Madam, - Anthony Coughlan's article on the "EU superstate" in your issue of May 16th does not do justice to the unique nature of the EU and embarrassingly identifies the conferral of legal personality with the acquisition of sovereign capacity.
While it is true that the Lisbon Treaty confers legal personality on the EU as well as treaty-making powers, two important remarks ought to be made. First, the EU as a new subject of international law will coexist alongside the member-states as subjects of international law. Secondly, no extension of the EU's competence will result from the conferral of legal personality and treaty-making power.
The author also oddly claims that Lisbon would make us all "real citizens" of the EU citizens for the first time rather than "honorary EU 'citizens' as at present". This analysis is wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to begin.
The notion of "citizenship of the Union", introduced in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty, is additional to national citizenship. In other words, it complements and does not replace national citizenship. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty simply does not alter the present, original, yet limited, regime. It maintains the principle that every national of a member-state shall be an EU citizen as well. However, it is important to note that the question of who is a member-state national remains for each country to decide.
Finally, the rights of European citizens include the traditional and "real" rights to move and reside freely within the territory of the member-states; the right to vote and stand as candidates in municipal and European Parliament elections in their member-state of residence under the same conditions as nationals of that state; the right to diplomatic and consular protection by other member-states; and the right to petition the institutions of the EU.
The irony is that the Lisbon Treaty overall confirms that the EU will remain the creature of the member-states, which retain the ultimate political authority. To put it concisely, there is simply no evidence of a federal European state in the making.
The Eurosceptics seem too short-sighted to have noticed the new provision on voluntary withdrawal from the EU. No similar provision exists in the current treaties. If sovereignty is understood to be the unchallengeable authority to self-determination, the new withdrawal clause is the clearest sign that the EU does not bring about a superstate, nor does it set in motion an irrevocable federal organisation. On the contrary, this new provision could be interpreted as the ultimate evidence that the EU is a voluntary association between sovereign states. - Yours, etc,
Dr LAURENT PECH, Lecturer in EU Law, Author, The European Union and its Constitution: From Rome to Lisbon, NUI Galway.
Madam, - Stephen Collins writes that Sinn Féin's decision to oppose the Lisbon Treaty may have backfired for the party (Inside Politics, May 17th). It is worth noting that if it were not for Sinn Féin there would be no voice of opposition in the Dáil or Seanad on this treaty - not a single voice. Debate and a vote are the fundamental tools of a democracy. Constructive opposition is its lifeblood.
We in Sinn Féin have arrived at our position from months of in-depth analysis of the treaty followed by extensive internal debate. I am proud to have been part of this process. As a young woman who knows only an Ireland within Europe, I am ambitious for our collective future. I am proud of my country and hopeful for what we can achieve to make this world peaceful and equal. I believe the Lisbon Treaty fundamentally undermines this hope.
I make this argument not with the sole objective of getting Sinn Féin bums on parliamentary seats, but because I believe it is right. - Yours, etc,
SINÉAD NÍ BHROIN, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
Madam, - A Yes vote to the Lisbon Treaty will send a clear message to our trading partners and multinationals that Ireland remains at the centre of Europe. Those who advocate a No vote are endangering Ireland's ability to attract investment. If successful, they will weaken Ireland's ability to meet future economic and social challenges.
I note with particular interest that Brian Lenihan's first international engagement as Minister for Finance was to address over 40 US multinationals including Intel, Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Citibank and Motorola on the Irish referendum campaign. In addition, Ibec, the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland and the IDA have supported a Yes vote. Other bodies including the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and leading trade unions have done likewise.
The Lisbon Treaty simplifies the EU institutional structures, improving decision-making. The EU is now 50 years old. When it was founded there were only six member-states. Today, membership stands at 27. Any successful company will always update its organisational and decision-making procedures.
If Ireland votes No, where will we be on June 13th? Ireland and Europe will still have to meet pressing challenges such as globalisation, climate change and the current international financial crisis. Also, tough negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy lie just around the corner. Ireland must face these negotiations from a position of strength and influence, not from a marginalised and weak position.
Proponents of a No vote remain economical with the truth. They have disseminated myths on abortion, taxation and trade. On Saturday, EU Trade spokesman Peter Power dispersed the latter myth: Ireland's trade veto remains in place under the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
THOMAS WHELAN, Foster Terrace, Dublin 3.
Madam, - Throughout the debate on the Lisbon Treaty a common argument from No campaigners is that this treaty threatens Irish neutrality and advocates a militarisation of Europe. If this threat to neutrality is so great, why have we not heard similar outcries emanating from Austria, Sweden or Finland, countries that share our policy of neutrality? Could it be that there simply is no threat to neutrality, Irish or otherwise?
It is time for those campaigning against the treaty to come to their senses and move away from this pointless argument. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN HINEY, Clonkeen, Ratoath, Co Meath.
Madam, - If, as suggested by Timothy King (Letters, May 15th), the Yes campaign sends Garret FitzGerald's statement of the case for supporting the Lisbon Treaty to every registered voter, the No campaign might think of doing the same with Jamie Smyth's article of May 12th. This is one of the rare contributions to the Lisbon debate that addresses the question: why was it deemed necessary to recast the European Constitution as a treaty when it was "redrafted to deal with various national preoccupations", as Dr FitzGerald puts it?
Mr Smyth's article comes to the aid of the perplexed by explaining: "The political subtext to the 'constitution versus treaty' debate in Britain, the Netherlands, France and Denmark was that passing a constitution would almost certainly require a referendum (which might be rejected), whereas a treaty could be ratified in parliaments".
Could it be that the "national preoccupations" mentioned by Dr. FitzGerald are those of the political elite rather than the ordinary citizens? I am "pro-Europe" and am not affiliated to any party or interest group. Regardless of the other issues, I will grit my teeth and join fellow-citizens whose views I do not share in voting No to Lisbon in solidarity with my fellow-Europeans who appear to have been dishonestly disenfranchised. - Yours, etc,
DAMIEN SYNNOTT, The Paddocks, Dublin 3.