Madam, - I'm afraid that for the Government to follow Stephen Collins's suggestion (Opinion, 2nd August) and ratify the Lisbon Treaty in spite of the referendum result would be to score the worst possible own goal.
After the infamous remarks by Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner, and the Government's previous insistence on EU treaties (notably the referendum on Nice), many people have lost trust in the EU. Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without their consent would be the final nail in the coffin of the Irish Government.
And I don't think the Government can bank on "the future gratitude of the people", as Joseph O'Leary (August 7th) suggests. The Lisbon Treaty has mainly non-tangible benefits, which the average person wouldn't notice.
Much as I support the Lisbon Treaty, ratifying it in the face of the referendum vote would be a very bad idea. - Yours, etc,
JAMIE DONNELLY,
Butterfield Grove,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - Forty-nine per cent of voters could not summon up sufficient energy or interest to approach the nearest polling station and vote in the recent referendum. Twenty-eight per cent of the electorate voted No. It may not be unreasonable for Stephen Collins to suggest another way for the Government to resolve the problem created by the naysayers and those who could not be bothered.
The decision to hold a referendum in the first place apparently required some soul-searching and discussion and legal opinion. The times call for a brave initiative by the Taoiseach - along the lines suggested by Stephen Collins - when he returns from his doubtless well-earned rest. - Yours, etc,
COLUM MacDONNELL,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Imagine the Yes voters had carried the day back in June. Then suppose Sinn Féin and the other No campaigners suggested that the Yes vote should be ignored and the Lisbon treaty rejected.
Imagine, now, the uncontained anger of our political leaders; the calls for action against such foes of democracy; the outrage by columnists in every newspaper; the condemnation from unions and business; governments throughout the EU shaking their heads in disbelief; perhaps even an Editorial in The Irish Timesdecrying such an appalling notion. - Yours, etc,
TONY O'SULLIVAN,
Thormanby Road,
Howth,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Dan O'Brien (Opinion, August 6th) is right to say the EU's most urgent task is to reveal and explain its activities. But he did not say that this could start at once, without any treaty changes, by opening Council discussions to the public, and by making sure that Commissioners spend much more time actively and routinely explaining community policies to the electorates of all member-states - not only France, the Netherlands and Ireland.
After that, governments need to simplify the EU institutions, which are too complicated to be easily understood, and which are not now well designed to provide the checks and balances that he rightly says they are meant to ensure.
One necessary but not sufficient step is to guarantee one Commissioner for each member-state. No referendum should be held anywhere until all this has been done, because only then will voters know what they are voting about. - Yours, etc,
JOHN TEMPLE LANG,
Brussels,
Belgium.
Madam, - Stephen Collins's dose of reality has obviously hit a raw nerve. A. Leavy (August 7th) is right. The current dilemma has arisen because our democratically elected Government failed in its duty to refute the lies and misrepresentations of mostly unelected groups opposed to the treaty.
The Government could have nipped this crisis in the bud if it had acted speedily and without fear of losing marginal seats in the upcoming local elections.
The supposed solidarity of an inter-party agreement to speak with one voice simply confirmed the image of a government lacking the authority to act alone. And this brittle arrangement was shamelessly exploited by a motley group of experienced lobbyists.
All of the other EU member-states will soon have ratified the Treaty without recourse to a referendum. What then? - Yours, etc,
NIALL GINTY,
Killester,
Dublin 5.
Madam, - There is something of a contradiction in Brian Wall's analysis of the Lisbon Treaty referendum (August 6th) when he refers to the constitution of the United States.
The US constitution is not changed by way of referendum but rather by a combination of federal and state legislative action. The founding fathers must have foreseen the dangers of debate being hijacked if proposed constitutional changes were put to national ballot.
The natural and logical consequence of the Crotty and McKenna judgments is that further meaningful constitutional change in Ireland is now virtually impossible. - Yours, etc,
JOHN FAGAN,
Seafield Road,
Killiney,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Stephen Collins's analysis of the consequences of a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty should concentrate our minds.
It would, he argues "return [ the Republic] to the status of being a client state of Britain". Is it possible that Sinn Féin did not consider the serious consequences of further retreat from involvement in Europe? - Yours, etc,
DENIS EGAN,
Oxford,
England.
Madam, - Ewan Duffy (August 6th) says he would rather be a citizen of a client state of Britain than of a client state of the EU. May I be permitted to inform him that, if your political correspondent Mark Hennessy's report in The Irish Times of July 28th is proved correct, we are already a client state of Britain?
Mr Hennessy reported that, as a result of new border controls to be introduced by the UK government, there would be border controls for travellers between towns in the northern part of this island and the rest of the UK.
And in due course, following an "agreement" between the governments concerned, there will be border controls between other locations on this island and Britain.
In view of the status of both this State and the UK as members of the EU, does it not copperfasten our status vis-à-vis the British if they can dictate our border control system and we cannot? - Yours, etc,
BARRY MAHON,
Skibbereen,
Co Cork.