Madam, - In Mary Frances McKenna's article of August 27th, we are yet again bludgeoned with the argument that it is undemocratic to expect Ireland's No vote to override the Yes (and presumed Yes) votes of other EU countries.
Permit me to point out that the pertinent principle in this debate is not any presumed lack of democratic spirit, but solely the fact that the rules of the game said the Lisbon Treaty could not be implemented without unanimity.
That Ireland might vote No was obviously never given a second's thought. Nevertheless, the rules that everybody had previously agreed upon are in no way invalidated by this result; and the near-total unwillingness of political and media commentators to accept this fact is very disturbing.
Most of us have little respect for those who change the rules of a game to suit themselves. Most of us would also regard such behaviour as cheating and those who engage in it as untrustworthy. The Yes campaign would do well to reflect carefully on what they are saying at this point, particularly as there is a realistic possibility that Irish voters will be dragged to the polls again on this issue.
Should this happen, what will be required is a coherent and honest explanation of the treaty and concrete examples of its benefits. More of this current careless, apologist claptrap will only further alienate voters, who may well decide that another kick in the political solar plexus is in order.
- Yours, etc,
CATHERINE KELLY, Drummartin Road, Dublin 14.
Madam, - The huffing and puffing of the various No campaigners in response to the detailed post-referendum analysis outlined by Minister Dick Roche at the Humbert Summer School is entirely predictable, but gets us nowhere. It is clearer now than ever before that we cannot expect any coherent or politically credible solutions from the naysayers, given their disparate, contradictory and anti-EU positions. It therefore behoves the main political parties, who favour European integration, to co-operate in developing a road-map which takes account of the concerns of the Irish people, while striving to keep Ireland at the heart of European decision-making.
A summit meeting of such party leaders, where mechanisms can be considered and agreed, would signal the beginning of a serious engagement by those elected to govern. It is my view that the Oireachtas has to drive the reflection process.
One possible mechanism would be to establish an Oireachtas work group with terms of reference and a timetable agreed by the leaders' summit. It could propose solutions to the Oireachtas, taking into account the findings of the Government-sponsored survey and whatever legal and constitutional assistance the group deems necessary. The expertise developed by the National Forum on Europe could also be called upon.
Whatever mechanisms are used to reach a broad political consensus on the way forward, it is time to get on with the serious task of securing the future of Ireland in Europe, particularly in light of the many globally escalating crises from which we cannot isolate ourselves, even if we wanted to.
- Yours, etc,
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour Party/Socialist Group, Dublin 1.
Madam, - The particular concerns voiced by Cardinal Seán Brady are not shared by all Christians in Ireland. As a network of persons of faith, lay and ordained, gay and straight, working for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in our churches, supporters of Changing Attitude Ireland had a variety of views about the merits of the Lisbon Treaty.
We do not view the European Union as hostile to religion or indifferent to people of faith. Some of our supporters voted for the treaty because the EU has a strong record of protecting the civil rights of gay and lesbian people. Indeed, in both the Republic and Northern Ireland gay citizens had to look to courts in Europe to secure even minimal human rights and decriminalisation.
The cardinal referred to the "Christian memory" of EU states but ignored the painful memories of sectarian conflict and the persecution of religious and sexual minorities. The latter memory has provided an argument for the protection of citizens from discrimination on the grounds of religion. As people of faith we, unlike the cardinal, are opposed to a religious exemption from equality legislation which allows Christian institutions to discriminate in employment because someone lives out their sexual orientation.
Earlier this year Changing Attitude Ireland called on the Government to proceed without further delay with civil partnership legislation. It does not need to refer to the EU to do this. It is simply the just thing for an Irish Government to do.
It is also a course of action which some Irish theologians have advocated and which we hope even the Cardinal may one day recognise.
- Yours, etc,
Dr RICHARD O'LEARY, Changing Attitude Ireland, Donegall Street, Belfast.
Madam, - It was most encouraging to read the remarks of Cardinal Brady at the Humbert Summer School. He touched so skilfully and inoffensively on the real, underlying concerns of many people about transferring more irreversible powers to institutions that could hardly be deemed trustworthy.
The foundation of the EU will be strengthened when Christian values and principles which have been fought for are promoted and valued and the lowest common denominator mindset is rejected.
- Yours, etc,
DAVID GRAY, Clonmellon Grove, Dublin 13.