Sir, – There can be little doubt that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy pondered long over how to progress their plans for the “finance treaty” in such a way that Irish people would not feel obliged to hold a constitutional referendum on it!
Failing to manage to do so inevitably required the passing of European legislation which would no longer oblige a European rethink should any member state decline to sign up to the “treaty”. This, of course is in flagrant opposition to the condition under which states seeking membership were drawn into the European narrative in the first place. We now only require twelve European nations to say “Yes” and Q.E.D., it is a done deal! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am writing as a Northern unionist and former unionist delegate to the Atkins Constitutional convention at Stormont some years ago, to express my full support for the Sinn Féin position on the European austerity treaty referendum on May 31st. This treaty should most definitely be rejected by the Irish people in the Republic. If passed it will only bring endless misery. The answer of course is Glass-Steagall, the act passed by former US President Roosevelt which separates retail and commercial banks from the Wall Street gambling merchant banks. The implementation of Glass Steagall together with a government credit system will bring us all out of this mess and bring economic growth. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – At the height of the boom, while The Irish Times was publishing thick property supplements, Sinn Féin argued that this State was too reliant on the housing market for exchequer revenue. The electorate were told we were economic illiterates.
During the first Lisbon Treaty campaign The Irish Times dismissed Sinn Féin’s contention that a better deal was possible. During the second Lisbon campaign The Irish Times stated that a better and improved deal had, in fact since been secured, and your editorials joined in the chorus of “Yes for Jobs”.
Over the past number of years Sinn Féin has been the only opposition party to present costed, alternative budgetary proposals. The Irish Times from your Éditorial (“Shallow, cynical and wrong”, May 12th) obviously does not like or support the alternative vision portrayed therein. That is your right.
Indeed whenever Ireland has been faced at a political crossroads The Irish Times has consistently advocated the route preferred by the establishment parties; a route for which many Irish families are now paying a heavy price.
As you yourself ask: “Have we forgotten?” – Is mise,
Sir, – It is surprising that Sinn Féin does not support greater European integration, particularly given that this process has been far more successful at peacefully achieving Sinn Féin’s aim of removing borders, than Sinn Féin and the IRA managed to achieve with 30 years of violence. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I got a pamphlet on the fiscal treaty in my door today from one Nigel Farage, a right-wing MEP. What right has this man to interfere in our election? No one here can vote for him, he does not pay taxes here, I never met him, he does not represent me and I resent him sending me this stuff. It came through An Post by the way, and I am told that EU money pays for this campaign of his.
Goodness knows we have enough to put up with here besides this guy now that we have his Declan Ganley in the No camp also. Can Dana be far behind? I can only hope that Mr Farage’s efforts will help the Yes campaign. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The Yes side say that we will not be able to borrow money from the markets if we vote No. The No side say that we will. Why not ask the “markets”? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – By constantly referring to the stability treaty as the austerity treaty, the No side in the referendum campaign seems to be attempting a mass subliminal messaging of the electorate. It is time, surely, for the Yes side to respond in kind, and here I offer my services as a spindoctor for free: the phrase the “prosperity treaty”, if repeated ad nauseam, should prove a winner. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If passed, the fiscal pact would in effect bring in a constitutional ban on Keynesian economics: budgets would have to be balanced annually, with no room for counter-cyclical policies.
In a democracy, anyone advocating either (or any other) policy has a right to put their case before the electorate, and let them decide. Introducing a constitutional ban on one set of policy proposals is tantamount to creating a one-party state, something Angela Merkel is familiar with from her childhood in the old East Germany, where she was a member of the young communist organisation.
If the Yes side is so convinced of its case, why doesn’t it rely on its power of persuasion at election time, and let people decide for themselves? Fascists are permitted to stand for election; people advocating a return to policies devised by probably the most civilised economist ever to put pen to paper face a constitutional ban. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – First we had the Maastricht Treaty, then the Amsterdam Treaty, followed by the Nice Treaty and then the Lisbon Treaty.
Now we have the Fiscal Treaty, the Austerity Treaty and the Stability Treaty all at once. Fine Gael posters are in green and Fianna Fáil posters are in blue – I’m really confused now. – Yours, etc,