Sir, - In his address to the Institute of European Affairs last Monday, Attorney-General Michael McDowell made a number of points and raised issues which call for serious debate in this country - particularly in the light of the outcome of the referendum on the Treaty of Nice.
For one thing, he draws a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the desirability of approving the institutional reforms of the treaty, designed to accommodate the accession of up to 12 new member-states, and, on the other, the longer-term issue of the future of Europe.
Contrary to the arguments of the No campaign, the fundamental purpose of Nice is to facilitate the enlargement of the EU, and until the treaty is ratified by all member-states, some or all of the candidate countries will be kept outside the door. If the No to Nice was not a No to enlargement, as even the No campaign is saying, then it would be only proper that the Irish voter would be afforded the opportunity of "reviewing the situation" (with apologies to Lionel Bart's Fagin).
This brings us to the two key issues raised by Mr McDowell - firstly, the democratic deficit at national level regarding EU policy and legislation, and secondly, the future structure and functions of the European Union and Ireland's contribution to the development process.
The former point is a very important one in that, heretofore, the temptation was to attribute the so-called democratic deficit to "faceless bureaucrats in Brussels", whereas, more often than not, the finger should be more properly pointed closer to home. Such transparency as exists is found in the European Commission and European Parliament.
Much less is known to the public about how the Council of Ministers and the respective ministerial representations of the member-states reach their decisions. In this context, Fintan O'Toole's article (June 19th) is of interest. What must be clearly understood, however, is that no EU directive or regulation can be adopted without the approval of the ministers representing the national governments - there is no question of legislation being "imposed" by faceless bureaucrats.
The issue of the future of Europe and Ireland's place in it is one that the Irish people now have to grapple with in a manner which has not occurred since their country's accession to the EEC, as it then was, in 1973.
In rejecting the treaty, the Irish people have effectively said "Hold on a while! We are not sure that we like what is happening." This reaction carries a grave responsibility with it - to say, in unambiguous terms, what the Irish people really want as a future Europe for themselves, their children and children's children and what they are prepared to contribute towards making it happen. The new forum, mooted by the Government, can provide the opportunity and vehicle for this much-needed reflection and consensus building. Again, Mr McDowell has highlighted the need for the self-confidence to think and speak for ourselves rather than just react to propositions from other European leaders.
By his address - even though delivered in a personal capacity rather than as chief legal adviser to the Government - Mr McDowell has opened the door for the Irish people to take a fresh look at the European Union and at Ireland's role as an active stakeholder in it. - Yours, etc.,
Philip Ryan, Deputy Director/Press Officer, European Union House, Dawson Street, Dublin 2.