WILLIAM BRANDON,
Sir, - "Can I vote Yes to Nice and No to neutrality"? Sean Carroll's succinct question (July 3rd) merits a full debate in itself.
In the run-up to Nice 1 we were assured by the Government that ratification would not impinge in any way on that great sacred cow, our traditional neutrality. Now, in the re-run, the neutrality issue has been added to the mix and as the hydra-headed question permits us but one answer, by endorsing one we are necessarily endorsing the other.
I resent the fact that the Government has conjured up a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem by grafting an issue previously deemed irrelevant to the equation, presumably to appease a supposed phalanx of voters for whom neutrality remains the great political shibboleth.
Undoubtedly, a hard core of such people exists and their views are well represented, not least in the Letters page of this newspaper. I would imagine, however, I am not alone in that, having been unequivocally pro-Nice first time around, I now find myself compromised in being asked to simultaneously endorse a concept that I have long considered shames us as a nation.
We were neutral in the face of Nazism, fascism, communism; and now, confronted by, perhaps, the even more insidious evil represented by Al-Qaeda, we are being effectively blackmailed into enshrining that craven position into the Constitution.
I don't know if the wording for the forthcoming referendum is set in stone but, if not, and if the Government considers that neutrality must be on the agenda, it should give due consideration to two separate referendums. Otherwise it risks losing people like me who, while recognising the catastrophic consequences a second rejection of Nice will visit upon us, may well consider the long-threatening pariah status which will inevitably ensue has come at last. It is, after all, over half-a-century since our founding father called to express his condolences on the death of Hitler. - Yours, etc.,
William Brandon,
Abbey Street,
Roscommon.
Sir, - Values and good moral conduct are learned by the five to seven-year-old through fear of punishment and hope of reward.
Social approval is the next phase of moral growth. At about 10 years children develop a respect for law and order. As they enter their teens respect for the rights of others becomes a rule of life.
Educators are happy when the young finally arrive at an appreciation of the general principles of goodness.
The development of the spirit - human or divine - knows no limits. Our interior being, relationships, values, personal freedom, belonging, choice, the place and type of our home are all part of being human. Yet the EU treats its people as subjects to be dictated to by mountains of law as if we were seven-year-olds and its enforcement is the supreme being.
There is no place for a freely chosen social and moral order. Everything is decided materialistically and legalistically - with due process available only to a tiny few who can pay for the unaffordable. Yet the way of the peace process is inspirationally different. Law change merely endorsed the process.
Our western "mindset" and culture, with its emphasis on what is "legal", is oppressive. The EU imposes that outlook. Law and enforcing law is its supreme value. Multiplying laws - intrusive and restrictive - are acceptable to politicians and media. Why? We, the people - in whom "all authority rests" are powerless. Humanity and democracy are on a slippery slope, led by the blind.
Enlargement is desirable. Yet how can we shout stop if we do not vote against Nice? If we concur - as we did in allowing church leadership to undermine spirituality with externals and law - will a younger generation thank us? A body without a spirit and a community without one suffer the same fate.
Are we to live by what we value or by the law? Who chooses? How? - Yours, etc.,
Father Jerry Joyce,
Clogh,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.