Madam, - I would urge some of the leading lights in the pro-Lisbon Treaty camp to refrain from claiming that a No vote would make us a "European pariah" (Garret FitzGerald), or that to vote No makes one "anti- European" (Brian Cowen). Soundbites like this will only serve to diminish the Yes campaign in the eyes of those who do not wish to be told how to vote.
It is vital in this time of confusion that reforms such as the
Citizens' Initiative, the incorporation of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and the strengthening of action in areas such as
climate change and conflict resolution are amplified. These are the
sort of factors which will see this great treaty passed, as opposed
to the negative words of the former and current Taoiseach. - Is
mise,
PATRICK CARROLL,
Glendown Park,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Madam, - The Sinn Féin propaganda document An Alternative Guide to the Lisbon Treaty" is just that - an alternative to the true version. Every possible negative is enhanced and then further exaggerated. Despite the fact that the Civil, Public and Services Union and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have come out in favour of the treaty, the Sinn Féin alternative document says that Lisbon "seriously undermines workers' rights and public services".
It is ironic that Sinn Féin campaigners claim the role of protectors of a Constitution they refuse to recognise (Bunreacht na hÉireann) as in, for example, the following quote from the party's false claims about the imposition of a common EU defence: "The Triple Lock [ requires] a UN authorisation and the consent of the Government and Leinster House". Do they not recognise the Oireachtas, the houses of parliament provided for by the people in the very Constitution Sinn Féin claims to be defending? They say: "The Lisbon Treaty will actively undermine the EU´s stated objective of tackling developing world poverty and global inequality". Concern´s position on this, as set out in its submission to the Forum on Europe, is that "the treaty confirms the principle that all EU policies having an impact on developing countries must be coherent with the Union´s development policies and their implementation". They conclude that this coherence clause is of greatest importance.
As the only Irish MEP who is a full member of the parliament's
development committee I strongly support Concern's assertion. Would
it be too much to ask Sinn Féin to put the interests of the
world's poorest people before its own political needs? - Yours,
etc,
GAY MITCHELL MEP,
Fine Gael Campaign Director,
Lisbon Treaty Referendum,
Upper Mount Street,
Dublin 2.
Madam, - Hazel Nolan of the Labour Youth National Executive (May 24th) accuses Finian McGrath TD of not getting his facts right.
The Irish Times's Referendum Digest published on May 16th reported that members of the Labour Party's youth wing have set up a website outlining their opposition to the Lisbon treaty. Their youth officer for Dublin Mid-West was quoted as saying that a "sizeable proportion" of members in its youth wing are against the treaty.
Perhaps the Labour Youth national executive should concentrate
first on getting its own house in order, never mind the facts on
the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
FINTAN CASSIDY,
Annadale Crescent,
Marino,
Dublin 9.
Madam, - We really owe a debt of gratitude to Myles Kelleher
(May 24th) for his succinct summing up of the No campaign. He does
not know what the treaty is about. He has not read it. He does not
understand it, nor does he want to. But he is going to vote No. I
think that says it all. - Yours, etc,
DAVID ROBBIE,
Seafield Crescent,
Booterstown,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - John Walsh (May 24th) refers to Chapter 1 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and its protection of the right to
life. Perhaps he could explain how this ties in with the fact that
all but three EU countries have legalised abortion and that the EU
through various committees is constantly pushing for its
introduction in Ireland. This so-called protection of the right to
life certainly gives Richard Greene and all those interested in the
true protection of human dignity a sound basis for voting against
any further investing of power in the European Parliament. - Yours,
etc,
Mrs MARY STEWART,
Ardeskin,
Donegal Town.
Madam, - Libertas, Ulick McEvaddy and friends loudly proclaim that the Treaty of Lisbon is unreadable "drivel". Now, Charlie McCreevy, who should know better, glories in his own ignorance and panders to the dumbed-down.
Let us be clear. The text of the Lisbon Treaty is a set of changes. The changes refer to two existing treaties. Those treaties are: the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC, the Treaty of Rome, 1957); and the Treaty on European Union (TEU, the Treaty of Maastricht, 1993). The changes set out in the Treaty of Lisbon do not themselves read as a continuous narrative. They must be applied to the treaties of Rome and Maastricht.
When they are applied, we get the "consolidated text" - the effective content of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the process, the TEU is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The consolidated text is an admirably clear and readable document. Use Google to search for "Lisbon" and "Consolidated Text" and you get at least 10 hits, and the document to download.
There endeth the "mystery", if not the drivel. Can we, please,
cut out the disinformation? - Yours etc,
CONOR SEXTON,
Castleside Drive,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - Tony Brown (May 23rd) praises "the benign concept of EU citizenship", but it should never be forgotten that the rights of a citizen are invariably accompanied by duties. This linkage is, in fact, clearly expressed both in the present EU treaties and in the Lisbon Treaty: "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties".
However, while the Lisbon Treaty elaborates on the rights, it remains silent on the duties. Unlike, for example, the Irish Constitution, which plainly states that "fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens".
Figuratively speaking, we know that there are now two boxes. The first, labelled "Your Rights", is already pretty full - some would say too full - and its contents are actively advertised. But the contents of the second, "Your Duties", are still a mystery.
Even if that box is empty now, which we do not know, it will certainly have to be filled in the future. No doubt the European Court of Justice, with its penchant for the purposive interpretation of the EU treaties and laws, will assist in that process.
It is often said that there is no such thing as a free lunch,
and that remains the case even if there are no prices printed in
the menu. - Yours, etc,
Dr D.R. COOPER,
Maidenhead,
Berkshire,
England.
Madam, - Ireland's positive approach to Europe has stood us in good stead over the past 35 years. If we now cease to be positive about the structural changes required to facilitate the smoother running of an enlarged European Union, we will be delaying and putting at risk the future progress of the EU and even more so of Ireland.
The faltering state of our economy resulting from the global credit crunch, falling property prices, growing lack of competitiveness, deteriorating public finances, rising unemployment and a public sector crying out for reform is no background for us to take a leap into the dark with a No vote.
There are the usual scare stories emanating from the No side, such as the effects on our neutrality and our corporation tax. However, the real scare story is the impact of a No vote on the delicate balance of the economy acting, as it would, as a dampener to inward investment, export growth and jobs. There will be surprise and dismay in Europe to see rejection coming from one of the EU's major beneficiaries.
To vote No is to shoot ourselves in the foot. A resounding Yes
vote is what the country needs to remain at the heart of Europe. -
Yours, etc,
DAVID JOHN DILLON,
Carysfort Avenue,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - I believe there are four straightforward reasons for voting No in the forthcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum:
1. The treaty is unnecessary. The EU is functioning as well as it has ever done, notwithstanding EU expansion, as previously agreed arrangements are working satisfactorily.
2. The treaty is undesirable. The expansion in qualified majority voting will increase the risk that EU laws will be enacted and implemented against the wishes of the Irish people. This is an unacceptable diminution of our national sovereignty.
3. The treaty is essentially the same as the constitutional treaty that was rejected by the electorates of both France and the Netherlands, even if the trappings of constitutionalism, such as the EU flag and anthem, have been removed. The removal of these trappings is a minor change, as the EU flag and anthem already exist in practice.
4. A rejection of the Lisbon Treaty will simply ensure that the
status quo continues. No plan B is needed and the EU will continue
to function as well as it has ever done. - Yours, etc,
Dr L.F. LACEY,
South Strand,
Co Dublin