Madam, – In the article “Lawyers launch campaign for Lisbon Yes vote” (July 24th), a member of Lawyers for Europe is quoted as stating that the treaty “removes many of the restrictions on the European Court of Justice adjudicating upon Union measures concerning justice and home affairs as well as common foreign and security policy.” The main thrust, however, of Articles 275 and 276 (both new), of the Lisbon Treaty, is to exclude the European Court of Justice from having jurisdiction.
Article 275 begins, “The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions.” (Exceptions relating to Article 40 Treaty of the European Union and Article 263 (4) proceedings).
Article 276 reads in full: “In exercising its powers regarding the provisions of Chapters 4 and 5 of Title V of Part Three relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law-enforcement services of a member-state or the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon member-states with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.” We do indeed live in interesting times! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Jim Higgins MEP, in his letter urging us to vote for Lisbon (July 29th), states that “Ireland’s interests as a small country are best served by retaining our position of influence in Europe”.
It seems that we are obliged to agree with everyone else if we want to keep what influence we have within the European Union.
The truth is we have had what little influence we have had by being good little “Europeans” and always voting Yes to every treaty that comes our way. If, by exercising our democratic right as citizens (the only citizens to be allowed this right), we refuse to accept a treaty, then it seems according to the advocates for a Yes vote we are to be treated less well than before. If this is the case, then maybe it is time to re-evaluate our relationship with an organisation that, for all its flaunting of its democratic credentials takes a very undemocratic view of people voting in ways contrary to the prevailing view in Brussels. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I welcome Naoise Nunn’s public declaration of support for the Lisbon Treaty.
Despite being one of the most influential opponents of Lisbon last year in his capacity as executive director of Libertas, he has now pledged to vote in favour of the treaty in October. Mr Nunn gives two main reasons for his change of heart (Opinion, July 23rd). First, he says that the legal guarantees and the retention of a commissioner combine to represent a “better deal”. Second, he recognises that the treaty “offers us shelter from the economic storm”.
Mr Nunn’s approach is both pragmatic and honest. It cannot be easy to change one’s mind in the full glare of the media spotlight. I admire anyone who has the courage to do so. I would hope that others in the No camp might consider following suit. – Yours, etc,