RONAN BRADY,
Sir, - As a No voter in all the European referendums until Nice, I've always respected Anthony Coughlan and his allies. In fact I was one of them. I felt there was something honourable about their commitment to democracy based on the nation-state, although it's begun to seem increasingly quixotic to me.
The "invasion of Ireland from eastern Europe" conjured up by the No to Nice, campaign has changed all that. Justin Barrett's loud appeal to fear, greed and jealousy has drowned out the idealism of the more radical No campaigners among the greens, socialists and republicans. Their alternative is to become his servants or to campaign against him - to fight him or be bracketed with him. I'm sad to see that Anthony Coughlan (August 26th) continues to echo some of Mr Barrett's language.
If allowing free movement meant a huge influx from the poorer eastern European states, why haven't we already had such an influx from southern Italy, western Spain or northern Portugal? Poor people from these parts have already had the opportunity to come here and I saw no invasion.
The kind of self-determination Mr Coughlan believes in may well have been possible even up to a decade ago (I certainly thought it was). But it really isn't now. The crucial economic decisions are taken at a level much higher and beyond the reach of the Irish State - and almost any other small country. If our voters are to have any influence upon these decisions, if our democracy is to mean anything, we have to combine with others.
Surely the radical task is to democratise the bureaucratic European structure, not to split from it. Surely playing the race card in order to secure a No vote is to undermine democracy instead of strengthening it. Surely the real friends of Justin Barrett are the British Tories and the more outright racists from Denmark and Austria. - Yours, etc.,
RONAN BRADY,
Geraldine Street,
Dublin 7.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Several of your recent correspondents have included among their reasons for rejecting the Nice Treaty the allegation that it would periodically deprive Ireland of its "representation" on the Commission.
It is a common misunderstanding of the role of the Commission to think that its members "represent" their countries of origin. Each Commissioner is in fact oath-bound not to act on behalf of his/her homeland or its government, but instead to pursue the collective interest.
If this obligation were more widely understood, successive Irish Commissioners would be spared the unrealistic expectations of a population accustomed to clientelist politics.
In the institutions of the Union, the Irish Government and people are represented, respectively, by Ministers and MEPs. This will continue to be the case in future, whether or not there happens to be an Irish Commissioner. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels.