DARAGH McDERMOTT,
Sir, - Despite knowing better, I feel compelled to vote No in the forthcoming referendum. I realise the economic benefits that have accrued to Ireland since joining the EU, with many more to come by all accounts. I also feel a moral obligation to ensure this opportunity is offered to people in the countries seeking to join the EU.
However, I am so enraged by the arrogance displayed by the Government. The outcome of the previous referendum was not what it wanted, so another one is called. The patronising excuses for calling a second referendum I find deeply insulting and offensive. I have no doubt that if the outcome last time was Yes, there would be no mention of a low turnout or of whether or not the electorate fully understood the issues. In the Governments' eyes a Yes outcome is all that is needed - at any cost.
As a typical grassroots voter, I have only one opinion, one voice and one vote. I think my voting choices are as valid as anyone else's and deserve to be part of the democratic way in which the country is run. To put it at its simplest, I believe that when the people are offered a choice and make a decision it is crucial that it be heard and accepted without question or qualification.
It is because I am such a believer in the democratic system being the fairest and most equitable means of running a country that I feel it has to be defended unreservedly and with whatever means available. In this instance the only way to emphasise that if voting is to be worthwhile the Government must accept the voice of the people is to vote No.
I will vote No probably for the wrong reason in most people's eyes, but if I don't vote No and the outcome is Yes I will become one of those cynical people who ask the question at election time: "Sure, what's the point?" I know there's a point and I want to keep believing in it. - Yours, etc.,
DARAGH McDERMOTT,
Esmonde Street,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD (September 18th) appears incapable of dealing with the substance of the Nice Treaty. The Seville Declaration simply makes clear what has always been the case - that the theory and practice of Irish neutrality remains exclusively in the hands of the Irish people and their elected government. The forthcoming referendum copperfastens that position still further since, if passed, it will require that Irish membership of any future European defence alliance is agreed by the Irish people in a referendum.
Ireland's full participation in the European Rapid Reaction should be welcomed by all those who seek to see the values of a progressive Irish foreign policy given meaning and substance. The position of Sinn Féin and its Green Party allies amounts to that of the proverbial "hurler on the ditch".
As for the Political and Security Committee - which is the only meaningful provision of the treaty that actually relates to security - that too should be welcomed. Irish diplomats and military officers fully participate in all committees related to security and foreign policy on an equal basis with representatives of all other EU states and they have an absolute veto over all military matters. It should be a matter of pride and satisfaction that that they do so.
By contrast, Sinn Féin and the Green Party wish to see Irish interests and values absent from such decision-making bodies. Their preference is to see Ireland surrender its veto by withdrawing completely from EU humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping and crisis management operations.
The Nice treaty and its associated declarations will strengthen the foundations of a positive, progressive and engaged Irish foreign policy. It is for the Irish people then to determine how such a policy is defined and practised. - Yours, etc.,
Dr BEN TONRA,
Deputy Director,
Dublin European Institute,
UCD, Dublin 4.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - Surely Liam Hyland MEP (September 6th) must be aware of the devastating effects of the EU tariff and quota walls on already impoverished third world countries. This is a totally immoral situation that cannot be defended, promoting as it does hunger, poverty, sickness and social exclusion.
One example (from many) of what happens: The EU spent €3.75 million to develop Namibia's livestock sector, but in 1997 alone, it dumped subsidised beef in South Africa and Namibia lost €62 million, further impoverishing its farmers.
If Africa were allowed to increase its share of world exports by even 1 per cent it could earn five times what it receives in aid. Mr Hyland says nothing about this when calling for a Yes vote.
CAP will be slimmed down soon (with less for the farmers). We will soon be on the giving, not the receiving end - perhaps no harm. But the tariff and quota walls still remain. Can we vote Yes while this shameful situation persists? The EU must get its house in order and our MEPs must demand this. - Is mise,
Father TOM INGOLDSBY,
Ballinakill,
Portlaoise,
Co Laois.