A chara, – Patsy McGarry’s Opinion piece (August 21st) relating to the No to Lisbon 2 campaign contains a range of serious accusations concerning Éirígí and the broader No to Lisbon campaign. In that article he chose to play the man – that is, those campaigning against the treaty – as opposed the ball – the actual treaty itself.
Mr McGarry’s accusations are mere diversions from debating the substance of the Lisbon treaty, and the complete denial of democracy that the re-run involves.
The broad thrust of Mr McGarry’s article was an attempt to belittle and smear the No to Lisbon 2 campaign, by somehow concocting a notion that those involved are undemocratic. What the author fails to point out is that on the issue of the Lisbon Treaty, the wide range of groups involved in that progressive No campaign, which includes Éirígí, represent the views of the democratic majority – 53 per cent of the first Lisbon referendum electorate.
It is the decision by Yes campaigners to impose the exact same treaty on the people of this State, which represents a fundamentally undemocratic stance.
Mr McGarry also completely fails to investigate those ranged on the other side of the debate. In the Yes camp we find Ibec, foreign multinational corporations, a range of business and economic consultants and the establishment political parties, in essence, the very people who have led this country to mass unemployment and economic ruin. – Is mise,
.
Madam, – Reading Patsy McGarry’s article, I despaired at the thought of what was before us over the next six weeks: listening to that lot every time we turned on the radio or TV.
My mood was deepened when I then read the letter from Peter Feeney of RTÉ telling us that they were going to be “fair” to all sides Last time out we were subjected to an unending series of debates which were nothing less than shouting matches with people representing groups with big names but which probably comprised no more than a few headbangers meeting in a pub.
Surely there must be some criteria for allowing such people access to the airwaves? For example, evidence of a list of paid- up members of not less than a certain number, or be a registered political party, or similar. It is crazy that just because they are on the No side they each get the same airtime as the major political parties, or Ictu, IFA and Ibec, who represent major segments of the community.
The best suggestion as to how to prevent futile TV and radio debates with each side trying to shout each other down before a weak presenter came from Noel Dorr at the Merriman Summer School (“RTÉ can play ‘major’ role in informing public about Lisbon”, August 18th). He suggested that there should be three structured debates in which a panel of three would forensically question a platform of three from both sides of the debate before a small studio audience. Let us get some semblance of order into this situation before we all get too switched off and bored to listen and even not bother to vote in the end. The issue is too important for that. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Dr Edward Horgan (Comdt Ret’d) asked the question: “How many troops must be deployed before Dáil approval is needed, 17, 70, or 700 . . ,” (August 21st). Does he seriously want us to believe that a former Army officer and lecturer in peace studies never heard of the Defence (Amendment) No 2 Act of 1960, specifically, Section 2 (2)(b) which gives the number as 12.
Of course Dr Horgan knows it is 12, but to acknowledge this would be to debunk his own argument and to undermine his colleagues in Pana and the anti-Lisbon campaign. His point was not merely rhetorical, it was deliberately misleading.
It is only one small example of the No side’s attempts to sow doubt and spread misinformation and why he, in particular, does not deserve to be taken seriously. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – While it was enthralling to see a wealthy businessman call most of the shots during the last referendum, on this occasion the choice is more clear cut.
Lacking the persuasive, white knight persona, that almost made Libertas look like champions of the urban elite, Sinn Féin will now be the standard bearers for the No camp. And while most of us learn from past mistakes, Sinn Féin assures us that our partners – some of whom are already emerging from recession – can be talked into making further concessions.
Even allowing for that possibility, would that be a wise course of action when we already have watertight guarantees on the contentious issues? At what point do we stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Europeans? What has Sinn Féin, and the various strands that make up the No campaign, ever done to promote Irish manufacturing and business interests in the European Union? Is the Irish taxpayer prepared for the backlash that will almost certainly follow another rejection of the Treaty? We have one last bite at the cherry and we need more than a simple pass.
Anything less than a resounding Yes will be seen as confirmation that we are unworthy of the support of our fellow Europeans. We would also convince our European neighbours that we are self-centred and poorly advised. As others have stated already, our hopes of recovery from the current downward spiral will lie in tatters if we continue to take our lead from people who have built their reputations on negative campaigning. Despite the recession and accompanying scandals, we have the resilience and the know-how to claw our way back to the top. But we must play by the rules – EU rules. – Yours, etc,