Sir, – Is Boris Johnson to the Conservatives what Willie O’Dea is to Fianna Fáil? Willie memorably said that, on looking in a mirror, he didn’t see a leader. Who loaned Boris Willie’s mirror? – Yours, etc,
Prof JIM MALONE,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Eton mess! – Yours, etc,
OLIVER McGRANE,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Good old Boris. He brought us a tragedy and then a farce. – Yours, etc,
ANNE BYRNE,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – David Cameron has not followed the requirements of the British constitution in relation to the Brexit question. A referendum (and this referendum gave an extremely close result) has no constitutional basis in British law, and can only be regarded as informative. The British constitution (which is largely unwritten) requires that the matter must be decided by a vote in our democratically elected parliament.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that a state wishing to leave the EU must first comply with its own constitutional requirements. However, it seems that the European Council, which includes the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, is willing to accept an Article 50 request, even though due process has not been followed.
This puts at risk the democratic rights not only of millions of UK citizens but of every citizen of the European Union. If the EU allows the British PM to take his country out of Europe, purely on the basis of the referendum, then any present or future leader, in any member state, could similarly try to take his or her country out of the EU without following the correct domestic constitutional requirements.
I ask my fellow European citizens to join in calling for the leaders of the EU to protect the constitutional democratic process in the UK , by insisting that no Article 50 request be made by the British prime minister until the matter has been decided by the Westminster parliament. – Yours, etc,
KATHRYN READ,
Kraainem, Belgium.
Sir, – Further to Prof Jonathan Tonge's "Leaving may need consent of Scotland, Wales and NI" (Analysis, June 27th), under current arrangements, each of the 18 Westminster constituencies elects six members of Stormont, which means that the proportion favouring Brexit is considerably greater than the third he suggests. However, the Sinn Féin members of the Executive would prevent the Executive as such tabling a motion for legislative consent for the extinguishing of EU law. So any such motion would have to be a private member's rather than an Executive motion. Furthermore, even if such a motion were to be introduced and passed, Sinn Féin and the SDLP could block it with a petition of concern.
Cross-community support for the withdrawal of Northern Ireland from the EU on the basis of votes cast in England and Wales would definitely not be forthcoming and any unilateral action to override this would be a serious breach of the Belfast Agreement. So would any attempt to remove Northern Ireland from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, admittedly not an EU organ.
If the UK found itself in dispute with an EU member state arising out of Brexit, the member state in question would probably receive the support of the rest of the EU, with potentially serious consequences for the UK. Any final settlement requires the approval of the European Parliament, as well as the national parliaments of all member states, including Ireland.
Last but by no means least, any unilateral breach by the UK of an international agreement negotiated under American chairmanship could have consequences for UK relations with America, as well as with the EU.
Of course, if there is genuine goodwill all round many difficulties can be overcome. One matter that should be looked at is continuation of the right of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to have direct representation in the European Parliament. As Irish citizens they continue to be European citizens irrespective of the referendum result, so the EU, as well as the Irish Government, has obligations to them. The European Parliament as well as the Irish Government should take particular note of this. – Yours, etc,
ED KELLY,
St Helens, Merseyside.
Sir, – The many commentators who ascribe the outcome of the UK referendum to various forms of disaffection are missing the point. Both sides of the Brexit debate in Britain were resolutely opposed to the idea of European integration.
Whatever about regions like Scotland and Northern Ireland, the position of the UK as a state has been hostile to the primary objectives of the EU since the Thatcher era, and British interventions in the EU since then have frequently been disruptive.
Following Jacque Delors’s presidency of the European Commission in the 1980s, the UK pressed successfully for a weakening of the commission, the supra-national institution at the heart of the EU. In the 1990s UK governments championed enlargement because it placed a brake on EU “deepening”, ie closer integration. The UK’s decision not to join the euro zone, once considered as temporary, has long been accepted as permanent and there are clearly conflicting interests between sterling, a major currency, and the single European currency. In response to the 2008 crisis, an unbridgeable gulf opened up between London and Brussels regarding banking regulation.
In short, the differences between the EU and the UK cannot be fixed by the exercise of goodwill; they are irreconcilable. For that reason the separation of the UK state from the European Union, as decided in the referendum, is in the interests of both.
Brexit will not guarantee that the EU moves back from its attachment to free-market ideology but it does open up the possibility of a more united European Union and a return to the Christian Democratic ideal of “Social Europe”.
Following the UK referendum, Ireland’s national interest clearly requires a consolidation of the euro currency through further political integration of the euro zone, pursued as a matter of urgency. Other priorities must be preventing the British Eurosceptics from using their victory to destabilise the EU; and avoiding any moves that would prolong the dislocation and uncertainty that are the unavoidable accompaniments of the British exit. – Yours, etc,
DAVE ALVEY
Irish Political Review Group,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – In the eyes of the people of Europe and the UK, but most particularly in the eyes of the Scottish people, Nicola Sturgeon, in bringing Scotland’s case to the heart of Europe, can only have the effect of advancing the status of the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh and the acceptance of Scotland as a fully independent state. Apart from the referendum result, the UK challenge to Scottish independence is much weakened, with a distracted and caretaker prime minister and a poorly led opposition in Westminster. During this week, Ms Sturgeon has graduated from first minister to assume the status of prime minister, with her display of leadership and clarity. – Yours, etc,
MICK O’BRIEN,
Springmount,
Kilkenny.
Sir, – I support People before Profit, North and South, but not their support for the UK leaving the EU. A “left-wing” Brexit (a contradiction in terms?) is like a three-legged stool where one sturdy leg takes all the weight but the other two legs are wonky or missing, and not surprisingly it falls over.
There are solid criticisms of the EU’s neoliberal austerity and democratic deficit, but Brexit’s even worse implications in terms of “Little Britain” and for the rest of Europe are played down or ignored.
There are valid criticisms of the elite, right-wing Remain campaign, but no real acknowledgement of the fact that some Brexiteers are also elites and even more right-wing, some even more racist (as seen in the upsurge of racist attacks post-referendum), and others even more neoliberal (wanting “freedom” from EU regulations which protect jobs and the environment).
Whatever its supporters’ various motivations, Brexit is a victory for the right in the UK, while across Europe it is already giving encouragement to an array of extreme right-wingers and outright fascists. Instead of supporting Brexit or retreating into their “own” national states, socialists should be taking advantage of the EU for an internationalist fight against neoliberalism at national and EU levels across the Continent. – Yours, etc,
JAMES ANDERSON,
Emeritus Professor
of Political Geography,
The Mitchell Institute
for Global Peace,
Security and Justice,
Queen’s University Belfast.