Sir, - While there is scarcely any point in illustrating the flaws and misrepresentations in Anthony Coughlan's view of the Nice Treaty to himself (April 19th), it may be of assistance to others to set the record straight if there is to be a fair and balanced campaign on this issue.
It has long been accepted that there must be some internal reorganisation of the EU to accommodate enlargement, thus the rebalancing of votes and capping of MEP numbers is essential before enlargement and intrinsically linked to it. A No vote will ensure these changes do not take place, hampering enlargement and more importantly snubbing the states who have made major efforts to prepare for accession.
It is not sustainable to continually argue for more democracy in the EU and support a system which gives a massive over-representation to some states as has been the case until now. A more democratic union must involve reweighting of the voting system. Mr Coughlan would have us believe that Ireland is being picked out for special treatment in this area. Reweighting involves gains and losses for all states as is the norm in a negotiated process, sovereignty is not lost but shared. The way the union works in the real world involves trade-offs and negotiation where differing and changing alliances determine the outcome, not out-voting.
Once more the "decisions being made in Brussels" argument is wheeled out. A first-year European studies student could fill Mr Coughlan in on the structures of the EU, the role of the Council of Ministers and the other institutions. A cursory glance at the news every so often would reveal the variety of locations for council meetings. Likewise General Affairs and other councils consist of ministers from the four corners of Europe - hardly rule from Brussels.
Enhanced co-operation is clearly necessary and indeed already exists, as with the euro, where some participate and others have chosen not to. Will Mr Coughlan make all EU actions compulsory? To say France and Germany are allowed to decide the future of Europe is a deliberate misrepresentation of the treaty which of course can not give any special position to any state.
All states participate in the decision-making process which must be unanimous for enhanced co-operation. Small states are still over-represented in terms of population in the revised voting. Most importantly of all (especially if we follow Mr Coughlan's line of thinking), is that Ireland may wish to opt off future enhanced co-operation for example in the defence area, do the advocates of a No vote wish to deny Ireland this choice?
Of course, most of the developments in relation to the Rapid Reaction Force have their basis in the Amsterdam Treaty, which was endorsed by the Irish people. Such a contingency force has more than been proved necessary when we look at the near genocide in Bosnia as the EU dithered and the progress made by Sfor since. Ireland, of course, participates in these actions.
Mr Coughlan and his associates have opposed every step towards further European integration over the last 30 years or so, promising fire and brimstone at every stage. Yet it is clear that EU integration has brought this State enormous benefits. Clearly our relationship with Europe is changing. Enlargement will bring many opportunities along with some threats.
It is important that we focus on what the new issues and areas are in the modern Europe and not be constantly harking back to the basic issue of membership and integration themselves, which are well decided. - Yours, etc.,
Michael McLoughlin, Riverwood Heath, Castleknock, Dublin 15.
Howth closuresSir, - The report on Howth (April 16th), highlights a major problem facing many uburban communities today. To recap, Howth has lost three of its four hotels, while the fourth has applied to replace its function room with a three-storey apartment block. In addition, its only two filling stations have been closed down by their multinational oil companies. Bit by bit, essential services which are a necessary part of every community are being closed down, not because they are unprofitable in their own right, but because the sites offer developers and speculators an opportunity for a quick kill.We are then faced with the scenario that every other service in the area, whether butcher, baker, chemist or newsagent, is in danger of being bought out by apartment developers. Are our planning laws capable of handling this situation or does a viable, thriving and balanced village community lose out and the area become one large dormitory?It seems to me that placing a Special Amenity Area Order (SAAO) on the Howth Peninsula to protect the foliage and fauna from developers, while welcome, is little use if the very village at the centre of this very special tourism and amenity area is allowed to be raped, pillaged and destroyed.It would appear that the SAAO would need to be extended to include the harbour and village areas as well. - Yours etc.,
Des Gilroy, Bailey Green, Howth, Co Dublin