Madam, - We are now in an unnecessarily difficult position in the EU. We have a set of rules and regulations that was suited to the operation of the union prior to the recent admission of many new members, and the proposed constitution which addresses the realities of the expanded union is, at best, on life support. Surely the logical approach would have been to agree the new constitution within the smaller union, and only to admit new members if and when the new constitution was in place? Will anyone take responsibility for this glaring example of putting the cart before the horse? - Yours etc,
VINCENT O'TOOLE, Leopardstown, Dublin 18.
Madam, - Brendan Young may well be right in his assertion that the French No vote in the recent referendum was as much a rejection of globalisation as of the EU constitution ("French vote a rejection of Thatcherite policies", Opinion & Analysis, June 7th). However, the vote may prove to be more the death rattle of the "French social model" than the portent of the new Europe that Mr Young hopes for.
Contrary to what Mr Young suggests, anti-globalisation is not the sole prerogative of the new (or old) left in France. Rather, anti-globalisation is an article of faith for the entire French polity; it spans the political spectrum on the left from José Bové, the anti-globalisation activist, to the Greens, the Communist Party, and the mainstream Socialists. On the right, anti-globalisation is in the founding charter of the Rassemblement Pour La France (RPF).
While Chirac has railed (long before the advent of the European Constitution) against Anglo-Saxon economic imperialism, and the National Front too, he was an early and consistent foe, first of "Europeanisation" and now of globalisation.
France's current problems, however, have less to do with globalisation than with the much vaunted French Social Model which has been bought at the price of consistently high levels of unemployment. The French Social Model has condemned France to unemployment levels of 11.3 per cent in 1995 when Chirac was elected, to 10.2 per cent today. And for people under 25, unemployment is at 20 per cent. Many experts believe French unemployment could be halved if France was to introduce a programme of real reform.
To many French citizens high unemployment may well be a price worth paying for the social model (particularly if they are employed), but with an ageing population and high unemployment the cost of the social model is becoming prohibitive.
Demographics, not the EU, is now the real threat to the social model.
That is not to say that globalisation does not pose potential challenges for France and the rest of Europe. As a phenomenon it is (bar a global war or pandemic) all but irreversible and certainly it will not be stopped or even delayed by the French No vote.
The European constitution is not a neo-liberal plot against the French Social Model. Rather it is a mechanism (albeit imperfect) to enable effective co-operation among the nations of the EU while allowing sufficient flexibility for a variety of social models to co-exist within the Union.
Europe must put in place the mechanisms to enable the nations of Europe to co-operate effectively to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities presented by globalisation. For make no mistake, while a strong Europe may influence the shape that globalisation takes, individual countries have no hope of doing so.
The social and environmental Europe to which Mr Young aspires must be paid for; and if Europe cannot compete with the rising economic powers of China and India, it will never come into existence. - Yours, etc,
EOIN RYAN TD, MEP, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.