Madam, – Sarah Carey (Opinion, September 16th) says that homosexuals in Ireland had to use the EU to force the Irish government to vindicate their rights.
If your correspondent is referring to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Ireland, may I point out that this had nothing to do with the EU?
The law on homosexuality was changed following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in a case taken by Senator David Norris. The European Court of Human Rights is an organ of the Council of Europe and is not linked to the EU. – Yours, etc,
A Chara, – I read with interest Dr Paul Duffy’s letter (September 21st) and I wondered if ordinary US citizens were asked to vote to align themselves with other countries and give up their independence what the outcome would be. – Is mise,
Madam, – Iascairí Intíre na hÉireann (IIE) is calling for a No vote in the Lisbon referendum. The people of rural Ireland have received a bad deal from Europe. Our main food-producing industries (fishing and farming) have been completely ruined by EU rules and regulations. Until such time as the European Parliament starts to listen to the ordinary people and carry out their wishes, we must say No to bureaucracy. The whole purpose of the European Union is to create an economy and democracy that is good for its member states and all of its citizens.
The fishing industry in particular has got the rawest deal of all, with suggested losses of €400 billion in return for €70 billion received in grant aid from Europe. Irish fishermen and coastal communities have been robbed of their most valuable asset. It’s time the Irish people knew the truth of how our fish stocks have been plundered by our European neighbours.
A blind eye is being turned to the use of small mesh nets and the landing of millions of euro worth of juvenile fish by our European counterparts. The Irish Government has assisted this criminal behaviour by refusing to carry out strict checks on vessels, which land in Ireland, and on European fish markets, while criminalising Irish fishermen. We are informed that the Department of Foreign Affairs doesn’t want a diplomatic incident with another member state.
Agriculture, the other major food-producing industry, is in serious decline due to EU rules and the Irish Government’s interpretation of EU directives. The latest cuts in farm payments and the presumed scrapping of the Reps (Rural Environmental Protection Scheme), is another kick in the teeth to rural Ireland. We are forced to produce less because of below- cost selling. If there were a world oil shortage or a strike by the Opec countries or if oil becomes too expensive, there would be another great famine in Ireland. We currently only produce approximately 10 per cent of the food that is consumed here and the rest is provided by cheap imports. At the moment Europe is only good for big business.
Rural people should come together with IIE and support the creation of Comhaontas Pobail Tuath (Rural People Alliance) and elect ordinary rural people to the Dáil. This will ensure that rural issues are kept at the forefront and help keep rural Ireland populated and prosperous. – Is mise,
Madam, – There has been much criticism of the controversial anti-Lisbon leaflet that has been delivered to every house in Ireland and which appears to be promoted by the United Kingdom Independence Party. Rather than engaging in the easy option of writing this group off as extremist, right wing and misrepresenting the “true facts” about Lisbon it might be more prudent to look at what they actually say.
They raise some very serious issues for Europe which have not been addressed in this current debate, for example, the prospect of Turkey becoming part of the EU is alarming. It is a country of 75 million people which is diverse and does not share many of the values enjoyed and taken for granted by countries in western Europe and Ireland.
The question that needs to be addressed urgently is: what is the end game of this EU project? How many more Nice and Lisbon treaties will there be? The founding principles of the EEC were brilliant and in post-war Europe it achieved much in terms of economic progress and recovery. But what is next?
How much more integration is planned and when do we reach our destination in this long journey? How more European do we have to become?
One thing is certain. Through the ages history repeats itself. The prospect of some “eternal city” living together as one is a fallacy. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It is ironic in the extreme that the United Kingdom Independence Party, which advocates Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, may campaign in Ireland because of the continental political framework that European Union politics facilitates. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The campaign on both the Yes and No sides of the Lisbon treaty has been extremely disheartening. It is the second time in a matter of months that such a complex treaty has been put to the Irish people. Again, we have practically no discussion about what the treaty is actually about.
A detailed study by political scientists in UCD last March concluded that the main reason people voted No was a low level of knowledge by the electorate on what they were actually voting for (combined with misinformation about the content of the treaty).
The Yes side has transformed its campaign into the following narrative: the European Union is good for Ireland, and Ireland needs to be in the European Union to enable it to pursue national interests. Thus, it is arguing for a Yes to the EU, not Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, which is primarily about the administrative procedures of decision making within current structures. These are fundamentally different issues. The “Yes to EU” narrative contributes nothing to a healthy and robust debate about how the EU makes decisions, which in turn diminishes any capacity for Irish citizens to engage in a debate about the direction of EU policy. To present a scenario of you are either “in” or “out” is disingenuous.
The variety of arguments in the No campaign range from outright nonsense (ie Cóir’s claim that the minimum wage will be reduced to €2), to misplaced fears, to genuine concerns about the direction of EU policy. In general, though, the arguments being made are unrelated to the actual treaty. Both sides are resorting to hypothetical situations about the likely or unlikely impact of a Yes or No vote.
We are Europeans and we should be able to engage in a rational debate about how our Union works. The fact that we cannot, is, perhaps, the core problem of this referendum. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Micheál Martin is concerned that Cóir’s suggestion that the minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 if the Lisbon Treaty is passed has “gained traction” (Home News, September 16th).
That such spurious claims are being believed is, of course unhelpful in such an important democratic debate. Yet the Minister seems unperturbed by the equally misleading claims of his own party and others, most notably Fine Gael, Ibec and European Commission president José Manuel Barroso, that acceptance of the treaty will lead to job creation.
There are no provisions in the treaty to justify either this proposition or Cóir’s.
Advocates of the treaty argue that a second referendum is necessary due to a lack of information first time around yet they continue to deal in insidious scaremongering. Is it naive of me to expect honest debate of the treaty itself? – Yours, etc,