PETER DOYLE,
Sir, - Anthony Coughlan's claim (The Irish Times, September 2nd) that the Nice Treaty is designed to threaten Ireland's low corporate tax rate is entirely spurious and appears to be based on a rather simplistic interpretation of the treaty's articles governing "enhanced co-operation", rather than on any realistic analysis of the likely effect of these arrangements.
It is certainly true that the proposed rules governing enhanced co-operation would enable a majority of EU member-states to move ahead of others in certain defined policy areas. However, the Treaty of Nice sets out no fewer than 10 conditions which would have to be met before such an initiative could be undertaken.
Not least among these are that any such action must respect the basic treaties and all subsequent legislation deriving from them; it must not undermine the internal market or economic and social cohesion between the member-states; it must be open to all member-states to join up at any time and must not be detrimental to the interests of non-participating member-states; it must be based on a proposal by the Commission, which is duty-bound under the treaties to protect both the general EU interest and the more particular interests of individual member-states.
At present, Ireland has the lowest tax rate within the EU, a status which the Taoiseach has made clear he intends to maintain. In the negotiations leading up to the Nice Treaty, the Government ensured, with the support of other governments, that it would retain its veto on tax matters.
Perhaps Mr Coughlan would care to explain to your readers why some member-states would feel the need to resort to enhanced co-operation in the tax area since they are already free to set their rates at whatever level they wish.
He might also like to explain how, in the unlikely event that they chose to avail themselves of this mechanism, Irish interests would be threatened since the others would, presumably, wish to harmonise at a higher level than Ireland's current rate. Such a move could only be in Ireland's perceived interest, thus according with the position Mr Coughlan purports to defend.
This country would still be able to maintain its lower rate because the whole point of enhanced co-operation is that individual member-states are free to opt in or opt out on a case-by-case basis. - Yours, etc.,
PETER DOYLE, Head of Representation, European Commission,
European Union House, Dawson Street, Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Further to Mr Ahern's assertion that by voting against the Nice Treaty (again) we would be letting a lot of people down, surely it must be obvious to everyone that by not voting against it we will be letting down not only ourselves, but the vast numbers in the EU who have no vote on this issue.
After this referendum, should the proposal be passed, the score will be one all! The only problem will be that the first franchise was valid. Therefore the score should remain one to nil. It is incredibly insulting to have a whole people subjected to this charade by our elected politicians.
I am pro-Europe and speak three European languages with fluency. I am also deeply anxious. I have lived on mainland Europe. I do not want this two-tier Europe where new members will be a lesser group. I do not want a situation where might (whether money or population) is right. That is a recipe for terrorism.
Please convince me to vote Yes - but no vagueness, please: the issues are too great. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN CLARKIN, Ballinablake, Curracloe, Co Wexford.