Sir, - Some of the arguments against the Treaty of Nice question the whole point of the European Union. Let's leave aside neutrality, which deserves a better forum for debate than a treaty that makes no difference whatsoever to Ireland's current (confused) military identity.
Nice is about the necessary reform of voting rights to allow the entry of new member-states from the East. Critics of Nice, including the Green Party, fear the new rules will dilute Ireland's influence in the EU decision-making procedure. It is true that member-states give up some of their rights to sovereignty by signing up to the rules of the EU. This is the case in any intergovernmental organisation and it is how it should be. In the past, the Green Party has rightly demanded that Irish governments comply with EU directives on nature reserves or the promotion of renewable energy, for instance. The whole point about legislation at the EU level with majority voting is that one country acting for selfish reasons cannot block an initiative that would benefit the Union as a whole.
As things stand, Spain continues to block an EU-wide energy tax and France prevents suppliers of renewable electricity from entering the monopoly-dominated French market. All this in the name of national sovereignty.
One would expect that the Greens, of all parties, would agree that nations can do more to solve trans-boundary problems by collective rather than individual action, by rules rather than by anarchy. Appealing to people's fears of lost national sovereignty is not the way to frame the debate on the future of Europe. - Yours, etc.,
Thomas Legge, Brussels, Belgium