The media, which after the failure of the first Nice Treaty referendum were vociferous about the Government's failure to inform public opinion on the modest issues then at stake, are currently themselves failing dismally to keep the public abreast of the much more fundamental issues currently being intensively debated by Europe's politicians at the Brussels Convention; issues on which our electorate will have to vote next year or in 2005, writes Garret FitzGerald
In fairness it has to be said that The Irish Times has published a series of articles arguing the pros and cons of some of the issues under discussion in Brussels, but because of the absence of background information in the media about the continuing work of the Convention, these articles have lacked context.
That is why, for the second time this year, I feel it necessary to fill this regrettable journalistic void, by reporting, necessarily at second hand, on what has been happening at the Convention since I wrote here about its activities on January 11th.
Following intensive discussions both in plenary and in working groups, initial drafts of a majority of the articles of the proposed constitution have now been published by the Presidium, and the remainder will soon be available.
Plenary debates have taken place on the earlier articles, and on proposed amendments to them, more than 1,000 of them on Part I.
The part of the constitution dealing with security and defence has already attracted 800 amendments.
It is too soon to make a judgment on this complex process. Until a redraft emerges taking account of the amendments submitted, we will not know how responsive the Presidium is going to be to the views of members of the convention.
But Part I of the draft, which deals with such matters as union citizenship and fundamental rights, the competences of the Union and its democratic life reads well.
Thus the EU's Charter of Human Rights is to offer new guarantees to citizens vis-à-vis the Union's institutions, and it is proposed that the Union itself become a party to the Strasbourg Convention on Human Rights.
The Union's complex decision-making procedures are to be greatly simplified. A new provision lays down that citizens are to be equal before the Union's institutions, and these institutions are to be required to provide citizens with an opportunity to debate the Union's actions.
Transparency of the institutions is to be required, together with access by citizens to their documents, and there is to be better personal data protection.
And the Union commits itself to respect the status of churches and non-confessional organisations, and to maintain a dialogue with them.
Moreover, national parliaments are to be given a greater role in the evaluation and monitoring of Europol, and in future they are also to be directly notified of all Union legislative proposals at the same time as the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, and are to be given the power to activate an early-warning system if they feel the principle of subsidiarity is violated.
Finally, the suggestion that an attempt would be made to adopt this constitution by something short of unanimity has disappeared.
What is now proposed is that if, two years after the signature by member-states of the treaty to be prepared on the basis of the convention's proposals by an Inter-Governmental Conference that will start work this autumn, it has been ratified by four-fifths of the member-states, but some state or states still have difficulties with ratifying it, the matter will be referred to the European Council.
All these are heartening developments, which illustrate the value of widening European Union policy-making beyond the ranks of ministers and commissioners, so as to include members of opposition parties and of the European Parliament.
But all is not sweetness and light. Some contentious matters are still at issue, of which perhaps the most important is the future balance between the institutions, viz the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, as well as the European Court of Justice.
The larger states all want the existing rotating Presidency of the European Council of heads of government to be replaced by a president to be appointed for a term of five years, or perhaps for 2½ years renewable.
And they want this powerful figure to preside also over the General Affairs Council of Ministers, which has primary responsibility for current EU decision-making.
The smaller states take the view that such an appointment, even if accompanied by elelction of the President of the Commission in future, perhaps by the European Parliament, would seriously undermine the institutional balance of the Union.
This, they feel, could be to the disadvantage of the general European interest, and to the possible detriment of the interests of the smaller states themselves.
The leadership of the smaller states on this crucial matter has been taken by Ireland, whose Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Dick Roche, prepared a draft statement on this and related matters.
This, after intensive discussion among the government representatives of the smaller states, and some Irish redrafting, was adopted by 16 of the existing 25 member-states on March 28th and is currently attracting the interest of five others, which may bring the total to 21 of the 27 members and applicants.
This contribution to the Brussels debate highlights several key general principles:
maintaining and reinforcing the community method of decision-making
preserving the institutional balance
the equality of member-states
openness.
On the basis of these principles it declares that the existing system of rotation of presidencies should be preserved, "in particular in the European Council" as well as in the General Affairs Council, and the Committee of Permanent Representatives (ambassadors to the EU in Brussels).
In respect of the Presidency of the European Council, however, two countries, Denmark and Sweden, expressed a willingness to examine the idea of an elected chair.
In the case of Denmark this reflects the fact that it has from the inception of its membership retained an ideological preference for inter-governmentalism, despite the fact that the interests of smaller countries are clearly best served by the Community Method.
For this method, which involves the independent European Commission exercising an exclusive power of legislative initiative, protects us from larger states using their strength to impose on us Community laws that would favour their interests. It is not clear why Sweden has now joined Denmark on this issue.
This contribution to the debate by the 15 smaller states also endorses the election of future Commission presidents, either by the European Parliament or by the alternative system proposed by Ireland, and now supported by Denmark and Sweden; namely by a joint electoral college comprising the European Parliament and the national parliaments, nominations to be made three to five member-states.
The document goes on to point out that this Irish proposal would increase the role of national parliaments in the work of the Union, where, it says, they should also have an important role in monitoring respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
It seems a pity that Ireland's recent active and constructive role in the Convention is not better known here.