Sir, - Garret FitzGerald (Opinion, May 26th) says the issues involved in the Nice Treaty are more complex than those of a normal referendum and that it would have been more appropriate to leave the ratification decision to the Oireachtas. If people who "don't know, Vote No!", he says the Government will be in the "impossible position" of having to explain Ireland's rejection to our European partners.
But when does Dr FitzGerald suggest that we do have a debate about the future shape of Europe? The Maastricht Treaty debate was overshadowed by the vast transfer of EU funds to Ireland, and the comment "Maastricht means megabucks" from the then Taoiseach. The Amsterdam Treaty scarcely warranted a mention, as it coincided with the 1997 general election. Then the promised referendum over our joining of the Partnership for Peace simply did not take place. Is the debate on European Union always going to be sidelined?
Personally, I do not object to a European government assuming further powers (including military powers) if I have a chance to vote for it. However, neither the Commission nor the Council of Ministers, who wield the most power, are democratically accountable bodies. The EU decision-making process seems almost deliberately complex. An improvement could be made by introducing direct, Europe-wide elections for the President of the Commission (or the whole Commission as a panel). Until a treaty introduces the necessary checks and balances, I shall vote against it, and I hope others do the same.
It is peculiar that none of Ireland's mainstream political parties is prepared to ask hard questions about the accountability of the EU institutions. If they cannot explain their position to the electorate, they may have to give their explanations to our European partners instead. - Yours, etc.,
Mark Tottenham, Great Denmark Street, Dublin 1.