Madam, - I welcome the statement by Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea that he will strongly oppose any Lisbon Treaty solution that involves Ireland opting out of EU defence committments (The Irish Times, September 12th).
The degree to which these were misrepresented during the referendum campaign is demonstrated by the large number of people who were apparently convinced that the treaty would somehow lead to the introduction of conscription.
The continued participation by our well-equipped and well-trained Defence Forces in EU operations is one of the most positive and concrete ways in which we can fulfil the wish of the overwhelming majority of the electorate to remain at the centre of the European project. - Yours, etc,
JOE AHERN,
Hemitage Close,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Madam, - Prof John Maguire (Opinion, September 11th) follows a familiar line in asserting that the EU is undemocratic. However, alongside this, he also champions the retention of Irish sovereignty in the face of supposed EU encroachment.
Unhelpfully, he fails to elaborate on either of these sentiments in his article and, most importantly, does not consider them side by side.
For the surest way to make the EU more "democratic" (assuming that the current structure, where political leaders call the shots, is deficient in this regard) is to directly elect the real legislature of the Union, the European Council. However, in order to do this, we would have to sacrifice the influence of the manifested Irish State in the EU's highest body, thereby conceding much of what Prof Maguire would no doubt consider our sovereignty.
There are countless other examples of the EU's "sovereignty or democracy" conundrum. People like Prof Maguire may just have to accept that they are largely irreconcilable, that they cannot champion both and that, much as it might pain them, they cannot keep selecting their EU criticism from an à-la-carte menu. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL KEARY,
Bow,
London E3.
Madam, - Mark Hennessy (Analysis, September 11th) seems to share the common opinion that the Lisbon Treaty will eventually be passed, one way or another - essentially because that is what the EU establishment want.
The first step in this process is the Irish Government commissions research which, not surprisingly, finds many people voted No because they did not "understand" the treaty. Ergo, when they do "understand" it they will vote the right way and the EU's political, military and corporate establishment can continue on its way.
The theory behind "ever closer union" in the context of a continent destroyed by war in 1939-45 is easily understood, but in 2008 it is difficult to put that aspiration into context.
Some argue that democratically elected governments have a right to ratify the treaty without further recourse to their electorates because if that electorates didn't want Lisbon to be ratified they wouldn't have voted for those governments in the first place. Those who use such an argument make a mockery of the entire democratic process.
Why is the EU establishment so scared of asking the EU electorate the very simple question of whether or not they are in favour of ever closer union? Saying no to this question is not the same as saying no to the EU. It is simply expressing the wish that people want a close EU, but they also want to be able to have control over things that affect their daily lives. They also want those decisions to be made by their own countrymen in their own parliament.
Why is that so unacceptable to the EU establishment? - Yours, etc,
DESMOND FITZGERALD,
Canary Wharf,
London E14.