Irish Times Letters Section: EU Constitution Debate

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:43

April 6 2005
MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN, Riverwood Heath, Castleknock, Dublin 15.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0406/index.html#1112397326282

Madam, - Robert Ballagh, speaking at the Groundhog Day-like launch of the anti-EU Constitution campaign, claims that the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty reduces democracy (The Irish Times, April 1st).

This is the most preposterous of the all the usual rehashed arguments.

Dealing with the perceived democratic deficit in the European Union was one of the tasks faced by the convention which drafted the early version of the treaty. There are serious enhancements of the democratic life of the Union in the proposed treaty, so much so that an entire section is dedicated to it (Title VI of part 1).

The directly elected European Parliament is now given practically equal power with the indirectly elected council of Ministers. MEPs have real power to shape legislation, unlike most of our TDs, who are effectively lobby fodder in a parliament completely dominated by Government legislation and patronage. In many cases their amendments and changes become law; this is seldom the case for the bulk of our national TDs.

The European Parliament is to gain significant new oversight powers in key areas such as agriculture and trade.

The Council of Ministers will be required to be open to the public when it is acting in a legislative capacity, a long-time bugbear of campaigners for more EU democracy. National parliaments are given a seriously enhanced role with proper prior notice of legislation and a role in issuing "yellow cards" on certain initiatives. There is provision for direct citizens' initiatives to the European Commission - a concept unheard of in Irish democracy.

When all this is added to existing provisions such as the European Ombudsman and the work of the petitions committee of the parliament, it is easy to see that in many ways the EU is arguably more democratic than our own country.

It is certainly streets ahead of, say, the UN, the WTO or other multinational bodies of which we are members. - Yours, etc.,

MICHAEL McLOUGHLIN, Riverwood Heath, Castleknock, Dublin 15.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:43

April 7 2005
MARY LOU McDONALD MEP, Sinn Féin National Chairperson, Parnell Square, Dublin 1.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0407/index.html#1112397328088

Madam, - Garret FitzGerald (March 30th) seems caught up in the belief that the EU Constitution will bring about a more open and democratically accountable European Union. The reality is a little different.

He writes that the concept of democracy is "endorsed and also enhanced by the existence of a constitution drawn up by a European Convention". However, the Constitution was not drawn up by the Convention, but by the small unaccountable élite known as the Praesidium. Over 1,000 amendments were proposed by the Convention - none of which was accepted.

Given the undemocratic nature of this process it is hardly surprising that the final proposed text does nothing to tackle the issue of the democratic deficit; rather, it makes it worse.

One of the key terms of reference of the Convention was to create "more democracy, transparency and efficiency" and to bring citizens closer to the European institutions. On all accounts it has failed. It further concentrates power in the European Council and Commission. It extends qualified majority voting to a large number of areas. It further undermines the principle and practice of national sovereignty.

In short, it takes more power further away from ordinary people and puts it in the hands of unelected or unaccountable bodies. This is hardly a recipe for greater democracy.

The letter refers to those new powers conferred on national parliaments contained in the protocols, which in his view represent "significant advances". This is simply wishful thinking and ignores the practice of the Commission and Council.

These protocols provide member-states with a consultative fig leaf to hide the fact that national parliaments will have less say in legislation that significantly affects on the lives of Irish people. - Yours, etc.,

MARY LOU McDONALD MEP, Sinn Féin National Chairperson, Parnell Square, Dublin 1.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:44

April 8 2005
NOEL TREACY TD, Minister for European Affairs, Dublin 2.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0408/index.html#1112397330657

Madam, - Mary Lou McDonald (April 7th) misrepresents both the European Constitution and the way it was prepared.

The Convention which drafted the text was an unprecedentedly open exercise, bringing together for the first time public representatives from across the full spectrum of European opinion. This is quite apparent from a glimpse at the Irish membership: John Bruton, Dick Roche, Pat Carey, John Gormley and Proinsias De Rossa - a broad church by any reckoning.

All of its working papers were immediately published on the web and can still be viewed there. Yes, and as would be entirely normal, its steering Committee, or Praesidium - on which John Bruton was a representative of national parliaments - prepared initial texts. But even a cursory examination of the documentation will show that very major changes were made to many of these in response to subsequent debate in the Convention plenary and to the thousands of amendments proposed by Convention members, including Dick Roche for the Irish Government.

The Convention itself adopted its final report by consensus. And the final Constitution was, of course, agreed by the democratically elected leaders of the 25 member-states.

In terms of the substance of the Constitution, it gives national parliaments a greater role than ever before in policing proposed legislation. It greatly enhances the role of the European Parliament in which Ms McDonald sits. It will reinforce dialogue between the EU, the social partners, civil society and the churches. It requires all EU legislation to be made in public by the directly elected Parliament and by democratically elected Governments. And it allows for citizens' petitions.

Taken together, these changes will help make the Union significantly more transparent, open and democratic.

In rejecting the Constitution Ms McDonald and Sinn Féin are, in the name of protecting our national sovereignty, in reality seeking not a more democratic Union, but a less cohesive and effective one. That would be directly contrary to our clear national interest in the continuing success of the EU, within which we have been able to realise our sovereignty and better the lives of our people far more effectively than we ever did outside. - Yours, etc.,

NOEL TREACY TD, Minister for European Affairs, Dublin 2.

April 8 2005
SEAN McDONAGH, Bettyglen, Raheny, Dublin 5.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0408/index.html#1112397330657

Madam, - Writing on the EU Constitution, Mary Lou McDonald expresses her opposition to that which takes "power further away from ordinary people and puts it in the hands of unelected or unaccountable people". She further complains of the "democratic deficit" and a "small unaccountable elite".

If these are Ms McDonald's real views, could she explain how they are compatible with her joining and remaining in a party intimately interwoven with the IRA? - Yours, etc.,

SEAN McDONAGH, Bettyglen, Raheny, Dublin 5.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:45

April 13 2005
TONY BROWN, Bettyglen, Raheny, Dublin 5.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0413/index.html#1113002033062

Madam, - As an adviser to the Oireachtas delegation to the Convention which drafted the EU Constitution I must comment on Mary Lou McDonald's quite extraordinary letter (April 7th) in which she asserts that none of the amendments proposed by the Convention were accepted by the Praesidium in drafting the text. This is simply untrue.

Some 6,000 amendments - including many duplicates and many which were contradictory - were tabled in the months of debate which led to the final consensus. They related to the reports of working groups and to draft articles of the final document.

They came from individual members, from political groups and from institutional representatives. Many arose from interaction between Convention members and civil society bodies and NGOs.

These amendments were taken into account by the Praesidium in the drafting process and many were adopted in full or as inputs to the revision of whole chapters. For example, my notes on the session of June 11th to 13th, 2003 detail the acceptance of some two dozen amendments to critical texts on institutions, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the controversial Preamble.

Full revisions of Part 1 and of key Protocols were produced.

Mary Lou McDonald, among others, continually calls for an open and serious debate on the Constitution. There is little hope of achieving this if statements which are clearly at variance with the facts are made and repeated.

It would also greatly help if Sinn Féin ended its effective boycott of the work of the National Forum on Europe. - Yours, etc.,

TONY BROWN, Bettyglen, Raheny, Dublin 5.

April 13 2005
ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 7.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0413/index.html#1113002033062

Madam, - Michael McLoughlin (April 6th) suggests that my claim that the proposed EU constitutional treaty reduces democracy is preposterous.

He is talking through his hat, of course. The proposed EU Constitution would abolish nearly 70 existing national vetoes and give these as extra powers to the EU. When areas of national policy are shifted to Brussels, the EU Commissioners, whom nobody elects, extend their powers, for they have the monopoly of proposing EU laws for the new policy areas concerned - laws which the EU Council of Ministers then makes on the basis of the Commissioners' proposals.

The Council of Ministers is an oligarchy of 25 politicians who are irremovable as a group. The EU Parliament cannot initiate or propose any law. It can propose amendments to most of the laws that come from the Council of Ministers but it cannot force any of these amendments on the Council or Commission against their will.

If the Council and Commission will not accept the Parliament's amendments, it has a power of veto over most draft Council of Ministers laws by an absolute majority of its members - that is the Parliament's total membership plus one.

This rarely happens, however, because the Parliament, Council and Commission are generally all ad idem on increasing EU powers at the expense of national parliaments - and of course of the citizens that elect these, which is you and me. So the primary EC/EU legislator if the Council of Ministers.

There is a protocol to the proposed Constitution which says that if one-third of National Parliaments - one third, mind you! - think that a proposed EU law violates the so-called "principle of subsidiarity" - that is, that the EU is seeking to do things that are better done at national level - they can protest to the Commission which proposes EU laws, and the Commission must reconsider its proposal.

But having reconsidered it, the Council can still go ahead with it. So this is not a power at all. this is the so-called "yellow card" that Michael McLoughlin refers to.

There was a proposal in Giscard d'Estaing's Convention that drew up this Constitution to the effect that if two-thirds of the national Parliaments objected, the proposal would have to be dropped altogether, but that was abandoned.

The Constitution's advocates are trying to make out that this Protocol represents a huge increase in the powers of national Parliaments. This is totally absurd. - Yours, etc.,

ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 7.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:45

April 15 2005
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour Party European Office, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0415/index.html#1113002037394

Madam, - It may be of interest to your readers to note that of the 6,000 amendments tabled to the draft European Constitution in the Convention on the Future of Europe over a period of 18 months, not a single one came from Sinn Féin.

Amendments were received from all corners of Europe from non-governmental organisations, political parties and individuals. Hundreds were incorporated in whole or in part and many more were worked into the general approach taken by the participants from all sides.

Now Sinn Féin is advising the Irish people to vote against the proposed Constitution because they claim it does not meet the party's high standards of participative democracy. - Yours, etc.,

PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour Party European Office, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:46

April 18 2005
RUAIRI QUINN TD, Chairperson, European Movement Ireland, Leinster House, Dublin 2.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0418/index.html#1113002043185

Madam, - Robert Ballagh (April 13th) claims that "the proposed EU Constitution would abolish nearly 70 existing national vetoes and give those as extra powers to the EU". A frightening prospect, I agree; but, fortunately for all of us, one that is not in fact true.

Under the proposed European Constitution, some legislative areas will be moved from a system of unanimity in Council to qualified majority voting (QMV). These are not extra powers given to the EU; rather they are areas of competence that have already been transferred to the EU by the Irish people in referendums on past treaties. These areas will be moved from unanimity simply because they can be more efficiently and effectively dealt with using QMV.

Many of the areas concerned are those which were previously in the Justice and Home Affairs pillar, and the proposed changes will mean reduced cross-border crime (including money-laundering, drug-trafficking and sexual exploitation of women and children) and increased security for EU citizens.

The European Commission has the right of initiative, but it certainly does not have a monopoly of power over the legislative process - a process consisting of, along with the Commission, the directly elected European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which consists of directly elected representatives of all the national governments. It is obvious from its nature and composition that the Council of Ministers is of course "irremovable as a group".

However, the Ministers can be removed individually - by the citizens of their member-states in a general election.

Does Mr Ballagh propose that somebody should have the power to remove other countries' government Ministers? If so, to whom does he propose this almighty power be given? The European Constitution also proposes to greatly increase the power and role of the directly elected European Parliament in the legislative process.

As for Mr Ballagh's scoff at the yellow card system proposed in the Constitution, this not only increases the power of national parliaments in the decision-making process, it will force our own Oireachtas to examine its practices and pay greater attention to its analysis and implementation of European legislation. All member-state national parliaments will have the opportunity to further the European decision-making process.

The proposed European Constitution is the consolidation into one document of the five individual treaties that the Irish people have already endorsed. However, it goes further than mere consolidation, as it provides a more transparent and democratic system of open decision-making for a unique political union of member-states represented in the Council of Ministers, and of individual citizens represented in the European Parliament.

Not only is it a solution to Europe's fractious nationalist past, but it has the potential to civilise globalisation by a worldwide projection of European values in contrast to the United States' neo-conservative global agenda.

We have heard many myths in relation to the European Union; we in the European Movement are calling for an honest and rational debate in advance of the forthcoming referendum. We hope Mr Ballagh and other members of the "No" side heed our call before putting pen to paper. - Yours, etc.,

RUAIRI QUINN TD, Chairperson, European Movement Ireland, Leinster House, Dublin 2.

April 18 2005
FRANK BARR, Glasnevin Woods, Ballyboggan Road, Dublin 11.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0418/index.html#1113002043185

Madam, - While I am no admirer of Sinn Féin - quite the contrary - I beg to disagree with Proinsias De Rossa who criticises them for not seeking to amend the proposed European Constitution.

What is the point of seeking to amend a fundamentally flawed document proposed by a fundamentally flawed, undemocratic organisation? Rather, it is better to vote the constitution down in the coming referendum and hope that this time the voice of the people will be respected. - Yours, etc.,

FRANK BARR, Glasnevin Woods, Ballyboggan Road, Dublin 11.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:46

April 21 2005
ANTHONY COUGHLAN, Secretary, The National Platform, Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0421/index.html#1113002049062

Madam, - You quote Taoiseach Bertie Ahern as saying in the Dáil: "In regard to France, the Netherlands and several other countries, we have an obligation to pass the European Constitution here" (The Irish Times, April 13th).

Where does this "obligation" come from? What is its character? Who are the "we" the Taoiseach is referring to?

Mr Ahern may see himself as having assumed an obligation vis-à-vis his fellow heads of state and government to seek to ratify the proposed EU Constitution, but surely his first obligation as Taoiseach is to the Irish people under the Irish Constitution. Yet your report indicates also that the Taoiseach is unwilling to rule out a second referendum if a first one should give a No result on the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe".

In other words, the Taoiseach is implicitly putting Irish voters on notice that if they do not vote the way that he and his Government want, this higher "obligation" will require a further referendum vote to reverse the first, just as happened with the Treaty of Nice.

If the French people vote No to the EU Constitution on May 29th and the UK Government then abandons its referendum in Britain and Northern Ireland, as Home Secretary Jack Straw has just hinted, will Mr Ahern still persist with a referendum on the Constitution here? The Taoiseach's remark about our "obligation" to adopt the EU Constitution reveals a mindset among Government Ministers and aspiring Ministers right across the EU, whereby they identify more and more with the supranational rather than the national level of government. As a consequence, they get ever more out of touch with their own peoples - as President Chirac may well discover in France.

What is the cause of this historically unprecedented disjuncture? I suggest that the fundamental reason why so many national political leaders take a wholly uncritical view of EU integration, including the proposed Constitution, is that every transfer of national power to Brussels increases their own personal power at EU level, where they become the primary lawmakers for 450 million Europeans on the 25-member EU Council of Ministers.

At national level Ministers are part of the executive arm of government. To get something done in a particular policy area, a Minister must have a majority behind him or her in the national parliament, and implicitly a majority among the citizens who elect that parliament. Shift the policy area in question to Brussels, however, and that same Minister is transformed into one of 25 members on the EU Council making laws for over half a continent, on first-name terms with the great of the European world, helping to run an embryonic superpower. Little wonder it tends to go to their heads, especially if they come from small countries.

This accretion of personal power to a small number of politicians at supranational level is at the expense of a reduced say for ordinary citizens in the various EU member-states, the loss of their right to decide who will make the laws for the policy areas in question and to elect and dismiss their rulers, for their own governments are no longer such with regard to the supranational policy areas affected.

Not surprisingly, this process is causing a crisis of democracy right across the EU, which the proposed Constitution looks set to aggravate, not solve, if it should come into force. - Yours, etc.,

ANTHONY COUGHLAN, Secretary, The National Platform, Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:47

April 22 2005
ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 3.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0422/index.html#1113002051360

Madam, - Contrary to what Ruairí Quinn TD states (April 18th), the proposed EU Constitution would abolish some 70 national vetoes and transfer the relevant policy powers or decisions to the EU and its institutions.

Nearly 40 of these would enable the EU to lay down laws or take decisions by majority vote on matters that do not fall within its competence at present.

They include electing the proposed new EU President and Minister for Foreign Affairs, adopting and implementing decisions in foreign policy, creating an EU diplomatic service, establishing military subgroups of EU states, defining cross-border criminal offences and sanctions, adopting public health, incentive measures and laying down EU laws in relation to space, energy, tourism, sport, public service training and intellectual property rights.

The remaining 30 or so national vetoes which the Constitution would abolish refer to matters where laws or decisions that, at present, require unanimity would be taken by majority vote.

Ruairí Quinn is being disingenuous when he says that these are not extra powers given to the EU.

The existence of a unanimity requirement means that national parliaments, governments and citizens can decide whether they wish to be bound by EU laws in the area concerned or not. Once unanimity is replaced by majority voting, member-states lose their veto and countries and their citizens may find themselves having to obey willy-nilly laws they have opposed and which may be unsuited to their circumstances.

For example, majority voting instead of unanimity would facilitate the EU in deciding the boundary between public and private services, which is relevant to privatisation policy, and exercising much wider powers than at present in relation to civil law matters, increasing the powers of Europol and Eurojust, adopting incentive measures as regards cultural policy, etc.

Ruairí Quinn persists in trying to make out that national parliaments get increased power in relation to EU law-making under the Constitution when this is just not so. National parliaments have to be informed of proposed EU laws and if one-third of them state formally that they regard the laws as going too far, the proposals must be reviewed, after which they may be dropped, amended or continued with. The Commission and Council retain full control. National parliaments may complain, but they do not get extra power.

Mr Quinn is deluding himself if he thinks the EU Constitution is a defence against globalisation rather than a charter for globalisation in the European area. Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the Union and the rest of the world. Under the heading "Economic Policy", Article III-178 lays down that "the Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources."

People may consider such provisions good or bad, but it baffles me how Ruairí Quinn can make out that they would help "to civilise globalisation by a worldwide projection of European values". - Yours, etc.,

ROBERT BALLAGH, Broadstone, Dublin 3.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:48

April 25 2005
AENGUS Ó SNODAIGH TD, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0425/index.html#1113002056109

Madam - Proinsias De Rossa MEP is right to say (April 15th) that Sinn Féin did not propose any amendments to the Convention on the Future of Europe. However, he ignores the fact that the Irish Government deliberately excluded Sinn Féin from the Irish delegation, despite our desire to be involved.

Nonetheless our party has followed the development of the Constitution closely and has engaged constructively where possible.

Following the completion of the draft treaty we made a detailed submission to the Irish Government proposing a lengthy series of changes which we believed the Government should have argued for during the intergovernmental conference.

We also participated in the National Forum on Europe and the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs debates. Unfortunately, the Government chose to ignore our proposals.

Mr De Rossa says amendments were received from all over the EU. It would be interesting to know how many of the 6,000 amendments put forward were accepted.

Despite our exclusion from the convention process by the Government we have remained engaged with this debate and will continue to put forward arguments in defence of Irish independence, democracy, neutrality, public services, global justice and an alternative vision of the future of the EU. - Yours, etc.,

AENGUS Ó SNODAIGH TD, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:48

April 27 2005
BRENDAN YOUNG, Campaign Against the EU Constitution, Dublin Road, Celbridge, Co Kildare.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0427/index.html#1113002060090

Madam, - Your Editorial of April 23rd seems to echo the opinion of the French Minister of Culture, who thinks that a referendum on the EU Constitution is a mistake. Much better to have the experts and élites decide on a Constitution that will directly affect 450 million people, because the people might vote No - for the "wrong" reasons!

But it is precisely because the ordinary people of France increasingly realise that the Constitution enshrines the liberalising politics of their own government, and of the pro-liberalising European Commission, that a majority intends to vote No.

Panic-stricken assertions that the Constitution will prevent super-liberalisation, US-style, are untrue. The Constitution commits the EU to progressive liberalisation. It will provide the framework for the EU to liberalise international "trade" in social services, in particular health and education, through the GATS. The unrestricted veto on trade in these services is to go, meaning governments which oppose the creeping privatisation that goes with such trade can be overruled.

So far from defending the European "social" model, the Constitution is the gravedigger of universal access to high-quality services. Ordinary people in France and throughout Europe realise that it is they who will lose from this, despite the capitulation of their traditional socialist leaders to the liberalisers.

Voting No is the first step to seeking an alternative to the privatising drive of the EU and to the economic priorities of an open market with free competition and a monetary policy of price stability, also enshrined in the Constitution.

These commitments mean that social welfare, employment and sustainability always take second place. Insistence on competitiveness has led to the perverse lengthening of the working week and proposals to raise retirement age, when millions are unemployed.

Competition does not address mass unemployment in France or Germany, nor the crisis facing 100 million impoverished Eastern Europeans. It is a race to the bottom between those who have jobs and those who don't, and between the poor and the very poor.

The current French government and the European Commission, in promoting the EU Constitution, are singing from the same hymn-sheet. Are we to believe that economic liberalisers, who think that the profit motives of the market should penetrate all areas of life and all social services, are campaigning for a Constitution that will block such liberalisation?

The ordinary people of France have realised what's going on, and intend to vote No. We should follow their lead - Yours, etc.,

BRENDAN YOUNG, Campaign Against the EU Constitution, Dublin Road, Celbridge, Co Kildare.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:49

April 29 2005
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour European Office, Liberty Hall, Dublin 2.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0429/index.html#1113002064998

Madam, - Sinn Féin's Angus Ó Snodaigh TD adds insult to ignorance with his lame defence (April 25th) of Mary Lou McDonald's misinformed attack on the European Convention. Rather than admit she was wrong he complains that Sinn Féin was deliberately excluded from the Convention - though its "desire" was to be there. Does he take us all for fools?

Not being a member of the Convention didn't prevent hundreds of organisations from making thousands of submissions both oral and written, all of which had an influence on the outcome, positively and negatively. The question remains: why did Sinn Féin deliberately exclude itself from this process given its view that nothing is right about the EU as it stands? Probably because the party has nothing worthwhile to propose other than a clapped-out olde worlde nationalism which has as much relevance to Ireland and Europe today as the Flat Earth Society.

The SF "critique" of the draft Constitution to which Mr Ó Snodaigh refers, and which is on the party's website, was written, it would appear, without even bothering to read the actual text. For example, it calls for the inclusion of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as a shared competence in the EU - that's in it. It calls for unanimity in CFSP - that's there. It calls for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be constitutionalised - that's there also.

Then there's nonsense such as ensuring that "as many complementary competences as possible take precedence over exclusive competences, particularly in the non-economic sphere". In reality, only one of the four exclusive competences can at a stretch be regarded as "non-economic" - the "conservation of marine biological resources". Is Sinn Féin really saying that the EU should only "complement" Ireland's (puny) efforts to preserve fish stocks in the South Pacific? This "critique" calls for a "statement" guaranteeing citizens rights of access to decent education, health and housing, while simultaneously calling for the deletion of Article 96, which guarantees the right of access to public services, and ignoring Article 122, which for the first time enables the EU to adopt laws guaranteeing the provision, commissioning and funding of such services, a long-standing demand of the European left and trade union movement.

The real objective of withdrawal from the EU is of course couched in the usual Sinn Féin-speak - that is to re-establish "full Irish independence" economically, politically and in the field of foreign policy. This apparently is its recipe for an alternative Europe of "co-operating states".

I am interested in having a serious debate with Sinn Féin about its idea for an "alternative Europe" and I think the Irish public is entitled to hear how it might work. What will replace the common European standards in environmental and labour law? Who would pick up the tab for Structural Funding, CAP, European Social Fund grants for workers and students, the Research Framework Programmes, social programmes such as Daphne, Equal, Leader, Urban, and Interreg, etc? Would we seek to disestablish the euro or withdraw from it? If not, how can we be really "independent"? If we disestablish it or withdraw from it how can it be extended to Northern Ireland, as Sinn Féin proposed in its European election manifesto?

Do we re-establish the link with sterling? What happens when the UK joins the euro? Do we switch to the US dollar? Can Sinn Féin tell us which of the common foreign policy positions that have been unanimously agreed it wants us to withdraw from: the position on Palestine? On the Balkans? On UN Reform? If none of these, why not? Surely agreeing to and implementing such common policies "infringes" Irish independence? - Yours, etc,

PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour European Office, Liberty Hall, Dublin 2.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:49

May 4 2005
MARY LOU McDONALD MEP, Sinn Féin Chairperson, Parnell Square, Dublin 1.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0504/index.html#1113002073419

Madam, - Proinsias de Rossa MEP (April 29th) suggests that Sinn Féin believes "nothing is right about the EU", that our policy is motivated by "clapped-out olde world nationalism" and that our "real objective" is withdrawal. Such claims are laughable.

I have had a number of debates with Mr De Rossa on this subject and each time he avoids the issues involved. His attacks on Sinn Féin's EU policy are simply a way of avoiding the real debate about the content and implications of the Constitution. His letter is yet another example of this. Could it be that his avoidance of the real issues is due to the weakness of his arguments on the alleged benefits of the constitution?

Minister for European Affairs Noel Treacy (April 8th) is quite wrong in describing the process of drafting the proposed EU Constitution during the Convention on the Future of Europe as "an unprecedentedly open exercise". While it is true that many organisations, MEPs, members of national parliaments, civil servants and other individuals contributed to the debate at the convention, the actual work of drafting the text took place exclusively within the Praesidium. Many MEPs from all political groups within the European Parliament, both for and against the constitution, have been highly critical of the lack of transparency and accountability of the drafting process.

On Minister Treacy's substantive point that the constitution gives "national parliaments a greater role than ever before" I would beg to differ. While there are some additional mechanisms for providing member-states with greater information, there is no meaningful mechanism through which individual member-states can object to or amend EU legislation. Indeed the ending of the national veto on a significant number of areas and the expansion of policy in areas such as the internal market, justice and home affairs and common foreign and defence policies mean that national parliaments will have less of a say in EU decisions that will affect the lives of Irish citizens. If Mr Treacy believes that this is in the "national interest" then clearly he and I disagree.

With reference to Tony Brown's letter (April 13th) I would like to make two brief remarks. It is my understanding that at the final stages of the convention process there were 1,000 amendments on the table which were never voted on, and the substance of those amendments was not incorporated into the constitution in any way. A number of MEPs who were involved in the convention, some of whom wanted to support the constitution, are on the public record stating that this was the case. Mr Brown says I am wrong on this. Maybe so. But what is clear is that the accounts given by Mr Browne and these MEPs are at variance.

I would like to welcome this debate in the pages of The Irish Times on what is a very important matter for all concerned. Sinn Féin is looking forward to participating in a number of regional debates being organised by the National Forum on Europe in the coming months on the issue of the EU Constitution. - Yours, etc,

MARY LOU McDONALD MEP, Sinn Féin Chairperson, Parnell Square, Dublin 1.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:50

May 5 2005
CORMAC MacGOWAN, Delgany, Co Wicklow.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0505/index.html#1113002075253

Madam, - I write to thank Aengus O'Snodaigh for the rich and refreshing belly laugh I enjoyed while reading his hilarious letter of April 25th.

There are legitimate reasons to question the proposed EU Constitution. However, when Mr Ó Snodaigh and his colleagues begin to lecture others on undemocratic behaviour I burst out with howls of appreciative laughter. It is clear that they have followed the wrong vocations in life.

In his letter Mr Ó Snodaigh displays that he is surely a born comedian. RTÉ has been short of a good comedian and satirist since ending its relationship with the late Dermot Morgan. My advice for Aengus is to give up the day job, and write comedy for RTÉ. With his deep love of Ireland, he'll probably stick it out rather than following his comedic colleagues to the big leagues in the UK. His erstwhile political colleagues could do us all a big favour and join him in this new departure.

At the very least it would provide a fine relief from RTÉ's usual fare of unfunny comedy. With Sinn Féin's multiple talents, they could ensure that their less amusing episodes could be forensically cleaned or wiped out, never to be spoken of or mentioned again. - Yours, etc,

CORMAC MacGOWAN, Delgany, Co Wicklow.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:51

May 06 2005
F. FEENEY, Lucan Heights, Lucan, Co Dublin.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0506/index.html#1113002078023

Madam, - For many years I have been a committed European but I could not make up my mind on the Constitution.

I now know what to do. I will await Sinn Féin's advice on how to vote and then I will do the opposite. - Yours, etc,

F. FEENEY, Lucan Heights, Lucan, Co Dublin.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:51

May 7 2005
SEAN COLEMAN, Brian Avenue, Marino, Dublin 3.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0507/index.html#1113002080072

Madam, - Since a similar referendum is expected here, the debate on the European Constitution that is now taking place in France has an urgent relevance to the choices that we shall have to make about the future of the EU, and our future within it. In that context, some of President Chirac's comments, as reported by Lara Marlowe, should not go unchallenged ("Chirac delivers robust defence of EU treaty", The Irish Times, May 4th).

Although the constitution is paraded as an ideologically neutral text that will, as Mr Chirac insists, be "neither left-wing nor right-wing", it is clear that it stands firmly for unregulated neo-liberalism. A brief sampling of some of its contents should suffice to prove this.

Its main thrust is to ossify free-market dogma into constitutional necessity. Its principles are set out early: on the first page, article I-3 emphasises the need for "free and undistorted competition" in a "highly competitive market economy".

Article I-4 sets out the Union's "fundamental freedoms", namely the "free movement of persons, services, goods and capital". When people have risen to such a level that they can be considered on a par with "goods and capital", we know we are on familiar territory. That freedom has made such strides since the great constitutional deliberations of the 17th and 18th centuries is surely a matter of pride.

Readers may note also the document's strangely unconstitutional language. In 202 pages of the main text, the word "bank" and its derivatives appear 176 times, "market" 88 times, "competition" 29 times and "capital" 23 times. Needless to say, such words do not often find themselves so popular in other constitutions, especially the French.

What of public services? We are to be entitled to the "right to access" healthcare facilities, but this is sufficiently vague as to mean we are not guaranteed they will exist. At present, of course, we have the "right to access" all manner of expensive healthcare options in Ireland; but for their inflated price-tags, our current health crisis would not be so overwhelming.

And so on. Readers of the text can judge for themselves its validity. But no-one should be allowed to claim, as President Chirac repeatedly does, that the constitution is some kind of blank slate on which different governments can inscribe whatever policy they choose. The right-wing slant is unmistakable.

That it is somehow "un-European" to vote against the constitution is another fiction: a victorious No vote would compel, at best, a redrafting of the constitution, surely the most desirable outcome.

If France votes against the constitution therefore, it will not be a blow against Enlightenment values, as Tom Paulin most erroneously thinks, but a definitive tilt toward them - liberté, egalité, fraternité. As posters going up around our own country will soon remind us, another Europe is possible. - Yours, etc,

SEAN COLEMAN, Brian Avenue, Marino, Dublin 3.

by redjade Mon May 09, 2005 15:52

May 8 2005
RAYMOND O'ROURKE, Cuala Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0509/index.html#1115424438212

Madam, - Mary Lou McDonald MEP (May 4th) complains of a lack of transparency and accountability in the European Convention when the draft European Constitution was being drawn up. Can she offer any example of a national constitution being written in a more open fashion?

When the US constitution was being drawn up at a congress in Philadelphia, the voices of immigrants, blacks, women, young people and disabled people were not heard. Rather, the constitution was drawn up by white men of property. And were such groups offered an opportunity to give their opinions on the make-up of Bunreacht na hÉireann? Equally, in 1958 General de Gaulle did not open the debate to the French population when drafting the constitution of the Fifth Republic.

The EU, which is often unfairly criticised for being closed and secretive, demonstrated in the European Convention that it sought and took account of the views of as many diverse and interested groups as possible when preparing a draft constitution. If only Sinn Féin could be as open and accountable in terms of its relationship with the IRA, which has such important implications for all the citizens on this island. - Yours, etc.,

RAYMOND O'ROURKE, Cuala Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.

by Phurge Mon May 09, 2005 22:18

The stars don't stand for member states, as in the US flag. According to the EU: "There are twelve stars because the number twelve is traditionally the symbol of perfection, completeness and unity". Though that's all debatable too...

by redjade Tue May 10, 2005 11:56

really!? I had no idea

can you find a web address for this, jus curious

by redjade Tue May 10, 2005 12:02

'Twelve is one of the perfect numbers, three is divine perfection, seven is spiritual perfection, ten is ordinal perfection and twelve is governmental perfection'
http://www.vic.australis.com.au/hazz/number012.html

by - Tue May 10, 2005 12:16

I'll remember this page, let's all add to it. Yep the standard €U propaganda (which you'll get soon enough through your door) includes one page on €uropean symbolism and its meaning, the 12 stars for perfection (a graeco-roman concept which some route in earlier semitic mathematics. the Dozen as a unit has certainly been around a long long time) & the anthem of europe which is the last movement of the 9th symphony of Beethoven which sets words by Schiller to choir. [which is why i'm always going on about beethoven by the way, (you know no rights to house, work, pension, healthcare, got evicted, never voted, blaa blaa blaa c/f]
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68685

by redjade Sun May 15, 2005 15:34

Madam, - Should French voters say Non, supporters of the EU Constitution may hope they will be asked to vote on the same constitution in a year's time after an intense propaganda campaign by the French government.

However, I am not sure this would be tolerated in France, with its history of enlightened and successful self-government. - Yours, etc,

EDWARD L BACH, Belgrove Lawn, Dublin 20.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2005/0514/index.html#1115939703718

by Michael Sun May 15, 2005 19:10

Ireland may be a Banana Republic in many ways, but thanks to Patricia McKenna and a handful of others, we do Referendums far better than most countries do. French people haven't had a chance to vote on a European treaty since Maastricht.

by Johnny cash - rewop Rewolf Thu Jun 02, 2005 05:17

had something to do with a Marian crown of stars subplot. Council of Rome pan eiropean catholicism intrigues!

by redjade Thu Jun 02, 2005 16:15

a quick google of it...
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/hollandreports/MARYS_STARS.pdf

ya learn something every day.

by John Meehan Tue Jun 07, 2005 22:26

Opinion Piece by Brendan Young of the CAEUC in the irish Times, June 72005.

French vote a rejection of Thatcherite policies

07/06/2005

The No vote from the left - a call for change, writes Brendan Young.

It will surprise many supporters of the EU Constitution that one in 10 French people have read the EU Constitution - cover to cover! I would be surprised if one in 10 of the Irish politicians who are calling for a Yes have done that. And books on this contradictory document have been in the top 10 bestseller list in France since Christmas.

The ordinary people of France and The Netherlands found out what is in the EU Constitution and voted No. In doing so they defied the great and the good of Europe, the majority coverage given to the "yes" side in the mass media, and the calls of their traditional leadership.

The No vote - especially in France - was achieved in large part by grassroots campaigning and debate. Almost 1,000 'unity committees', calling for a "No from the Left", had been set up across France since last autumn. These were based on a left-wing critique of the Constitution - which highlighted the primacy of the market, of unrestricted competition, and the threat of privatisation of public services contained in the Constitution. The No campaign was led on the ground by these Committees - based upon public sector unions and two large union federations, the alter-globalisation movement Attac, the French Communist Party, the far-left League Communiste Revolutionaire, the left of the Socialist Party, and left-wing Greens. They exposed the neo-liberalism of the Constitution, and campaigned instead for social and environmental priorities.

The French "non" was not just a dig at Chirac because of dissatisfaction with his government. The French vote was a conscious rejection of a Constitution that would enshrine for generations the Thatcherite policies being imposed across Europe by Chirac, Blair, Ahern et al, in conjunction with the European Commission. Market-liberalisers like Blair and Berlusconi - and liberalising EU leaders like Barroso, Mandelson
and McCreevy - support this document. Likewise Sarkhozy, leader of the French right-wing UMP party, who gave the game away when he said "the Europe we want will induce change in France". By this he means an end to the 35- hour week, cuts in social spending to allow employers' tax cuts, and legal changes so that people can be fired more easily - what Blair calls "labour-market flexibility". All this in the name of being more competitive.

The leaderships of the French Socialist Party, of the Greens, the Party of European Socialists and of part of the trade union movement have bought into this "competitiveness" framework. Their protests that the Constitution would protect the "social model" lack credibility in the face of the drive to reduce wages and social benefits and privatise public services by supporters of the Constitution in governments across Europe. And when it came to the vote, the majority of French workers and young people didn't believe the traditional leaders of the left.

Attempts to mask the politics of the "non" - like saying that the "non" emerged from a de facto left-right alliance - are dismissed by French participants.

Global justice activist and French resident Susan George is scathing of such a suggestion: "Only someone writing for foreign consumption could say such a thing. Even the overwhelmingly pro-Yes media in France would not try to get away with that". An analysis of the French vote reveals that it was a vote from the left.

Overall, 67 per cent of supporters of parties of the left voted "no". Some 59 per cent of Socialist Party supporters, 64 per cent of Green supporters, 61 per cent of nonaligned voters and almost all far-left supporters said "no". "Yes" majorities came only from supporters of parties of the right and from the over 65s. Nearly 80 per cent of manual workers voted No, as did the majority of white collar workers and the unemployed. Yes votes came mainly from professionals and self-employed. The far right, on the basis of recent election results, claim between 15 and 18 per cent of the total vote. So about 40 per cent of the total vote, meaning over 70 per cent of the "non", was from the left. Surveys indicate that people voted No because of concerns about unemployment, social provision, and because the Constitution was too liberal.

Calls to continue ratification are pressure for Nice II type re-votes in France and The Netherlands, which should be opposed. Such calls also imply that there must be continuity with the current neo-liberal politics of the EU and the Constitution. This is reinforced by Blair's assertion that there must be no let up with "reform" - liberalisation and globalisation of the EU economy.

The resounding "no" votes in France and The Netherlands are however, a call for a change of direction. Competition - between those in work and the unemployed, and between east and western European countries - is a race to the bottom where ordinary people lose out.

The market does not provide services that are available to all - which is why privatisation of public services is regressive.

The "non" movement in France has given a lead for a different direction for Europe, where social and environmental concerns take priority. Governments across Europe, the social-democratic parties, the Greens and trade union leaders would do well to take note.

Brendan Young is a member of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution.