SEAN DORGAN,
Sir, - Gerard Gibbons (October 9th) says that "it is up to each sovereign EU state to ratify the Nice Treaty in accordance with its own constitutional provisions". This is of course quite true and, as someone who is campaigning for the retention of national sovereignty, I couldn't possibly disagree. However, it ignores two basic facts : a parliamentary mandate is a morally weaker mandate than a direct mandate from the people; and secondly, as we have seen here in Ireland, the parliamentary strength of declared anti-Nice forces (12 per cent of the vote at the election last May - about 7 per cent of the electorate) is a very poor indicator of the strength of anti-Nice feeling (54 per cent of the vote in the referendum last year - about 18 per cent of the electorate).
The fact remains that Ireland is the only country where a popular mandate was sought, and the proposal was rejected in a free and fair referendum. Instead of our decision being respected, we are now instead being asked again - some might say being bullied - to rubber-stamp a proposal that was rubber-stamped by the other EU states without consulting their people.
This is not an argument about "unwarranted interference" in other countries' constitutional provisions. It is an argument about political élites that will consult with their people only when legally required to, and hear only what they want to. We are fortunate to have a constitution that ensures that fundamental choices are made by the people, and not the politicians.
A vote against Nice is not just a rejection of Nice itself, but also a protest about the people of Europe not being allowed make the fundamental choices about the direction they - not the political élites - would like to see Europe take. - Yours, etc.
D.J. MOORE, Green Road, Carlow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The forthcoming decision on the Nice Treaty will be of fundamental importance to Ireland's prosperity in the years ahead. But at the moment politicians and media are distracted. I fear that people may not know what is at stake.
Irish jobs depend on the economic future of Europe, and on our place in it. Employment in Ireland has grown from 1 million to 1.75 million since we joined the EEC, or over 600,000 in the past 10 years alone. Our living standards have arisen from 60 per cent of the European average to well over the average.
That success has reflected our standing in Europe and how we rose to every challenge that we faced during our membership.
We achieved more than any other member-state from completion of the Single European Market, despite early fears that we might suffer from it. We had the goodwill of the Commission and others when we needed it - for the IFSC and for other changes in our corporate tax.
Our freedom to set our own tax rates was firmly protected in negotiations on the Nice Treaty. Despite misleading claims to the contrary, that freedom cannot be undermined if the treaty is approved. But what friends will we have if we reject it?
We have nothing to fear from the treaty or from enlargement. Every previous enlargement was good for Ireland. Expansion will lead to more investment in the EU, more opportunities for businesses and more jobs in Ireland. We are among the most open economies in the world and depend on trade and investment for jobs.
The decision on the Treaty will affect how investors view Ireland. Up to now they have seen a progressive, open and confident country, engaged at the heart of Europe. Leading companies are currently investing €5 billion in new facilities here. A negative decision by Ireland would damage our prospects for further investment and jobs. It would create a black hole.
Our future depends on a strong, confident and growing Europe. We should continue to back it. We should not marginalise ourselves. - Yours, etc.,
SEAN DORGAN, Chief Executive Officer, IDA Ireland, Wilton Place, Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - John Robb (October 5th) who asked if it was true that Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission said that "enlargement is possible without Nice".
This is indeed true. After Ireland's rejection of the Nice Treaty in the referendum in June 2001, Mr Prodi expressed his disappointment but said he respected the vote of the Irish people. He made no reference to any sanctions or serious repercussions but said the result would not affect enlargement. In an interview in The Irish Times of June 21st 2001, Prodi said:
"Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement. It's without any problem up to 20 members and those beyond 20 have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally it's not necessary. This does not mean the Irish referendum is not important. But from this specific point of view, enlargement is possible without Nice."
This was a very clear statement by Prodi, not only that enlargement could take place without Nice, but exactly how it could take place by the insertion of "a clause, or notes of change" in the accession treaties with each member-state. Such negotiations could have been going ahead during the past year but our Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister would not allow it. Unlike Prodi, they decided not to accept the verdict of the Irish people in the referendum.
Mr Cowen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, "rejected President Prodi's statement" and practically called him a liar. Prodi said the Nice treaty was not legally necessary while Cowen stated that the Nice Treaty is "the only legal method of enlargement". We don't know enough about Prodi to endorse or reject his credibility but we do know that neither Ahern or Cowen have any credibility left.
However, although Ireland's rejection of the Nice Treaty will not legally prevent enlargement of the EU, there may be a further problem. You drew attention to this, Sir, in your Editorial of November 26th, 2001. You pointed out that certain institutional changes were set down in the Nice Treaty, such as changing the size and composition of the Commission, increasing the use of qualified majority voting and reweighting votes in the Council of Ministers.
You then went on to say, and I quote: "This agenda was driven by the larger states which demanded fairer representation in line with their populations before so many, mostly smaller, states accede. Politically the bigger states have refused to contemplate an enlargement without such provisions being in place. Those who say this could be accomplished without the Nice Treaty gravely underestimate the political resistance there would be to such a course."
I think that comment of yours clarifies the situation for Mr John Robb and others who are confused about the question of enlargement. If Ireland votes No to Nice again, the Commission is prepared to go ahead with negotiation of the Treaties of Accession to admit all the applicants. However, the larger states, which forced through the Nice Treaty, will prevent them from joining until the restrictions imposed on them in the Nice Treaty are implemented.
Our Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister should explain this to all applicants and ask the Czech Prime Minister Zemen to apologise publicly for calling us "selfish animals". - Yours, etc.,
TOMAS MAC GIOLLA, St Laurence's Road, Chapelizod, Dublin 20.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The Danish Government believes that the Irish people should be left to make their own decision on the Treaty of Nice without outside interference. However, when Brendan Killeen in his reporting from Copenhagen (The Irish Times, October 10th) purveys a wrong impression of my country, I have to react.
An Irish No to Nice would certainly come as a big disappointment to the enlargement-enthusiastic Danes. We do not see the holding of the EU Presidency as a beauty contest, but as a chance to promote the agreed policy of the Union. So far, nobody has been sidelined; the enlargement process is on track as can be seen from the European Commission's reports on the applicant countries made public yesterday.
Mr Killeen is also wrong in alleging that the Danish presidency is preparing for the worst. We are hoping for a Yes from the Irish voters. We realize that a No will result in an unprecedented, unpredictable situation. However, there is not - and cannot be - a Plan B, as repeatedly stated by the Danish Prime Minister.
The Danish Presidency will work hard to bring the enlargement process to a successful conclusion at the meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen in December. - Yours, etc.,
K.E. TYGESEN, Ambassador, Royal Danish Embassy, Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - If the referendum on the Nice Treaty should fail to pass again, will we have a third referendum next year, and so on until the people of Ireland give the "right" answer? What happened to the democratic view of the people of Ireland as expressed last year?
Should the Nice Treaty referendum be called the Rubber Stamp referendum? - Yours, etc.,
JOHN MERREN. Carriglea Rise, Dublin 24.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Can someone explain to me how holding a referendum, second or otherwise, is an affront to democracy? Indeed, as it's being held on a Saturday, surely this is the most widely enfranchised democratic vote ever likely to be held on Ireland.
It seems those who argue otherwise are afraid of the people's decision. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. - Yours, etc.,
HEWSON MAXWELL, Fuller Close, London E2.