Madam, - In response to Brendan Kiely (October 22nd), may I point out that there is no difference in substance between the defeated EU Constitution and the Reform Treaty? All but 10 of the 250 or so articles of the new treaty are the same as its predecessor, a 96 per cent match. To suggest that the changes are anything other than cosmetic is absurd.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the convention which drew up the constitution, speaking to the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in July 2007, said: "In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way. . .The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty."
The vice-chairman of the convention, Giuliano Amato, went further when he said during a speech at the LSE last February: "The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it".
The electorates of France and the Netherlands have already rejected the proposals contained in the Reform Treaty. That political leaders across the EU, including Ireland, believe it is acceptable to ignore the outcome of these referendums and return with the same proposals is a clear demonstration of their disregard for basic democratic principles.
That Ireland will have a referendum on the treaty is a good thing. As a democrat I will accept the outcome of that vote. The question is, will Brendan Kiely and his colleagues in the European Movement? - Yours, etc,
EOIN Ó BROIN,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
****
Madam, - I refer to the letter "citizens have the right to vote on EU Reform Treaty", signed by 28 distinguished fellow-Europeans.
I would suggest that the logical course would be to let the members of each national parliament do what they were elected to do, viz. to examine and vote to approve, or reject, the positive decision taken by their government on behalf of that member state.
If those who are, in the main, opposed to the development of an ever-closer union persist in the argument that the treaty is a quasi-constitution, they should recognise that the "right" of citizens to vote on it derives from their citizenship of the union and not of the individual member states. The citizens should exercise that "right" in a single referendum held at the same time throughout the EU, with the outcome determined by a simple overall majority. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels, Belgium.