Treaty is not a threat to neutrality

KEVIN FOLEY (Letters, April 16) makes so many incorrect statements about the Lisbon treaty it would be difficult to address them all in one attempt.

Three of his charges, however, are particularly serious.

Firstly, he tells us that “under the Lisbon treaty there would be a duty on all EU states militarily to assist a fellow member at risk of aggression. Had the provisions been in place in 2003, Irish troops would now be part of an occupation force in Iraq”.

This is completely untrue. The treaty makes it clear, in Article 1.5, that “national security remains the sole responsibility of each member state”.

It goes on to outline that any foreign policy decision with military or defence implications — including crisis management and peacekeeping missions — must be the subject of unanimous agreement among all member states.

So, in other words, Ireland has a veto over such matters and will never be forced into any military activity without the assent of our Government, Dáil Eireann and the UN as required by our constitution.

Any claim that Ireland could be dragged against its will into a foreign war is preposterous.

Secondly, Mr Foley tells us the new president of the European Council (Tony Blair, he claims) would “preside over an Ireland whose veto on his new laws would have been surrendered as a result of a yes vote ... ” Again, this is fundamentally incorrect.

The new president of the council will have no role in proposing new laws, a function which remains solely at the initiative of the European Commission. The president will largely have a figurehead role, chairing the European Council, striving for cohesion and consensus, and representing the EU abroad.

Thirdly, Mr Foley goes on to insinuate that such a development would roll back the struggle for independence from Britain by giving away our sovereignty and in the next breath says we should vote no on the basis of the rejection of the EU constitution (a completely separate document) by the French and the Dutch.

Is Mr Foley seriously suggesting that, on the one hand, we need to resist British influence, but on the other we should allow voters in France and the Netherlands to decide our affairs? This is exactly the nonsensical argument put forward by Sinn Féin, among others, in recent months.

A healthy debate on the referendum is welcome. But it astounds me that many advocates of a no vote persist in making arguments which flatly contradict the text of the treaty itself.

Barry Walsh

Brooklawn

Clontarf

Dublin 3