Madam, - Laura Dagg of the European Movement France (December 10th) fails to mention that the Taoiseach is on record as saying the Lisbon Treaty is 90 per cent the same as the one the French people rejected in May 2005. She is correct to say that Sarkozy's election has indeed left us feeling frustrated at being denied acknowledgement for our clear No.
Her contention that this treaty is needed to make the European Union function more efficiently is simply not borne out by the facts. In the same edition of your paper, a report from Brussels is headlined: "EU gridlock fears are unfounded, says report". It quotes an EU expert at the London School of Economics saying that more regulations were passed since enlargement than in the era with only 15 member-states - so much for "the treaty ending institutional stasis".
The alleged increase in democracy proposed by Lisbon is only of an advisory nature. The right of petition has no binding effect. Parliamentary scrutiny cannot reject the Commission's proposals. The High Representative or foreign minister will speak for "Europe". Which one? the majority who supported the war in Iraq? Or France and Germany, who opposed it? Kosovan independence was proposed by the big EU states, and opposed by Spain and Greece. What about neutral states?
The elected EU president will be "elected" by whom, exactly? Certainly not by us, the people. I think the English word she is looking for is "appointed". There is already concern in Brussels that there will be conflict between these new officials as their roles have not been clearly defined in the Lisbon Treaty.
The extension of qualified majority voting actually diminishes the accountability of those who take decisions in the Council. - Yours, etc,
PAUL HENRI CADIER, Rassemblement pour l'Independance de la France, Viens, France.