Madam, - There is a widespread but mistaken belief that the Constitution requires EU treaties to be approved by referendum. Under Article 29.5 .6, the Government has full authority to conclude any international agreement, subject to two conditions: if the agreement involves a charge on public funds the Dáil must approve its terms; if it is to form part of the domestic law, then both houses of the Oireachtas must approve.
Were the Government now to propose a bill in both houses for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, it would be complying with, not bypassing, the Constitution.
Successive Governments immunised previous treaties against potential constitutional challenge by getting the people each time to pass a blanket amendment which forestalled any repugnancy. That repeated evasion of responsibility by government and legislature now makes it politically difficult for these institutions to exercise their constitutional authority to ratify Lisbon.
Strictly speaking, the recent referendum only rejected a proposed constitutional amendment. It did not determine that the treaty cannot be ratified in another way - by the parliamentary procedure foreseen in the Constitution itself.
The risk of future litigation attempting to prove repugnancy would be reduced or eliminated if the President referred the bill to the Supreme Court for a decision on its constitutionality (Articles 26.1.2 and 34.3.3). - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels,
Belgium
Madam, - As a young man fascinated by politics, both high and low, I was stunned to read Cllr Niamh Bhreathnach's letter of August 9th. To begin with, she seems to think that Ireland has voted to leave Europe, or has been ejected. The basis for a number of her points is the assumption that we are now outside the EU. In terms of agricultural policy, for instance, she claims we will no longer be consulted at an EU or WTO level. This is patently not true, especially of the WTO.
In terms of international affairs she gives the impression that Ireland will be now vulnerable to military invasion. (Surely the EU was not a military alliance and we are still part of it anyway.) Cllr Bhreathnach also paints a highly inaccurate picture of "Zimbabwean inflation" in Ireland if we have to leave the eurozone. Both of these "possibilities" are disingenuous in the extreme.
The idea of Ireland "striking out on its own" as a consequence of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, seems to me to be at odds with the legal requirement that all 27 member-states ratify the treaty. Surely any isolation of Ireland would be illegal and challengeable in the European courts.
Finally I suggest that the anti-democratic and often purposefully deceptive Yes campaigners turn their accusation of scaremongering against themselves, because that is where the majority of Irish people hear it coming from. - Yours, etc,
FERGUS ROBSON,
Clifden,
Corofin,
Co Clare.
Madam, - In his review of Philip Bobbit's book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century, Richard Whelan summarises part of the author's argument as follows: "Market-states divide between states of consent and states of terror. The terror state controls its citizens through fear - they do not have the right to say no" (Business, August 11th).
The EU elite and Stephen Collins, by refusing to accept the right of the Irish people to say no, are defining the real nature of the EU. - Yours, etc,
ROGER COLE,
Chair, Peace and Neutrality Alliance,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.