Madam, - I am an Irish citizen resident in Britain, where, unlike Ireland but as all other EU member-states, the government has avoided seeking the consent of the people on the Lisbon Treaty. I am dismayed by the bullying tactics being employed by Ireland's political establishment, which is treating the constitutional requirement to seek and secure the consent of the Irish people as an irritation and an inconvenience.
Ireland should be proud that, alone among member-states, its people's consent is required. This contrasts forcefully with the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU's institutions. The Lisbon Treaty provides for more scrutiny, accountability and efficiency of these institutions and should allow the EU to adopt a more coherent approach on global issues, but it falls far short of achieving governance by consent.
In very simple terms, people give their consent to be governed because there are things they are either unable or unwilling to do either individually or collectively. In return for this consent, the people have the right to select those who govern and to replace those they deem unsatisfactory. It is difficult to apply this key democratic principle in multi-national institutions such as the EU, but its application should be the over-riding objective of any institutional reform. The Lisbon Treaty proposes taking only tentative steps in this direction, when something far bolder is required.
Most EU member-state governments are afraid to give their electorates the opportunity to decide on the Lisbon Treaty because they fear it would provide an opportunity to express discontent on other issues. This merely insults the intelligence of the electorate and denies the right to decide on changes in the form of governance.
The binary choice in a referendum does not permit a conditional response. A response along the lines of, "Yes, some necessary reform of governance is being proposed, but, since it will settle the form of EU governance, possibly for a generation, much more is required" is not possible.
By voting No Irish voters can compel the EU elites to tackle the democratic deficit and assert the democratic principle of no changes in the form of governance, without consent - and they can do so on behalf of the millions of disenfranchised voters in other member-states. The EU elites will be upset, but they will be forced to confront the application of this democratic principle and the EU will be transformed. - Yours, etc,
PAUL HUNT, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England.
Madam, - The primacy of EU law is the latest issue to be raised as a reason for voting against the Lisbon Treaty. Shock horror, says Richard Greene of Cóir in his opinion piece last Monday; this is an important departure from the past and could mean a vote for same-sex marriage, abortion and a change in our tax laws.
Mr Greene is reducing the Lisbon debate to an absurdity and he is wrong on all counts.
The primacy of EU law was established by the European Court of Justice long before Ireland joined the European Community. In two landmark judgments the principle of primacy was clearly established by the court and has been accepted by all member-states since that time. In a case called Van Gend en Loos in 1963 the court held that EU law had direct effect in national legal systems. In the case of Costa v Enel in 1964 the court held that the law stemming from the Treaty of Rome could not be overridden by national law without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.
This is what we signed up to when we joined the European Community and it is reflected in the amendment to our Constitution passed by a referendum in 1972. This provided that "no provision of the Constitution invalidates laws enacted. . .by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted. . .by the Communities. . .from having the force of law in the State". It is quite absurd to suggest that the primacy of EU law is something new and to call in question that principle after 35 years of membership of the EU. The declaration in the Lisbon Treaty on primacy, to which Mr Greene refers, merely restates the legal position which has prevailed for about 45 years.
Based on what is clearly a false premise that the primacy of EU law is something new, Mr Greene puts forward three particular arguments to the effect that voting for the Lisbon Treaty, which incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, could mean a vote for same-sex marriage, abortion or changes in our taxation laws. None of these arguments is valid.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights at article 9 states that "the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with national laws governing the exercise of these rights". As the explanation of this article, also part of the Lisbon Treaty, states, "this article neither prohibits nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between people of the same sex". The issue of same sex marriage is therefore a matter for national law, not European law.
Furthermore, any legislation adopted at EU law on any aspect of family law must be adopted by unanimity, therefore giving Ireland a veto.
To suggest, as Mr Greene does, that the European Court of Justice could rule that there is a legal right to abortion is quite simply wrong, given the express wording of the Lisbon Treaty. It provides in a protocol that "nothing in the Treaty of the EU or Treaty on the Functioning of the Union shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland". That is the article in our Constitution in which the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and guarantees to respect and defend and vindicate that right. The European Court of Justice cannot go against the express wording of the EU treaties and cannot therefore interfere with the provisions of the Irish Constitution on abortion.
Mr Greene suggests that the European Court could interpret article 113 of the Treaty in such a manner as to oblige Ireland to change its tax laws on grounds of distortion of competition. The court has already ruled on the issue of taxation and competition. In the case of Cadbury Schweppes of 2004 the Advocate General stated that "in the absence of Community harmonisation it must be accepted that there is competition between the tax regimes of the various member states". Harmonisation can only take place if Ireland agrees since it, along with all other member-states, has a veto in the taxation field. This is reaffirmed by the Lisbon Treaty.
Mr Greene will have to do better than this. What he is suggesting is flatly contradicted by the express wording of the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
Senator EUGENE REGAN SC, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
Madam, - I have no reservations about voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty. I believe Ireland has benefited incalculably from Europe, and am convinced (perhaps naively) that our civil servants, representatives and even politicians could not possibly see it as being in our interest, or theirs, to recommend we accept a deal that is bad for the country.
However, I must take strong issue with Lucinda Creighton's claim (May 29th) that Fine Gael is running a serious Yes campaign. The posters I see around University College Cork, where I work, in which Young Fine Gael equates a Yes vote with enhancing personal anatomical attributes are quite astonishingly juvenile and embarrassing, and simply cannot be associated with any claim to a serious campaign.
Perhaps the grown-ups have abandoned the junior wing of the party on this one? - Yours, etc,
ALAN KELLY, Ballincollig, Co Cork.
Madam, - Is it too late to have a "Maybe" box on the ballot paper for those of us who are confused? - Yours, etc,
BOB STRUNZ, Aughinish, Ogonnelloe, Co Clare.