Madam, - Colonel Dorcha Lee's excellent article of May 9th on Lisbon and Irish military neutrality is a very welcome contribution to the serious debate that is needed on Ireland's role in the world. Colonel Lee is clearly right when he says that the Lisbon Treaty has no impact on Irish neutrality.
However, I would take a different view from him when he says that European patriotism is required as a motivation for subscribing to joint European defence. In my view, foreign and security policy is driven by national strategic interests and objectives.
For me, Ireland has no more important national strategic interest than the preservation of the European Union. It is in Ireland's interest to protect the security and integrity of the Union, if necessary by providing military support.
That, in my view, is the reason why Ireland should subscribe to common European defence. Unfortunately, this will not come with Lisbon. - Yours, etc,
Dr NORMAN STEWART, Malahide, Co Dublin.
Madam, - The Lisbon Treaty, by its incorporation of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights into the jurisprudence of the Union, guarantees that "workers, or their respective organisations, have the right, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action".
This is the first time the right to strike will have been enshrined at a European level, making it all the more curious that Brendan Ogle, who led the ILDA strike in 2001 - one of the most memorable union recognition disputes of recent decades - is advocating a No vote (Opinion & Analysis, May 7th).
Mr Ogle provides scant, if any, grounds for his position. Curiously, he mirrors the sentiments of millionaire businessman Ulick McEvaddy, in that he does not list a single provision of the treaty which he specifically opposes, instead resorting to vague generalities and hackneyed refrains that the language and presentation of the treaty are "anti-democratic", and that it is "the European Constitution. . .disguised".
The only specific issue he raises happens to be a spurious one. He alleges that any future Irish Government advocating a policy of "universal healthcare. . .free at the point of use" would find such a policy prohibited under the treaty as a distortion of competition.
Yet universal healthcare, of the kind which has been proposed many times in Ireland, currently exists - to all intents and purposes - in Germany, Finland, Hungary, Sweden and the UK. Is Mr Ogle suggesting that the sovereign, elected governments of these countries have signed up to a treaty which will bring their healthcare systems crashing down? Does he truly believe that these governments - a power-hungry elite, according to his own trade union - have a political death-wish?
The one marked feature of the opposition of the TEEU, Unite, and Ulick McEvaddy to the Lisbon Treaty has been the complete absence of any specific reasons to vote No, beyond vague waffle about the legibility of the legal text. If they truly believe that voting No is vital to the future of this country, then surely between them they should produce at least one concrete reason to do so? - Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH, Brooklawn, Dublin 3.
Madam - With reference to Conor Sexton's point (May 8th) that "it is up to all of us to find out about the thing, not to rejoice in ignorance", I feel it's only fair to point out the obvious error in his logic. Were our Government simply taking a back seat and letting the populace decide, without any encouragement one way or the other, then the onus would be entirely on us to educate ourselves.
However, with not only the Government, but the majority of the Opposition pushing for a Yes vote, they obviously bear the burden of at least making a decent effort to let us know what we are to say Yes to. The lack of an education campaign, be it web- or postal-based, has been astounding. One is reminded of the Nice Treaty, where a turnout of 34 per cent was a direct result of the weak and disinterested campaign by the government.
Secondly, the only truly impartial summary of the Treaty I have found is at the website www.lisbontreaty2008.ie, provided by the Referendum Commission. Most efforts - including the one suggested by Mr. Sexton - contain phrases such as "The Treaty will much enhance. . .", "The Treaty of Lisbon will greatly improve...", etc.
I have no desire to be explicitly told something will improve or disimprove matters, and I am quite sure most people would agree. - Yours, etc,
JAMES SADLIER, Portersgate Lawn, Dublin 15.
Madam, - In a debate with me on Newstalk radio last Saturday week, Padraig Walshe of the IFA accepted that the European Commission's role in the WTO talks is based on the existing articles of the EC Treaty. I see now that he is again seeking to link the Lisbon Treaty and the WTO talks (Letters, May 8th).
Let us be clear: the WTO talks are being conducted under the current EC Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty in no way affects the provisions of the EC Treaty regarding these talks. By using the Lisbon Treaty as a blackmail tool the IFA is doing a disservice to farmers and to the nation as a whole. - Yours, etc,
DAVID GEARY, Head of EU, Competition and Regulatory law, Eugene F. Collins Solicitors, Dublin 4.
Madam, "By discussing mortality, we can reflect on how we live our lives", runs your headline to Dr Susan Delaney's article in your issue of May 6th. For many Irish people, such reflection has resulted in their subscribing to a set of beliefs and values which include the existence of God, the sacredness of human life and the immortality of the soul.
The totally secular Lisbon Treaty, however, takes no account of the deep religious beliefs and values of millions of EU citizens. Powerful EU bodies have already attacked Ireland's Christian values and Lisbon could force changes in Irish laws which defend them. The Irish people will, hopefully, guard their right to the kind of society they want by giving a No vote. - Yours, etc,
JOHN McCANN, Glenhill Park, Belfast.