ALAN M. DUKES,
Sir, - Cora Sherlock (June 5th) voted against the Nice Treaty last year because she disagrees with splitting Europe into "first- and second-class countries". I, too, disagree with such a split, and that was the principal reason why I voted for Nice.
The Nice Treaty is essential for enlargement, the integration of 10 Central and Eastern European countries, Cyprus and Malta into the EU. Enlargement means bringing these second-tier countries into the first tier. That is why they want to join.
Far from "scaremongering", Garret Fitzgerald actually pointed out that many of the objectives and ideals espoused by groups behind the No campaign last year can, in fact, be more effectively pursued in the context of EU enlargement and integration.
Ms Sherlock may have been referring to the process of enhanced co-operation, which some see as creating a "two-tier" Europe. The only practical example of such a system now in operation is the euro, of which 12 of the current 15 member-states are members. This system has not in any way damaged the three member-states that stayed out. Nonetheless, two of them - Denmark and the UK - seem to be coming to the view that there is more to be gained from integration than from abstention.
There is surely a lesson for us there. - Yours, etc.,
ALAN M. DUKES,
Tully West,
Kildare.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Despite Cora Sherlock's concern over "scaremongering" in regard to the Nice referendum, she descends to the tactic herself. The exaggeration of elements of the treaty has been prevalent on both sides in this debate.
This is just one more example of the need for a much more reasoned, rational and, above all, more informed debate on the Nice Treaty and indeed our future in Europe - from both sides. - Yours etc.,
EOIN PURCELL,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6w.