Madam, – I am glad The Irish Timespoints to the fact that Germany has supposedly reinforced domestic parliamentary and court supervision over EU legislation (Editorial, September 9th), but this has direct political implications for Ireland and the rest of Europe which are not mentioned. The Czechs, the Poles and the Germans have still not yet ratified – with the first two awaiting the outcome of the Irish referendum and the third, awaiting this new national law before ratifying the treaty.
The next UK government is also waiting to pounce after Ireland’s vote. If there is a No vote in Ireland, there will be no overall ratification of the treaty by all the EU member-states. Therefore, the treaty would be abandoned. This would mean that the UK’s Conservative Party commitment to a referendum on the treaty, if the ratification process is not completed across the Union, would create intense pressure for a UK referendum. While the UK has already ratified, a Conservative government would undo this by easily winning a No vote in a UK referendum, and withdrawing the UK’s ratification. The treaty will be dead – as it should have been after Ireland first said No. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I’d like to see a Lisbon poster that simply reads “Some things in life are too complicated for a slogan!” superimposed over an extract from the Lisbon Treaty, accompanied by a suggestion that people inform themselves, think about what is on balance best for them and the country and to vote accordingly. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In effect, Richard Greene (September 7th) argues that one day the European Court of Justice will say this: “We have been set up by a treaty which says that nothing shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland. We don’t like Article 40.3.3 so we will ignore it. What it says in the Treaty, which sets up this Court and limits its powers, is of no consequence.”
When democratic nations make legally binding international treaties with each other and live up to them over a period of 40 years, as has happened in Ireland’s relationship with the European Union, to say that those treaties can’t be trusted is an act of despair. If we accuse others, for no apparent reason, of being untrustworthy, our relationship with them will be damaged, if not completely destroyed. They will be within their rights to see our accusation as a betrayal of their good faith.
If we believe that the European Union is making commitments in bad faith, then it would make sense to follow Mr Greene’s lead by disengaging from it. Some of our fellow citizens from other parts of Europe would undoubtedly cheer us on, but many others would want to know how the European Union has ever shown bad faith to Ireland. If we have no answer, they will take note of the fact that we Irish have little respect for the goodwill and honesty of our fellow Europeans.
We need hope at this point in our history. Will we find it in constructive engagement with people of goodwill or in suspicion and unjustified accusation? The choice is ours. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Patrick Smyth (Opinion, September 5th) asks do we think referendums are a good idea. They are an appalling idea and the worst possible method of decision-making in the area of public policy. Mr Smyth catalogues the catastrophic effects of the citizens’ initiative on the governance and economy of California. In spite of such examples the public and the political classes remain bewitched by the idea of majority voting as a valid method for discerning the public mind.
“Democracy works on the basis of a decision by the majority” was how the Report of the Constitution Review Group chaired by Dr Whitaker put it in its 1996 report. There is no indication that this view has been modified since. It is a narrow, unsophisticated and potentially destructive definition.
The referendum is capricious in the extreme, open to manipulation, subject to undue influence by those who set the question and a charter for distortion, sabotage and dishonesty as the last Lisbon campaign demonstrated. In spite of these widely acknowledged limitations there is no substantive critique or willingness to seek or consider alternatives. In its worst manifestations the referendum is a catalyst for violence and genocide – eg the Balkans and East Timor in recent decades and, most likely, Sudan in 2011.
That the ratification of a highly complex treaty negotiated consensually over many years should rest with a small fraction of the total population concerned using such a flawed and capricious methodology will be regarded by future political scientists as the height of political and democratic folly.
There is now no turning back from another round of “neverendum” next month. At least it will not have the devastating consequences which followed the orchestrated divisiveness in the examples mentioned above.
Whatever the outcome it will be said “the people have spoken” – even if 49.5 per cent of them dissent. There will be no challenge to the method, and accepting the outcome will be regarded as respecting democracy. In reality, it will have been further eroded.
We must demand more sophisticated inclusive methods which can embrace the complexity of the decisions with which we are increasingly faced. – Yours, etc,