Madam, - I find it ironic that David Carroll (December 17th) met only one No voter who understood the Lisbon Treaty and was voting against "what she considered" over-pervasive European regulation, yet he chose to disregard her argument. On the same page, Graham Stull suggests the current financial crisis makes it is essential that the Irish people be given a second opportunity to vote Yes.
I didn't understand the treaty, and still don't. This was one reason I voted No. Another was to protest against over-pervasive European regulation. Even more of my reasons were illustrated by A.J. Cahill (also December 17th) who rails against the coercion of the Irish people and the subversion of democracy by both our own Government and the EU in their selling of the treaty.
It is also abundantly clear to me that our current financial situation was created by the very bureaucrats and bankers, home-grown and beyond, who, with cosy pensionable positions paid for by our taxes, are so keen to sell us the treaty yet again at all costs.
Lisbon may well be the way forward, but until we see some responsible heads roll as a token of atonement and democracy in operation, the very idea of a second vote should be viewed as a subversive charade. - Yours, etc,
Madam, — David Carroll (December 17th) comes very close to identifying the real problem with re-running the Lisbon Treaty when he correctly notes that the "anti-European extremists who deliberately and dishonestly manipulated people's fears and concerns, and who are now furious at the prospect of a re-run based on the facts, are the true danger to democracy".
The simple fact is that the treaty is an extremely complex document of several hundred pages which must take account of several decades of EU law and prior intergovernmental agreements and is rendered in highly technical language. The level of expertise required to understand it fully and make an informed decision about its merits is completely beyond the capability of 99 per cent of the electorate. Putting it to a referendum was always an extremely poor idea. The proper body to ratify the treaty is the Oireachtas.
This is not evidence of some form of gross anti-democratic conspiracy — most of the business of Dáil Éireann is too complex for the average person to understand in detail as well. The very nature of the republican form of governance lies in the empowerment of representatives of the people to perform the complex and tedious task of governance on their behalf, as well as maintaining reserves of institutional knowledge to help inform their decisions. Yet due to a quirk in our Constitution our foreign policy with regards to Europe it subjected to plebiscitary micro-management.
Sadly, in the Lisbon case the considered opinion of all the State's mainstream political parties, as well as economic and foreign policy experts in favour of ratification, was defeated by demagogues and conspiracy theorists preying on public ignorance.
The experience of direct democracy is almost universally poor. In California, where citizen-sponsored "ballot-initiatives" are common, the result has been the erosion of the tax base, defunding of schools, and regressive social policies such as the "three strikes" law and recently Proposition 8. The Lisbon Treaty itself is a result of French voters using the European Constitution referendum as an opportunity to register discontent with Jacques Chirac rather than the issue at hand. In Ireland, the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has placed the economic future of the country at risk, while simultaneously throwing the entire European project into chaos - for a second time.
I am not so naive as to believe it would be a political possibility, but surely the sorry experience of Ireland's foreign policy by referendum argues for a constitutional amendment to allow the Department of Foreign Affairs to do its job without the threat of being vetoed by a public misled by conspiracy theorists and cranks. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - The Government's decision to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is appalling, though not unpredictable. In the aftermath of the people's decision to reject the treaty the Government said it was going to explore its options. Was there ever any other option other than "softening up" the electorate to hold a second referendum?
This second referendum will almost certainly have to deal with a large group of the electorate, like myself, who voted yes to the original treaty but will vote No this time on the basis that the people have spoken on this matter.
The American writer Edward Abbey said: "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." The actions of the Irish government since the referendum are questionable. Why would the Irish people wish to join a "more democratic EU" when the basis for achieving it is nothing short of ignoring the democratic decision of the Irish people? There has being many arguments put forward as to why the Irish people voted No, but perhaps the one which the Government may not want to face is the possibility that the people did in fact understand the treaty perfectly well and voted accordingly. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - Try as I may, I cannot figure out what is undemocratic about holding a second, or indeed a third, fourth or fifth referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
This is not Zimbabwe. The people may vote any way they wish at any referendum on any subject.
Indeed, there would be no divorce in this country if those who urge a single referendum on each topic had had their way.
Those who oppose holding a second vote are actually the ones who are "undemocratic". Their opposition is clearly based on their fear that the people will choose to vote Yes, democratically.
They include, of course, Sinn Féin, whose record on democracy is cloudy in the extreme.
And they include Declan Ganley, who has cocked a snook at our democratic institutions in relation to the funding of his organisation.
Are some people just a little confused as to what is democratic and what is not? - Yours, etc,