Madam, - Amid all the debate in your Letters page about the reasons for Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, it is illuminating to read the European Commission's analysis of influential media ("Irish media now more Eurosceptic, warns EC report", The Irish Times, September 2nd).
Some 41 per cent of the Irish population now read UK newspapers, most of which are virulently anti-European and right-wing. I am surprised there is so little debate in Ireland about the fact that you can walk into an Irish newsagents and struggle to find a genuinely Irish newspaper.
This may just be a result of market economics but it has far-reaching implications as Ireland has largely lost one of the defining features of an independent country, its own print media. Douglas Hyde must be turning in his grave. - Yours, etc,
DAVID WALKER,
Sydenham,
London.
Madam, - I beg to differ with Dr Noel Dorr's view that it is no longer possible for the Government to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in the face of the people's refusal of permission (The Irish Times, August 25th).
The Constitution authorises the Government to conclude any international agreement, subject (if it is to become part of domestic law) to approval by the Oireachtas. As the Constitution provides no alternative means of doing this, the authorised procedure is in effect obligatory.
However, successive governments have ignored this obligation whenever they had a European treaty to ratify. These precedents now make it difficult for the Government to follow the procedure laid down in the Constitution, but this is a political challenge, not a legal impediment. The fact remains that the people had no constitutional right to be asked for, or to give, permission to ratify Lisbon, so their refusal is of doubtful validity. Under the unamended Constitution, the Government remains authorised to ratify the treaty, and obliged to follow the prescribed procedure in so doing.
The Government should screw up its courage, break with precedent and conclude the treaty. It will be supported by majorities in both houses of the Oireachtas. The constitutionality of the process, and of the terms of the treaty, can then be tested in the Supreme Court, as the Constitution foresees.
The people's rejection of a proposed constitutional amendment on this topic means that their views are not part of the Constitution and therefore will not determine how the Supreme Court will decide. (Mr Dooley's adage that "th' Supreme Court follows th' illiction returns" was meant to apply in America, not in Ireland.)
If the court identifies any part of the treaty as being at odds with the Constitution, these can be put to a referendum as precisely-defined amendments. There will be much less risk of this process being blown off course by scare stories and mystery money.
There is a further justification in the Constitution for ratification without a referendum. Article 29.4.2 says, in short, "in connection with [the State's] external relations, the Government may. . . adopt. . .any method of procedure used. . .by the members of any group. . . of nations with which the State is. . .associated for the purpose of international co-operation". This must mean that since most or all other EU members ratify by the government or parliament route, Ireland may do so too. Wasn't Dev prescient to enshrine this facility in the Constitution? - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Brussels,
Belgium.
Madam, - Catching up with the Lisbon fall-out after a holiday break, I have been reading the comments of Cardinal Brady and his supporter Senator Ronan Mullen (August 29th). Their views are deeply disturbing but make sense of the willingness of many Catholic clergy to give credibility to the Alive! freesheet and the exotic messages of Cóir by allowing them access to church premises.
Both cardinal and senator are, in effect, taking the position that discrimination - in particular on the basis of sexual orientation - is acceptable. They attack the EU and the European Court of Justice for pursuing anti-discrimination and pro-equality policies which are enshrined in the existing treaties and in laws agreed by the EU member-states.
The promotion of Rocco Buttiglione as a latter-day martyr is quite bizarre. His position on the inclusion of sexual orientation in the categories covered by EU anti-discrimination law was public and well known. It was inconceivable that someone with his views would be approved to oversee the Union's evolving anti-discrimination policies.
These views appear to presage regression in both attitudes and legal provision in areas which have seen discrimination and injustice in the past. The extraordinary suggestion that Ireland may seek to opt out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights further highlights a real and growing threat to the prospect of building a decent and tolerant Ireland. - Yours, etc,
TONY BROWN,
Raheny,
Dublin 5.
Madam, - Your edition of September 1st reports that "Sinn Fein has blocked meetings of the [Stormont] Executive since mid June" in a continuing policy dispute with the DUP. What? Is this the same Sinn Féin which believes that renegotiating an EU Treaty with 26 other countries would be a simple process.
It is time the negotiating skills of which Sinn Féin has often boasted were used to show the Irish Government how to overcome difficult EU situations. - Yours, etc,
Cllr DECLAN MacPARTLIN,
Camolin,
Co Wexford.