How other EU states came to the big decision

I REFER to your various correspondents on the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in regard to Ireland being the only member state to hold a referendum on it.

The treaty needs ratification by each member state according to its constitutional requirements, in Ireland’s case a referendum being required. In most cases the treaty has been, or will be, ratified by parliamentary majority.

To date, 11 countries have ratified the treaty.

While, technically, Ireland is the only state holding a referendum, it is not the only state to hold a referendum on the substance of the treaty.

Other member states have addressed the ratification of the treaty from differing perspectives.

The 10 new member states that joined the EU in 2004 participated in the convention that developed the then proposed constitution — rejected by France and the Netherlands on the basis of being too federalist and leading to a period of reflection which ultimately led to the Lisbon Treaty.

This occurred at a time when national debates were taking place in each of the new member states regarding accession to the EU.

Nine of the 10 states held referendums and their respective electorates were fully informed of the constitution’s content, now encompassed in the treaty, when voting approval for accession. They do not deem it necessary to repeat those referendums.

While France and the Netherlands were rejecting the constitution, Spain and Luxembourg were approving it, and in fact the yes vote considerably exceeded the no vote in these four countries. Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal have had the treaty examined by teams of constitutional lawyers.

In all three states they have found no issues of concern regarding their respective sovereignty and cleared the treaty for ratification by their respective parliaments. Germany would first need a constitutional amendment to introduce a referendum process at both federal and regional level, with no guarantee of agreement likely based on historical experiences.

Finally, it is disingenuous to criticise invited guests of the Government, such as the president of the EU and the German chancellor for interfering in our referendum while at the same time calling on other member states to hold a referendum.

It ill behoves us to make demands on other member states regarding their constitutional procedures, and in fact it is an impertinence to do so.

We would not tolerate such demands on ourselves.

Michael Geary

Arbour Court

Grange

Cork