Madam, - The call for Irish to be made an official language of the EU, and the arguments put forward in support of it by yourself among others, constitute about as unedifying a start to the Irish presidency as could be imagined.
Of course, as "the first official language" of the State, Irish could have been made an official EU language in 1973. In a welcome burst of common sense the Government pre-1973 decided that, as it was neither the language of government or commerce or of the daily life of the vast majority of Irish citizens, such status was not necessary.
Instead it settled for official EU translations of the treaties and other key documents into Irish to satisfy the constitutional provision stipulating that the Irish language text of any legislation was ultimately authentic. (That is the "official status" referred to by David Neligan, Letters, January 16th).
That arrangement has worked satisfactorily for 30 years. What would really be absurd now would be to demand official status for a language spoken fluently by only a tiny percentage of Irish citizens (all of whom are also fluent in English). This would mean a flood of EU documents appearing in Irish, but unintelligible to most Irish people. It would mean interpretation into Irish when most Irish representatives - in Council or in Parliament - would be, to say the least, much more comfortable in English.
The EU is currently facing a massive increase in language costs after enlargement. The increase in staff is estimated at almost 50 per cent. Translation and interpretation costs as a percentage of the EU budget may sound insignificant - less than 1 per cent - but as a share of the administrative costs they are much higher.
Most people accept this as necessary: the EU is all about cultural diversity. But as the number of official languages multiplies so do the costs, and so does the business of the EU become more cumbersome. In these circumstances, for Ireland to use its presidency to promote official status for Irish would be both selfish and highly irresponsible.
The problem lies not in the status of Irish in Brussels, but in the status of Irish in Ireland. It is an odd country, to paraphrase your own bizarre arguments (Editorial, January 13th), which designates as its first official language a tongue that almost no one uses, and which only a tiny minority can actually speak and understand.
Of course the Irish language is part of our cultural heritage, and merits special status and encouragement, but to pretend that it is the language of the country, and to enshrine such fantasy in the Constitution, is nonsense.
If you really think it would help the Irish language to have regulations on the price of butter and directives on car emissions in it, then why not follow your own logic and make Irish the official language of The Irish Times, with English translation where necessary? - Yours, etc.,
DENNIS KENNEDY, Belfast BT7.