Madam, - Before the referendum, No voters were called loolahs and lunatics and were accused of being out of their minds. Now, voluble Yes campaigners proclaim to the world that we voted No because we are "anti-Europe" or are gullible souls who bought the "lies" of the No campaign.
This simplistic and self-serving analysis may soothe their outrage but is far from the truth in the case of people like myself, who are "pro-Europe" and who decided to vote No without any help from Mary Lou MacDonald or Declan Ganley. In the fading hope that "respecting the will of the people" might mean our leaders make a genuine effort to understand why people voted No, I humbly offer an account of my own reason for ticking the No box.
1. One of the few undisputed facts in the Lisbon debate is that the content of the treaty is at least 90 per cent the same as that of the constitutional treaty rejected by the French and Dutch people. We were told, however, that there are significant differences in the legal form of the two treaties.
2. The question therefore arises as to why so much effort (and taxpayers' money) was invested in changing the form of the constitution treaty while leaving its content more or less intact.
3. This important question has received very little attention in the debate. However, it has been answered in the columns of your newspaper as follows: "As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum" [Garret FitzGerald, June 30th, 2007).
"The political subtext to the 'constitution versus treaty' debate in Britain, the Netherlands, France and Denmark was that passing a constitution would almost certainly require a referendum (which might be rejected), whereas a treaty could be ratified in parliaments" (Jamie Smyth, May 12th, 2008).
Neither of these writers could be accused of peddling anti-Europe "lies" and their answers are convincing to me.
The obvious conclusion is that the Lisbon Treaty was drafted with the specific intention of sidestepping ratification by referendum in as many member-states as possible.
4. While an arguable case can be made for ratification by parliamentary process rather than by referendum, the repackaging of the rejected constitutional treaty to avoid referendums looks very much like an underhand attempt to engineer the transfer of sovereignty from the people to those who make our laws, whoever and wherever they may be. At best this is insufferably arrogant; at worst it is dishonest.
I voted No against this arrogance and/or dishonesty and for no other reason. I suspect that many other people voted No for similar reasons without any prompting from Libertas, Sinn Féin or Cóir.
If the democratic legitimacy of the European project is of real concern to the great and good who are so cross at us for voting No, they should stop insulting our intelligence by shouting about "lies" and look instead at the Lisbon Treaty itself for the reasons why so many people voted against it. - Yours, etc,
DAMIEN SYNNOTT, The Paddocks, Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Madam, - Patricia O'Brien (June 20th) says she voted No because the treaty "omits any reference to God or Europe's Christian history and heritage from its preamble". Her argument is the equivalent of an atheist voting No because there is no reference to Richard Dawkins's books outselling those by any contemporary theologian or a Muslim voting no because there is no reference to the Islamic conquest of Spain, which meant classical Greek philosophical texts were translated into Latin and eventually found their way into the Renaissance.
We really need more constructive and feasible suggestions from the No voters if we are to move forward. - Yours, etc,
ALEX STAVELEY, Norseman Court, Stoneybatter, Dublin 7.
Madam, - We thank God the Father for His guidance to the Irish people in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Having regard to the overwhelming strength of the political, commercial and media influence in both Europe and Ireland in favour of the treaty, the power of God and prayer has been most evident.
The utmost spiritual gratitude is due to the Irish people, magnified by that due to the Franciscans of the Renewal, Myross, Limerick and especially their guardian, Fr Benedict Groeschel, who invoked the prayers of the 490 million in Europe in association with his EWTN radio and television audience throughout the world.
We believe that Ireland has "sown the seeds of a spiritual revolution" on June 12th.
The challenge ahead for the people of God is to stand up courageously for His Law, to ensure that it is not displaced by an EU secular substitute leading to our eternal damnation. - Yours, etc,
MAIRE and JERRY O'MAHONY, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Madam, - Mark Doris claims that "vitriol" directed towards the No voters proves that "democracy is but a catchphrase and not a principle", implying that to criticise people for voting a certain way is undemocratic.
This is nonsense. Overriding the results of a referendum would be undemocratic. Criticising it is freedom of speech. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL KEARY, Leyton, London E10.
Madam, - It must be a novel experience for Irish politicians to attend a wake where all the mourners stand around talking about the further education of the corpse and its future career prospects. - Yours, etc,
MALCOLM ROSS-MACDONALD, Crinkill, Birr, Co Offaly.
Madam, - Your Editorial of June 19th, "Time to take stock as debate unfolds", indicates the belated discovery of a silver lining to the black cloud that enveloped The Irish Times on June 13th. Your concession that the Lisbon Treaty provisions to enhance executive transparency and parliamentary accountability were pitifully weak and the recognition that much more needs to be done are both welcome.
Politicians and public servants everywhere will never subject themselves willingly to democratic scrutiny and accountability. The recent history of the EU, from the Laeken Declaration in 2001, through the ill-fated Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, provides ample evidence. But this is all the more reason to enforce scrutiny and accountability and it is never achieved without a struggle.
The EU elite fervently hoped the Lisbon Treaty would draw a line under the ill-starred EU Constitution project and settle the "rules of the EU game", perhaps for a generation. Although the Irish Government and the EU elite are determined to press ahead and will seek to circumvent and negate Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, this will undermine the credibility of the EU even further in the eyes of its citizens.
The onus is now on those in the No campaign and those who supported it in the hope of establishing effective democratic governance of the EU. The task was not completed on June 12th; in fact that was only the start. The political establishment in Ireland (or in any other member-state) will not pick up the baton. The most effective tool is to organise a petition in Ireland, together with like-minded citizen groups in other member-states, demanding the insertion of a provision in the Lisbon Treaty that the Commission be elected by, and from, the European Parliament and be fully accountable to it.
Rather than being isolated from the EU, Ireland's citizens will find strong support for their stance from, perhaps, a majority of the EU's citizens who have been denied the right to give their direct consent to be governed under the revised rules set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
Ireland has done well from its membership of the EU. It is now time to acknowledge that by pressing for increased democratic governance of the EU. Ireland and the EU have everything to gain. - Yours, etc,
PAUL HUNT, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, England.
Madam, - The finding of an EU Commission post-referendum poll that 40 per cent of No voters did so because they "didn't understand the treaty" was a very poor reflection on the Irish electorate, and on modern Irish society (The Irish Times, June 18th).
It is true the Yes camp started their campaign too late (they can thank Mr Ahern and the change of Fianna Fáil leadership for that), and spent most of their time on the defence, so their message was not put forward clearly enough. However, there can be no excuse for "not understanding" what you are voting on.
There was ample coverage in all of the newspapers, from broadsheets to tabloids, and on news and current affairs programmes such as Questions and Answers on RTÉ or Tonight with Vincent Browne on TV3.
For voters to say they "did not understand" reflects the laziness of modern society. It seems many people voted No on the basis of a "soundbite" or a poster. - Yours, etc,
DAVID HEWSON, Trimbleston, Goatstown, Dublin 14.
Madam, - Don't be fooled by talk of new territory and uncharted waters. We are clearly back in Neverendum. - Yours, etc,
TOM HOGAN, College Grove, Castleknock, Dublin 15.
Madam, - The voters of Munster must have been surprised to see Independent MEP Kathy Sinnott sitting among leprechaun hat-wearing UK Independence Party MEPs in the European Parliament (The Irish Times, June 19th).
This is the party that British Conservative leader David Cameron described as "a bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".
Ms Sinnott asks people to respect our No vote. She could start by respecting the people of Munster who sent her to the European parliament and dissociating herself from the UKIP. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN BARRETT, Kilmainham Square, Inchicore Rd. Dublin 8.