A chara, – Roger Cole’s article (Opinion, August 13th) outlined Ireland’s tradition of neutrality over the years, but not once does he mention the United Nations.
He neglects that fact that since joining the UN in 1955, Ireland has secured a reputation as a reliable force for peacekeeping. Whether in the Congo, Lebanon, East Timor or Liberia, we have been rightly proud of the contribution Irish troops have made. Traditionally, the UN managed such combat groups directly, but increasingly the UN delegates modern crisis management missions to regional operations, such as the EU. Most recently, the Irish Defence Forces have been taking part in the peacekeeping operations in Chad. While directed by European Union through EUfor, it is entirely in line with UN policy.
Indeed, Government policy does not allow our Defence Forces to take part in any action not sanctioned by the UN, and this has been recognised by the other 26 EU member-states in the international agreement which secured with our recent guarantees. Rather than interfering with our military traditions, the EU will in fact allow us to continue to develop the role we have shaped for ourselves internationally. – Is mise, – Is mise,
WILLIAM QUILL,
Westfield Park,
Bray,
Co. Wicklow.
Madam, – Pat the Cope Gallagher (August 11th) maintains that “the key concerns as expressed by voters in the referendum last year have now been addressed”. I beg to differ. The reasons I, and many others, voted No were many and varied, but the principal ones were I believe as follows: 1. It was impossible to read and understand. This issue has not been addressed. 2. The Lisbon Treaty was much the same as the already rejected EU constitution and was therefore a ruse to deny other EU countries a referendum. This issue has not been addressed and cannot be addressed by any “guarantees”. 3. Bringing the European Defence Agency right into the heart of Europe thereby encouraging the increased militarisation of the EU. This issue is not addressed by the “guarantees” either. 4. The neo-liberal agenda that is at the heart of the Lisbon Treaty. Again, not addressed by any “guarantees”.
The Government has been very clever in planting the notion that the concerns that have been addressed by the “guarantees” are the only ones that forced people to vote No. This is clearly not the case. – Yours, etc,
DERMOT DONNELLY,
Barnageera,
Balbriggan,
Co Dublin.
Madam, – The Labour supporters of Lisbon should take a reality check. After Lisbon I, Éamon Gilmore said the Treaty was “dead”. Joe Costello and the Labour leader are now at pains to show how different this Lazarus-like treaty is, thanks to a promise of an ineffectual Protocol sometime in the future. But the European Council which made this “promise” also said it “will clarify, but not change either the content or application of the Treaty”. Lisbon II is the same as Lisbon I.
In the context of the massive cuts the Government wants to make, Mr Costello seems to think it’s okay for Ireland to have to reduce its budget deficit within four years to meet EU rules. The cuts proposed by the McCarthy report are partly driven by this. Yet Lisbon would give the EU even more powers of surveillance of state spending; and the power to issue guidelines on how governments manage their budgets.
Labour also appears to support the “guarantee” – not needed, due to the Maastricht Protocol – that the reactionary restrictions on abortion in the Irish Constitution cannot be challenged by EU law. So EU-driven cuts and bank bail-outs are okay, but not the extension of women’s rights.
Labour’s “key selling point”, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is as ineffectual as Brian Cowen’s “guarantees”. As Mr Costello will know, this charter has been a legal reference point since it was agreed in 2000. The European Court of Justice even referred to it in the notorious Laval ruling, which allows transnational companies to bring workers from a low-wage country and pay them only the minimum wage (not the going rate for the job) in a high-wage country. Putting the charter into treaty law would not change this.
Almost all the charter’s provisions are subject to “national laws and practices” which restrict workers’ rights. It would not help the Thomas Cook workers or the Siptu members on strike in Dublin Port by giving legal right to effective picketing or solidarity action – such as secondary picketing or international strike action; or prevent of the use of scab labour (as in Dublin Port) to try to starve workers into submission. The call by the European TUC for an additional “social solidarity clause” to strengthen the Charter has not been met.
You would think that a time of crisis in the system would be a time to re-think the political direction of the EU. Lisbon offers more of the same, and Labour appears to do likewise. Our answer should be the same. No. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN YOUNG,
Dublin Road,
Celbridge,
Co Kildare