Sir, - There has emerged some debate about the result of the Nice referendum and how the Government should address it. This is welcome. As Fintan O'Toole has pointed out it is largely for the No side to now articulate a vision of how Europe could develop without Nice. They must explain how 27 vetoes will enable us to reform the CAP, environmental policy and structural funds.
How will a parliament of over 1,000 members make sense in the complex legislative process and where is the legal basis for 12 new member-states? Which of these states will the No camp turn away, presumably the ones which do not reach the high moral standards of the pro life movement.
The arrogance of Mr Ahern or the incompetence of the political system are not good enough reasons to vote to stop enlargement as all these will soon pass, while the needs of the applicant states will continue for some considerable time. One would have thought that the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia and the obvious instability has brought to the region would have made Irish people for once take a broader view.
It has been mooted that changes in certain security and defence issues will be made to enable another vote. Insofar as these changes would ensure a role for the Oireachtas in any deployments with the Rapid Reaction Force and the necessity for a UN mandate for Irish participation, they should be welcome as they re-affirm stated policy and only deal with non issues in the referendum.
A reform of the accountability of how ministers act in Europe is also well overdue (but could have been done regardless of Nice).
However, any proposal not to continue with participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force is a different matter. Any such u-turn would be a slap in the face to countries to the East and the memories of those slaughtered in Bosnia. The weakening of the rapid reaction force just as Defence Secretary Rumsfeld is talking of reducing the US commitment to the Balkans, will be a signal to ethnic cleansers to prepare for battle.
It is time for the Yes camp to come out and start fighting with the vigour and passion of the No side. Any proposal to overturn what was voted for in Amsterdam must be met with head-on opposition by anybody who cares about preserving human rights and multi-ethnic states not to mention democracy in this country. Such a decision would be an unconstitutional frustration of the peoples will and should be opposed accordingly. - Yours, etc.,
Michael McLoughlin, Riverwood Heath, Castleknock, Dublin 15.