TONY BROWN,
Sir, - Yesterday I received a colourful leaflet from the "No to Nice" campaign which claims to expose what the Yes side is not telling the electorate about Nice. The Noes are right
The Yes side is not telling the electorate that "Nice removes Ireland's veto on harmonising taxes in the EU". The Nice Treaty retains that veto.
The Yes side is not telling the electorate, in respect of future EU funding, that "if Nice is passed Ireland simply will be told by the big states how much money to give and when". National contributions to the EU budget are decided by unanimity.
The Yes side is not telling the electorate that "the Nice Treaty speaks of peacemaking not peacekeeping". Peacekeeping is an integral part of the Petersberg Tasks which include peacemaking, as provided for in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
The Yes side is not telling the electorate that Ireland will "become entangled in bloody conflicts just because the EU says we must". Ireland cannot be forced to take part in any military operation. Decisions on operations are made by unanimity and each member-state makes its own decision about commitment of forces.
In this context, the reference in the pamphlet to "young Irish lives" being lost in a US-Iraq war is quite deplorable, but no surprise from the organisation which designed that poster with its nasty depiction of a punishment shooting!
Of course, there are another seven such distortions in the "No to Nice" pamphlet, but enough is enough. It is no wonder that people from the EU candidate states find it so hard to believe that their future is being debated in such terms. - Yours etc.,
TONY BROWN, Bettyglen, Dublin 5.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Various supporters of the Yes side suggest that there is some kind of moral obligation on voters to put aside any issues concerning domestic policies, the corruption revelations of the Flood tribunal, the deception perpetrated by Ahern, McCreevy and Harney in getting themselves back into Government on false promises, the cutbacks, price rises and any other grievances that people have and then to blindly vote yes to a Treaty document that only 16 per cent of the population say they understand.
This is an attempt to circumscribe the people's right to make a democratic choice on whether or not the people and parties putting forward the claims of the Yes campaign are trustworthy, credible and worthy of being listened to, in exactly the same way that people can make that choice in a general election. It is, like the second run of this campaign, an insult to democracy and a form of the bullying that has marked the entire saga of trying to impose this seriously flawed treaty on the Irish people.
If the main proposers of this treaty are given to falsehood, the people are entitled to take this into account when deciding how to vote. No one need feel guilty for voting No because they refuse to accept further lies from the collection of liars now in charge of the Government.
No government, or combination of political parties, in the history of the State is more deserving of a trouncing at the ballot box - whatever type of ballot it is - than the present incumbents. The fact that this bunch of practised deceivers have staked their "prestige" on getting a Yes vote in this referendum on foot of a cynical rejection of the people's already stated democratic choice, motivated by blatant self-interest, is sufficient reason for any voter to vote No. - Yours, etc.,
SEAMUS RATIGAN, Dublin 8.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - In your edition of last Saturday, Garret FitzGerald tells us why voting No to the Nice treaty in order to punish the Government would be suicidal. He also gives us far clearer reasons for voting Yes than we have been given by anyone else.
His piece should be sent in leaflet form to every house in the country, but owing to the McKenna judgment that would have to be done without adding to the Government money spent.
I believe the Fine Gael party could do this themselves and copies should be on every Yes platform right up the polling day.
Fine Gael is being criticised for not attacking the Government harder at the present time, but I believe the party is right. Fine Gael people will always understand that the country comes first.
Garret FitzGerald's article shows Irish people in Europe at their very best and what a pleasure it was to read it. - Yours, etc.,
TOM JOYCE, Corbally, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Mick O'Reilly (Opinion, September 30th) is right to draw attention to the impact the Nice Treaty will have on negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a framework agreement committing signatory states to the progressive liberalising of services.
The consequences of GATS for public services in Ireland and elsewhere, particularly developing countries, are potentially enormous (and wonderful for corporate élites). Yet there has been virtually no public debate about GATS. The common EU position is being formulated by a European Commission that is granting privileged access to corporate lobby groups.
Instead of addressing this gaping democratic deficit, Nice will significantly reduce the possibility of democratic control of GATS by removing the state veto on international agreements on trade in services (Article 2.8 Nice Treaty, amending Article 133 of the Treaty Establishing the European Comunity).
To remove the veto on such a far-reaching agreement, about which there has been no debate at a time when the EU is already suffering a crisis of legitimacy because of undue corporate influence over its decision-making process, would be downright foolish. It would not be in the interests of EU citizens, nor of the citizens of the EU applicant states about whom the self-styled "pro-Europeans" profess such concern. - Yours, etc.,
CONOR Ó BRIAIN, Fingal Place, Dublin 7.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - So Young Fine Gael thinks that the only way to interest the "yoof" in the Nice Referendum is to resort to a saucy poster with double-entendre and text-message-speak? What a patronising, insulting attitude! If I were a young person I would be outraged at the implication that I am unable to consider the issue unless it is presented to me in a dumbed-down fashion.
And yes (yawn) I know that "sex is used to sell everything" these days; but aren't we all getting a bit weary of this stock reply used to excuse a dearth of fresh ideas and lack of imagination in the advertising industry? - Yours, etc.,
LORRAINE DOCKERY, Ardnaree, Athlone, Co Westmeath.