Madam, - Where were all the "No" commentators and letter-writers when we were discussing the EU project at the National Forum for Europe?
There were about 100 plenary meetings in Dublin and a similar number in the regions, leading to about 50 reports. The meetings were open to the public, and were well advertised. The difficulties involved in getting agreement from the leaders of all the EU states to sign a document, which was basically a compromise, would have been made clear to these latecomer experts.
A substantial proportion of the voters who are said to have "not understood" the Lisbon Treaty are well capable of analysing a document. The fact is they did not try, at least not until the last minute. The question is, should the future of the European Union be decided upon by the uninformed? As Kirkegaard put it, sometimes "the crowd is untruth". As I asked at the Forum, "where is representative democracy in all of this"? - Yours, etc,
Prof NOEL MULCAHY,
Lochlua,
Ballina/Killaloe,
Co Clare.
****
Madam, - The Government should immediately commission an opinion poll in all 27 EU states to measure support for the Lisbon Treaty across Europe. The results should be published widely.
If, as I suspect, the outcome is less than a resounding level of support, it will give Mr Cowen a means of putting the Euro-bullies on the back foot whenever they seek to present little old Ireland as an ungrateful, unenlightened and aberrant state.
It would be difficult for the French, for example, to denigrate Irish behaviour, if their own people appear to have a similar attitude. Such a poll might change the dynamics in Ireland's favour - and it would cost less than a few MEPs' annual expenses. - Yours, etc,
DERMOT HANRAHAN,
Fleming's Place,
Dublin 4.
****
Madam, - Some correspondents have suggested that the reason that the Lisbon Treaty was not ratified was due to God's displeasure that he is not mentioned in the European Constitution.
If there is any theological basis to this assertion, it is not to be found in the foundation document of Christian faith, which is the New Testament. It appears to be based on the notion that God will bless or punish rulers, nations, and individuals according to the extent to which his laws are the basis of national law, and the extent to which the rulers and people obey those laws. This is a decidedly Old Testament view.
Conversely, the New Testament understanding is that no individual can go to Heaven on the basis of his or her own righteousness, that is to say his or her ability to adhere absolutely to a precisely defined moral code. However good a life a person may lead, he or she will fall short of the required standard of perfection in motive, word, and action. The Christian faith is based on the idea that we can only be considered good enough by God when we recognise our imperfection and our inability to rectify it by our own efforts, and acknowledge in humility that the only acceptable compensation for our wrongdoing is the death of Christ, who as God's only son was the uniquely perfect human, on the Cross.
This, combined with the hope that rests in Christ's resurrection from the dead, is the basis of our assurance of salvation to eternal life in heaven, regardless of how many moral challenges we face in this life. After conversion to this perspective we are not expected to struggle to keep ever more rigidly to a set of dos and don'ts, but can trust God to transform us, so that over time right treatment of ourselves and others flows naturally from God's truth and love operating in us through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
The eternal implications of our day-to-day shortcomings have already been dealt with conclusively on the Cross. The only effort required on our part to receive this salvation is to believe in it.
Thus, the notion that a supposedly Godless Europe will lead us all to eternal damnation (Letters, June 21st) is stood on its head. It is the attempt to live by the code of religious law which puts people in danger of eternal damnation, because of their inability to observe it in every respect and their failure to recognise their need of salvation by the free gift of God's love and grace expressed in Christ, who is his fully revealed blessing to all people and all nations for all time.
The question of whether God is mentioned in the European Constitution is irrelevant to Christians and meaningless to all others, who together form the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons that the others are in the majority is because many Christians or apparent Christians waste so much effort on this kind of non-issue, instead of promoting the message of love and freedom (as opposed to licentiousness) which is at the heart of the Gospel. - Yours, etc,
CHARLES BAGWELL,
Millbrook,
Straffan,
Co Kildare.
****
Madam, - In Spain's national daily El Pais, the novelist John Banville recently claimed that the Irish were not so much Eurosceptic as Euro-ignorant. In the light of the recent referendum his comments ring especially true.
There is no doubt that the Irish general attitude to EU matters is a mixture of raw ignorance and disdainful apathy. The lack of any urgency, inspiration and imagination from the main political parties allowed the simplistic and blatantly untruthful propaganda of Sinn Féin and others to win over much of a population that is becoming less and less educated at a fundamental level.
A mean-spirited, narrow-minded, gombeen mentality rooted in a characteristic Irish provincialism won the referendum. Those who voted No have aligned themselves (whether they like it or not) with the likes of neo-fascists like Le Pen, far-right Tory extremists and Sinn Féin. They deserve each other. - Yours, etc,
ANTHONY HARTNETT,
Bishopstown,
Cork.
****
Madam, - Let us hope that Germany and France bully Ireland into holding a second referendum.
Brussels will offer some concessions but, if Ireland stands its ground, a second No vote will put an end to the matter.
I wonder if they dare take that chance. - Yours, etc,
BRIAN HILL,
Reading,
Berkshire,
England.
****
Madam, - John Kennedy (June 20th) misquotes me.
As reported in The Irish Times, I said that "Ireland's internal debate about what the No signifies. . .should seek to establish what a majority of the Irish electorate believe our relationship should be to Europe. Do we want to be a full partner, sharing power, responsibilities and benefits, or do we want to be semi-detached on the same basis as Norway, for example, which benefits from the single market but has no say in decisions?
"If the former, then we have to identify the treaty modifications which would win majority support in Ireland and which, at the same time, would be acceptable to the other 26 member-states.
"If the latter, then we negotiate on a completely different basis and the rest of Europe can proceed as it chooses with the Lisbon Treaty."
For the other member-states to concede the No demands would be to re-nationalise European politics, and create a Europe of co-operating states, in effect little more than a single market. This is not going to happen; and because the EU is not a federation the other states will have no right or power to impose Lisbon on us. Our options, therefore, are to negotiate what clarifications we need (on a document we as a country helped to draft), or there will be a parting of the ways.
We have reached a watershed in our relations with Europe. Our debate now needs to go deeper than an exchange of soundbites and grandstanding. Whether we get around to voting again or not on Lisbon, we need to recognise the mess we are in, the choices we are faced with, and their consequences.
One thing is already obvious: Europe can survive without Ireland, but if Ireland loses Europe, we lose everything. - Yours, etc,
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP,
Socialist Group/
Labour Party,
Liberty Hall,
Dublin 1.
****
Madam, - Is anyone interested in surveying why people voted Yes to Lisbon? - Yours, etc,
MARIE COLLINS,
Wellington Road,
Cork.
****
Madam, - As one who has often criticised RTÉ, I would like to praise it for its coverage of the Lisbon Treaty campaign, which managed to inform and educate without taking sides.
In particular, Seán Whelan's Morning Irelandreports on the content of the Treaty itself were an excellent example of public service broadcasting. - Yours, etc,
Cllr DERMOT LACEY,
Beech Hill Drive,
Donnybrook,
Dublin 4.