Madam, – On page 11 (September 23rd), Michael O’Leary (no relation) backs the European Commission and Declan Ganley criticises unelected leaders. Truly these are strange days. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Bishop of Down and Connor, the Most Rev Noel Treanor, told an Oireachtas committee recently that “a Catholic can, without reserve and in good conscience, vote Yes for the Lisbon Treaty” (Home News, September 17th) and that “There are no grounds to justify a No vote in the Lisbon Treaty on the basis of specifically religious or ethical concerns.” Leaving aside the transparent and patent political advocacy, perhaps the bishop is unaware of Article 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty, which states unequivocally: “The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint”.
How does this article square with the Catholic Church’s longstanding position on the need for ethical constraint within both arts and science? In November 2003 the Irish bishops wrote to the then taoiseach urging him to oppose EU proposals to fund embryonic stem cell research. They wrote that “it is our position that neither the deliberate destruction of human embryos, nor the use of embryonic stem-cells which would be obtained by means of such destruction, can be justified.”
It is difficult to see how one could simultaneously oppose and support the premise that “scientific research shall be free of constraint”. While Bishop Treanor might be able to live with the cognitive dissonance involved in such a position (though of course he doesn’t actually have a vote, being resident in Belfast), most pro-life Catholics will continue to vote No. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The controversial Vincent Browne both ignores some vital facts and engages in hysterical innuendo (Opinion, September 23rd).
He fails to comprehend the voluntary nature of European security policy. The articles that deal with these policies in the full consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon state that these areas “shall be open to any member state that undertakes”. When he goes on to discuss the European Defence Agency (EDA), he fails to mention that this is also a voluntary body that EU states may leave at their leisure.
He is correct in his assertions that there is no reference to EU policy requiring a UN sanction in Lisbon. The treaty, however, acknowledges the existing tenets of Irish foreign policy including the Seville guarantees from earlier this decade which oblige all Irish military deployments to be pre-approved by the Dáil, the Cabinet and the UN.
His selective quoting of text from the EDA would seem to be a vain attempt at leading the reader to believe that this organisation will lead to Europe militarising Africa. He conveniently fails to mention that the EDA is an effort to co-ordinate an arms industry which mainly supplies arms to European nations most of whom have not been involved in a non- peacekeeping military role since the second World War.
I will end by re-affirming his assertions. “The EU has already participated in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and in Africa, most recently in Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These initiatives have won widespread approval and support and the intervention in Congo, in particular, may have saved thousands of lives.” Long may this continue., – Yours, etc,