Sir, – Dan O’Brien (Home News) and the Editorial (February 29th) characterise the upcoming referendum as make-or-break for Ireland. Both pieces display an alarmism that they in turn decry as a lamentable part of referendum campaigns past.
Mr O’Brien talks about “a full- scale bank run” in the event of a No vote and implies such an outcome could well precipitate our ejection from the euro zone.
Ireland has been frightened into decisions over the last four years which have not worked out for our economy, or our people, or the people of Europe. Let us at least first discuss what the treaty has to offer Ireland and Europe before we declare that anything other than a Yes will mean “No money in the ATMs”. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Be careful of what you wish for. An Irish No vote could please many Europeans, who would be pleased to be rid of us. Proud, but poor.
Our children won’t thank us. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Noting the indisputable importance of the pending referendum and its propensity to shape Ireland’s sovereign, cultural, economic and social future, I find the “comment” and “analysis” articles of Dan O’Brien and Arthur Beesley (Home News, February 28th) somewhat narrow and less than factually whole.
While undecided as to my leanings on the issue at present, I feel it cannot be viewed narrowly and it strikes me that there are far- reaching implications to either decision from many perspectives including sovereign/self-governance, social and cultural, economic wellbeing and short- and long-term funding options, etc. As such, painting “cataclysmic” or “fatal” pictures without detailing Ireland’s options post one decision or the other, adds little but short-sighted panic to readers/citizens who are looking for facts to which they can apply informed reasoning.
Practically, both “Yes” and “No” scenarios need to be detailed explicitly as, while options may be less than optimal from a specific perspective, there are always options. The steps and probability of the worst-case scenario being achieved need to be estimated and debated openly.
In that context, it is my hope over the coming months to see articles outlining objectively the options available to the country, and that such articles might be accompanied by opinion pieces supporting the “Yes” or “No” views with suitable justification.
Perhaps I naively ask too much but, given that politicians can be guaranteed to sensationalise the issue from their vested viewpoints, an objective commentary from the media will offer a welcome service to all citizens. We won’t get it anywhere else! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Imagine if Paddy says No . . . – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Surely Enda Kenny is being disingenuous when he suggests that the Irish people will not be “bribed” in order to support the fiscal compact treaty in the forthcoming referendum (Home News, March 1st).
In virtually every election over the past 45 years the Irish people have been bribed into supporting incompetent governments and corrupt politicians.
This is why the country is in its current state.
Does the Taoiseach seriously believe we are now going to change the habits of a lifetime? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Surely with the oncoming referendum, one must ask what the troika is essentially asking of us! All the trappings here give one the impression of a sane society. We have universities that dish out PhDs to our senior civil servants. We have religious institutions, and ministries; the Leaving Certificate; law courts; banks and a Constitution. The list is endless.
So why can’t we run ourselves? What’s the problem?
As somebody who left school at 14 and therefore depends on the intelligence of the said institutions and those better educated than I, I am at a loss. Who does one take advice from? Could one of your letter writers please enlighten me? Surely there must be intelligent life form out there somewhere. I await! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In your report about an NUI Maynooth conference at which I spoke on Thursday (Home News, March 2nd), you quote me as saying that the upcoming referendum wouldn’t only be about the fiscal compact treaty “but of Ireland being a member of the European Union as such”. This could be interpreted as implying that a rejection of the treaty by the Irish people would be tantamount to Ireland having to leave the European Union. Such an interpretation would be misleading on two accounts.
First, the referendum is about the treaty and nothing else.
Ireland’s membership of the European Union is not in the slightest doubt.
Second, my remark was made in response to a question about the much-wider issue of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union.
This legitimacy rests on the support of the member-states and their citizens. It was in this general context of respect for the Irish constitutional and political process that the remark was made. – Yours, etc,