Lisbon Treaty referendum

Madam, - The visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Ireland this week served one very useful purpose, in that she managed…

Madam, - The visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Ireland this week served one very useful purpose, in that she managed to demolish the nonsense arguments of the scaremongers who claim that the Lisbon Treaty will bring about tax-harmonisation.

Aside from the fact that the Lisbon Treaty makes no reference to tax policy and leaves Ireland entirely in control of its own tax policy and rates, Ms Merkel said that Ireland's "own distinctive approach" should be maintained, and that "legitimate competition [ between the tax rates of member- states] is something that gives the EU greater strength" (The Irish Times, April 15th).

So on the one hand we have a treaty which gives the EU no powers whatever in relation to tax, and on the other hand we have the most powerful politician in Europe, and head of the Union's largest member-state, declaring her preference for tax competition - the diametric opposite of tax harmonisation.

Another core plank of the No campaign crumbles, once the hard facts become clear. - Yours, etc,

READ MORE

BARRY WALSH, Brooklawn, Clontarf, Dublin 3.

Madam, - Ben Tonra (April 7th) admits there is a mutual defence clause in the Lisbon Treaty. He argues that this commitment is "constrained" by Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, he must be aware that the same references to Article 51 are in the mutual defence provisions of two military alliances, Nato and the Western European Union (WEU).

The question is: why is there a mutual defence clause in Lisbon at all? If the neutral states are exempted (as Ben Tonra claims), what's the point of placing this defence provision into the treaties? The rest of the EU is already covered by Nato's mutual defence clause. Or perhaps he is arguing that - after Lisbon - Nato will defend us but we won't defend them?

What is needed in the Lisbon Treaty debate is a focus on why the EU is being militarised. What is an EU military force for? Why is it not subject to a UN mandate and directed through the United Nations? Do we agree with the EU having a "strategic partnership" with nuclear-armed Nato? Why is there an EU Defence Agency which supports the arms industry?

Unanimity is the general rule in defence decision-making. But neutral Ireland cannot be trusted to veto future military activities. We've enthusiastically joined anything that was going - rapid reaction forces, battlegroups, armaments agencies, partnerships with NATO - and agreed to much more. Tom Clonan's article of March 28th pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty presented the EU with the capability to take more "robust and rapid action" across a "wider suite of military options" - all without UN sanction.

It's important that we vote No to Lisbon and attempt to redirect the EU down a less militarised path. - Yours, etc,

CAROL FOX, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, Castle Street, Dalkey, Co Dublin.