Madam, – Lucinda Creighton (Opinion, July 1st) asks us to stick to the facts “because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

The Treaty of Lisbon is a legal document and is subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In many cases, it will only be when a case relating to this treaty comes before the ECJ, and is ruled on, can one say what is fact and what is not. This is the case with all legal documents but especially in the case of the Lisbon Treaty which is especially tortuous in its wording.

The European Court of Justice has in the past been described as “a court with a mission” and that mission is to advance the further integration of the countries of the European Union.

If the Treaty is passed, some of the claims by the No side, derided as “outlandish” by Lucinda Creighton, may well come to pass at a future date if the ECJ decides to so rule as a means of furthering the further integration of EU nations.

It is notable that the claim of primacy of the ECJ over national decisions was in article I of the proposed constitution but has now been relegated to declaration 17 of the Lisbon Treaty in the hope that fewer people will notice. Hardly, in Deputy Creighton’s words, “honest and clear”. – Yours, etc,

Madam, — Gavin Barrett (Opinion, June 30th) appears confused. On the one hand he tells us that come October we will be voting on a Lisbon Treaty identical to that rejected in 2008 while on the other hand he argues that we will be voting on something called, “Lisbon Plus”. Adding to the confusion he tells us that while the European Council decision did not amend the Treaty it none the less will alter its “practical impact”. Is this a case of trying to have one’s cake and eat it? – Yours, etc,

Madam, – Paul Kelly (July 1st)states that he will again be voting No in “support my fellow European citizens in France and Holland who rejected Lisbon in their democratic processes” and that “We are either in Europe together or we are not”.

First of all, he is profoundly mistaken in that the French and Dutch voters rejected the Constitutional Treaty and not the Lisbon Treaty.

Secondly, he neglects to mention that Spain and Luxembourg voted Yes in even greater numbers on the Constitutional Treaty, and that if you combine the votes in all four member states you get a majority of 27 million to 23 million votes in favour of the Constitutional Treaty.

It thus seems that Mr Kelly is selectively for a minority of European voters who voted No in preference to the majority of European voters who voted Yes.

As he says himself, “We are either in Europe together or we are not”! – Yours, etc,

Madam, – The ruling of the German constitutional court on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (“German court dismisses challenge to Lisbon Treaty”, July 1st) should give pause for thought in all 27 member states of the European Union.

The court has ruled that the ratification of the Treaty cannot go ahead until legislative safeguards are in place as at present both houses of the German parliament “have not been accorded sufficient rights of participation in European law-making procedures and Treaty amendment procedures”.

Simply, this requires legislation to ensure that the transfer of competencies cannot occur without approval of both houses of parliament.

However, a recent survey published by Open Europe shows that 77 per cent of the German population want a referendum on the Treaty.

This highlights the democratic deficit currently at play in the EU, which will be exacerbated by a ‘self-amending’ treaty. As in Ireland, without reference to the electorate, competences of the member states can be handed over to the Union – even when this is clearly at odds with the wishes of the citizens of a member-state.

The only recourse is to call to task the elected government in a general election – though the competencies that have been handed over will be gone forever. – Is mise,

Madam, – Tony Kinsella (Opinion, June 29th) believes that our No vote last year represented “our own moment of political surrealism”. I wonder what exactly he thinks was surreal about it. Is it surreal to vote No? Is a Yes vote the only “real” option?

There appears, though, to be quite a number of surrealists out there, such as the 200,000 people who showed up in Lisbon to protest when EU leaders met there in October 2007 to decide and approve the Treaty.

Or the 55 per cent of French voters and 65 per cent of Dutch voters who rejected almost the same set of proposals in 2005.

In fact, according to outgoing EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the electorates of 95 per cent of member-states are surrealists in that if asked they would have voted against ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

How good can the proposals contained in the Lisbon Treaty “really” be if after months, and indeed years, of debate the people of Europe keep rejecting them? And why has the unanimity requirement been circumvented by framing the constitution as a series of amendments in order to avoid referendums in most member-states?

Is the European Union “really” based on democratic principles and adherence to its own rules or not? – Yours, etc,

Madam, – As a former member of the Progressive Democrats’ national executive, I was surprised at Des O’Malley’s reported comments by Marie O’Halloran (“PDs could have won 12 seats – O’Malley”, June 29th) in relation to the former táinaiste, Michael McDowell.

It is not edifying for a former leader of a party to attack one of his successors but it is even less so when it is based on little or no facts.

For Mr O’Malley to describe the decision of Michael McDowell to resign from politics as the “death knell of the party” is to ignore the reality that the party was on life support for years before Mr McDowell became leader.

It is also to ignore, that despite Mr McDowell’s huge efforts, the party was rejected by the Irish electorate.

The final death knell of the party was sounded by the Irish people, not Mr McDowell.

I am also surprised at Mr. O’Malley’s comments that Mr McDowell regretted his decision to resign and its manner.

I would have rather imagined that one of the party founders would show more solidarity with not just one of his co-founders, but with the man who did more than any other to provide the drive and the intellectualism which brought so much to the Progressive Democrats and Irish public life.

Finally I am rather amazed at Mr O’Malley’s suggestion that if Mr McDowell had made the decision to pull out of government over the weekend of the June bank holiday in 2007, the Progressive Democrats would have won 12 seats.

This suggestion contradicts what other prominent Progressive Democrats thought of the decision not to pull out of government with Fianna Fáil.

Many others in the party, who were close to Des O’Malley, argued that Mr McDowell should not have considered pulling out of government because the PDs were better off to be attached to a tarnished Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fáil than returning to our former (and in my opinion correct) position of high standards in high places. – Yours, etc,

Madam, – I read with great interest Peter Murtagh’s opinion piece (June 29th) reflecting on the libel action taken by Monica Leech against Independent Newspapers and the reaction of media to the award of €1.87 million made by the High Court to Ms Leech.

In the article he says: “Many fellow citizens... think we target people unjustly, with little thought of the pain we inflict on them and their families. You know what? They are largely correct, but the brush is applied across all media, as though we are all the same”

Mr Murtagh obviously feels aggrieved that the vast majority of responsible journalists like himself get “tarred with the same brush” because of the actions of the few irresponsible colleagues.

I have a certain sympathy for Mr Murtagh and as a priest I know how he feels.

The other interesting thing that Mr Murtagh notes in his article is that, to date, the Evening Herald or its parent company Independent Newspapers cannot bring themselves to apologise to Ms Leech for the hurt and trauma they caused her and her family even though the High Court found them to be guilty.

Rather than apologise they choose to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and whinge about the size of the award against them and how it is a “major blow to the freedom of the press”.

I just wonder if this had been a case involving the State or the Catholic Church or some other institution in our country what would the various publications from the Independent Newspapers stable have to say about their refusal to apologise to the victim.

Can’t you just hear the outrage that would be expressed if such an institution was to appeal an adverse ruling to the Supreme Court. Is this another example of how our hallowed institutions find it so difficult to apologise for the wrongdoings of some of its members and even when the courts of the land find them guilty they still refuse to take proper responsibility for their actions?

Whatever the reasons for their conduct in this case surely Independent Newspapers have damaged their moral right to point the finger accusingly at other individuals and institutions who fall way short of their responsibilities. – Yours, etc,

Madam, – As a postgraduate student researching the Irish criminal jury I read Elaine Byrne’s account of her jury service with great interest (Opinion, June 30th).

Ms Byrne states that “For the most part, our jury was engaged and earnest in our responsibilities”.

However, her references to the disengaged juror who spent deliberation time on his mobile phone in the toilet and the prejudiced juror who passed a disparaging remark about the accused based on his address are major causes for concern.

English case-law provides a stark catalogue of juror misconduct, and Ms Byrne’s experience confirms what many have long suspected – that our own jury system is not impervious to bad behaviour.

Most criminal law conferences in Ireland now hear justifiable calls for empirical research on juries in this country. The most beneficial form of research would entail the interviewing of former jurors about their service, but the legal position of the researcher in this situation is far from clear, with one school of thought arguing that such research amounts to a common law contempt of court.

There are obvious reasons why jury deliberations should not be disclosed as a matter of course, but an absolute secrecy rule is not sustainable in an era which lauds transparency and the questioning of received wisdom.

To preserve public confidence in jury trials, the Minister for Justice should urgently provide for a statutory scheme governing jury research.

The family courts were once closed to researchers, but the law reforms which made the pioneering work of Carol Coulter possible are an illustration of how bona fide legal research can be facilitated. – Yours, etc,

Madam, – Sara Burke (Opinion, June 27th) is right to draw attention to the efforts, some good, some bad, to reform our unfair and expensive health system.

Inequality and rising costs are the two salient features of the Irish health system. But neither has been helped by the serial privatisations that have most characterised the Government’s efforts.

The privatisation frenzy has been accompanied by an average annual increase in health spending of almost 9 per cent since 2002, more than in any other OECD country, except Korea. This increase in cost is as unsustainable in Ireland as it is in the US, where Barack Obama has identified the cost of health care as the single biggest threat to the American economy.

In his recent address to the American Medical Association, Obama referred to the acclaimed New Yorker article of June 1st by Dr Atul Gawande, who laid the blame for overspending on private providers who over-investigate, over-admit and over-treat in order to maximise profit. An unhealthy alliance of medicine and business resulted in “a culture of money” that insurers, both public and private, could do nothing to stop.

Unless the Government gets a grip, Ireland will find itself facing the same problems as McAllen, Texas, suddenly notorious as the most expensive health market in the US, with Medicare expenditure of $15,000 per enrollee per year.

The signs are ominous. The private sector is clamouring for more money. There have been huge hikes in private health insurance premiums. Private hospitals are advertising for customers on the radio. And many of same “geniuses” and “heroes” who featured so conspicuously in recent financial scandals are also heavily involved in the private health industry. All very unappealing.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the public hospital system is increasing. Vhi Healthcare shed 40,000 members in the first quarter of the year. Those people will now turn to the State for their care. So it might be a good time to start redistributing the private sector’s resources for the benefit of the entire community.

Equality is important again. The low-tax, small-government, neo-liberals have had their day. They lost. – Yours, etc,

Madam, – Having read that decisions on radical cuts (“Decisions on radical cuts to be delayed until the autumn”, July 1st) will not be made until October, I have temporarily left the long grass to replace my knife with something significantly larger. A deficit-sized meat cleaver perhaps?

The Government’s total lack of any sense of urgency or apparent intent to deal with the practical economic problems faced by the people of Ireland is appalling.

If Mr Cowen and his Cabinet do not act promptly and effectively now then they must face the reality that when the Lisbon Treaty referendum is put to the people again those of us who are determined to see their incompetence off will once again vote contrary to their wishes in protest against their inactivity.

I do not wish to see the Lisbon Treaty rejected again but I will vote against Mr Cowen and his Government at every opportunity until they either call an election or clearly demonstrate that they are both willing and able to govern this country in a manner that meets the needs of the people.

Mr Cowen, either do your job or stand aside immediately and make way for someone who is at least willing to try.

We cannot afford to suffer your current inaction and profligate spending of our future taxes any longer. – Yours, etc.

Madam, – Mark Hennessy’s article (“Cut all social welfare, says expert group”, June 30th) on the impending Bord Snip Nua report quotes a Ministerial source as saying that publication of the recommendations “could put too many options before people and poison the Lisbon debate”.

Hundreds of thousands of people across the state are already considering many unpalatable options; how to buy Christmas presents without the annual social welfare bonus, how to keep up mortgage repayments, or what to do when the three-day week dries up.

If the State is truly about to engage is a fire sale to the tune of €7 billion – cuts that could push thousands even further below the poverty line – might I suggest that the Government at least extends the courtesy of treating the people as adults with the ability to engage with the current crisis.

Europe and our economic and social future are inextricably linked and attempts to artificially separate one from the other will not work.

Dissent cannot and should not be regulated. As John F. Kennedy put it: “A nation that is afraid to let the people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” – Yours etc,

Madam, – Tuesday’s Editorial on the Honduran crisis was worthy of Pravda in portraying President Zelaya as a radical facing up to Latin American conservatives.

He is in fact part of an unfortunate populist authoritarian streak in South America that is moving to introduce rigged political systems from Venezuela to Bolivia.

We saw this with the failure to investigate the death of Michael Dwyer in Santa Cruz, Bolivia and president Hugo Chavez’s move to shut down critical television stations in Venezuela.

These are not governments that respect the rule of law. As for Honduras itself there are credible reports of Venezuelan involvement and strong-arm tactics to engineer a referendum to extend the unpopular Zelaya’s rule.

We need only look to modern Brazil and Chile to see what countries can achieve when they embrace pluralism and the rule of law alongside the admirable goal of improving the lot of the poor. – Yours, etc,