Madam, - I have just seen the latest Libertas billboard which suggests that Enda Kenny will benefit from the passage of the Lisbon Treaty but that the Irish people will lose.
To suggest that Enda Kenny would put his personal interests or the interests of his party before those of the Irish people is an insult not only to the leader of Fine Gael but to every member of the Fine Gael party. Putting the national interest before personal and party interest is not just a core principle of Fine Gael, it is engraved in the heart and embedded in the DNA of the party and the political tradition from which Fine Gael springs.
Libertas campaigns with the slogan "Facts not Politics", but it seems to me that the only fact that you can trust on a Libertas poster is that they commissioned the poster.
Their campaign so far has been taken straight out of the playbook of US Republican political consultants, strong on personalised attacks, and light on facts. It is straight out of the hack and burn school of campaigning, which has disfigured politics in the US for too many years, and I deeply regret to see such tactics being employed here.
Declan Ganley poses as a champion of democracy but his very slogan is subversive of the democratic process, suggesting that politics is not concerned with facts or the public welfare.
Democracy without politics is not possible- and I for one prefer democracy to plutocracy.
Politics is an honourable profession, and while there are some who fall short of the standards we expect in elected politicians the vast majority of public representatives are men and women of integrity who strive to do their best for their country and the people who elected them.
In the past few weeks Libertas has insulted one of Fine Gael's longest-serving public representatives (Gay Mitchell, who, according to the Libertas director of communications, was never very good at politics), attempted to intimidate one of our newest TDs and impugned the honour and integrity of our party leader.
I would like to thank Mr Ganley for doing a marvellous job of motivating every Fine Gael canvasser in the country to do all in their power to get the Fine Gael vote out in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. - Yours, etc,
DAMIEN ENGLISH TD, Navan, Co Meath.
Madam, - Frank Falls (April 2nd) asks if I think "the Irish are so uninterested in and ignorant about politics" that they would find my opinion that Fine Gael ought not be wasting its money or time campaigning for the Lisbon Treaty but instead focus on causing an early general election acceptable.
To be blunt, the answer is yes. At the next general election, hopefully sooner rather than later, no one will vote for Fine Gael on the basis that it put the country's interest above party politics, again, and was the only party which campaigned for the Lisbon Treaty. History is littered with examples of Fine Gael putting the country's interest first and doing the donkey work, on all manner of "bigger picture" issues, while other parties sit back, do nothing and then reap the rewards.
Mr Falls needs to face the reality that it is well over 25 years since Fine Gael last won a general election - and dare I say it took the magic of a FitzGerald to achieve that result!
Fine Gael needs to educate voters to link who they vote for and the government they get in return and then win those votes for itself because it has the solutions to the issues people are moaning about. Reform of the EU is not one of those issues.
Wasting time and money campaigning for a Lisbon Treaty might make the intellectual wing of Fine Gael feel even smugger, but it won't gain the party a single vote.
If the party slogan in 2007 was "sign the contract" at the next election it ought to be "make the link". - Yours, etc,
DESMOND FITZGERALD, Canary Wharf, London.
Madam, - Incredibly, Tom Clonan's analysis piece (March 27th) on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on Irish neutrality never once mentions the mutual defence provisions (Article 28 A (7)) or the Solidarity Clause (Article 188R).
Perhaps he doesn't believe the mutual defence obligation applies to Ireland since it states it shall not "prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states".
It also states that this mutual defence obligation shall be consistent with commitments under Nato.
One would have thought that agreeing, for the first time, to a mutual defence provision (consistent with Nato) being placed in an EU treaty was significant for a neutral state, and indeed for the entire EU.
This agreement must also undoubtedly affect the "specific character" of Irish security and defence policy.
Indeed, the mutual defence obligation is so significant that the rapporteur to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Lisbon Treaty, Andrew Duff MEP, authored a report adopted by the European Parliament recommending that the Nato-linked Western European Union, be wound up since its "collective self-defence" provisions have now been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty.
Similar issues arise with the new Solidarity Clause, which, among other things, calls for joint action to assist any member state which is the "object" of a terrorist attack and for all instruments at the EU's disposal - including military resources - to be mobilised "to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the member states".
(There is no reference to not "prejudicing the specific character" of any state's defence policies.)
This is a very broad mandate for it covers the threat of terrorism as well as an actual terrorist attack, leaving the way open for pre-emptive military actions.
Finally, Tom Clonan's assertion that the Lisbon Treaty does not create "a standing European army" is not reassuring. The Nato military alliance doesn't have a "standing" army either. At the moment, it's not the standing European army but the marching one which is of concern.
What are EU battlegroups if not EU armies?
Ireland is in such a battlegroup and the military "tasks" which these battlegroups can engage in involve everything up to and including waging war, well beyond the EU's borders.
To rely on an Irish Government - whose definition of neutrality allows one million plus US troops to pass through Shannon Airport on the way to war - to protect Irish neutrality within the decision-making processes of the increasingly militarised EU would be most unwise.
That militarisation process must also be stopped.
The Lisbon Treaty should be defeated. - Yours, etc,
CAROL FOX, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, Castle Street, Dalkey, Co Dublin.