Madam, - Cardinal Seán Brady's speech at the Humbert Summer School was, like all his contributions to public debate, both balanced and carefully nuanced - unlike the responses of many of his critics, some of whom seem never to have read his speech or to have wilfully misread it.
The cardinal reiterated that the "Catholic Church, as indicated by various papal and synodal reflections, is generally positive towards the European project and its founding ideals".
However, he then pointed out that this was a qualified support and expressed his unease about certain trends in the European Union which were of concern to believers, and which he believed may have been a contributory factor in the No vote.
This was an entirely reasonable contention - supported by strong anecdotal evidence from Yes campaigners.
He went on to say in a subsequent RTÉ radio interview: "I think the people who are hostile to Europe need to open their eyes to the contributions of Europe and those who are totally supportive of Europe need to listen to the concerns and the reservations. We need a respectful listening to the views of each side."
It strikes me that his comments are sound advice on a subject that has been characterised by more heated emotion, misinformation and downright lies than any political debate that I can remember.
The Lisbon Treaty referendum result showed clearly that a wide gap existed between the views of the Irish political establishment and those of a large number of voters. Supporters of the treaty would do well to listen to the cardinal and ponder what he had to say rather than rushing in to attack his right to speak, or to counter arguments the cardinal did not make.
Politics is about winning votes, not arguments - something the Yes side seems to have forgotten and the No side learnt all too well. - Yours, etc,
SEAMUS MULCONRY,
Ballinatone,
Greenane,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - In his inspiring press conference of September 1st, President Sarkozy spoke of how the European Union could intervene effectively to safeguard peace in the Russia-Georgia conflict. He pointed out that a united Europe was a mighty force for peace.
At one point he referred sadly to "the Irish problem". Sinn Féin and the other naysayers have indeed put a spanner in the works, calling for a total renegotiation of Lisbon based on an assortment of captious objections.
If we are not able to say clearly what we want, and if the Government finds itself unable to ratify Lisbon, I suggest that the best thing to do is to say: "Europe, go ahead with Lisbon, and leave us to muddle along in a legal twilight. We'll get back to you when we know our own minds better."
This will be tremendously damaging to our country, obviously, but at least we will not be responsible for blocking one of the great historical projects of humanity. - Yours, etc,
JOSEPH S. O'LEARY,
Sophia University,
Tokyo, Japan.
A chara, - Michael Lillis (August 14th) fears that because we said "No" to Lisbon, we are doomed to renewing "our suffocating relationship with Britain", and to Ireland resuming "the dependant status we broke from in 1973". As a repeat "No" voter, I don't share his bleak assessment.
I know that when we "gave up a substantial measure of sovereignty" in 1973 (to quote Mr Lillis), we did so for a better reason than merely to escape British dominance. We agreed to share our sovereignty, in certain areas, to gain access to an enlarged market for our goods, support for our industries, including agriculture, and a better standard of living.
Then, with the growth of the Brussels bureaucracy, the Common Market that we had voted for began to change from what appeared a manageable group of countries, with limited interference in the internal workings of member-states, and expanded out of all proportion. This "empire" now includes 27 states, with half-a-billion subjects, while no limit has yet been set to its expansion.
Ireland's consent to these continual changes was largely bought by grants and money supports at a time when Ireland was less developed economically. Only when these inducements ran out, and the full impact of EU controls - as exemplified by the banning of turf-cutting and petty restrictions on the practices of farmers and fishermen - was realised, did Irish voters begin to realise the cul-de-sac up which politicians and officials, had led them.
When they also discovered that we were well on the way to losing our ethnic identity because of an inability to control excessive immigration, citizens began to have serious doubts about the wisdom of any deeper involvement in the EU's borderless empire.
A major factor in promoting a negative view of the EU - and the consequent loss of the Lisbon referendum - was the reckless opening-up of Ireland to immigrants from the 10 new accession states in May 2004. In short, too many came and we can't stop the flow now, because our welfare provisions prove too attractive, without penalising our own needy. Because of such experiences, the Irish electorate have lost confidence in the EU and in Irish government leadership.
The Irish people are not prepared to surrender total control of their daily lives and national identity to foreign bureaucrats, even if that refusal puts them on the same side as Tory sceptics. Mr Lillis should realise that the EU, as presently developing, holds a greater threat to the future well-being of the Irish nation than does the expected return to power of the British Conservatives. - Is mise,
LIAM Ó GÉIBHEANNAIGH,
Áth an Ghainimh,
Co. Átha Cliath.