Madam, - Your correspondent Jamie Smyth quotes the report of the London-based Centre for European Reform as stating that the demise of the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't be a catastrophe as Europe is working fairly well under the existing treaties ( The Irish Times, August 8th). But it says that most governments want to save the treaty because it would reform the "currently dreadful arrangements" in the fields of justice and foreign affairs and because it would provide national parliaments with more say over European decision-making.
This tallies with the essence of the Yes case: the treaty is about making the institutions of the EU function better, not advancing a superstate conspiracy.
The report sketches three future scenarios. Two involve a second Irish referendum - in one, a Yes victory (to my mind, very chancy), in the other, a second No victory (the "most poisonous" outcome). The third (and, perhaps, most likely) is, in effect, Lisbon by stealth - burying the treaty as such but implementing various bits of it by piecemeal agreements which wouldn't require referendums. Again, this further supports the Yes view. Having to take this route would also confirm, to our long-term detriment, Europe's revision of its previous view of Ireland as a reliable participant in the European project.
We demand respect for the democratic Irish verdict, but do we respect the verdict of 26 other countries? Not at all. We smugly dismiss them on the hypothesis that the people of the other countries (all 26 of them?), if given the opportunity, would do like us.
This attitude thinks of direct democracy as the pure form and representative democracy as a second-best, inferior, type and, on that basis, condescendingly passes judgment on the democracies of Europe. This disregards the fact that direct democracy is really suitable only for small populations and uncomplicated issues.
Perhaps we should not be rescued from the long-term consequences of our actions. It might be a sober learning experience for Irish democracy generally.
- Yours, etc,
TOM GILLEN, Weston Park, Dublin 14.
Madam, - The confusion expressed by Paul O'Brien (August 18th) needs to be resolved. Irish nationalists and republicans have usually resisted the dilution of nationhood demanded by an increasingly powerful European Union - which was once a community of nations and prior to that an economic community. What we joined in 1973 has obviously become a political union, not just an economic grouping, if the titular changes mean anything.
Naturally, British nationalists and especially the British Conservative party have consistently opposed more power being given to Europe. The fact that Irish and British nationalists are on the same side in this debate does not make the viewpoint wrong.
Many western Europeans are aghast that the enlargement to the east happened at the same time as "ever-greater union" was the Franco-German policy. It seems a contradiction in terms, and now that Poland and the Czech Republic have unilaterally signed up to the US missile defence policy, placing themselves and thus the EU in jeopardy due to understandable Russian anger, I am more convinced than ever that the Irish veto on this treaty will eventually be regarded as a step forward.
The treaty was a leap in the dark. Just where exactly did the EU intend to stop assimilating eastern countries? There were no agreed boundaries, were there? It reminds me of the Borg in Star Trek, and their catchphrase, "Resistance is futile". That seems to echo Mr Sarkozy's viewpoint too.
- Yours, etc,
JOHN LALOR, Clonfadda Wood, Blackrock, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Roger Cole (August 15th) continues the anti-Lisbon approach of abusing people such as Stephen Collins for suggesting possible solutions to the problems created by the No vote. It is tyrannical, undemocratic and reminiscent of Stalinist Russia to suggest that giving the electorate an opportunity to change its mind is not legitimate in a democratic society.
No campaigners persuaded the electorate to reject the Lisbon Treaty. Their two main claims were that a No vote would stop the ratification process and that it was possible to renegotiate a better treaty. Like it or not, neither eventuality is likely as the ratification process continues and the other EU member-states are unwilling to negotiate a new treaty.
It is obvious they are determined to implement the treaty with or without Ireland. I have no doubt they will find a legal way of doing so, sooner rather than later. Suggestions that there were millions of dissatisfied EU citizens ready to rise up against ratification once Ireland voted No have also proved incorrect.
Having led us to this position, it is the responsibility of the No side to articulate its Plan B now that Plan A is not likely to work.
Criticising the Yes side for developing a Plan B is neither helpful nor likely to lead to an informed debate on our future direction. Sinn Féin, the most forceful proponent of negotiating a better treaty, is notably silent on what to do next. Is it beginning to regret its unlikely alliance with the anti-EU British media, the US neo-cons and the Tory Eurosceptics?
- Yours, etc,
OWEN BROOKS, Rowanbyrn, Blackrock, Co Dublin.