EDWARD HORGAN,
Sir, - It is remarkable how commentators in favour of ratification of the Nice Treaty continue to attempt to demonise opponents rather than engage is serious debate.
It is surprising to see Martin Mansergh (June 14th) using terms such as "paranoid and discredited Eurosceptic arguments" and talking of "a subliminal appeal being made to. . .the populism of Haider and Le Pen".
Irish people who voted in last year's Nice referendum were not impressed by such slander, and are unlikely to be next time around either. Richard Sinnott (Opinion, June 14th) and others still cite the 65 per cent abstention rate in the 2001 referendum as an unsatisfactory way of making such important decisions. Maybe, but it was at least democratic, and with the exception of the small number of voters who were physically incapable of voting on the day, 100 per cent of the electorate could vote if they wished to do so.
People have a democratic right not to vote if they choose this as an indirect means of expressing their opinion or their confusion. Do Prof Sinnott et al. suggest that there is a better way to make such decisions, such as rule by meritocracy, or a committee of philosophers? Perhaps our Government, or the prospective EU superstate, should re-educate the Irish electorate as Chairman Mao did during the Cultural Revolution?
We should contrast the electorate's democratic decision on Nice with the decision of the Taoiseach last September to grant the use of Irish airports and air space to the US military in its war against Afghanistan. He did so without consulting either the people or the Oireachtas, thereby committing a clear breach of Irish neutrality, as well as acting contrary to the Irish Constitution. - Yours, etc.,
EDWARD HORGAN, Newtown, Co Limerick.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I am grateful to Martin Mansergh for reminding me why I voted No the last time and will do so again. The EU is like a schoolyard where all the children have been playing happily for years. There are rules that ensure size does not matter. All children have an equal say in the games played. These rules are irksome to some of the big boys whose innate bullying tendencies are kept in check.
The big boys are now trying to insist on changing the rules before any more children are allowed to play in the yard. Why change the rules? Surely, as Dr Mansergh says in another context, it is not beyond our wit to admit these other children in an orderly fashion, under the present rules, without wrecking the schoolyard.
If we really want to surrender what remains of our sovereignty why not ring up the Queen and ask if we can join her club again? At least we have 900 years experience of dealing with them! This has nothing to do with neutrality or the admission of new countries.This is entirely about control and the ability of small countries to make decisions for themselves. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN O'BRIEN, Tivoli Estate, Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Denis Staunton (European Diary, June 11th) refers to Prof Brendan O'Leary's suggestion (Opinion, June 10th) that future treaty changes should be approved by an EU-wide referendum and national referendums in all member-states. Mr Staunton says a compelling counter-argument is that many changes, such as the euro, would be rejected in at least one member-state.
If the Swiss model suggested by Prof O'Leary were followed, rejection by one state would not matter. In fact, up to five member-states (one third of the total) could in principle reject a treaty, provided an overall majority of EU voters, including majorities in at least 10 member-states, approved. That is roughly how the Swiss do it.
In the US, a constitutional amendment is adopted by being approved by Congress and by two-thirds of the states. Generally, state approval is by resolution of the state legislature, without necessarily having to have referendums at all.
Thus, under a confederal or a federal system, the national veto would cease to exist with regard to treaty changes. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL DRURY, Avenue Louise, Brussels, Belgium.