Madam, - Is the glass half-empty or half-full? The rejection of the EU constitutional treaty by the French and Dutch electorates is a body-blow. However, nine member-states, including three of the more populous (Germany, Italy and Spain), and significant smaller states such as Austria, accounting altogether for 220 million people, have already ratified the treaty. More will do so.
Even if the number ratifying by the end of 2006 does not reach the proportion required to trigger an automatic inter-governmental conference, the issues which make the treaty necessary will not go away.
The EU, already with 25 diverse members and due to expand to 27/28, must re-configure the way it runs itself if it is not to grind to a juddering halt. The Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, which is part of the treaty, provides a commitment, not now satisfactorily existing, to rights which many of us take for granted.
We did not begin to realise in large numbers, until the war in Iraq, that the rapidly shrinking globe in which we live - and on which we depend - is ruled by a pick-handle culture. Those who have big pick-handles believe they can do what suits them - without due process, without democratic consultation and consent, without respecting sovereignty or rights.
This is not just a matter of foreigners being killed far away on our television screens. Behind the distraction of the shooting war (however brutal though increasingly boring it may be), the world is run by people in back rooms who regard it as their disposable property. So this is about who decides what we eat, what we wear, what we pay at the petrol pumps, how we play, how hard we have to work to make ends meet, whether we die with dignity. It is about the kind of planet we are passing on to our children and grandchildren.
Let us get our feet on the ground. Beyond all the slap-happy propaganda about the Celtic Tiger, the Irish Republic is a tiny player. The standard of living which most of us enjoy depends almost entirely on external trade in goods and services - very precarious in a globalising world. The deal we get on that trade is not decided by the Irish Government. Or rather, the Irish Government only has a say when it is part of a system respected by the other players.
For all the weird and wonderful differences between the members of the EU, there is some kind of broad consensus on the general rules by which we would like the game to be played. This is what "European values" is about - and it includes a vision of different kind of planet.
Unfortunately, this Europe has no voice. Setting up a system by which we in Europe can sit around a table and work out effective common positions - and present them to the world with authority - is what the European constitutional treaty is about. - Yours, etc,
MAURICE O'CONNELL,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.
Madam, - I woke on Monday to discover I was now in a parallel universe where the EU was some sort of evil, malevolent conspiracy against ordinary people.
When did this happen? Did you all have a meeting when I was away? I heard people talking about being fed up with all those Brussels rules and regulations. Which ones?
The one that says you have a right to emergency healthcare when in another member-state? The one that says women should get equal pay? What about the one that ensures clearly identified poisonous materials in the workplace?
The EU has plenty of flaws, and sometimes the European Commission sounds like it is on reality-reduction medication. But, to paraphrase Churchill, the EU is the worst way of running Europe, except for every other way. - Yours, etc,
JASON O'MAHONY
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Fintan O'Toole writes that "saying No is like saying nothing at all" (Opinion, May 31st). Conversely, most commentators on your Letters page seem to feel that the French "No" has legitimised whatever soapbox they happen to stand on.
The problem runs deeper than this. In fact, it is a problem readily evident when the EU itself looks to the Dutch vote to "explain" the contradictary alliance of voters that made up the French "No".
The French referendum establishes one thing: the difficulty of establishing a substantive constitutional vision about which a majority of citizens can agree. A constitution is supra-political. The views expressed in it are designed to entrench timeless ideals about who we are and where we are going. In contrast, there are simply no shared set of agreements about the political world we inhabit.
The EU could take two lessons from the French vote. The first is that a constitution should be mainly procedural. It should allow a current majority to set the agenda for its period in office and, if its programme meets widespread disapproval, be voted out.
The second is that there needs to be greater powers given to EU citizens. One idea might be the creation of a second house along the lines of the US Senate. This would serve the dual function of empowering the people while also guaranteeing no particular cultural agenda is allowed constitutional status. - Is mise,
DONAL COFFEY,
Wellington,
New Zealand.
Madam, - How strange for Irish citizens to witness democratic accountability in action with the resignation of the French prime minister in the aftermath of the failed referendum.
How depressing to witness the same old hypocrisy from our own prime minister. While he rightly says that the democratic decision of the French people must be accepted, he showed only contempt for Irish citizens when they rejected the first Nice Treaty referendum. - Yours, etc,
ANTHONY SHERIDAN,
Cobh,
Co Cork.
Madam, - May I offer one of the great headlines that did not appear after the French referendum? "Ah-DIEU!" - Yours, etc,
EDDIE SHAW,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.