Madam, - I have a question. Are we so bereft of democracy and opposition politics in this State that when the people vote against the will of the political establishment we have to endure speeches from TDs and senators comparing us to the reprehensible Jean-Marie Le Pen, and pages upon pages of newspaper analysis outlining just how ignorant, racist and opportunistic we really are?
I campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty because I am ambitious for the EU and Ireland's place within it. Collectively we can provide prosperity for ourselves and developing nations. We can ensure equality-based employment for all workers. We can protect public services from the destructive forces of liberalisation.
I see Europe's social model as a counterbalance to the US, which bears a heavy responsibility for the current global food, fuel and finance crises. It is also the world's worst aggressor. I campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty because I believe it would bring us closer to this US model and further away from our existing social model. In addition I also believe that the sovereignty of every member-state is a critical component of the EU collective and necessary to protect national interests. This would be undermined by Lisbon.
Yet although these concerns were articulated comprehensively for months before the referendum the political establishment are now shaking their heads in angry surprise at the result.
Let's stop this farce and bin the Lisbon Treaty. Let's end the falsity that continuing the ratification process is democratic. It is not. We don't want it. The French and Dutch didn't want it. If a Treaty is really needed, let EU leaders come to us and tell us what it is they are seeking to achieve. Consult with us and together we will shape a better deal. - Yours etc,
SINÉAD NÍ BHROIN,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - Your edition of June 21st quotes Gay Byrne as saying that he would vote No in any future referendum and: "I don't want to end up in a super-state and a totalitarian state". He was reported to have made similar comments during the campaign but, as far as I can see, he has never said why he thinks the EU could become a super-state or a totalitarian state.
There is no prospect of the EU becoming either of those things. Gay Byrne probably will not believe me, since I have been too closely associated with the Yes side of the argument (with the disadvantage of having studied "Europe" and worked in it, with it and about it for 40 years), so I would respectfully suggest some reading to him. He might read The European Union and its Constitution, by Laurent Pech of NUI Galway, published earlier this year by Clarus Press. He might read Tony Judt's Postwar, published in 2005 by William Heinemann. He might also read James Sheehan's Monopoly of Murder(references unfortunately not to hand).
If all of that does not suffice, he might simply do a little commonsense thinking and reflect on three simple questions.
Does he really believe that any French, German or British government (to name only three) will conspire in the evolution of a super-state that will make that government irrelevant?
Does he believe that the governments of the Baltic States and of five central and eastern European member-states of the EU, which escaped from totalitarian dominance and regained their independence less than two decades ago, will conspire in the creation of a new totalitarian regime?
Does he believe that the people of Greece, Spain and Portugal, who escaped from totalitarianism within the living memory of most of their populations, will let that come about again under the guise of the EU? Let him not answer that the governments might not want these things, but that the "bureaucrats" or the "Eurocrats" are secretly planning it behind the scenes. In the EU, it is governments and the European Parliament which make the decisions, as Gay must know from his undoubtedly compendious study of the subject. - Yours, etc,
ALAN DUKES,
Tully West,
Kildare.
****
Madam, - Robert Ballagh (June 20th) compares Brian Cowen, our elected Taoiseach, to Quisling reporting to the occupying Nazi authorities in Norway. Given the No campaigners' preoccupation with Irish neutrality (Norway was neutral, by the way), Irish Republican dalliance with Nazism and neutral Ireland's less than glorious campaign against Nazi Germany from 1939-1945, this is all a bit rich.
What next? Einsatzgruppen of Brussels bureaucrats invading Ireland to exterminate the No voters? Get a grip.- Yours etc,
H.F. RYAN,
Holmpatrick,
Skerries.
****
Madam, — I have long been an admirer of John Waters, whose incisive and courageous writing on many important issues has provided much food for thought over the years. Occasionally, however, I find myself reluctantly siding with those of his critics who claim that he can be just a teensy bit over the top. Friday last was one such occasion ("Disgrace of Lisbon vote built on fear and ignorance").
Having cast my vote against the Lisbon Treaty, I am now apparently numbered among those who can be variously described as ignorant, selfish, paranoid, narcissistic, envious, neurotic, enraged, xenophobic, spiteful, petulant, frenzied, resentful, furious, self-regarding, pampered and vacuous. Ouch! Granted, I'm far from perfect, though I do hope that not all of the foregoing attributes can be ascribed to me personally.
It is, supposedly, "disgraceful" that many people voted against the treaty because they didn't fully understand its implications. Curiously though, rather than pointing to his own diligent reading of the treaty, John Waters offers us instead the example of his father's dog-eared and earnestly studied draft copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann, dating from 1937.
Far from highlighting the grievous shortcomings of today's voters, however, his story explains, almost in a nutshell, the huge sense of disconnection which so many now experience with respect to the European project. Let's put it another way. Can John Waters, following faithfully in his father's footsteps, now show us his own dog-eared, heavily annotated copy of the Lisbon Treaty? You know, the one he's been carrying around in his pocket for the past couple of months, accompanied of course by the copies of the Maastricht Treaty and Treaty of Rome, which provide the necessary context for the hundreds of amendments to contained in the Lisbon Treaty? If he can, then he has very big pockets and lots of spare time.
As made clear by Jean-Claude Juncker almost exactly a year ago, "The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable. The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
So the impenetrability of the Lisbon Treaty was not merely an unfortunate by-product of its breadth and complexity but an intentional feature, deemed essential for its "success" by those who thought they knew best. Consequently, its rejection by Irish voters on the grounds that they couldn't understand it is not only entirely justified but sweetly ironic. - Yours, etc,
GAVIN LACY,
Earlsfort Rise,
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - Please convey my sincere thanks to John Waters for articulating perfectly in his column last Friday the anger and disgust many of us feel at the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty referendum. - Yours, etc,
ANN O'DUFFY,
The Village Gate,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - John Waters says an EU poll found "that immigration (ie, xenophobic sentiment) was a significant factor in the No vote". However, the Eurobarometer poll published on the same day as his column found that only 1 per cent of the No voters sampled gave immigration as a reason for their vote. - Yours, etc,
CONOR Ó BRIAIN,
Bóthar Bhaile Phib,
Baile Átha Cliath 3.
***
Madam, - To paraphrase Tolstoy, all Yes voters voted Yes for the same reason (in broad terms, they buy into the European project), while it is manifestly obvious that No voters voted no for many different reasons.
The margin of victory for the No campaign was approximately 110,000 votes. Thus, if 56,000 of those No voters had abstained, or voted Yes, we wouldnt be in the mess we're in now.
Is it possible that, of the 862,415 who voted No, there were 56,000 who did so on the basis of conscription, abortion, euthanasia, changes to our tax regime, or giving a bloody nose to Fianna Fail because they wouldn't have the cojones to do so in a general election? I need hardly answer the question.
However, it wasn't their fault. It was that of the very same Fianna Fáil. Certain issues should not have been allowed to influence the result, but they were. And that's the real problem. - Yours, etc,
DENIS MORTELL,
Friarsland Road,
Clonskeagh,
Dublin 14.
****
Madam, - If I voted No, does that put me in the same camp as Máire and Jerry O'Mahony (June 21st)? Oh. My. God. - Yours, etc,
CAROLINE LYNCH,
Headford Road,
Galway.
****
Madam, - After the event I would like to tell you why I voted No. I voted No because I read a very restrained account in Fr Vincent Twomey's The Conscience of Our Agedescribing the young Ratzinger's experience in Nazi Germany. The Nazis only lasted 13 years - but what years!
In those years a people were deliberately confused, lied to, made to believe evil was good and good was evil. In other words, they were manipulated. . .or shot.
Hitler was admired by all Europe for his autobhans. But a similar lie is on our doorsteps - "political correctness"; and it is being used to manipulate us even now. Soon it will do all the perverse conversion of words into their opposites that happened between 1933 and 1945.
Your correspondent of a few days ago is correct: we do not trust our politicians. They have walked out on their people. And all they can talk about is "infrastructure" and roads, roads and roads. They have become a class of their own. They just want to join the bigger league across the English channel.
History may repeat itself while we, asleep, dream our Tigerish dreams. - Yours, etc,
PATRICK PYE,
Piperstown,
Tallaght,
Dublin 24.
****
Madam, — Aoife Black's letter of June 19th is right on the mark. The referendum was lost because the Yes campaign utterly failed to make people aware that the Lisbon Treaty, negotiated over many years by the democratically elected representatives of 27 countries and 490 million people, is of very great historical significance. The opinion polls appear to show that the great majority of those who claimed to understand the Treaty voted for it.
Europe cannot afford to let this chance go by and it must be presented again in a new referendum - not because the people voted wrongly, but because the case was not properly put. This time may we have decent communication from the 85 per cent of our public representatives who support it. If ever the country needed PR consultants, this is the time. - Yours, etc,
JAMES KELLY,
Belgrove Lawn,
Chapelizod,
Dublin 20.
****
Madam, - I've been reading all the letters concerning the Lisbon Treaty debate from before and after the recent referendum. I must say the only one that has touched on the reality of our membership of the EU was that from Dermot C. Clarke (June 19th). While I wouldn't totally agree with his pro-American views, it's his very valid point on our fisheries which is of interest to me.
The greater Irish public is not aware of how vast a resource our fisheries are. They have no idea of how much money has been lost to our Exchequer because of the sell-out of our fisheries to the EEC, as it then was, in 1972. Since our entry into Europe, our maritime industry and culture have been devastated. Our fish stocks have been plundered on an industrial scale by the French and Spanish fishing fleets. Our shipbuilding and boatbuilding industries have gone.
It amuses me to read a lot of the correspondence on your Letters page saying: "Look at all the money the EU has given us since we joined up." If we say that Ireland has received around 80 billion euro since 1972, then one can easily multiply that figure by four to estimate how much EU membership has cost us by way of foreign exploitation of our fisheries.
As far as it goes for the ordinary working-class person, all that has happened since entering Europe is that jobs, hard-won pay-rates and working conditions have been steadily eroded by successive EU Treaties. - Yours, etc,
LEO RICKARD,
Skerries,
Co Dublin.