ALAN HICKEY,
A chara, - Breda O' Brien's comments on the intricacies of the Nice Treaty (Opinion, September 14th) were a welcome relief from the increasingly hyperbolical arguments put forward on both sides of the debate thus far. Unfortunately, she seems to express an increasingly popular sentiment: that Ireland's future role in the EU, along with that of other smaller states, is becoming redundant on a committee controlled by the major countries.
A belief that a vote in European elections is "well-nigh a meaningless exercise" only fuels attitudes antagonistic to the democratic process itself. By ratifying the Nice Treaty we will be enabling Ireland to continue to exert a force, however limited, in the EU. Yet the low voter turnout at the first referendum shows a belief in the futility of our vote, even at a national level.
We might all do well to remember Louis MacNeice's riposte to those who would criticise the voting process:- "What is the use of asking what is the use of one brick only?" - Is mise,
ALAN HICKEY,
Quarryland,
Dunboyne,
Co Meath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - In the last referendum on the Nice Treaty, I voted No because, among other things, I objected to the lack of information supplied to me and I didn't like the scare tactics employed by the Government and other parties to frighten me into a Yes vote. With a second referendum in the offing nothing has happened to make me change my vote. Quite the contrary, in fact!
I've been called a whinger and a dingbat by the Taoiseach (who has spent millions of euro on a hare-brained stadium plan for which no-one will be held accountable) and the arrogance of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, is astounding.
The fact that we are even having a referendum is a affront to our democracy. I didn't like the result of the last general election, so can I please have a re-run? A flight of fancy? Perhaps; but it follows the same logic as the decision to re-run the Nice referendum. - Yours, etc.,
BRENDAN O'REILLY,
Castle Park,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Paul Gillespie (World View, September 14th), says that "hegemony describes the tendency of large states to seek dominance of their region"; and he quotes Max Kohnstamm as saying that "post-war integration has brought Western Europe beyond hegemony".
I agree, and I accept that the EEC introduced a new degree of constructive co-operation to Europe and that its achievements are to be applauded.
Mr Gillespie outlines the norms on which this has been based. These are "peace, market-based prosperity and democratic values". He claims that these norms were introduced in Copenhagen in 1993. Surely they were introduced with the Treaty of Rome in 1957 - and have they not served us very well since that time?
The European project has been a great success so far, but we need to be careful that we do not lose sight of this historical perspective in a mad rush for "deeper EU integration" - which may just turn out to be a euphemism for a European superstate.
We are entitled to more openness and transparency in the debate on Nice. Those of us on the No side, are convinced by the evidence that Nice is a bridge too far into EU superstate territory. Once such a state is established, you do not need me to point out which countries will dominate its decisions.
So, while we have thankfully avoided a return to hegemony thus far in Europe, unless we are prudent and vote No to Nice, the Irish voters will be uniquely responsible for re-introducing hegemony into Europe after our being free of it for nearly 60 years. - Yours, etc.,
DICK HUMPHREYS,
Sycamore Road,
Mount Merrion,
Co Dublin.