KEITH SPILLER,
Sir, - Is it a sign of the times that Ireland now views European Union membership and enlargement from a purely economic perspective? Is Ireland's memory so fickle that we simply forget or choose to forget the cultural and legal benefits, as well as the economic ones, that European Union membership has brought? The benefits of EU membership have been too numerous to mention here, but one has only to consider women's rights in this country and remember the standard practice of the "marriage bar" in the Irish public service in the 1970s. It was through European influence that this institutional rule was changed.
Does Ireland wish to prevent or hinder other countries receiving some of these benefits? I have recently returned from a trip to Poland and the overriding view of the people I talked to was one of disbelief. "Why does Ireland not want Poland in the European Union?" they asked. Ireland is a country on which Poland is modelling itself because of a number of similarities. Both countries experienced their first tentative approaches to independence within a few years of each other; both have experienced mass emigration; both value their agricultural heritage and both share a common religion. Poland views itself as being in a position similar to that of Ireland in 1972. The Polish people fail to understand why Ireland might want to refuse Poland the privileges Ireland has enjoyed during the past 30 years. - Yours, etc.
KEITH SPILLER,
St Finbarr's Street,
Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Many of us who are concerned about the democratic deficit in the European Union regard the enhanced co-operation provisions of the Nice Treaty as having the potential to further undermine the democratic basis of the Union. I note with interest that at least one leading member of the "Yes to Nice" campaign has expressed some of these same concerns.
Prof Brigid Laffan, a prominent member of the Yes side, set out the main benefits and dangers of enhanced co-operation in a contribution to the Institute of European Affairs in 1996. When listing the benefits of enhanced co-operation, she stated: "It provides a vehicle for the federal agenda of the most committed states" and "it alters the political dynamic of agenda-setting and policy development in the Union, because the prospect of resorting to a clause on flexibility might well increase the overall level of agreement in the system".
The dangers she identified were as follows: "Some states may find themselves outside the consensus to such an extent that they are semi-detached from the Union and the quality of their membership is weakened. This may lead to pressure for exit". She also states: "Greater flexibility may lead to the presence in the Union of a group of states committed to policy integration and institutional membership in the broadest and deepest sense, and in a wider group of second-tier states. This would lead to a de facto,if not a de jure, core. Put simply, flexibility could reflect a system of power."
It seems clear that Prof Laffan, like ourselves, realises that enhanced co-operation by QMV is a gift to the larger member-states as the possibility of its use exerts the same level of influence over the decision-making process as does the veto. In other words, this mechanism will influence other member-states to agree to certain policy decisions in the knowledge that if they don't, the enhanced co-operation mechanism will be activated and the decision will be made without them.
Nice is clearly a treaty that favours the larger states. The proposed treaty changes with regard to voting weights on the Council of Ministers, combined with the extension of Qualified Majority Voting into many more areas, means that three of the larger states, such as France and Germany, will be able to form an important "blocking minority" in an enlarged Europe. This blocking veto, combined with the threat of the use of enhanced co-operation to achieve desired policy changes, means that if Nice is ratified, the larger states will be able to block the decisions they do not want, and succeed in pushing through those decisions they favour.
If the enhanced co-operation provisions of the Nice Treaty are ratified, the partnership of equals on which the EU was founded will become a thing of the past and the EU will evolve towards a two-tier Europe of first and second-class states. - Yours, etc.,
DEIRDRE DE BÚRCA,
Southern Cross,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - A recent letter cited Ireland's contribution (in GDP terms) to Europe as being less than that of Leitrim within the Irish Republic. This reference proves quite apposite to the current debate. The author asks: "Who will listen to us 10 years from now?" May I ask: who listens to Leitrim now?
And yet, I fancy Leitrim is happier where it is and is not planning to secede any time soon. On balance, were I Leitrim, I'd be voting Yes to Nice. - Is mise,
BRENDAN McLOUGHLIN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - O dear! I read the Yes arguments and I accept points being made; then I read the No arguments and understand the reasoning there as well. I am not alone in this dilemma. I am not influenced by Government pressure. In fact, I find the plethora of Yes posters in my area quite off-putting.
An aspect seldom addressed is the significant feeling of anxiety that the EU seems to have no appreciation of the ancient Christian heritage of Europe and does not seek to preserve its best aspects. People feel that buying more deeply into the EU is a tacit acceptance of the dereliction of that heritage. It seems clear that non-Christian rulings will, in time, be imposed on us without the agreement of the Irish people. We need a Christian renaissance, not further abandonment.
To not vote may well be the reaction of people who have tried responsibly to think through all aspects and have failed to reach a conclusion. - Yours, etc.,
ANGELA MACNAMARA,
Lower Kilmacud Road,
Dublin 14.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I can only echo the sentiments of Edith Wynne (October 7th).
Your picture of Dr Garret FitzGerald was a timely reminder that there are some decent people in politics. And while I sympathise with D.J. Moore (same date) on his objections to being bracketed with racists, fascists, thugs and terrorists, he should realise the danger that we are likely to be judged by the company we keep. I will have none of such company. - Yours, etc.,
PAUL KENNY,
Charlemont Street,
Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Having voted No in the last Nice referendum, I resolved, after much deliberation, to vote in favour this time.
However, in view of the practice of the pro-Nice lobby to constantly abuse and vilify those with a different opinion than their own - exemplified by Martyn Turner's cartoon of October 4th - I have decided to reverse my decision and will now be voting No. - Yours, etc.,
T.K. GORDON,
Beechpark Lawn,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.