TOM WILLIAMS,
Sir, - I feel sorry for the countries that may not gain entry to the EU if we vote No to Nice, but I also feel sorry for the other countries who will be left out if the present applicants get in. Countries do not apply to join this club because they like the idea of a common market. They apply because they know that the existence of the EU will cause problems for them if they stay out.
A common market sucks countries in, whether they like it or not. We asked for entry in 1973 not because we wanted to but because our biggest trading partner, the UK, decided to enter the club and that left us with little choice. The same process must operate, in varying degrees, among the present applicants and their neighbours.
The positive side to a big, open market is that it provides a powerful engine for economic expansion and increased prosperity. The negative side is that it is a capitalist jungle which is bound, by its very nature, to cause enormous difficulties, do immense damage and cause great suffering to the human race. The stress and frustration many of our citizens suffer as they commute long distances is merely one example of the haphazard effects of an open economy.
The logical development of an open market is that it will expand to engulf the entire planet. Even if this does not happen formally, with the EU thinking up some new name (such as "Tout le Monde") for itself, it will happen informally with other trading blocks reaching agreements with our club. The end result of all of this will be one enormous capitalist jungle and the bigger the jungle the more voracious the predators within it. The amount of human suffering which is and will be caused will be incalculable.
Let me end with one other reason for voting No to Nice: it will annoy Fianna Fáil! - Yours, etc.,
TOM WILLIAMS, Goldenbridge Avenue, Dublin 8.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - I heard Mr Dick Roche, the Government Minister responsible for steering the Nice Treaty proposal through, say on radio that the proposed referendum was included in the election manifestos of both the PDs and FF. These parties were returned to government by the people and, therefore, the Government had a mandate from the people to hold the referendum.
Commitments regarding overseas aid were included in the election manifestos of both the PDs and FF and were also included in the programme for government. On Mr Roche's reasoning, the Government has a mandate (which my Oxford Dictionary defines as "command, order, injunction") from the people to implement these commitments. But perhaps consistency is in short supply among politicians.
The government decision to cut overseas aid by €32 million this year, at a time when millions are starving, is sad, sickening and so selfish. Is mise,
SEÁN Ó RIAIN, Gáirdíní Bhaile na Lobhar, Co Bhaile Átha Cliath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Magdalena Majkowska (July 1st) presents ideals as if they were reality and theory as if it were fact. She dismisses the legitimate concerns of several correspondents about the nature of EU institutions as "allegedly undemocratic" when, in fact, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi and the Heads of Government, including our own Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, have already admitted publicly that they are undemocratic. The so-called Forum on Europe here is supposedly a response to this public admission.
She goes on to claim that the Commissioners represent "the interests of the Union as a whole" and "are not guarantors of national interests". Tell that to the IFA, the French farmers and the German farmers. The idea that former prime ministers, ministers, and leaders of political parties, now Commissioners, are "independent experts" who don't take note of "national interests" is too naïve to be credible. All very well in theory, but in practice something less.
Ms Majkowska invokes the usual right-wing "there is no alternative" cliché to bolster a false and hollow argument that, somehow or other, an increase in numbers on the Commission or Parliament or Council of Ministers would make things suddenly "inefficient". If that were true, then it should have happened when the EU increased from six to 12, and from 12 to 15. It didn't. Why should another increase cause different efficiency "problems" than those that have already been dealt with in the other, historical expansions? The veto is there for individual states to invoke where a "vital national interest" is at stake, not for trivial reasons or whims of individual governments. If there were, in fact, a better commitment to the Union by the larger states, then there should be more efforts to improve the quality of negotiations at Council level and there would be no need for anyone to use a veto.
Ms Majkowska's population argument also falls flat on its face. After all, she says, "democracy is about majority rule". No, it's not! It's about protecting minority interests as well, as all the smaller states of Europe know, from bitter experience. Her nonsense argument about smaller numbers being "more efficient" could be turned on its head and she could ask the larger states to reduce their populations so that they could become "more efficient".
Since Ms Majkowska is so concerned about the majority rights of the other EU members she might also ask why their populations are being denied the right to vote on the Nice Treaty instead of attempting to lecture us on the quality of our democracy, so far anyway, proven to be superior to the rest of them. - Yours, etc.,
SEAMAS RATIGAN, Dublin 8.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Henry Ford, 1910: "You can have any colour you like as long as it's black." Fianna Fáil, 2002: "You can give any answer you like as long as it's Yes." - Yours, etc.,
DAVID MARLBOROUGH, Kenilworth Park, Dubin 6W.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Can I vote Yes to Nice and No to neutrality? - Yours, etc.,
SEAN CARROLL, Walworth Terrace, Portobello, Dublin 8.