Madam, – Joe Costello said he was surprised that a UKIP MEP was invited over to launch our No to Lisbon 2 Campaign (Breaking News, September 3rd). He neglects to mention that the UKIP MEP, Marta Andreasen, was not invited over in her capacity as a representative of UKIP, but as someone who had inside experience of working in the Commission at the highest level.
Consequently, Ms Andreasen was able to deliver valuable first-hand testimony of the extraordinary lack of accountability which is the norm in that institution, something relevant in the context of a referendum debate on a treaty which further strengthens the Commission’s powers.
Mr Costello stated (Opinion, August 11th): “It is not unreasonable that the electorate should have the opportunity to study, digest and vote on the combined set of proposals, some old, some new.” This provides a marked contrast to his earlier views on the same subject in a letter to your newspaper months after last year’s referendum: “It is not sufficient for the Government to speculate about what went wrong with the referendum and wonder if a deletion here and an amendment there will allow a watered-down version of the treaty to be presented again to the people. The Lisbon Treaty referendum is over.”
Yet Mr Costello now is happy with not even a watered-down treaty but exactly the same treaty being “presented again to the people”! By contrast, Ms Andreasen has stayed absolutely consistent in her views and testimony despite being subjected to enormous political pressure. Mr Costello might be better advised to follow her example rather than criticise her. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It is disconcerting that companies such as Ryanair and Intel can spend vast sums of money in support of the Lisbon Treaty referendum with no questions asked. Why is it that companies like these are not subject to the Standards in Public Offices Commission rules? It’s questionable as to why these companies are getting involved and the Irish people are entitled to know what is behind their newly discovered philanthropy.
Both companies were recently the subject of EU Commission investigations and Intel was recently fined €1.06 billion by the European Commission (currently being appealed by Intel) for breaches of competition and consumer law. Intel was found guilty of “harming millions of European consumers” though its anti-competitive practices.
Intel has made an important contribution to the Irish economy and it is disappointing that it has chosen to pour a vast sum of money into the campaign in favour of Lisbon thereby radically distorting the debate. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am very concerned by the level of misleading information that is being put about by many of those who support the Lisbon Treaty.
I object to slogans that state “We belong to Europe, vote Yes” and “Vote Yes to keep Ireland in the heart of Europe”. Also I am dismayed by remarks by politicians that suggest if we vote against the treaty we will be marginalised within the Europe Community. All of this kind of material is both misleading and untrue.
On October 2nd, we will not be voting on EU membership, we will be voting on one issue alone and that is the Lisbon Treaty.
After the referendum, irrespective of the result we will still “belong in Europe”. It’s worth noting that there are no provisions in any EU treaty for the expulsion of a member-state.
The suggestion that we will be marginalised in Europe if we vote against the Lisbon Treaty is outrageous in that there are no provisions in any EU treaty for the imposition of sanctions on any member state as a consequence of a democratic decision made by the citizens of that state. Also, it should be noted that there are no existing legal provisions for the establishment of a second-tier status for some states within the EU.
I believe that it is imperative that the Referendum Commission issue a statement to clarify the deliberate confusion that has been sown so that a fair referendum can take place on October 2nd.
The commission must make it quite clear to the Irish people that they will be voting on October 2nd either for or against the Lisbon Treaty, and not on Ireland’s position in Europe and that there can be no legal consequences as a result of that vote. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Jimmy Gollogly writes something approaching a mildly amusing list of ways to lose a referendum (September 5th). I say mildly amusing because if the issue of the Lisbon referendum weren’t so serious it might be funny. In his letter he mockingly and unfairly characterises the input to the debate of business entrepreneurs such as Michael O’Leary and Bill Cullen, who have made a contribution to their country through the creation of jobs and other opportunities.
Perhaps Mr Gollogly is more enchanted with the opinions of No campaigners, like recently retired Nigel Farage of (UKIP) who proposes to circulate Irish homes with his anti-European rhetoric, or the ardent Eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde of Denmark, or maybe Sinn Féin, none of whom have played a positive role in Ireland’s progress up to now.
We need friends and goodwill among EU countries who share our desire to work together, in recovering from our present difficulties. Some people should leave out the cheap rhetoric in this debate; it may prove more costly than they imagine.
PAT HYNES,
Moreen Road,
Sandyford, Dublin 16.
Madam, – The main argument advanced by supporters of the Lisbon Treaty, including all of the major political parties, in favour of a Yes vote appears to be that such a vote would be in Ireland’s “economic interests”. However, there is another factor to be considered: that a decision which will alter the foundations of an institution that, both directly and indirectly, affects the lives of almost everyone on this planet (six billion people) should not be based purely on the “economic interests” of four million people. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I, like Edward Doyle (September 5th) will not be able to exercise my right to vote in the Lisbon referendum. It is ironic that as I find myself starting into an Erasmus exchange year at the University of Strasbourg as a student of business and politics, surrounded by European Union institutions, I will not be able to vote. Asking our Government to implement online voting may be a little difficult, given its record when it comes to technology. However, I cannot understand why I and others in my position with a fixed address abroad are not eligible for postal ballot or even, like my Swedish friends last June, get the chance to vote in the nearest embassy or consulate. – Yours, etc,