Sir, - I must agree with Peter Sutherland about the Yes campaign for Nice (The Irish Times, December 12th). As he stated, the main political parties failed in their duty to promote the Treaty to a confused public. They allowed the agenda to be hijacked by fringe factions. They stretched the truth in their arguments for Nice, claiming it was necessary for the expansion of the EU. They then had the gall to pretend to be shocked by the electorate's verdict.
However, I do not agree with Mr. Sutherland about the consequences of this vote. He implies that we are asking to be expelled if we maintain our position as a minority of one. This is ludicrous. The EU's own rules allow - and even safeguard - the right of a state to veto a proposal in quite a number of areas - taxation being a case in point.
Mr Sutherland disingenuously asks: "How could 1 per cent of the EU population stop 99 per cent?" Quite simply, as he well knows. The EU is not a democratic institution and ridiculous situations such as this one are the bread and butter of politics in Brussels. This fact aside, our Government was the only one to ask the people's opinion. The Irish vote may be far more representative of European public opinion than Mr Sutherland pretends.
I am a committed European integrationist and I believe that the Nice Treaty was a positive thing for Europe. I voted Yes, as I felt it was attempting to streamline the government of the EU while also beginning to address the democratic deficit that discredits the institution. However, if the Treaty is put before the people again without amendment, I will vote No. The small improvements to the process of democracy in Europe will be greatly overshadowed by the display of contempt our representatives show for the most fundamental principle of democracy: that the people have the right to decide. - Yours, etc.,
Simon Cullen Jnr, Birchview Heights, Kilnamanagh, Dublin 24.