Madam, - It never ceases to amaze me that having "our own commissioner" continues to be such a crucial issue for many who are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. It even appears to exercise many of the treaty's supporters.
There is no point in emphasising again - as has been done by so many contributors to your paper already - that EU commissioners are not supposed to act in the interests of a particular member-state. Invariably the best commissioners have been those who had the interests of the Union as a whole in mind. Unfortunately, many people's political instincts are shaped by the Irish electoral system where political representatives are elected exclusively to look after their constituents and they find it impossible (or are unwilling) to contemplate any other concept.
But what should give everyone pause for thought is a critical assessment of some more recent performances of Irish commissioners in Brussels. As Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy set in train the spiral that led to the current disastrous state of the country's finances by embarking on the "decentralisation" project, one of the biggest wastes of public funds, and especially by his "if you have it spend it" fiscal strategy. He was then sent to Brussels, ostensibly to carry on the same policies. Thankfully the worst of his "free market for all" philosophy was prevented by fiscally less reckless member-states and he rightly had to face the wrath of the European Parliament when the world's financial system came crashing down.
If this is the sort of contribution Ireland likes to make to the Commission (Mr P. Flynn also comes to mind) I frankly prefer if others saved us from ourselves. This is not to say that Ireland has not also had excellent Commissioners, nor that other countries have not also made poor appointments. But this only underlines my point: it matters far more for the well-being of Ireland in the EU what kind of people are sitting in the Commission and what policies they pursue than what passports they happen to hold. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Kathy Sinnott MEP may be right in saying (November 19th) that declarations are not legally binding and will not protect our concerns about neutrality, abortion and taxation. As these concerns, as raised by the anti-Lisbon campaign, were largely unfounded (for example, Vincent Browne describes the issues of abortion and conscription as "off-the-wall"), it is hard to see to which of the treaty's terms legally-binding protocols might be linked. It is not possible to have derogations from non-existent provisions. Thus, free-standing declarations signed by all parties are the best way to allay the fears of those who express such concerns.
Ms Sinnott refers surprisingly to "the treaty's undemocratic nature". This value judgment carries weight because she is herself democratically elected. However, it would be useful to learn how she justifies her claim, given that the treaty will increase the powers of the parliaments of the member states and of the EU.
If her objection is to stronger voting rights in the council for the bigger states, it is fair enough to argue that Ireland will thereby lose influence, but not that the change is undemocratic: since the German government represents far more citizens than ours does, it is more democratic than otherwise to give it added weight.
The Commission is not meant to be representative of the states or the citizens. The periodic "loss" of an Irish commissioner would not therefore be undemocratic. However, the way to prevent this "loss" (as the Irish people are apparently keen to do) is to adopt the Lisbon Treaty, since it empowers the European Council to set aside the compulsory down sizing which Irish voters approved in the Nice Treaty.
May I end with a practical proposal? Our Government can, by means of legislation, require the Supreme Court to examine the Lisbon Treaty and identify any provisions in it which impinge on the Constitution. The points specified by the court would be the object of a new referendum, thus affording citizens a much clearer idea of why they are being asked to vote, and putting an end to the excuse "I didn't know, so I voted No".
If the Government goes for a referendum on the basis of agreed declarations but without prior Supreme Court identification of the precise constitutional implications, then it should at least distribute widely EU Official Journal C115 of 9.5.2008. This contains a consolidated text combining Lisbon with the surviving remnants of all previous treaties. It reads easily, and should cut the number of voters not ashamed to confess ignorance. Indeed, it could usefully be referred to in the referendum voting paper itself. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Robert Ballagh (November 24th) attributes petulance to Sarah Carey and bias to The Irish Times in putting forward pro-Lisbon views. He feels it necessary to remind us that a "majority of the electorate" voted against Lisbon.
In turn I feel it necessary to remind Mr Ballagh that actually 28.7 per cent of the electorate voted against Lisbon. How does this constitute a majority of the electorate? For the record, 24.3 per cent voted Yes and the remainder did not show: some assumed their votes were not needed, others were misled by the now discredited scaremongering of the No campaign. Undoubtedly some were also deterred by the dismissive attitudes towards the Treaty document displayed by the comments of Messrs Cowen and McCreevy. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - The likely outcome of a rerun of the Lisbon Treaty referendum will be another no vote unless there is a general election first, allowing voters to give their opinion on the future direction of the country.
Assurances on neutrality, abortion, etc will be no match for the likely populist desire to "get one over" on the current Government, owing to popular anger over cutbacks in response the current economic malaise.
We should remember that the French vote against the EU Constitution was at least as much a vote against the unpopular Chirac administration as against the European project. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Due to a lack of political leadership, the community is split over the Lisbon Treaty. As our economic crisis deepens, we may end up ceasing to be full members of the European Union and, worse still, have to drop out of the euro zone to restore our competitiveness. These are frightening thoughts but real dangers. We need a National Government to ensure a Yes to Lisbon. - Yours, etc,