Sir, – Denis Staunton ("Duncan Smith accuses Cameron of bowing to Germany", May 10th) informs us yet again that "the war within the Conservative Party has escalated sharply". Why does he, and indeed many other commentators, use the word "war" when it would be more honest to refer to it simply as robust debate?
It is refreshing that politicians and respected political parties have the courage and the integrity to debate a major issue publicly and intelligently. It may suit some commentators to imagine that we are back in the early 1990s, when the only section of the population that seemed to be concerned about the direction the EU was taking, were by and large, older, swivel-eyed obsessives in the Tories. That has changed, and changed considerably, and the extent that it has changed can be seen in the results of the British elections last week, where the Conservative Party did rather well for a government into its second term, especially when one considers that it is a government that is supposedly “at war” with itself.
Democracy, and the way that the democratic process is perceived by the electorate, has seldom been subject to so much contempt and cynicism as it is today. The Trump phenomenon, the amount of votes and seats garnered by Independents in Ireland’s recent elections, and the growth of political parties throughout Europe that only 10 years ago were stuck like barnacles to the fringes of polite society, are indicative of a weariness of ordinary people with the political processes of the past 30 years. If we seriously cherish our democracy then we should respect politicians with the principle and the passion to engage intelligently in robust debate, even if that debate puts them in opposition with members of their own party.
It is not “war”, it is 2016 not 1620, and neither are we citizens of North Korea. Open and intelligent debate is what keeps the democratic process alive and vibrant, a vibrancy that is appreciated by the electorate much more than many of your correspondents seem to imagine. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN RYAN,
Richmond,
London.
Sir, – John Temple Lang blunders in his otherwise excellent article "Brexit: Unavoidable consequences and uncertainties for Ireland" (May 6th) when he states that "The European Court of Justice cannot decline to answer a question referred by a national court".
The ECJ can refuse to answer a question when it considers that the answer is already clear (acte clair), or where the situation is hypothetical and not grounded in any real dispute.
The court can also refuse to decide a reference from a national court where the issue is not within its competence. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL MALONE, BL
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.