Madam, - The phrase "militarisation of the EU" is being thrown around, like snuff at a wake, by scaremongering No campaigners. Left undefined, it has a whiff of gunpowder about it, conjuring up images of body bags and Armageddon. However, to suggest that the Lisbon Treaty is "militarising" the EU insults our intelligence.
"Militarisation" is defined as "the process by which a society organises itself for the production of violence". It encompasses all levels of society.
Militarised societies, with the possible exceptions of North Korea and Israel, belong to the past. Europe - and in particular the jurisdictions of the EU's member-states - has never been less militarised in its history. Defence spending is at an all-time low, conscription is greatly reduced, and the armed forces are organised firmly under civil authority in all 27 member-states of the EU.
Lisbon does have modest military-related provisions, mainly aimed at enhancing the EU's capabilities to conduct peace support and humanitarian operations. To suggest that Lisbon will militarise the EU is an exotic conspiracy theory, like the one claiming the GAA now have enough hurleys to take over the country. - Yours, etc,
Col (retd) DORCHA LEE,
Beaufort Place,
Navan,
Co Meath.
****
Madam, - As someone who was confused and undecided about the Lisbon treaty, I wish to thank Fintan O'Toole for making it crystal clear for me. His column in Tuesday's edition is the first clear and concise information I have received on the treaty in any media forum.
I particularly like his use of simple examples to show how we need to have an independent, non-vested government body ensuring that our native politicians do not sell us down the river in pursuit of their own agendas.
My God, what would this country be like if we had not been part of the EU for all these years? I fear the developers and politicians would be richer, the environment worse off, and the infrastructure non-existent.
All posters, flyers and booklets should now be scrapped and a copy of Mr O'Toole's article should be sent to every person on the island. From being "undecided" to "yes, yes, yes", all it took was one simple, clearly written article. - Yours, etc,
EAMON O'CONNOR,
Kingscourt,
Co Cavan.
****
Madam - Fintan O'Toole says that, in the debate on the Lisbon Treaty, "vital political issues get lost in the endless tedium of structural reform. If we defeat Lisbon, those tedious abstractions will continue to dominate the agenda." So he advises: "Vote Yes, get the damned thing out of the way, and let the real games begin."
There are two problems with his argument. The first is that the majority of the Lisbon Treaty is not about structural reform. Of the document's 271 pages, less than half deal with structural matters. The remainder concern issues such as foreign and defence policy, economic and monetary policy, energy, trade and criminal justice. The detail of these sections will frame the direction of EU policy for the coming decade.
Secondly, while Mr O'Toole may be right to describe the debates on structural reform as tedious, these changes will shape the political process, and thus affect its outcomes, in real and significant ways. Games are shaped by their rules. If the rules are bad, or designed to secure certain outcomes, the game will be affected accordingly.
I agree with Mr O'Toole when he says: "The real fight has always been to achieve social justice." My worry is that if the rules are stacked against us, how can we secure a fair and equitable outcome? - Yours, etc,
EOIN Ó BROIN (Sinn Féin),
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - As an ITGWU-Siptu member since 1957, may I point out that my union president, Jack O'Connor, does not speak for me when he adopts "a euro each way" policy on the referendum? His demand for a Government declaration to implement statutory union negotiating rights, prior to June 12th, as a precondition for our union's Yes vote simply does not wash.
He knows full well that successive taoisigh have already given commitments to Ictu that in the event of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being adopted with the treaty, it will be given legal force. He also knows that Ictu and the European Trade Union Confederation, representing 60 million workers in 36 countries, fully support the treaty and the charter. Jack O'Connor surely knows that thousands of fellow union members have had their social rights greatly enhanced by progressive EU legislation. The €40 billion net Irish receipts from EU budgets since 1973 have provided employment for thousands of our members.
I am dismayed that our union's president should have indulged, in effect, in the cynical No opportunism of Sinn Féin, now embedded in Northern Ireland with the deep Euroscepticism of the DUP. That he should, by default, allow our union to drift into the hysterical pro-lifers' No camp or give comfort to the US-oriented neo-conservatives of Libertas is deplorable. I omit the No campaigns of the designer Trots of various hues because they at least have a class-ridden agenda all of their own.
Jack O'Connor is gravely and rightly concerned about the exploitation of low-paid casual and migrant workers. May I suggest that, rather than demanding statutory state underpinning of union membership, he should heed the admonition of my late father, who worked unceasingly for our union from 1924 to 1974. He said: "Go out and organise the exploited at the workplace; seek no favours from Church or State and the employers will then know the strength of your union's rights.".
Meanwhile, Jack should show some real bottle and advocate a Yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
BARRY DESMOND,
Taney Avenue,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - The Bishop of Cashel declares himself a Europhile and asks people to vote "generously" and not in "protest" in the Lisbon Treaty referendum ( The Irish Times, May 30th).
Precisely what this means appears to rest, I must say, somewhat with the imagination. However, because of this "Europhile" declaration it is important to add, for clarity's sake, that a No vote should not be considered as automatically lacking in any generosity of spirit. Indeed, the Church of Ireland Gazette has sounded a cautious note on Lisbon.
A No vote on June 12th will not necessarily be an anti-EU vote. Rather, a No vote could well be intended as a generous affirmation of the EU just as it is, with its commitment to prosperity, humanitarianism and peaceableness both among our states and in the wider world.
What has been distinctly lacking in generosity in the Lisbon process, however, has been the denial of referendums in other countries. In fact, France's President Sarkozy has commented that the French people would not adopt the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum and, of course, the UK government has reneged on its promise to hold a referendum.
Voters on June 12th will have to decide whether to conserve the communitarian EU we know or to take the Lisbon route towards a federal Europe, beginning immediately with a president and a high representative on foreign and security policy.
The pro-Lisbon lobby refers to a need to make the EU more efficient. However, voters should be aware that the "efficiency" issue is not as simple as it might appear. One person's efficiency can mean another person's lack of participation.
Efficiency, of course, is no bad thing in itself, but the Lisbon proposals come with a price tag that amounts to a reduction in the influence of individual EU countries in the Brussels corridors of power and the considerable further curtailment of each national government's ability to govern as its own citizens wish; efficiency trumps participation.
Why do governments support Lisbon while so many ordinary people don't? Surely the governments know best? However, history points to many occasions when governments and political leaders undoubtedly led the people in the wrong direction. The "political leaders know best" approach is a questionable philosophy - and that's putting it generously. - Yours, etc,
Canon IAN M. ELLIS,
Editor,
Church of Ireland Gazette,
Lisburn,
Co Antrim.
****
Madam, - I have read the outrageous claims by Cóir about the Lisbon Treaty and its impact on the Irish Constitution. The simple fact is that Ireland's position on the right to life of the unborn is protected by a protocol we had inserted in the Maastricht treaty 16 years ago. It states clearly that nothing in the EU treaties "shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland".
I welcome the Catholic bishops' statement on this issue, clarifying that Cóir is indeed not telling the truth. Apart from this issue, we have had scaremongering on taxation, where we retain a veto.
Let's vote Yes in high numbers and keep Ireland strong in Europe. - Yours, etc,
Cllr PATRICK McGOWAN,
Kilygordon, Lifford,
Co Donegal.
****
Madam, - How utterly charming - nay, edifying - to see Brian Cowen politely sharing tea with leading lights of Labour and Fine Gael in their mutual pursuit of a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
If only such rapport indicated a a new approach to remedying our appalling school, hospital and transport problems, they would surely be on to a winner. - Yours, etc,
ANNE CAHILL,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.