Sir, - I agree with Michael McLoughlin (June 14th), that the veto system as is, is not feasible as a mechanism for conducting the day-to-day running of a 27-member Europe. And I don't think many Irish people have a problem with that. What concerns me is how qualified majority voting would be used not just to decide the day-to-day running of Europe, but also its future course of evolution.
Once eight or more nations get the go-ahead to begin enhanced co-operation under the arrangements agreed upon at Nice, it is hard to see how they can avoid dictating a pace which everyone else will have to follow. And, according to the treaty, we are pursuing enhanced co-operation with the express aim of "establishing ourselves as a coherent force on the international scene". In other words, this treaty places how we are perceived externally above how we decide internally.
Surely the only way to decide the future of Europe is the way we have always done it, a consensus of all the leaders followed by ratification by the people? And surely the rate of progress achieved by such consensus and ratification is an ideal barometer of the readiness of the people of Europe for further integration, regardless of how many constituent member states there are?
One final suggestion to the Government to extricate itself from the mess it currently finds itself in. To my (admittedly legally untrained) mind, the treaty can be separated into three distinct and separate parts: 1. the common defence policy (pages 8-10); 2. enhanced co-operation (pages 10-20); 3. enlargement, other institutional reforms and various declarations (page 7, 2187). In the (inevitable, it seems) second referendum, why not give us a vote on each section? At least the Government would have a clearer idea on what exactly we voted No to, and on what kind of Europe we want. - Yours, etc.,
Shane Magee, Kilcock, Co Kildare.