Sir, - As one of the majority of Irish voters who rejected the ratification of the Treaty of Nice, I am very concerned that the reasons for voting No are being misrepresented. Personally, I consider myself European first, Irish second. I am in favour of the euro, and want to see the Union expand as soon as feasible.
So why did I (and, I suspect, many like me) vote No? Although concerned about implications for Irish neutrality, the main motivation was from uneasiness about changes made to the democratic structures of the Union, with increased powers being given to appointed, as opposed to elected officials.
This coupled with the weighting of votes in favour of the large countries, lessening the voice of smaller states, certainly smacks of "all Europeans are equal, but some are more equal than others".
It is ludicrous to try to scare people with talk of EU funding drying up - or is our Government going to allow this to happen, being totally incapable of negotiating in our favour.
Moreover, to suggest that the Irish people are being selfish or narrow-minded by refusing EU benefits to poorer Eastern countries shows blind contempt for the facts. The Treaty of Amsterdam already allowed for expansion, with five new members being permitted, without any further need for change. The fact that these five would then have had a say on further members joining seems to have concerned the large EU states, hence the need for changes made at Nice.
These issues need to be addressed seriously and carefully. To ignore the fundamental matter of democratic accountability (which is surely what a referendum is all about), and to try to fob people off with a few risible opt out clauses is to invite a second rejection when the issue comes up again. - Yours, etc.,
David Fairclough, Rathgar Road, Dublin 6.