GARRET FITZGERALD,
Madam, - Following my rebuttal of his misleading statements about the "enhanced co-operation" provisions of the Nice Treaty, Anthony Coughlan (October 16th) has been forced to abandon his repeated claim that these provisions can and will be used to create an inner federation of states. This is, of course is excluded by the treaty itself, which provides that enhanced co-operation "must respect the single institutional framework of the Community".
Faced with the collapse of his central argument against the Nice Treaty, he now makes a totally different claim: that "the EU constitutional treaty now being planned for 2004 will sanction just such a division". Leaving aside the question of how he knows what a new treaty of this kind might contain, given that the Convention in Brussels has not even started to draft such a document, he ignores the fact that any such treaty would, of course, have to be submitted to a referendum in Ireland if it changed the existing treaty provisions in any way that affected Irish sovereignty.
Let's deal with one referendum at a time! This week's referendum is about what is actually in the Nice Treaty - a fact that the No campaigners, with their endless red herrings, are most anxious to obscure.
"In the meantime," Mr Coughlan goes on to say, "enhanced co-operation under Nice can be used by other member-states to harmonise taxes among themselves". Well, first of all, they don't need "enhanced co-operation" to do that: they can do it together any day if they feel like it, though the huge variations in their present corporate tax rates makes such action a bit improbable.
But if they did use "enhanced co-operation" for that purpose, so what? We successfully resisted such harmonisation of corporate tax rates at Nice, keeping the unanimity requirement for this and nine other areas where we feel it is needed.
Mr Coughlan's belief that if this happened we would "harm ourselves by remaining outside the avant-garde" rings no bells with me, nor would it with any Irish Government; for this is a vital Irish national interest.
What would certainly do us very great harm would be to accept Mr Coughlan's advice to reject the Nice Treaty, which adversely affects no Irish national interest, but protects our position and that of other small countries by (a) conceding to us a voting strength over twice what our population warrants; (b) in an enlarged Community, giving 21 smaller countries with only 30 per cent of the EU population over half the voting strength in the Council - 51 per cent; and (c) for the first time placing all smaller countries on a basis of equality with the larger states in the Commission by eliminating the second Commissioner that the larger states have hitherto been allowed to nominate.
As for Patrick Kenny (Opinion, October 16th), he does himself little credit by repeating the statement, from which even Anthony Coughlan has resiled, that when writing in May 2000 I was referring to enhanced co-operation, when in fact I was writing about a totally different matter - hypothetical EU future structures which found no place whatever in the Nice Treaty. - Yours, etc.,
GARRET FITZGERALD,
Dublin 6.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Patrick Smyth completely misses the key point about the significance of Article 133 in the Treaty of Nice (Analysis, October 16th).
He dismisses as merely an incremental change in the common commercial policy the inclusion of crucial public services such as water in what can be negotiated between the EU Commission and the World Trade Organisation.
Many changes to EU treaties over the years have been incremental, but they add up to a significant whole. Nor can we take the mere words in the treaty without putting them in the current political context.
We know from leaked documents that the EU Commission wants to have vital resources such as water and the post offices put up for privatisation, which means for takeover by multinational corporations. Article 133 gives it specific authority to negotiate on this and then by Qualified Majority Vote have this imposed on member-states.
Patrick Smyth is also incorrect to dismiss as minor the proposed change in the security area. Giving a treaty basis to the Political and Security Committee, which is responsible for so-called "peacemaking" and "crisis management" is a further step in putting in place the machinery for a military wing of the European Union.
This is part of the undoubted agenda of the more powerful states in the European Union, which feel that an economic unit of 500 million people should be accompanied by a military authority to give the same diplomatic clout on the world stage as the US currently has. - Yours, etc.,
JOE HIGGINS, TD,
Dáil Éireann,
Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Fintan O'Toole's excellent column of October 15th has moved this wavering No vote to a committed Yes vote. Why? Because we must strive to copperfasten the foundations of a civilised society based on the absence of aggression and war.
Let us use the EU as a means of beating our swords into ploughshares and let us enfold as many people as possible, as soon as possible, into the family of the EU.
Having done that, we can then carry on squabbling, arguing and verbally abusing each other in the manner of the best European and Irish families. - Yours, etc.,
KEVIN HEALY,
Hampstead Avenue,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - In her response to my letter of October 8th, Prof Brigid Laffan argued that the style of enhanced co-operation that is written into the Nice Treaty avoids all of the pitfalls against which she had warned in her 1996 paper to the Institute of European Affairs.
In particular, she drew attention to Article 43j of the Nice Treaty which states that enhanced co-operation "is open to all the member-states". However, page 56 and 57 of the Government's White Paper on the Treaty of Nice 2002 outlines that any additional member state wishing to join an enhanced co-operation initiative under Pillar Two and Three must comply with the following procedures: "The Member State wishing to join notifies the Council and informs the Commission, which gives an opinion to the Council on the request within three months. The decision then rests formally with the Council. However, the decision to admit the Member State in question is 'deemed to be taken' unless the Council, by qualified majority vote of the participating Member States, decides to hold it in abeyance - in which case it must give reasons and set a new date to re-examine the request". This wording clearly dispels the impression given by Prof Laffan that participation in any enhanced co-operation initiative is an automatic entitlement to all Member States.
We also disagree with her view that a possible increase in the overall level of agreement in the system brought about because of the prospect of resorting to a clause on flexibility would amount to a further benefit of enhanced co-operation. Instead we believe these arguments bear out our concerns about the potential of enhanced co-operation by QMV to create a two-speed Europe. Larger states that favour the model of a federal super-state will be in a position following Nice to threaten to use enhanced co-operation provisions in order to exercise a disproportionate influence on policy-making and to create the foundations of a super-state within the Union.
As tomorrow is polling day in the referendum, no letters on this subject will be published
The lack of any meaningful public debate on Europe in this country has meant that Irish people have been asked by their politicians to ratify successive EU treaties without any clear idea of the "final destination" being proposed for the European project. At least the French and German governments have been very clear with their people about their ultimate ambitions with regard to the final political form of the European Union. Unfortunately, successive Irish governments have not been so frank.
The Irish people are currently being asked to ratify a treaty containing "enhanced co-operation by QMV" provisions. If the Nice Treaty is ratified, the Irish people will have made a fundamental decision about the final political form of the European Union without being aware that this is what they are doing. And because the Green Party is trying to alert the Irish people to this fact, we are being called "paranoid" by Prof Laffan and some of her colleagues on the Yes side.
The future direction of Europe is currently being discussed at the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Green Party believes it is through this Convention that a consensus should be arrived at concerning the final political form that is appropriate and desirable for the European Union. We believe that the accession countries should participate fully in these discussions. - Yours, etc.,
Cllr DEIRDRE DE BURCA,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Unthinkingly I voted Yes in the previous poll and was more than a little surprised when the result was announced. For this second poll, I was determined that I would consider both sides of the debate before making any decision.
I considered the argument that Ireland would be bullied by the larger players and, while acknowledging it as a potential danger, I could find little or no evidence of it since we joined the EU. The evidence is that we should trust the EU, but our representatives must at all times remain vigilant.
I visited two Eastern European countries recently and looked upon the devastating effects of severe poverty - something that has not been seen in Ireland for many years. The argument that the applicant countries should want to join at some unspecified time in the future when conditions are more opportune holds no merit. I thought about war and division in recent European history and concluded that an enlarged EU would lessen future risks in these areas.
For many years, I have looked on as Ireland received generously from many countries. There will be financial pain in the short to medium term with EU enlargement, so the question arises: when should Ireland pull its weight? I believe the time is now.
I have a vision of Ireland playing a central leadership role in an enlarged EU. We have the wherewithal to protect and encourage the weak and direct the strong. We flourish on the larger stage. This enlargement, this treaty, is a part of what we signed up to from day one. In the end, for me it all points to a Yes vote for the Nice Treaty. - Yours, etc.,
AUSTIN COLFER,
Collinswood,
Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The last time around there were many good reasons for a No vote to the Nice treaty. This time, one reason towers over the others: the sheer arrogance of our elected representatives.
They appear to have forgotten that they work for us. The very fact that we are facing another referendum proves this point. We seem to have reached a point where our Government treats the wishes of the electorate with little more than contempt. If we are to allow our political class to regard the franchise as a mere rubber-stamp for their plans, we are moving onto very dangerous ground.
Those who perished so that we might enjoy the fruits of democracy deserve better than this shabby connivance. - Yours, etc.,
PHILIP MALONE,
Glendara,
Kill,
Co Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Andy Storey's fears about the militarisation of the EU (October 15th) are based on a misconception. He calls for "greater attention to conflict prevention and peace-building activities". In fact, the problem of Bosnia and Kosovo was not precipitate NATO intervention, but the fact that this welcome intervention came too late in the day to stop the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenice. This fact was lamented by no less a figure than Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General , in his report into the international handling of the crisis.
Far from encouraging military adventurism, a Yes vote on Nice would be a small step towards preventing future Srebrenices. - Yours, etc.,
Dr BRENDAN SIMMS,
Peterhouse,
Cambridge,
England.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - I accept that there are untruths being circulated by both sides of the Nice referendum campaign. However, I have to say I was astounded to see various pro-Nice leaflets which suggested that Nice was somehow connected with advancing human rights in applicant countries.
As a human rights activist myself, I am voting No because I believe the peoples of Eastern Europe deserve a better deal and shouldn't enter the European Union at the disadvantage being offered by the treaty. To somehow suggest that by voting No I am ignoring the troubles suffered by many people all over the world is not only untrue but frankly very offensive and does not stand up to any objective scrutiny.
In addition, to continue to suggest that the Nice Treaty is necessary for enlargement at this late stage of the debate illustrates a willingness on the Government's part to keep facts from the public. - Yours, etc.,
EVANA KIRRANE,
Mount Merrion,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Am I alone in finding an irony in Sinn Féin's opposition to ratifying the Nice Treaty? A party whose primary goal has always been to sever ties between Ireland and Britain now endorses a retreat to the Ireland that was almost wholly dependent on our neighbour for an export market in the earlier part of the last century.
Ireland now exports more per capita than any other nation in the world. Almost 80 per cent of such exports go to the wider European market. Voting No spurns an extra 100 million consumers and risks a reversion to the days when "if Britain sneezed, Ireland caught a cold".
Sinn Féin's position is not merely ironic; it exposes a cynical political opportunism which ought to be recognised and rejected by the people. - Yours etc.,
LUCINDA CREIGHTON,
Lower Grand Canal Street,
Dublin 2.