Madam, - It is surprising how many contributors to your Letters page question the democracy of holding a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Firstly, democracy by definition is simply the will of the people, as expressed through free voting. Describing a referendum process as "undemocratic" implies that the voting process is rigged. Given that this isn't a concern on even the most ardent letter writer's agenda, calling the ability of the Government to ask the people again "undemocratic" invites ridicule. Unless they can prove that Government intends to ask repeatedly until it get a Yes answer, I would ask letter-writers to cease waving the word undemocratic around. Especially that, given the considerable political capital expended to get this second referendum, we won't be asked again.
Secondly, Dermot Sweeney (December 17th), in common with others, demonstrates his ignorance of European political history when he demands, not asks, that other EU states hold their own referendums. What? Like Germany? In historical terms that would be equivalent to Germans demanding that our gardaí wear black and tan. - Yours, etc,
CONOR O'ROURKE,
The Belfry,
Kilbarrack Road,
Dublin 5.
Madam, - When will Sinn Féin stop misleading people? The party falsely and cynically claims the EU can continue to have 27 commissioners from November 1st next year and that all it requires is a unanimous decision by the heads of state.
Protocol No 10 to the Nice Treaty states that when the Union consists of 27 member-states the number of members of the Commission shall be less than the number of member-states. It goes on to state that this smaller Commission shall be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principal of equality. It further states that the implementing arrangements, including the numbers in the smaller Commission, shall be adopted by the heads of government, acting unanimously.
The new position, negotiated by the Irish Government at last week's summit, that all member-states shall continue to have the right to nominate a Commissioner, provided Lisbon is ratified before November 1st, 2009, is a significant advance.
This was one of the major planks of all the disparate No campaigners.
For them to dismiss it as a "cosmetic" change reveals their real intent, which is to block European integration and weaken our capacity to act together in the middle of the worst global economic crisis in 75 years.
Those of the Irish electorate who voted No to Lisbon over the loss of a commissioner now have a cast-iron guarantee that their concerns have been addressed if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
Flesh has yet to put on the bones of the other commitments that have been offered. The Labour Party intends to ensure that the commitment on workers' rights is delivered, and that the other commitments do not freeze social progress in Ireland or the rest of Europe. - Yours, etc,
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP,
Socialist Group/Labour Party,
Liberty Hall,
Dublin 1.
Madam, — I would be grateful for the opportunity to respond to your correspondent from Co Dublin (December 17th) who, unable or unwilling to engage with other people's arguments, instead petulantly questions their sanity. To clarify the point in my previous letter (and, for your correspondent's benefit, I will do so in the simplest terms possible): we should judge this or any other treaty on the merits of its contents. If we dislike the EU envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, we should reject it, regardless of how positively or negatively we view the EU as it has existed up to now. I think that is reasonable, even sane. — Yours, etc,
DÓNALL Ó MEARÁIN,
Bundoran,
Co Donegal.
Madam, - In her article of November 27th on Irish neutrality and again in her letter of December 8th, Dr Karen Devine refers to "constructive abstention" in a way which suggests she has misunderstood the point of this particular provision of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.
In her letter, for example, she says that "the Lisbon Treaty contains the concept of 'constructive abstention' that is designed to by-pass potential vetoes of neutral member-states. . ." In fact, as I explain below, the provision does not affect the ultimate right of any member-state to block a proposal under the Common Foreign and Security Policy if it wishes to do so.
"Constructive abstention" merely offers an additional option to any member-state which is not satisfied with a particular proposal: it may block the proposal; or it may abstain and allow itself to be bound by the decision; or it may opt for "constructive abstention". If a member-state avails of this third option then it abstains and allows the decision to go through while at the same time declaring in advance that it will not be bound to apply the decision itself. If one third or more of the member-states seek to resort to this option, then the initial proposal is not adopted.
The text which provided this additional option for member-states was drafted by Ireland during its EU Presidency in 1996 and included in the first draft of the Amsterdam Treaty which we presented to the European Council in Dublin in December 1996.
I might add that at that time we also drafted another provision which ensures that every member-state ultimately retains the right to veto any proposal under the Common Foreign and Security Policy - even certain implementing proposals which, under the Lisbon Treaty, would normally be taken by qualified majority vote. This second text reads as follows: "If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken". In such a case other member-states, by a qualified majority, may request that the issue be referred upwards to summit level, that is to the European Council, where, as the text makes clear, the decision is "by unanimity".
Other member-states accepted our drafting and the two provisions became part of the Amsterdam Treaty which came into force in 1997. They were carried forward into the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and they appear again in the Lisbon Treaty.
The net effect of these two provisions is that no proposal can be adopted if a member-state opposes it strongly and maintains that position.
"Constructive abstention" merely allows an additional option to a State which does not wish to exercise a veto: it may abstain and 'opt-out' of applying the decision itself. It cannot be used to "by-pass the potential veto of any member-state" as Dr Devine seems to suggest. - Yours, etc,
NOEL DORR,
Clonskeagh,
Dublin 14.
Madam, — As I was passing the National Library today I saw a notice for its current interesting exhibition, "From Strangers to Citizens: The Irish In Europe". Brushed by a ghost of Christmases to come, I fell to musing whether this time next year the library will be showing a companion exhibition, "From Citizens to Strangers: The Irish Out Of Europe". - Yours, etc,
ORLAGH O'FARRELL,
Westminster Road,
Dublin 18.