LEO VARADKAR,
Sir, - Liam Ó Lonargáin achieved a remarkable journalistic tour de force with his article opposing the Nice Treaty (The Irish Times, August 31st).
It is extraordinary that he managed to write an article exceeding a thousand words without making one argument against Ireland's ratification of the treaty. He finds enough space to invoke Hitler, the assorted works of Hans Christian Andersen and even enough room for broadsides against Romano Prodi, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Bertie Ahern, but does not find enough space to criticise even one provision of the treaty. There are no arguments for and against, no discussion of the consequences of a Yes or No vote, nor any effort to present alternatives to Nice.
Mr O Lonargáin makes only one argument: We in Ireland should vote against Nice simply because the 14 other member-states have not chosen to hold a referendum on the topic. This is absurd. The EU is not a federation or unitary state. It is a union of sovereign member-states. Any such EU-wide referendum would be a political exercise on the scale of a superstate. It would adopt a treaty with legal and democratic legitimacy that would over-ride the member-states.
The Treaty of Nice was negotiated by sovereign governments democratically elected by their people and ratified by parliaments elected by those people. The fact that other countries choose not to have referendums on such treaties is irrelevant.
Britain has no written constitution and as such has no provision for legally binding referendums. Germany's constitution, in fact, bans referendums entirely. Each country has the right to set down the rules of its democracy as it so wishes and certainly should not have them imposed by the No camp in Ireland.
The contention that a No vote would strike a blow for democracy in Europe is absurd. The rejection of the Nice Treaty would jeopardise enlargement, the single most democratic act since the fall of communism or the defeat of fascism.
It would throw mud in the face of Central European democrats who fought to free their countries from the yoke of communism. It would undermine the many democratic reforms included in the treaty, such as the restriction of the appallingly undemocratic veto power.
Worst of all, it would undermine and overshadow the work of the inclusive, continent-wide European Convention that is currently drawing up proposals to constitutionalise and democratise the European Union.
If Mr Ó Lonargáin were truly in favour of a democratic Europe for all Europeans, he would be campaigning with me for a Yes vote. However, like most of the No lobby, his arguments are merely a poor disguise for a more sinister aim - the removal of Ireland from the European project itself. - Yours, etc.,
LEO VARADKAR,
Roselawn Road,
Dublin 15.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Studying the debate on Nice, I have noticed that very few of the contributions refer to the actual content of the treaty. In particular, I would like to hear opinions on the only really new development in it, the "enhanced co-operation" which would enable a group of states to set the pace for further integration, no longer needing the consent of all member-states.
It seems to me that arguments about whether or not we should be grateful to the EU, or speculation about foreign investors' reaction to a No vote, and so on, on both sides, do not provide a good reason to vote either way.
Could the proponents and opponents of the treaty please stick to the point, and let us have an informed debate on the treaty itself and its effect on the development of the EU and Ireland's role in it? Then voters who believe that the treaty is right for Europe and for Ireland should vote Yes, and those who think it is wrong should vote No. - Yours, etc.,
SEÁN EDWARDS,
Hillcrest View,
Lucan,
Co Dublin.