Madam, – Despite the best efforts of the No side to whip up a frenzy of fear, it is now clear that there is nothing sinister in the Lisbon Treaty.
The legal guarantees ensure that our tax rates, our stance on neutrality and our control over sensitive issues such as abortion will not be affected. The fact is that the Lisbon Treaty is a solid, safe, sensible document.
It will not transform life as we know it but it will make the EU more streamlined and therefore more effective. The thrust of the document is to help the EU, which has expanded rapidly over recent years, to put its house in order.
Ireland can only benefit from being part of stronger, more coherent Union. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I read the Lisbon Treaty in part last year and am continuing to read it now in the run-up to the referendum. This week, I was alarmed to discover another self-amending aspect in Article 352 of the the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty (TEU) .
This would allow the EU, with unanimity in the Commission and European Parliament, to take action and adopt measures even if “the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers,”.
That is, it would allow Brussels to give itself further powers that are not conferred on it by the Treaties.
No ratification by national parliaments or referendums would be required.
Is this what the Yes side calls making the EU more “efficient”?
Under the Nice Treaty, the article applies to internal market rules only, but it would be extended by Lisbon to all areas of the treaty.
It is one of a myriad anti-democratic provisions in the Lisbon Treaty and confirms it as an anti-democratic document.
In October, when we will be presented with exactly the same Lisbon Treaty, I will be voting No again to save Irish and European democracy. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Jason Fitzharris (July 6th) omits a salient point.
He claims the supremacy of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over national courts was first established in the case of Costa V ENEL but what he does not point out was that this was the court itself claiming it had supremacy as were all subsequent claims of supremacy by the ECJ.
This supremacy was not, until now, written into any EU Treaty.
It is also debatable whether the ECJ has the supremacy it thinks it has.
The recent German constitutional court’s decision clearly stated: “The peoples of the member-states are the holders of the constituent power. The Basic Law does not permit the special bodies of the legislative, executive and judicial power to dispose of the essential elements of the constitution.”
Contrary to Mr. Fitzharris’s assertion that “to argue against the primacy of European law is essentially to argue against membership of the EU” it is perfectly correct to want to put a brake on the ECJ and stop it intruding into areas into which it has no business intruding.
To do otherwise is to accord the European Union the status of sovereign State which, no matter much eurofederalists want it to be so, the EU does not have. – Yours, etc,
Madam — And so the scaremongering begins.
In your Editorial (July 9th) you said that the “defining issue for Lisbon, second time round, is whether Ireland wants to stand financially isolated or part of a strong and supportive European Union”.
Surely the issue is whether or not the content of the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland and the European Union?
Indeed in the present economic climate the defining issue for this voter will be whether the content of the Treaty will help resolve our economic crisis or deepen it.
Unfortunately your Editorial ignored this important question, attempting instead to scare rather then inform your readers.
While we have come to expect such scaremongering from Government ministers and their supporters on the Opposition benches is it to much to expect something better from The Irish Times? – Yours, etc,