Madam, - Having read as much of the proposed EU Constitution as I could without getting a nosebleed, I've come to the conclusion that it is a seriously boring document. It had that particular brand of tedium that only a compromise between 25 nations could achieve.
But should a Constitution actually be exciting? The US Constitution is, but it is also so vague that one ends up with Supreme Court judges tying themselves into knots trying to figure out what a group of bewigged knickerbocker-wearing male aristocrats would have thought of genetic research or privacy on the internet. At least the EU Constitution is very specific in its safeguards.
Should we ratify it? Its opponents say no. Sinn Féin, the most heavily armed political party in the world, says it is too militaristic. Dr Paisley's DUP is opposed because the Old Testament isn't nailed to the cover. The French Communists object to people being required to get out of bed in the morning, and the British Tories object to workers being allowed go home to bed. What a lovely bunch of people to meet down a dark alley.
It is not perfect, but the loudest opponents of the Constitution are being fundamentally unfair in one aspect of their opposition. Not one of them offers a vision of Europe which could win more consensus across the EU than the Europe we currently have. This Constitution at least addresses many of the fundamental concerns of individual countries. It tries to find the middle way for 450 million people, something Mr Adams, Dr Paisley or Mrs Thatcher have never even tried to do.
I vote Oui. - Yours, etc,
JASON O'MAHONY, Coppinger Glade, Stillorgan, Co Dublin.