Madam, - Libertas activist Olivia Kelly is quoted by Kathy Sheridan as saying she is worried that the Lisbon Treaty will bring abortion and gay marriage, among other things (Home News, May 29th). She might think to tell this to Senator David Norris, who is not in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (Seanad Report, May 29th), but who is pro-choice on abortion and a prominent campaigner for gay rights.
Does she really think Senator Norris would not support a Treaty that could possibly lead to abortion and gay marriage becoming legal in this country?
We have heard Libertas claim in recent days that ratification of the Charter of Fundamental Rights could result in the death penalty being reintroduced in certain circumstances and that three-year-old children could be detained for observation. Let them cite the specific articles in this charter on which they base these outlandish claims. Let the Yes campaign fully analyse these claims and have the opportunity to respond to them.
Libertas should respond to the fact that the charter says clearly under Article 2 that "no one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed".
We have already heard Libertas falsely claim that competency for foreign direct investment policy determination will be exclusively transferred to Brussels under this treaty. We have heard it also falsely claim that the treaty threatens Ireland's ability to set its own corporation tax rate.
It is an unlikely coincidence for Libertas's executive director and campaign director both to have been employees of Rivada Networks (The Irish Times, May 27th), which, on its own website, is described as a "designer, integrator and operator of public safety communications and information technology networks for [US] homeland security forces". The Libertas communications director, John McGuirk says that these two only "provided assistance" to Libertas in their own "free time" in 2007, but this raises the question: what were these two doing in their salaried work for Rivada? It is very important that Libertas answers this question, as it is a public interest issue when an organisation like Libertas springs up out of nowhere to promote a very specific agenda.
Libertas should make clear, before June 12th, how it has raised
the money to erect all those billboards, print leaflets, place
newspaper and bus advertising around the country, and even put out
a campaign song. If it cannot provide an adequate explanation for
how these funds were raised, then voters should stop listening to
whatever it has to say. - Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Knocknashee,
Goatstown,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - The most significant change heralded by the Lisbon Treaty is the elevation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to the status of a constitutional document equal in status to the EC treaties.
Gerard Hogan, probably the leading expert on the interaction between EU law and Irish constitutional law, has said this is the most significant legal change since the adoption of the Constitution in 1937.
Yet the Irish people are being led to believe that the Treaty of Lisbon brings about minor, interstitial change only and, more subtly and insidiously, that those who oppose it are a ragtag coalition of sandal-wearing, muesli-eating, geansaí-knitting, deodorant-shunning lunatics who, according to a recent Editorial of yours, may or may not be rational. Unfortunately, some of my fellow travellers in the No camp may fit the former description, but it is deeply insulting and simply wrong to suggest there is nothing to worry about in this treaty, and most particularly in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Article 51 of the charter states that it is addressed to the institutions of the European Union and to the member-states only when they are implementing EU law. However, Prof Sionaidh Douglas-Scott has argued that the charter may have an impact on member-state action despite such limiting clauses through expansive interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The ECJ has never adopted a literal approach to the
interpretation of the treaties and the expectation that it will do
so now is misplaced. It has established a well-deserved reputation
for creativity (some would say wilfulness) and has performed
definitional acrobatics that would make Bill Clinton blush. In
short, Irish public policy could have substantive limits imposed
upon it by a court whose decisions cannot be overruled by the Irish
people and whose composition we cannot control.- Yours, etc,
STEPHEN BRITTAIN,
Glendown Lawn,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Madam, - The Progressive Democrats have always applauded people who work hard and achieve success. In many ways our central purpose has been about trying to create an environment where our people can reach their potential.
One man who has achieved great success is Declan Ganley. He has vast business interests, much of it abroad. He is a man who will prosper irrespective of the result of the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.
But the question is: how will Ireland prosper in the event of a No vote? In my view, with economic uncertainty now a feature around the world, this is not the time for Ireland to isolate itself from its position of influence in the European Union.
Declan Ganley, one Irish businessman, is calling for a No Vote. But let us not forget that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which represents hundreds of thousands or workers, is calling for a Yes vote.
The employer's organisation Ibec and the Small Firms Association are also calling for a Yes vote because they believe it to be in the best interests of Irish workers and business people.
Whom do I believe? No contest. - Yours, etc,
Senator CIARAN CANNON,
Leader of the Progressive Democrats,
Seanad Éireann,
Dubin 2.
A Chara, - I want to congratulate the leader of the Labour Party, Eamon Gilmore, on his declaration that he is "proud to be Irish". The fact that he should publish this statement, in large multicoloured posters, and exhibit them throughout the country at enormous inconvenience and expense, is a welcome mark of patriotism at a time of political correctness, as it affirms his own and his party's commitment to Irishness.
It is all the more surprising, therefore, that Mr Gilmore should
undercut his declaration of fealty by saying he will vote Yes to
Lisbon. - Is mise,
LIAM Ó GÉIBHEANNAIGH,
Áth an Ghainimh,
Co Átha Cliath.
Madam, - It is true, as Avril Doyle MEP says (May 29th) that the Nice Treaty paved the way for the loss of an EU Commissioner for at least five years in 15 (I say "at least" advisedly). That was one of the reasons I voted against it both times. It is not true to say this is a fait accompli unless and until it is enshrined in the constitution, now conveniently called the Lisbon Treaty to avoid having it voted down in various EU States. A No vote to Lisbon may send the drafters back to the drawing-board and therefore could halt the stampede to a situation in which we will be governed by unelected EU bureaucrats instead of the people of Ireland.
And I think it was disgraceful that Garret FitzGerald should write an article headed "Vote No and we become pariahs of EU" (Opinion Analysis, May 24th). I have the highest regard for Dr FitzGerald, who normally relies on facts and figures, but this is emotional rubbish. Many people in France, Holland, Britain and Austria would welcome a No vote in Ireland, having been deprived of the opportunity to vote themselves.
To avoid misunderstanding, I am a committed supporter of a
European union, particularly a Common Market (which has not in fact
been achieved yet), but not the united states of Europe envisaged
in the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
W.J. MURPHY,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.