Madam, - Richard Greene of Cóir (Opinion, May 26th) makes the extraordinary claim that declaration 17 to the Lisbon Treaty states that EC law can overrule Irish law and the Constitution.
It states no such thing. It refers to the existing case law on the primacy of EC law over national law and, as every law student knows, EC law was held to have primacy by the European Court in the Costa/ENEL case in 1964. The declaration does not make any statement on the relationship between EU law and the constitutions of member-states.
Mr Greene also claims that Lisbon could be used to provide a
right to abortion in Ireland. This is also incorrect as Lisbon
affirms that Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution on the right
to life shall not be affected. - Yours, etc,
DAVID GEARY,
Head of EU, Competition & Regulatory Law,
Eugene F Collins,
Solicitors,
Dublin 4.
Madam, - Brian Cowen's call on Fine Gael and Labour to intensify their campaign for a Yes vote is laughable. Is this not the same man who, as minister for foreign affairs, could not convince one of his own ministerial colleagues to vote for the Nice Treaty which he negotiated?
If Mr Cowen wants to offer advice to other parties, perhaps he should ask his coalition partners, the Green Party, to get out on the campaign trail. The Greens as a party are not campaigning at all, though many of their members are campaigning for both sides! He could also look to some of the pro-Government independents who are campaigning for a No vote.
The Taoiseach's attack on the opposition parties will make it
even harder for us to convince opposition and independent voters to
support the treaty. If Lisbon is defeated, Mr Cowen will not have
to travel too far from the mirror to look for someone to blame. -
Yours, etc,
LEO VARADKAR TD,
Leinster House,
Dublin 2.
Madam, - My thought on reading Richard Greene's letter of May 21st was: why would Cóir hide its name in tiny letters on its very "imaginative and eye-catching" posters if it was not to separate the message from the messenger?
But I was surprised, on travelling around my area, to see that many politicians are doing exactly the opposite with large images of Mary Lou McDonald (No), Eoin Ryan (Yes), Lucinda Creighton (Yes), Gay Mitchell (Yes) and Paddy McCartan (Yes) plastered on lampposts.
Is this relating the message to the messenger or just self-promotion in advance of next year's European and local elections?
However, the prize has to go to the Labour councillors Kevin Humphreys, Dermot Lacey and Oisin Quinn, who have their local election posters up a year early with a very small "Yes" message hidden in the top left corner.
I will be voting Yes in June, but this blatant abuse of the
Reform Treaty campaign will get a firm No in June 2009. - Yours,
etc,
COLM MacCARVILL,
Bellevue Park Avenue,
Dublin 4.
Madam, - As we move close to resolving the current dichotomy in public opinion between those who advocate voting Yes or No in the forthcoming referendum, many people must be asking themselves: Is the EU Reform Treaty a necessary fudge? A large majority of the electorate acknowledges ignorance of the treaty's objectives, yet nearly half the electorate has indicated little or no interest in voting in the referendum.
Against that background, raising that question would be understandable.
Readers who have not closely followed the exchanges on the subject may regard use of the word "fudge" as an inappropriately flippant approach to a subject of the highest national importance. On the contrary, the word is deliberately chosen to get out of the way the fact that former French President Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde the treaty was a stratagem to circumvent the rejection of the proposed EU Constitution by the electorates of France and Holland. The most remarkable aspect of his statement was that it did not bring the French, Dutch and others back on to the streets against the present treaty, which now relies solely on the Irish electorate for its ratification.
Therefore, given the widespread indifference to an unconcealed fudge, the question narrows to the "necessary" aspect of the treaty.
According to the information booklet EU Reform Treaty distributed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, "the stated purpose of the Reform Treaty is to enhance the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union".
No doubt this is a worthwhile purpose, but nothing has happened since the last enlargement of the EU and since the rejection of the proposed constitution to suggest that the Union will fail to continue going about its normal business without ratification of the treaty by Ireland. Measured against that yardstick, ratification of the treaty can be considered desirable but not necessarily essential.
However, there are other and more compelling yardsticks which need to be taken into consideration but which have not yet featured in widespread serious and open debate and analyses. Because of the rapid economic, social, population and environmental changes which have taken place throughout much of the world since the middle of the last century, supplies of essential natural resources such as oil, gas and food are already failing to cater for global demand.
In parallel, former Communist regimes such as Russia and China are transforming themselves into powerful, ruthless autocracies and the US, profligate and equally ruthless, has had to come to terms with its heavy dependence on foreign and unstable sources of oil. Other major players which will maintain substantial demands on scarce natural resources include India, Japan and Brazil. All these major players will compete for their own sources of essential supplies in a global marketplace that is unlikely to continue operating under conventional democratic rules, practices and forces.
On its own, Ireland will have little weight in such a market. The EU, on the other hand, has the necessary critical mass to compete effectively on behalf of its member countries in that market. This is the stark reality against which the necessity for ratifying the treaty has to be measured. By this yardstick, it is absolutely necessary for Ireland to restate its full commitment to EU membership by ensuring the treaty is ratified on June 12th.
To that end, farmers' reservations should be speedily addressed. If it is the case, as has been indicated, that the Mandelson position on the WTO negotiations would achieve macro-economic benefits for the EU at the expense of losses to the agriculture sector, it is within the wits of the Irish Government to balance those losses by appropriate concessions. Irish farmers fed the nation during the second World War and they could be called upon to do so again.
The eurosceptics and the compulsive nay-sayers among us could be invited to raise their reservations on the treaty during the remaining pre-referendum days with a politically neutral body such as the National Forum on Europe.
It may well be the case that they can highlight internal
inconsistencies between the many cross-references in the current
document to earlier treaty documents which others may have missed
and which could undermine Ireland's position on important issues
such as corporation tax, QMV and so on. Equally, where they are
seen to be propagating downright lies, these should be exposed and
vigorously countered. - Yours, etc,
GJ HEGARTY,
Burlington Road,
Dublin 4.
Madam, - Poor Brian Cowen is to be pitied, having to put up with those f***ers in opposition.
They interrupt him when he is speaking. They won't sit down when
they are told. They won't shut up when they are told. To cap it
all, they won't go out and canvass when they are told. - Yours,
etc,
A. LEAVY,
Shielmartin Drive,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Madam, - I see posters that tell me to vote No to Lisbon because people died for my freedom. I respect the courage and vision of the women and men of 1916. Their proclamation was of its time, a direct and stirring call to arms.
The Lisbon Treaty is not a direct and stirring document born of conflict. There is nothing to kill or die for. It is the kind of complex, technical and imperfect document that comes from the give and take of building a consensus that 500 million people can live with.
A more united, more effective Europe seems to me the best hope that we can live and work to expand our freedoms. From the GPO to the present day there has been enough of dying and killing for causes in Europe.
I would rather have life with compromise than death for dogma. I
will vote Yes. - Yours, etc,
MARTIN CORMICAN,
Tonroe,
Oranmore,
Co Galway.
Madam, - One day in 1932 on Bray seafront, on the way home from school, my father (then aged 7) punched Garret FitzGerald (then also aged 7) on the ear, because FitzGerald was annoying him and telling him what to do. They had to be separated by FitzGerald's nanny, Miss Cuddy.
Having read Dr FitzGerald's latest column warning that the sky will fall after a No vote, I find myself strangely overcome by a similar urge.
Heredity, or just common sense? - Yours, etc,
Dr DAVID HONAN,
Newbawn,
Co Wexford.