Madam, - I refer to Petr Mach's contribution to your "Whither Europe" series in which you invite "politicians and commentators to chart the way forward for the EU". Mr Mach's chart has some curious features which deserve comment (Opinion & Analysis, August 2nd).
He argues that any new treaty must be acceptable to "strong majorities" in the member-states. Majorities - yes, indeed; but what constitutes a "strong majority"? Mr Mach answers this question by saying any such treaty "must be acceptable to all"!
Again Mr Mach suggests the EU should only have a treaty that "lays down policies that are beneficial to all" and in this regard he suggests that "the useless redistribution of funds" should be abolished because "poor countries do not need subsidies to catch up with the rich - what they need is free trade".
Two points may be made in reply. First, while any individual policy may favour some states over others in the short term, the overall balance, when all policies are taken together over time, has been strongly and mutually advantageous to all member-states (otherwise they would not have maintained these policies, through a process of on-going adaptation, in succeeding decades). Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect the least developed member-states to "catch up" economically within a politically viable time frame without transitional structural fund assistance provided by the richer states. The idea that the stronger should help the weaker - the principle of solidarity - lies at the heart of EU political philosophy.
Mr Mach also suggests that EU decisions can be made by unanimity in the Council and that "we can put an end to several EU institutions, including the European Parliament which [ he says] has no mandate as we elected it, not as citizens of the EU, but as citizens of individual member-states".
History has shown that Council decision-making by unanimity, even in a much smaller Union, tends to cause impossibly long delays which lead towards paralysis. There is no reason to believe it could work in a Union of 25 or more States.
MEPs are elected by citizens of the EU (under Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty every citizen of a member-state is also a citizen of the Union). To work effectively in the interests of all its citizens the EU must make rules (i.e. laws). These require independent drafting (by the Commission), approval by the member-state governments (i.e. by the Council of Ministers - as far as possible by majority voting) and democratic endorsement in Parliament (by majority voting).
As a general principle, nothing less than this and the joint enactment of laws by Council and Parliament would be acceptable to EU citizens. - Yours, etc,
JIM O'BRIEN, Head of Office, European Parliament, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Congratulations on your series of articles on the future of the EU. The article by Joachim Bitterlich, former advisor to the German government (August 3rd) was particularly instructive. He asks some good questions, but he betrays his own position in his statement that "loyalty and solidarity are constituent elements of a federative structure like the EU".
This also gives the lie to the claim from Irish politicians that the EU is not developing into a pan-European federal structure. It already is a federal/federative structure! Herr Bitterlich calls for a European army and for "reuniting" Europe. In spite of the best efforts of certain despots, Europe was never previously united, so how can it now be "reunited"? He seems to be calling for total political integration or "unity". Where does this leave the identity of Europe's independent nations?
Bitterlich has also adopted the latest eurospeak of using the term "Europe" where "the EU" or "the EU area" should have been used. Could I plead with future writers on the EU and the producers of EU documentation to please use the correct term in deference to those European countries that are not members of the EU? Europe is bigger than the EU, and likely to remain so. - Yours, etc,
DICK HUMPHREYS, Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.