Madam, - Col (retd) Dorcha Lee (June 4th) pours scorn on the notion that the EU is being militarised, while conceding that "Lisbon does have modest military-related provisions, mainly aimed at enhancing the EU's capabilities to conduct peace support and humanitarian operations". However, in his opinion piece in this paper on May 9th he wrote that "Lisbon also revises the scope of tasks to deal with crises, including. . .tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making".
It's interesting that "peace-making" has discreetly vanished from his list. Perhaps someone pointed out to him that this is universally understood to be an Orwellian euphemism for "making war".
The five main German peace research institutes have just issued their 2008 report, in which they disclose that in 2006 the US wasted $542 billion in military expenditure. Western Europe, including the EU, came next with $234 billion. East Asia followed with a miserable $150 billion while the Middle East and North Africa jointly limped in at fourth place with a measly $81 billion, just over one third of Europe's expenditure. These figures suggest that EU "defence" spending is modest only by comparison with the US, but obscene by any objective measure.
According to Amnesty International, the value of export licences issued by Ireland for goods with a military application rose from €1.3 billion in 2004 to €2.4 billion in 2006. The present Irish Government has committed itself to a rise in "defence" expenditure, although our military spending is already three times our much-vaunted allocation of aid to the world's poor. Our soldiers are now wearing Israeli helmets and participating in a dubious operation in Chad that many interpret as lending support to a French-backed military dictatorship.
Far from being "an exotic conspiracy theory", as Col Lee claims, the militarisation of the EU is taking place before our eyes. - Yours, etc,
RAYMOND DEANE,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - I refer to Mark Hennessy's article in last Saturday's Irish Timesheaded: "Yes campaign needs prize-fighters, not gentlemen".
In advance of the referendum, the publication on May 29th of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference pastoral reflection Fostering a Community of Values was comprehensively covered by your newspaper. It is available to read on www.catholiccommunications.ie.
If Mr Hennessy was in attendance at the media launch he would have found no basis for his disappointment at the position of the bishops vis-à-vis the "Catholic far-right", as he put it.
At that event bishops advised voters to inform themselves of the issues involved and be mindful of those "who seek to influence the outcome of the referendum either by offering misleading or patently incorrect advice or by introducing extraneous factors into the debate", whatever their source.
In addition, Bishop Michael Smith of Meath clearly stated that it is the bishops of Ireland who speak on behalf of the Church. - Yours, etc,
MARTIN LONG,
Director, Catholic CommunicationsOffice,
Maynooth,
Co Kildare.
****
Madam, - At the launch of the information campaign by the Referendum Commission on May 13th last the three principal functions of the Commission, as laid down in the Referendum Act, 2001, were clearly outlined:
1. To explain the subject matter of the referendum.
2. To use all means at the commission's disposal to publish the explanations to as many people as possible.
3. To promote public awareness and encourage people to vote.
The chairman, Mr Justice O'Neill, said: "We are not going to supervise, control or try to influence the debate beyond discharging our statutory function to explain what's in the treaty."
However, he also indicated that the commission would be monitoring the debate and issuing clarifying statements if it was the commission's considered view that people were being confused or misled.
To date, the commission has announced its "considered position" on taxation, neutrality, abortion, qualified majority voting and the retention of a veto on any future WTO deal.
These are all issues that No campaigners see as critical in their attempt to convince voters to reject the treaty.
So far, the commission has issued no clarifying statements regarding claims made by the Yes campaign, such as Garret FitzGerald's assertion that we will become the pariahs of the EU and Minister Ryan's claim that Europe would face chaos if the treaty is rejected. - Yours, etc,
ANTHONY SHERIDAN,
Carraig Eoin,
Cobh,
Co Cork
****
Madam, - The slogan used by one of the main No groups - "It'll cost you. More taxes, less power" - sounds remarkably similar to a slogan in the Nice referendum: "You will lose. Money, power freedom". With the benefit of six years' hindsight - during which time the Irish economy has grown at twice the average rate of the EU 15 - could No campaigners now quantify the extent to which we have lost "money, power and freedom" as a result of the Nice treaty?
It seems to me they are recycling the same scare stories that proved unfounded in the accession, Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice referendums in order to promote a cause for which they would not otherwise be able to win support. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN BARRETT,
Kilmainham Square,
Inchicore Road,
Dublin 8.
****
Madam, - PD Senator Ciarán Cannon (May 31st) cites the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and Ibec as valid reasons to vote Yes.
Surely the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is supported by two organisations with such vastly different objectives confirms that this treaty is merely a legal mish-mash that is open to interpretation by various vested interests which will inevitably seek to use a ratified Lisbon Treaty to further their own objectives.
According to Mr Cannon, the PDs "have always applauded people who work hard and achieve success". It is worth mentioning that this economic success was brought about by an industrious private sector and not by Ictu, which fought tooth and nail against economic progress.
Senator Cannon implies that Libertas founder, Declan Ganley, is the only business leader who is calling for a No vote. This is totally misleading and on voting day I expect many other business leaders will follow the example of their French and Dutch counterparts and reject this deeply flawed treaty. - Yours, etc,
BRIAN GEOGHEGAN,
Temple Manor Grove,
Walkinstown,
Dublin 12.
Madam, - Kathy Sinnott MEP says the Lisbon Treaty is another move away from democracy (Opinion, May 30th).
May I ask her if she is opposed, as a member of the European Parliament, to giving more power to Ireland's democratically elected MEPs? Is she against the European Parliament being given the right to elect the President of the Commission?
Is she against the Council of Ministers holding its meetings in public when enacting new policies or legislation, thus increasing transparency and accountability? Is she against giving a greater role to national parliaments and citizens?
Is she against the Commission being legally obliged to send national parliaments all proposed legislation, green and white papers so that they can be part of the legislative process at the earliest stage? Is she against the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, if the treaty is ratified, will become legally binding, meaning that the civil, political and social rights of Irish people and European citizens will be enshrined in law?
Is she against the treaty elevating the fight against climate change to be one of the fundamental objectives of the EU? Is she against the evolving EU energy security policy which promotes the use of renewable forms of energy and greater energy efficiency?
A Yes vote by the Irish people on June 12th will secure Ireland's place at the centre of Europe. It is high time Ms Sinnott realised this. - Yours, etc,
KAREN WHITE,
South Great George's Street,
Dublin 2.