Madam, - Peter McLoone (Opinion Analysis, May 22nd) urges workers to support the Lisbon Treaty on the basis that, while it is imperfect, it will consolidate the legal status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This, in his opinion, will represent a significant advance for the rights of ordinary people.
While there are many arguments for and against the Lisbon Treaty, and I myself come down against it, we should be very clear about the legal significance of the Charter of Rights, particularly as Mr McLoone and many other reluctant supporters of the Treaty place so much stock in it.
In real terms the legal changes which the charter will bring about, in terms of rights protection, are quite minimal. This is so for a number of reasons:
1. The charter is an amalgam of rights already enjoyed by EU citizens, whether at domestic or regional level, and in this regard adds very little to the catalogue of rights protected within the EU.
2. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has, at least since the Stauder case in 1969, been committed to the protection of fundamental rights. Indeed, this led to a spat between the ECJ and the German Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the ECJ has for a number of years had regard to the EU charter in its judgments, despite the uncertain legal status of the instrument (this, of course, did not prevent the ECJ reaching the conclusions it reached in the Laval and Viking cases).
3. The European Parliament, in Rule 34 of its Rules of Procedure, has committed itself to being bound by the charter when exercising its legislative function under the Treaties.
4. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the European Commission has, since 2000, stated that it considers itself bound by the EU charter and since 2001 has stated that all legislative proposals emanating from the Commission must be charter-compatible; this, of course, did not prevent the Commission from trenchantly promoting the services directive.
All of this, then, prompts the question: What is the real significance of the charter's inclusion in the Lisbon Treaty? The answer, given by Prof Ninon Colneric (a judge of the ECJ), is that although "of great symbolic importance, the inclusion of the Charter in the treaty would not fundamentally alter the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order".
The charter is a symbolic gesture - intended, in the absence of fundamental reform of the EU institutions, to make them more democratic and accountable, to legitimise the EU in the eyes of ordinary citizens.
In light of this, the argument that workers should support the treaty because of the charter brings to mind Native Americans surrendering their land title for trinkets. The charter is very much a shiny, beguiling trinket, but is hardly worth what's given up in exchange. However people choose to vote on this treaty, they should be very slow to hang their decision on the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. - Yours, etc,
PAUL O'CONNELL,
(Lecturer in Law, NUI Galway),
Briarfield Grove,
Kilbarrack,
Dublin 5.
****
Madam, - Richard Greene of Cóir (May 21st) displays breathtaking ignorance of the actual contents of the Lisbon Treaty, instead presenting a combination of prejudice and fiction as fact.
Mr Greene is critical of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the basis that it may lead to changes in Ireland's social legislation. The charter will be legally binding as a result of the treaty - and this is one of the best reasons to vote Yes. It incorporates basic political, social and economic rights which are recognised by the EU and, for that matter, by most of the civilised world.
For example, Chapter 1 of the charter includes principles designed to protect human dignity, such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture and the prohibition of slavery or forced labour. Perhaps Mr Greene might indicate which of these principles he objects to.
The charter does not break radical new ground on social issues, but it does ensure that the European Union as an entity will formally accept the European Convention on Human Rights. Most people would regard this as a progressive development, but clearly concern for human rights either in Ireland or elsewhere is not at the top of Cóir's agenda.
Mr Greene also claims the Treaty will ensure that "EU law for the first time supersedes the Irish Constitution". This is simply nonsense. European law has always had the force of law within member-states on matters of EU competence.
A section of the Irish Constitution (Article 29.4.10) already states that the Constitution does not prevent laws adopted by the European Union under its present powers from having legal force in the State. This is not a new principle: it was accepted by the Irish Government when Ireland joined the European Economic Community and was approved by the Irish people in a referendum as part of the conditions of membership.
If Cóir wishes to question this principle, it will also have to question Ireland's membership of the EU itself. - Yours, etc,
JOHN WALSH,
Clonsilla,
Dublin 15.
****
Madam, - We are told that the Lisbon Treaty will give more power to the European Parliament, and that as this body is directly elected by the people of Europe, democracy is strengthened. Evidence closer to home suggests that we Irish have a poor record when it comes to electing a government that looks after our best interests. How can we be so sure that 300 million other Europeans will vote for a parliament which will do what is best for Irish people?
At least there is a small chance that we might eventually choose to throw out the current Irish Government. Can we say the same for a future incompetent or hostile European Parliament with our feeble 2 million or so votes? - Yours, etc,
Dr ANDREW LEARY,
Ballysaggartbeg,
Lismore,
Co Waterford.
****
Madam, - Unlike Finian McGrath TD (May 23rd), Labour Youth has got its facts right about Lisbon. At a national conference in February, Labour Youth democratically decided to endorse a Yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
HAZEL NOLAN,
Labour Youth National Executive,
Ely Place,
Dublin 2.
****
Madam, - I shall vote No to the Lisbon Treaty.
I have not read it; I do not know what it is about. My No vote is a reaction to being over-governed and micro-managed as a citizen.
I do not want another layer of bureaucracy placed upon my diminishing personal freedoms. - Yours, etc,
MYLES KELLEHER,
Forest Road,
Swords,
Co. Dublin.