EOIN PURCELL,
Sir, - Vincent Browne's attitude to the Nice Treaty (Opinion, July 3rd) is not only foolish; it lacks any real consideration.
He acknowledges that Nice accomplishes its main goal of expansion but, because we have an opportunity to "puncture the arrogance" of the Brussels establishment, he calls for us to vote No. Not only does his attitude show a similar level of arrogance towards the applicant states to that which he is attacking; it also ensures that any "leverage" over the EU that we have built up independently of the Nice issue will evaporate.
Furthermore, arguing that something is too difficult or impenetrable and therefore should be disregarded leaves a lot to be desired. Moral issues also entail difficult decisions but no one has ever suggested that one should out of hand say No without considering the implications.
Treaties negotiated by 15 sovereign states with competing interests are going to be elaborate, and often confusing. That doesn't mean we have any greater or lesser duty to attempt to understand both the treaty and the consequences of both a Yes and a No vote. Indeed, if Mr Browne was to encourage his readers to give up all difficult and confusing passages or text he might well find himself without readers. - Yours, etc.,
EOIN PURCELL,
Ashfield,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6w.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - In the debate on Europe, which is to a great extent about the democratic nature of the institutions, it would be well to take account of the obvious fact that the EU is not a state. If it were to develop into a sovereign state, which is very unlikely, it would undoubtedly have all the attributes of a democratic state, given the fact that all its members are democracies.
However, the EU is not a state, its institutions are not those of a state, and there is not much point in discussing them as if they were. They are institutions specifically designed - 50 years ago now - to manage a new form of co-operation between sovereign states which decided to pool sovereignty in limited and specific areas in order to promote common, rather than national, interests.
The cornerstones of the institutional structure were, and still are:
1. An independent Commission with the sole right to propose legislation and the duty to protect the common interest.
2. A Council, made up of representatives of the member-states, empowered to take decisions by qualified majority, unless otherwise provided in the treaties, not on their own ideas but only on proposals made by the Commission, the decisions taken to have direct effect in all the member states and to be superior to national law.
3. A Court of Justice empowered to ensure uniformity in the interpretation and application of the treaties and with the final say in these matters.
This is (in summary) the institutional system of the Community we applied to join and accepted in 1972. It has evolved over the years of our membership (the Parliament for example, is now directly elected and has acquired real powers of co-decision with the Council) and will undoubtedly continue to evolve as cooperation deepens, as was always intended.
It can be maintained that this new, innovative, imaginative, perhaps peculiar system has worked well.
It has enabled decisions to be taken in the common interest that could never have been agreed under the old system of purely intergovernmental negotiation, which could agree only on the lowest common denominator acceptable to all participating states.
Qualified majority voting has clearly been and continues to be a necessary element of the system, when deciding, for example, on the annual budget, or agricultural prices, or a common position in trade negotiations. The system also needs to be looked at critically, and to be subjected to criticism, as co-operation develops and as membership increases.
It is important that contributors to this debate should keep in mind the nature of the organisation which is under discussion. Everybody seems to agree that decisions need to be taken with wider popular involvement.
What is much less clear is whether there is in Ireland a widespread wish to continue to support, or to change, the fundamental objectives of Community co-operation, or the Community system of decision-making - that is, an independent Commission; decision making by qualified-majority vote rather than by unanimity (where agreed;) and the acceptance by the member states that decisions taken at European level are to be accepted and applied at national level. - Yours, etc.,
ANDREW O'ROURKE,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Poor Vincent Browne. Overcoming his natural humility and self-effacing nature, he manages to make a few "timid observations" about the Nice Treaty and, wide-eyed and innocent, he then finds himself the object of public scorn, humiliation, and contempt.
The picture would be heartbreaking were it not that, rather than quietly slipping back into his rabbit hole, your Vincent is suddenly transformed into a journalistic weasel, calling people names and trivialising the horrors of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to make cheap and snide remarks - all the while wilfully misrepresenting the arguments of others.
My own crime was that I had suggested that Mr Browne's proposal to address the Union's democratic deficit would create "a constitutional monster". It would. The proposal was also silly, glib and badly thought out. At no time did I say or imply that "anything that would give the people of Europe a real say over what happens in Europe is an anathema". In fact, I wish to see a broad, decentralised, democratic, federal Europe based on the rule of law.
To my mind, the Nice Treaty is a small, flawed but crucially important step in that direction and, above all else, is the only agreed basis for the enlargement of the Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe.
According to Mr Browne, my "Euro-Taliban" colleagues include a former Taoiseach, a currently respected former journalist, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or one of his civil servants. Vincent Browne's allies in this argument include those advocating the forced repatriation of refugees, current Trotskyists, former Stalinists and parties which understand the kneecapping of 16-year-olds as representing community justice.
I invite your readers to draw their own conclusions. - Yours, etc.,
Dr BEN TONRA,
Deputy Director,
Dublin European Institute,
UCD,
Dublin 4.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, -Is there a provision in the Nice Treaty to get the 14A bus through Rathmines in the morning? - Yours, etc.,
OLIVER McGRANE,
Marley Avenue,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.