Madam, – Lucinda Creighton (Opinion, July 1st) asks us to stick to the facts “because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”
The Treaty of Lisbon is a legal document and is subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In many cases, it will only be when a case relating to this treaty comes before the ECJ, and is ruled on, can one say what is fact and what is not. This is the case with all legal documents but especially in the case of the Lisbon Treaty which is especially tortuous in its wording.
The European Court of Justice has in the past been described as “a court with a mission” and that mission is to advance the further integration of the countries of the European Union.
If the Treaty is passed, some of the claims by the No side, derided as “outlandish” by Lucinda Creighton, may well come to pass at a future date if the ECJ decides to so rule as a means of furthering the further integration of EU nations.
It is notable that the claim of primacy of the ECJ over national decisions was in article I of the proposed constitution but has now been relegated to declaration 17 of the Lisbon Treaty in the hope that fewer people will notice. Hardly, in Deputy Creighton’s words, “honest and clear”. – Yours, etc,
Madam, — Gavin Barrett (Opinion, June 30th) appears confused. On the one hand he tells us that come October we will be voting on a Lisbon Treaty identical to that rejected in 2008 while on the other hand he argues that we will be voting on something called, “Lisbon Plus”. Adding to the confusion he tells us that while the European Council decision did not amend the Treaty it none the less will alter its “practical impact”. Is this a case of trying to have one’s cake and eat it? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Paul Kelly (July 1st)states that he will again be voting No in “support my fellow European citizens in France and Holland who rejected Lisbon in their democratic processes” and that “We are either in Europe together or we are not”.
First of all, he is profoundly mistaken in that the French and Dutch voters rejected the Constitutional Treaty and not the Lisbon Treaty.
Secondly, he neglects to mention that Spain and Luxembourg voted Yes in even greater numbers on the Constitutional Treaty, and that if you combine the votes in all four member states you get a majority of 27 million to 23 million votes in favour of the Constitutional Treaty.
It thus seems that Mr Kelly is selectively for a minority of European voters who voted No in preference to the majority of European voters who voted Yes.
As he says himself, “We are either in Europe together or we are not”! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The ruling of the German constitutional court on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (“German court dismisses challenge to Lisbon Treaty”, July 1st) should give pause for thought in all 27 member states of the European Union.
The court has ruled that the ratification of the Treaty cannot go ahead until legislative safeguards are in place as at present both houses of the German parliament “have not been accorded sufficient rights of participation in European law-making procedures and Treaty amendment procedures”.
Simply, this requires legislation to ensure that the transfer of competencies cannot occur without approval of both houses of parliament.
However, a recent survey published by Open Europe shows that 77 per cent of the German population want a referendum on the Treaty.
This highlights the democratic deficit currently at play in the EU, which will be exacerbated by a ‘self-amending’ treaty. As in Ireland, without reference to the electorate, competences of the member states can be handed over to the Union – even when this is clearly at odds with the wishes of the citizens of a member-state.
The only recourse is to call to task the elected government in a general election – though the competencies that have been handed over will be gone forever. – Is mise,
Madam, – Tony Kinsella (Opinion, June 29th) believes that our No vote last year represented “our own moment of political surrealism”. I wonder what exactly he thinks was surreal about it. Is it surreal to vote No? Is a Yes vote the only “real” option?
There appears, though, to be quite a number of surrealists out there, such as the 200,000 people who showed up in Lisbon to protest when EU leaders met there in October 2007 to decide and approve the Treaty.
Or the 55 per cent of French voters and 65 per cent of Dutch voters who rejected almost the same set of proposals in 2005.
In fact, according to outgoing EU commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the electorates of 95 per cent of member-states are surrealists in that if asked they would have voted against ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
How good can the proposals contained in the Lisbon Treaty “really” be if after months, and indeed years, of debate the people of Europe keep rejecting them? And why has the unanimity requirement been circumvented by framing the constitution as a series of amendments in order to avoid referendums in most member-states?
Is the European Union “really” based on democratic principles and adherence to its own rules or not? – Yours, etc,