Let’s not rely on EU protocols

ON rereading my letter (January 5), I can see how Colm Burke MEP misunderstood what I said (Letters, January 23).

I intended to convey that the Supreme Court’s interpretation was of Article 40.3.3 of the constitution, and not of any protocol.

I assumed this would have been clear and regret that it wasn’t.

My point was that, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this article of the constitution, the intent of the protocol was likely to have been reversed, and that it was uncertain which way the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would now rule.

Even if the protocol could be interpreted in a way we would wish, the ECJ may not pursue this line at all. It would be open to the court to pursue the “problem” under the heading of discrimination, freedom of movement, the right to work or whatever reinterpretation came in handy.

These possibilities would apply with much greater force if we subordinated ourselves under the Lisbon Treaty together with a Charter of Fundamental Rights superseding existing rights under the Irish constitution. We are not reassured by:

1. An activist EU court that regards the resolution of working conditions and trade disputes not as ends in themselves, but as a means to achieving European (political) unity.

2. An Irish Government that has just given carte blanche and taxpayers’ money to UCC to engage in destructive embryo research and thus circumvent our own constitution.

3. The revelation (by Mr Burke), if it is correct, that the Sarkozy “plan” was in fact drafted in Dublin, and then presented to the 26 other member states as a fait accompli. How much water will this “guarantee” hold?

4. The adoption of the van Lancker report in 2003 by the elected members of the European Parliament calling for abortion to be made legal, safe and accessible to all.

5. The adoption of the Catania report on January 14 this year by the elected members of the European Parliament. This rests on the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, neither of which has been passed into law.

This “soft-law” report regards abortion as a “right”, and seeks “rights” for same-sex partnerships. (It is called soft-law because it is unlikely to be made enforceable. But in another guise it can be the precursor to enforceable “hard-law”).

The motion was passed by 401 votes to 220, with 67 abstaining. The MEPs of all Irish parties voted in favour or abstained. Only the two independent MEPs voted against — Kathy Sinnott and Marion Harkin. Colm Burke voted in favour. So much for protocol 35 and for being at the “heart of Europe”.

Donal O’Driscoll

Dargle Road

Blackrock

Co Dublin