Letters: EU leaders lack the powers to intervene in Catalonia

Surely the question for Ms Roe is precisely which powers does she claim EU leaders have to intercede in what is essentially an internal Spanish matter?

Ms Roe already knows that the EU is a trading community, that the ECHR has no jurisdiction, and that there is no direct rule of sovereign Spain by Brussels. Also that there is no European army that can be sent in to enforce non-existent direct control of the independent member Spanish state even if such powers did exist.

Sorry, but I am at a complete loss as to what those whom Ms Roe has drawn into her flawed prospectus expect EU leaders to do.

Perhaps she is arguing that the EU leadership “elite” should have the powers to intercede. But then, wouldn’t that have the very consequence to realise the 1930s and 40s power scenario that was the attempt at European domination that she would warn us against, and why many apparently voted Brexit to avoid the EU metamorphosing into that federal Europe vision some were promulgating?

So perhaps Ms Roe, rather than rattling an illusory chattering class sabre, could explain how EU leaders should intervene? What specific powers should EU leaders employ now? Precisely what do you want them to do? What can the EU as an organisation do that EU members are already doing, and which would be politically acceptable?

Personally, I remain of the view that the Catalans have an intrinsic right to decide how they wish to be governed, and that the Spanish Government has a political and moral duty to respect that right, and to now arrange the legally binding referendum that would settle the issue peacefully.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

TONI Giugliano (Stick with the EU despite bungling on Catalonia, November 9) completely misses the point that I and, I think, Paul Kavanagh, make about the EU “state structures”. He admits “the real revelation of this crisis is the weakness of Europe’s institutions” and supports this by asking two important rhetorical questions: who or what is obstructing the EU-wide resettlement of refugees in Europe right now; who wanted to teach Greece a lesson during the sovereign debt crisis? His answer to both questions is individual EU states. So far I agree with him.

However, I do not agree with his solution, which is to give the European Parliament the legislation to rule and, indeed, overrule individual countries, because it is not necessary. As I have argued before, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice have all the powers they need to intervene when a member state acts against internationally recognised standards on freedom of speech, political expression, religion, etc.

Mr Giugliano, like so many politicians elected into office, seems to refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the voices of the people who elected him.

He claims that “there is little point in directing anger at powerless MEPs on Twitter”, that we’d be better writing to “Downing Street, the Taoiseach or the Elysee”.

Again, I agree that letters to the leaders of member states is a good idea. But, today, Twitter is the medium that many people use to say directly what they feel to each other because they distrust their elected politicians to speak on their behalf and, frankly, the EU’s “timid response to the Catalan crisis” proves this point.

Like Carles Puigdemont, they distrust Spanish justice. As Paul Kavanagh pointed out in his article (EU treatment of Catalans a betrayal of democracy, November 8), “just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right”.

Creating a European Parliament with supra-national powers has been the dream of European dictators for centuries and should be resisted at all costs.
Lovina Roe
Perth