Madam, - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's recent remarks on Ireland's relations with the European Union are to be warmly welcomed. His call for an open and generous Irish engagement with the EU and a positive approach to building a pluralist Europe is timely and deserves wide support.
The archbishop's fundamental statement that Ireland's destiny and identity are "clearly and irrevocably bound with that of Europe" should be communicated to the Christian community by means as effective as those used by the Europhobic fundamentalists, whose propaganda is given respectability by the unwillingness of the bishops, including Dr Martin, to remove it from parish churches.
His remarks are in sharp contrast with the approach adopted by Cardinal Brady and his advisers at the Oireachtas sub-committee a week ago when it was admitted that earlier comments on alleged decisions in Europe had been misleading. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is of such importance to workers and citizens across Europe, was denounced as a "Trojan Horse".
In recent weeks it has appeared that a concerted anti-EU campaign was being mounted by certain elements within the Irish Catholic Church who imply that the European Union is engaged in a systematic effort to undermine our society. The columns of Alive!and other printed propaganda have been filled with distortions, misquotations and innuendo designed to mislead and frighten their readers.
It is to be hoped that Archbishop Martin's comments mark a recognition that there is a danger of the Catholic Church leading this country backwards into the cul-de-sac of insularity and intolerance which it inhabited in the 1950s. Seán Lemass's European initiative in the 1960s opened Ireland to a wider world view which, as the Archbishop so clearly argues, must not be lost or thrown away. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Your new columnist Sarah Carey has sold you a pup, albeit one that suits your pro-Lisbon agenda (Opinion, November 19th).
The tale of her mistreatment at the hands of The Sunday Timesand her experience as a prisoner of conscience in the weeks during and after the Lisbon referendum grows more fanciful with each telling. Let me be clear: at no stage was Ms Carey assured that she could write articles for our newspaper about Lisbon and at no stage did I say it was imperative that the Lisbon Treaty be passed. I am prepared to accept that the passage of time has clouded her memory, so let me refresh it.
Ms Carey was a freelance writer who discussed column ideas with the deputy editor each week. During his absence last May I spoke to her instead, which is why I can say with certainty that this was the first time she asked me whether she could write a column about Lisbon. I reminded her that I was running an upfront campaign opposing the treaty, that she was not a political columnist and that I had hired specialist writers to analyse a different aspect of the treaty every week. She didn't like the decision but, as you know, editors are not paid to be popular.
Finally, Madam, despite Ms Carey's stated concerns about "ethical obligations" you will no doubt have noticed that she has no compunction about repeating internal conversations with her employer on her blog and elsewhere. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Irish farmers in recent years have turned against the EU. The most frequent scapegoats for their continuing woes are the so-called "faceless Brussels bureaucrats". There is widespread frustration with the amount of red tape "handed down from Brussels".
These firmly held views have potentially negative long-term effects for Irish agriculture and Irish interests in general. However, the growth of Euroscepticism in rural Ireland is often a result of the actions of the Irish Government, and not the so-called "Brussels bureaucrats".
Under the current treaty arrangements, agricultural matters are the exclusive competence of agriculture ministers such as our own Brendan Smith. The European Parliament - the only directly elected EU institution - is merely given a consultative role. Therefore new initiatives "handed down from Brussels" are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly I, as an MEP from a predominantly rural constituency, cannot fully represent farmers' interests in the current framework.
Lisbon would change this completely, as the European Parliament would have increased powers of co-decision with the Council of Ministers. It is somewhat ironic that we are witnessing such anti-Lisbon sentiment among farmers when in fact their interests in particular, and Ireland's in general, would be better served by this increased accountability.
It is perhaps apt, then, that anti-Lisbon campaigners such as Declan Ganley - who himself has called the Common Agricultural Policy a "weapon of mass destruction" — are arguing against a document that would give farmers a strong voice at the heart of decision-making in Brussels. - Yours, etc,