Madam, - Your Editorial of December 14th claims that the reason all states but Ireland have chosen to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by methods other than referendum is because "efficiency has been substituted for comprehensibility as the test of its acceptability and legitimacy."
This is simply untrue. The leaders of the EU have decided in their wisdom that the people of Europe may make the "wrong" decision if the treaty is put to them.
The EU constitution and the Reform Treaty are in essence the same document with minor modifications. The people of Britain were promised a referendum by the Labour Party on the constitution while Denmark had a referendum scheduled before the people of France voted against the constitution.
Yet, we are to believe so much has changed that a referendum is no longer warranted? This is not an isolated decision by each member-state, but a collective decision by the leaders of the EU so as not to pressure each other into consulting their citizens.
Regardless of the content of the constitution, such arrogance and contempt for the principle of subsidiarity justifies rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours etc,
BARRA ROANTREE, Kimmage, Dublin 6W.
Madam, - Paul Henri Cadier (December 13th) continues what is likely to be an increasingly vigorous debate on the EU Reform Treaty. This is healthy and positive, but needs to be based on accurate facts.
He states that "the alleged increase in democracy proposed by Lisbon is only of an advisory nature", and that "parliamentary scrutiny cannot reject the Commission's proposals".
This is simply untrue. The European Parliament already has the power not only to amend, but also to reject European Union legislative proposals prepared by the Commission - and has rejected such legislation on several occasions. The Reform Treaty would extend this right to practically all EU legislation.
Moreover, it would not only reinforce the European Parliament's legislative, budgetary and other powers, but also give important new rights to national parliaments.
The increase in democracy in the Reform Treaty is thus real, and not just advisory. - Yours, etc,
FRANCIS JACOBS, Head of Office, European Parliament Office in Ireland, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.
Madam, - In purportedly rebutting Mary Lou McDonald MEP, Prof Ben Tonra (December 14th) maintains that there is a significant distinction between the Lisbon Treaty "requiring" EU member-states to improve their military capacity (as claimed by Ms McDonald) and its merely stating that they "shall undertake" to do so. Consequently, he claims, member-states "cannot be required to do anything. . .except by decision of their own governments".
According to my Collins dictionary, "shall" (as in "shall undertake") indicates "determination on the part of the speaker, as in issuing a threat", or "compulsion, now esp. in official documents", or "certainty or inevitability". All of which, in my reading, amounts to the same as Ms McDonald's contention that enhanced military capacity is "required" by the treaty.
The fact that defenders of the Lisbon Treaty are obliged to resort to such disingenuous casuistry suggests that the document entails compulsion that is a certain and inevitable threat to all of us. - Yours, etc,
RAYMOND DEANE, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Mary Lou McDonald seems to be unaware of the purpose of the European Parliament when she claims that giving powers to the EU "removes our ability democratically to reject laws that are not in our interests" (Opinion & Analysis, December 13th).
Is that not what she is paid to do as an MEP? - Yours, etc,
DAVID GEARY, Carnew Street, Stoneybatter, Dublin 7.