for ratification is a draft treaty that replaces the heads of state and government, democratically elected in their own countries, as European Council presidents by a long- term appointee and that replaces the foreign ministers as presidents of the Foreign Affairs Council in its foreign affairs configuration by a long-term union foreign minister. This neither improves democratic control of the union nor increases its transparency.
Just as seriously, a revolving one-third of the member states would, for each future commission, have no say in the appointment of its members. Adding braces and belts, the union foreign minister is placed in the commission as a vice-president, with responsibility within it for external relations and for co-ordinating other aspects of the union's external action; the rest of the commission largely becomes a bystander in regard to these functions.
These proposals cannot survive in their present form given the French and Dutch rejections of the draft treaty at referendum, thus forcing a rethink without, as yet, clear results. Of the 18 member states that have ratified, only Spain and Luxembourg consulted their citizens at referendum.
The Irish experience of the EEC has widely been seen as matters of agricultural gain, retaining taxation as a national competence and robust claims on available funds. These priorities can hardly continue to remain so central to Ireland now that it is one of the union's wealthier countries. Currently, they risk obscuring other more important long-term interests - the external policies of the union and its internal political health.
Some larger member states, under this guise of pursuing increased efficiency, wish to substitute inter-governmentalism for the community method which has worked well for 50 years, thus making it easier to ignore legitimate interests of smaller member states. The union is also made less democratic and more opaque by placing in key positions long-term appointees instead of democratically elected leaders.
Whatever its merits or demerits, this is patently a political agenda.
Éamonn Gallagher is a former director general at the European Commission and former EEC ambassador to the United Nations in New York
Last week we asked "Is the HSE working better than the old health boards?" Because of evidence of some organised voting against the HSE, we have not published final poll figures. Here is an edited selection of your comments, all of which were critical of the HSE.
The structure of the debate as presented by The Irish Times is symptomatic of the problem: no one speaks for the patient. We have two special-interest groups, each trying to wrest advantage from the other. The patient is just a side-show . . . To get decent healthcare, one thing is essential - you have to take control away from politicians and their appointees. You can see this in the German healthcare system, where politicians and civil servants have no role. In practice, this means abolishing the HSE and putting control where it belongs, at the operational level.
Hospitals have to be self-governing. Politicians and civil servants have to keep out of service provision. The way to achieve this is universal health insurance. Only when hospitals earn their money from directly treating patients, rather than as grants from a central authority, will an efficient and patient-centred system be put in place. The HSE is a huge part of the problem - away with it. - Norman Stewart, Ireland
I work as a nurse and a union organiser, both part-time. I know that that in excess of 75 per cent of all staff in the HSE give of their best in the front-line, doing sterling work. These staff are being slowly ground out of existence while debates like this continue.
I also know that many of the remainder are bringing the health services to its knees through their incompetent and under- scrutinised actions. These are the so-called experts who only had to apply and were given jobs for life. Kevin Callinan put a gun to the Taoiseach's head, shouted "bang" and retained these jobs for his members who then had a field day. They went on to promote themselves and, where this was not possible, they merely side-stepped this minor inconvenience by awarding themselves increases in salary . . .
Appalling decisions are being made on behalf of patients by people who have neither ability nor expertise and what galls me is that this is not only tolerated but worse still is actually accepted as wholly appropriate . . . Healthcare comes at a premium but those who are charged with its delivery should be held accountable and not merely handed jobs for life without accountability. This is the greatest cancer of our day in the newly formed HSE and we can only ignore it at our peril. - Séamus Bourke, Co Mayo.
When the HSE was established, we in the services had great hopes that funding of individual services would be re-examined with a view to ensuring those efficient services who were historically underfunded would be placed on an even playing field with all others. Instead we get a move to delegate responsibility and accountability to hospital management yet a centralisation of decision making, ongoing funding deficits and inequities in funding allocation. There continues to be a consistent lack of clarity and role/responsibility definition. - Richard Walsh, Ireland
I can't talk about the old health boards as I live here only since 2004, but I do think that there is a lack of resources that need to be tackled soon. My experience is that my wife is pregnant and we found the waiting time to see the obstetrician quite excessive, so we went to look for a private doctor to follow her and after 15 tries we gave up as all of them refused due to being fully booked. I just can conclude that we need more medical human resources here. - Flavio, Ireland
I may not be in the know as far as running the HSE is concerned, but I have to say as a member of the public, all my experiences with the new regime have been very negative. The HSE reminds me of the arrogant time-and-motion types that were taken on by companies in the late 1990s to shave jobs and produce spin to make companies attractive for takeover. I may be wrong but it seems that the expression too many chiefs and not enough indians may apply if we have a system that keeps going on about beds and does not seem to consider that we need well-qualified staff on the ground to back these up. When you see money being raised through donations and charities to supply equipment that then lies in a corner unused, there really needs to be a rethink of how things are run by the HSE. - Ann Marie, Dublin
While Prof Drumm continues to repeat the mantra about supposed improvements in services, he appears to have totally forgotten about areas such as mental health which are again being pushed to the background in the rush to fix problems in A & E and acute hospital capacity. - Colm, Ireland
Series edited by Fintan O'Toole