Madam, - Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has told the Irish public that a No vote would be a "disaster" (The Irish Times, April 28th).
Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern visited Argentina recently, where he was interviewed by the Buenos Aires Herald. According to the Herald's edition of March 22nd, "there would be no dire consequence should the referendum go amiss, Ahern insisted - life will go on as it did after the French and Dutch rejected the European constitutional treaty of 2005."
Are they both right? - Yours, etc,
BERNARD WILLIAMS,
Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Madam, - Neal Lambe (May 1st) argues that the loss of a national commissioner in one out of every three years does not weaken Ireland's representation in the EU. He says that the oath of office taken by commissioners precludes them from acting in their own national interest.
I am delighted he is so optimistic. But his argument ignores the reality that, even without betraying their oaths, commissioners from vastly different countries, varying greatly in size, population, and resources, inevitably bring different perspectives to negotiations. This enables them to see aspects and consequences to proceedings that might otherwise be overlooked. This is particularly important in the case of small countries like Ireland.
Just last week John Cooney, writing in the Western People, recalled how a forceful intervention by Agriculture Commissioner Ray MacSharry back in 1990 was vital in preventing Trade Commissioner Franz Andriessen from offering unapproved proposals to the American trade secretary, to the detriment of a then rural-based economy like Ireland.
Loss of a national commissioner for every one out of three years means that interventions along these lines can no longer occur. It is consequently a real loss which should not be glossed over or haughtily dismissed. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL O'DRISCOLL,
Blackrock,
Cork.
Madam, - Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin advocates voting No to the Lisbon Treaty so that "EU leaders will be brought back to the negotiating table" where the Irish government can "negotiate a better deal" for Ireland (Opinion, April 29th). This is a remarkably naive reading of both the process of European treaty negotiations and the reality of the deal contained within the treaty.
Arguing that Ireland should vote No in the hope of regaining a permanent EU Commissioner ignores the fact that such office-holders do not represent their national interests. Indeed, on more than one occasion since 1973 successive Irish Commissioners have overridden the express policy demands of their domestic government. From the late Patrick Hillery up to the present incumbent Charlie McCreevy, all have withstood pressure from Irish administrations on matters of European legislation, including such issues as gender equality.
Furthermore, although Ms McDonald surprisingly fails to point this out, the deal as struck will also see the German, French and UK Commissioners stepping out of office for a full five-year term - and they have accepted this as a reasonable compromise in terms of decision-making efficiency and in recognition of the fact that there are simply not enough "real" portfolios to go round all 27 member-state nominees. Rotation of Commissioners occurs on an absolutely equal basis common to both big and small states and, quite simply, small states cannot get a better deal than that.
The argument that Ireland loses voting strength in the Council of Ministers belies the fact that very few such votes are actually taken anyway, as matters which fall under the co-decision procedure and qualified majority voting are usually taken by consensus. The policies proposed to move under this system do not in any way threaten any of Ireland's traditional "red line" areas.
Ms McDonald again raises the canard regarding the threat to Ireland's corporation tax. This matter has been aired often in the current phase of the referendum campaign and quite simply it is dishonourable continually to spread such misconceptions to the Irish citizenry. Ireland - as well as all other states which adhere strongly to their right to set their own tax rates, such as Sweden and the UK - retains its veto on the matter and this will not change.
Sinn Féin's arguments on neutrality and military spending deserve no further comment for fear of giving them the "oxygen of publicity". However, one wonders what their stance is now following similar misinformation spread by that party on their Nice Treaty posters regarding "No to Nice, No to Nato". The Treaty of Nice was passed and, as far as I am aware, we have not become members of Nato in the interim.
Such fearmongering has no place in any rational discussion of what is certainly not a perfect document, but is most probably the best deal that an Irish Government can hope to achieve in a 27-member organisation. There is no "better deal" available. - Yours, etc,
GERARD ARTHURS,
Lecturer in International
Politics,
School of Business,
Waterford Institute
of Technology.
Madam, - Brian Geoghegan writes (April 24th) that "by any reasonable analysis, our low level of corporation tax could be described as a distortion of competition'." I disagree. A reasonable analysis would conclude that our policy provides competition with higher-rate tax régimes that is transparent, straightforward and direct. There is nothing distorted about it, as the low rate of tax is available to all who comply with published rules that apply equally to everyone.
Given that fixing tax-rates is in the exclusive competence of the individual states, any higher-rate countries which want harmonisation have only to reduce their level to that of Ireland. By thus exercising their sovereignty, they would eliminate the competition they dislike, and might even benefit from additional investment! In short, they have no need to try to push harmonisation through the machinery of the EU.
In fact, it is doubtful if the EU could legislate in a field of national competence, in flagrant breach of the principle of subsidiarity. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels.