Sir, - Now that the second Nice Treaty referendum campaign has begun, we need the No campaigners to be honest with the people. I have no doubt that people had good reasons for voting No last year. People were extremely confused, partly because of disinformation from some parts of the No camp and partly because the Government was too arrogant and lazy to explain the treaty properly.
If any good came out of Nice I, it was that it served as a reminder to politicians that the Irish people will not be taken for granted. However, things are much clearer now.
The alleged threat to Irish neutrality has been removed. The heads of government of all the other EU countries have declared that Nice has no bearing on Irish neutrality. We will be not be pushed into a mutual defence pact against our wishes. The Oireachtas will decide if, how and where Irish troops will take part in any mission abroad. Conversely, we must respect the sovereign right of other EU member states to form military alliances with each other, if they so wish.
The theory was put forward, last time out, that the voting rights of any new member-states would be inferior to those of existing EU members and hence that the applicant countries were not in favour of Nice. This is patently untrue. Every newspaper east of Berlin (east of Dublin) castigated us for denying applicant countries the chance to improve their economies and consolidate their democracies.
It has been proposed that Nice should be scrapped and the provisions set out in the Amsterdam treaty should be used to facilitate enlargement. It is ironic that the people proposing this approach actually opposed our ratification of Amsterdam.
The problem is that, while this may be legally possible, all 15 EU governments have decided that the provisions within Amsterdam are not sufficient to allow enlargement to take place. In other words, it is not politically or practically possible for enlargement to take place without the structural changes proposed in Nice. It isn't difficult to understand the difference between what is legal and what is practical.
If the "No to Nice" campaigners genuinely don't believe in the European project and want to stop further integration, they must be honest and let people know what their agenda is. If they have genuine problems with the Nice treaty they must spell out clearly what these problems are and not try to invent issues and muddy the waters. Similarly, this time the Referendum Commission must have plenty of time and money to explain the issues. - Yours, etc.,
G. ALLEN, Eagle Valley, Wilton, Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Bertie Ahern is right to point out that the Nice referendum was defeated by moaning whingers. I, for one, look forward to his sacking Charlie McCreevy and Mary Harney. Maybe then they can both emigrate to the US of A, and be physically as well as spiritually closer to Boston than Berlin. - Yours, etc.,
TIM O'HALLORAN, Ferendale Road, Finglas, Dublin 11.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - A number of your correspondents, including Ethel Chesterton (June 21st), ask why we are to have another referendum on the Nice Treaty when it was already rejected last year.
The question may be slightly different this autumn, as it will include guarantees on neutrality, but in any case what is wrong with having further discussion on a key issue that affects not only Ireland but the entire European continent? Were the issues of abortion or divorce taken off the agenda after the referendums in the 1980s? Are they off the agenda even now? Over time, minds can change and circumstances can differ. The reality is that if we still reject the treaty in October, the debate finishes then as the treaty will not be ratified by the end of the year as required.
I will be campaigning in favour of the treaty as I believe that it is in Ireland's interests that we should have an enlarged European Union. From an economic perspective and from the point of Ireland's good standing with our European neighbours, this treaty offers a way forward.
If it is rejected again, I will accept that, but I believe that those opposed to the treaty must set out clearly their vision of what happens in such circumstances.
Current European structures allow for the accession of only five more member states. There are a dozen applicant nations. Which five, if any, would they admit and on what criteria?
Ireland will be perceived to have snubbed the aspirations of the accession countries. How will we repair the damage to our reputation and probably to our economic interests as well?
Should the European Union draft another treaty to deal with enlargement and reform and if so, how should it significantly differ from Nice and how would that be achieved given the years of preparation that went into that treaty?
The Nice Treaty deals with enlargement. The question is simple: do we want an enlarged European Union or not? If not, how do we deal with the consequences? - Is mise,
MALCOLM BYRNE, Ramsfort Avenue, Gorey, Co Wexford.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - One aspect of last year's Yes campaign with which I agreed was that Ireland's neutrality would be unaffected by the Nice Treaty. Given the current extensive coverage of the neutrality "issue", it seems Yes supporters are now more than happy to make neutrality the central issue, be seen to deal with it by means of a declaration, and reasonably ask for a Yes vote. No supporters, by making the emotive topic of neutrality such an issue last year, may become the ultimate victims of their own campaign.
It will be disappointing, however, if neutrality is the only matter debated during this referendum. As far as I am concerned, it is a non-issue. I'd much prefer the debate to revolve around EU institutional structures, namely seats in the European Parliament, Irish Commissioners and national vetoes, as this is what the Nice treaty is all about. I won't hold my breath. - Yours, etc.,
BARRY SMITH, The Tramyard, Inchicore, Dublin 8
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - As one of those who opposed the Nice Treaty in the last referendum, I am outraged at the Taoiseach's insulting attitude to the electorate. I don't believe the Government has made any real effort to try to understand why the Irish people voted against the Treaty.
It is not just neutrality that Irish people are concerned about. A very major concern is the seriously undemocratic nature of the European Union.
The European Commission is the predominant body initiating policy in the EU. While Ireland is currently represented here, there is much speculation that Ireland, and other small European states, may one day be left without a commissioner at the table - i.e., no representation!
The Council of Ministers, the legislative body of the EU, is the most powerful institution within the Union. While the Commission makes proposals, the Council makes decisions. In recent years, the trend in the Council's decision-making process has been towards majority rule. This is a worry, particularly for smaller states such as Ireland - even more worrying given the fact that this powerful institution operates almost entirely in secret and is answerable to nobody!
I want to see our Government and European representatives doing more to make the EU accountable, fair and representative of all member States. I believe that the majority of Irish people don't want a federal superstate.If more "whinging" is necessary to get the Government to start addressing these issues, let's whinge at the top of our voices! - Yours, etc.,
BERNADETTE WALSHE, Heatherfield, Carrigaline, Co Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Boo hoo, I'm a whinger. - Yours, etc.,
KEITH NOLAN, Bulloch Harbour, Dalkey, Co Dublin.