Madam, - Joe Humphreys (Opinion, August 30th) suggests that we use "deliberative democracy" - by which a randomly chosen group of citizens would study and decide on complex issues such as the Lisbon Treaty. However, this strikes me as a dangerous idea that would cause much more harm than good.
Most people would not get a vote on the matter - and, unlike representative democracy, deliberative polling gives power to a small fraction of random people, rather than people who were democratically elected to decide what is best for the country. This is undemocratic, and would only annoy the electorate.
For the current Government, which is struggling for support as it is, settling the Lisbon Treaty debate through deliberative polling would be political suicide.
Then there are practical objections. How would we know people really were chosen randomly and not bribed to vote one way or the other? Also, the Lisbon Treaty is very complicated, and interpreting it suits some people better than others. If the destiny of the treaty must be decided by a small group, I would choose the democratically elected politicians, since they are much more likely than the average person to have learned the skills of interpreting a political treaty .
Flawed though our current system is, at least it's democratic. - Yours, etc,
JAMIE DONNELLY,
Butterfield Grove,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - It is refreshing to see Fine Gael's Lucinda Creighton admit that the Lisbon Treaty was rejected partly because voters had concerns about moral and social issues. The 2,000 Cóir volunteers who spent six months canvassing doors explaining this, and other related concerns, to the electorate are now having their role acknowledged by a succession of events.
Cardinal Seán Brady warned recently that the EU seemed hostile to Catholic values, and pointed to this hostility as a factor in the No vote. We now repeatedly hear that abortion concerns were a major issue for voters - a pretty extraordinary fact, considering the opposition and slander Cóir received while raising these concerns in the run-up to the referendum. The Red C poll, taken the week after the vote, confirmed that more than 70 per cent of No voters wished to restrict the power of the European Court of Justice concerning our social laws.
However, it is important to note that the sticking-plaster remedy tentatively offered so far by EU leaders will not make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Irish politicians should be insisting that the treaty is dead, and that the Irish people's vote be upheld, rather than offering supposed solutions such as a less-than-useless declaration on abortion or marriage, which would have no legal effect.
Just last week the EU, once again, attempted to interfere in the rights of each member-state to make sovereign decisions on social laws. The EU's Fundamental Rights Agency's (FRA) most recent report has called for binding EU regulations that would equalise the legal status of married heterosexual couples with that of same-sex couples across Europe.
As Cóir warned during the campaign on Lisbon, a treaty which gave the EU courts increased powers to enforce legislation on marriage and life issues was a treaty to be opposed. On June 12th a majority of voters agreed. - Yours, etc,
RICHARD GREENE,
Cóir,
Capel Street,
Dublin 1.
Madam, - Senator Fidelma Healy Eames (August 29th) sets out what she thinks are a few important steps before we can even consider "a Lisbon 2", implying we should indeed consider a second referendum. I suspect she means well but she needs to accept that the people have spoken.
Why doesn't she accept this? What would she think if the shoe were on the other foot - if the Lisbon Treaty had been accepted by the Irish people and the No side was suggesting a second referendum?
Senator Healy Eames needs to deal with the fact that Lisbon was rejected and move on. The consequences of not respecting the democratic process are well known, so let's not go there. - Yours, etc,
MARTIN McQUADE,
Ormonde Terrace,
Dublin 7.
Madam, - We held a referendum, we voted No, and we might be asked to vote again. There is nothing more to say and there are no more opinions to express that have not already been expressed ad nauseam in your Letters page.
I respectfully request, therefore, that you spare your readership from any more letters on the topic, at least until such time as another referendum is called. - Yours, etc,
STEPHEN LANE,
Dunboyne,
Co Meath.