Madam, - Kennedy P. O'Brien (December 18th) makes an excellent argument against the Taoiseach's use of "emotional claptrap" in order to persuade voters to vote Yes in the coming referendum. However, while he rightly points out that both the Netherlands' and France's decisions to vote No in their referendums on the EU Constitution have not resulted in their being "cut adrift" from Europe, he forgets that these two countries carry a great deal more clout in Europe than do we.
In this regard, the Taoiseach has a point. - Yours, etc,
TOM KELLY, Terenure Road West, Dublin 6w.
Madam, - Is Michael McLoughlin so naive that he believes the decision not to hold a referendum in any EU country bar Ireland was a result of "internal politics"? This flies in the face of the fact that the Lisbon Treaty's identical twin, the EU Constitution, was put to the people as a referendum in two countries and scheduled to be put to the people in many others.
It is clear that the avoidance of referendums was a collective decision by the leaders of the European project (a project that to a large extent I support), to circumvent the possibility that their citizens might disagree with them. Once again I ask: has there been such a dramatic change in the text of the treaty to warrant a U-turn with regard to public consultation (e.g. in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Denmark)?
Mr McLoughlin misinterprets my point that such contempt for the principle of subsidiarity (that decision-making should happen at the lowest possible level) warrants rejection of the treaty as a call to ignore the content of the treaty.
Just as it is important to uphold human rights when one preaches about the merits of democracy, so too should we respect the principle of subsidiarity in implementing European integration. Ironically, this principle is contained in the Lisbon Treaty. Perhaps it is Mr McLoughlin who should consider the content of the treaty. - Yours, etc,
BARRA ROANTREE, Kimmage, Dublin 6W.