ANTHONY COUGHLAN,
Sir, - Dr Garret FitzGerald says it would be "suicidal" not to vote for the Nice Treaty (Opinion, September 28th). Two years ago, in May 2000, Dr FitzGerald wrote the following in The Irish Times, before the Nice Treaty was drawn up: "Ireland cannot on its own block the development of a core European federation and to attempt to do so would make us a pariah among our partners. And if Britain were to seek to do so, for us to join with our neighbour in what would almost certainly be a futile attempt would not be in our long-term interest. We would have the invidious choice of remaining behind with what would probably be an isolated United Kingdom, or else joining the federal core, thus widening, possibly irretrievably, the gap between ourselves and the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
"The former line of action would effectively involve abandoning any chance of participating in decisions that would affect our long-tem future - for all key decisions would thereafter be taken by the core federation, from which we would be absent. The latter could put great difficulties in the way of building on the Belfast Agreement. For Irish policy-makers this is a kind of nighmare scenario: potentially a stark choice between our European and Northern Ireland policies."
One of the central provisions of the Nice Treaty is the abolition of the veto each member-state now possesses on the division of the EU into two classes, two tiers or two speeds. So Dr FitzGerald's 40-year-long support for pooling sovereignty in the EC/EU could soon be facing Irish policy-makers with the "nightmare scenario" he refers to, but which he now implies it would be "suicidal" for us not to be part of. His admission that the thrust of EU development is towards a split between an inner-core federation and the rest is revealing in the context of the current referendum debate. Nice is the necessary legal path to this division of the EU, for it allows a sub-group of member-states to form a federation, which France and Germany will undoubtedly lead, and which will enable them to use the Commission, Council, Court and Parliament for their own purposes thereafter - in effect to call the shots for the rest.
It is paradoxical that Dr FitzGerald, a lifelong champion of European integration, should be proposing to back the Franco-German initiated proposal in the Nice Treaty to undermine the EU as a partnership of legal equals and move it towards becoming what Jacques Delors has called "a union for the enlarged Europe and a federation for the avant-garde". It is paradoxical too that I, who have been a lifelong critic of European integration on democratic grounds, should be urging people to vote No to Nice in order to hold the EU together as a partnership, and prevent an inner-core, Franco-German-led political directorate coming to dominate it.
Neither Dr FitzGerald nor I may live long long enough to see it, but if Nice is ratified and the EU divides in the way the Treaty makes possible, it will not lead to a stable, co-operating and peaceful Europe. It is far more likely to generate popular reactions against big-state domination across our continent and fan the flames of nationalism in every EU country, as people discover the drawbacks of losing their democracy.
That is why I suggest that in this Nice re-run it is the No-side people, not the Yes-side ones, who are the "good Europeans"; for they stand for an EU of equals, not one politically dominated by the big states, which Nice opens the way to, and which is meant to take form in the EU constitutional treaty now being planned for 2004. - Yours, etc.,
ANTHONY COUGHLAN, Secretary, National Platform, Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The distortions, half truths and misrepresentations contained in Philip Donnelly's diatribe (October 2nd) on the Nice Treaty and Ireland's influence in an enlarged Europe had their credibility further eroded by the reference to Co Leitrim.
Mr Donnelly suggested that as Ireland's contribution to Europe in GDP terms is equivalent to one half of Leitrim's to the rest of the State, who will listen to us 10 years from now?
As one of a number of politicians from Leitrim who lobbied successfully for a fair deal from the State, I can reassure Mr Donnelly and his supporters that, far from being ignored, Leitrim, in common with a number of other disadvantaged counties in the Border and Midlands region,was not only listened to by the State but actively encouraged by the same Europe that he disparages to offer tax incentives to help repopulation and encourage direct industrial investment.
As a result, in this year's census Leitrim showed the first increase in population since pre-Famine days. Masonite Ltd and MBNA, the world's third largest credit card company, have located in the county, providing almost 1,000 jobs with another 400 earmarked by MBNA. European Union money financed the reopening of the Shannon-Erne navigation system and the Lough Allen Canal which have revitalised towns and villages, created hundreds of jobs in the tourist industry and given our people a new confidence in their future after hundreds of years of depression, emigration and neglect.
The establishment and active encouragement of the peace and reconciliation programme financed by the richer states of the European Union has brought new hope to communities on both sides of the Border, empowered local groups, activated a powerful renaissance, especially among women, to set up resource groups, rural transport initiatives and state-of-the-art childcare facilities.
Imagine what we could do if we had a bigger percentage of GDP - which, of course, with an increasing population, strong competitiveness and a secure future within the European family is well within our capacity.
When Mr Donnelly comes home later this month he should come and see us in Leitrim before he votes. It might just change his mind. - Yours, etc.,
Senator PASCHAL MOONEY, Drumshanbo, Co Leitrim.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I am tempted to make one last effort to make three important points about the referendum. You, Sir, have not published any of my recent letters on this: I assume because you are biased in favour of a Yes vote and are only prepared to publish weak or indeed foolish arguments from the No side. I will be copying this to European Movement Ireland and others so it will get some publicity anyhow. My three points are:
Firstly, our negotiators were weak: we gave away too much in terms of voting rights and especially our right to a Commissioner. This is too long an argument to go into here, but I do not see the politicians answering the basic question: given that the people rejected Nice in its current form, why was no effort made to renegotiate it? For example, if having a Commissioner is not that important, why do we not tell the new applicants they will be the ones without a Commissioner for, say, their first 20 years? Please don't tell me the Irish are the only ones dissatisfied with this. I am certain that several other countries would reject Nice if given the chance.
Secondly, given the difference in the economies of the applicant countries with ours as highlighted in recent Irish Times articles, why do we persist in thinking that we do not require a transition period, but must be among the first to open our borders? And in particular have we any idea what must happen to the CAP if the EU is not to become bankrupt within two years unless there are drastic changes to the CAP? This has serious consequences for Ireland. Why are we not debating this very practical problem?
Thirdly, given the McKenna judgment prohibiting the Government from campaigning for or against a referendum decision, why are the Government parties allowed to plough so much money into a Yes vote?
I fear I will need a lot of convincing before changing my No vote! - Yours etc.,
W.J. MURPHY, Gaybrook Lawns, Malahide, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The complaint by the No to Nice Campaign that electors in other member-states are being denied an opportunity to vote on the Treaty doesn't stand up.
It is up to each sovereign EU state to ratify the Nice Treaty in accordance with its own constitutional provisions. In Ireland, this means holding a referendum. In all other 14 member-states), this can be achieved through a vote in parliament. We shouldn't forget that the German constitution expressly prohibits the holding of referendums because of the way they were exploited by the Nazis in the 1930s.
I see absolutely no difference between the No to Nice complaint that other countries aren't voting on the treaty and, say, pro-Nice groups in other countries hypothetically complaining that we are. Were such an unwarranted intervention to be made by supporters of Nice, I can only imagine the response from the anti-Nice lobby. The fact that we haven't even had a whiff of such a complaint, (nor even a response to Justin Barrett's lecturing), speaks volumes about who are the real bullies in this campaign.
The No campaigners should remember one thing before they next try to "interfere" in the constitutional provisions for ratifying the treaty in other sovereign member-states: it's none of our business. - Yours, etc.,
GERARD GIBBONS, Abbeydale Close, Lucan, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Thank heavens for Martyn Turner. He, more than all the politicans together, has helped me to make up my mind. My vote has to be Yes this time. - Yours, etc.,
DAPHNE ROONEY, Dunshaughlin, Co Meath.